Obama delivering the American Recovery and Reinvestment speech on Thursday, January 8, 2009 (Photo courtesy of the Obama Transition Team)
One group wants part of the economic stimulus package to plug up some leaks. It says old toilets and leaky water pipes below city streets are wasting water. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
One group wants part of the economic stimulus package to plug up some leaks. It says old toilets and leaky water pipes below city streets are wasting water. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The group is called the Alliance for Water Efficiency. It’s made up of plumbing manufacturers, contractors, city water systems, and enviromental groups.
They want about ten billion dollars of the economic stimulus package to go to shovel-ready projects that conserve water.
Alliance board member Susan Stratton says the work could include everything from century-old city water pipes to replacing many older, water-wasting toilets in private homes.
“This requires the skills of a plumber and it requires retailers and wholesalers to deliver products. These are things we know how to do. There are people in the work environment who have these skills and can ramp up pretty quickly.”
Stratton says cutting water use would also save energy by reducing power use at water utilities.
program will only increase the cost of everything.
Dan Lashoff is with the Natural Resources Defense
Council, one of the US CAP members.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham asked him
why the companies in US CAP would want Congress
to come up with a cap-and-trade program now?
Transcript
We can expect Congress will take up a carbon
cap-and-trade bill soon. That would make
greenhouse gases a commodity. The United
States Climate Action Partnership wants to
know the rules of the carbon trading game
sooner rather than later. US CAP is made
up of businesses such as GE, automakers,
some power companies and environmental groups.
Other business leaders say a carbon cap-and-trade
program will only increase the cost of everything.
Dan Lashoff is with the Natural Resources Defense
Council, one of the US CAP members.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham asked him
why the companies in US CAP would want Congress
to come up with a cap-and-trade program now?
Dan Lashoff: The opportunity that we have, right now, is to, first of all, invest
billions of dollars in the economic stimulus package – which the Congress will be
taking up in the next couple of weeks, that President Obama has made clear he
wants to see a substantial portion of that investment go into clean energy
technologies: insulating homes, building a smart grid to carry renewable energy
around the country. So, there’s an immediate step that needs to take place to
get investment flowing, to jump-start the green energy economy that we need.
That should be quickly followed with the type of comprehensive climate policy
that US CAP has called for, because that will guide longer-term investments, it
will mobilize private capital that is needed to build the clean energy future that we
need to have. And that will put people to work installing wind turbines, installing
solar systems, insulating homes, insulating schools. And keep the investment
flowing, and actually create an export opportunity for companies that are making
clean and efficient energy systems that the world is going to increasingly
demand.
Lester Graham: President Obama has talked a lot about the green economy and
green-collar jobs that you just mentioned, but will those jobs actually offset the
economic pain that a cap-and-trade program is expected to cause?
Lashoff: Well, first of all, you have to realize, if we passed a cap-and-trade bill
tomorrow, the actual limits would not kick in until 2012 at the earliest, and, by that
time, hopefully, the economy is really moving forward. So, what the value of
passing the legislation now is that it sets the long-term agenda, it sets the
strategic agenda that’s going to reduce our emissions, and it mobilizes
investment flows. The actual price signal that is needed to discourage global
warming pollution actually wouldn’t kick in for a couple of years, and that actually
works quite well with the timing, that is appropriate given the current economic
crisis.
Graham: The 80% emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2050 is exactly
what President Obama has suggested we do, but there still are enough
Republicans who hold enough seats in the Senate to block cap-and-trade if they
wanted to. What are the chances of having legislation like this passed?
Lashoff: Well, I’m very optimistic that with the momentum that the US CAP
proposal delivers, the strong business support from at least a significant portion
of the business community, certainly not universal, that we can move forward. It
certainly will require a bi-partisan effort. There will need to be Republicans
joining the Democratic majority in the Senate as well as in the House to enact
legislation. I think we can do that. I think that this proposal provides a lot of
insight into the types of provisions, in addition to the cap itself. Things like
energy efficiency investments that will hold down the costs for consumers,
approaches to dealing with concerns of the economic impact – that chose a
pathway to get legislation enacted, hopefully in 2009.
Those at the inauguration are hopeful for change with the Obama administration
(Photo courtesy of the Obama transition team)
People from across the nation and around the world are gathering in the U.S. capital for the inaguration of President Barack Obama. Among them are people who are hopeful an Obama presidency will be better for the environment. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
People from across the nation and around the world are gathering in the U.S. capital for the inaguration of President Barack Obama. Among them are people who are hopeful an Obama presidency will be better for the environment. Lester Graham reports:
The inauguration of Barack Obama finds people who’ve traveled to Washington DC hopeful.
On the mall, between the capitol building and the Lincoln Memorial, people we interviewed mentioned they’re hopeful for the economy, they’re hopeful for peace.
Jeff Dickson of Finland, Minnesota was an environmental scientist for 25 years. He’s hopeful for the environment.
“I finally found a president who I think is capable of taking this country into a period of environmental responsibility instead of degradation.”
And many people are hoping President Obama finds a way to pursue environmentally friendly alternative energy and conservation in a way that will get us out of the recession and into, what many are calling, the green economy.
Flags of member nations flying at United Nations Headquarters (UN Photo by Joao Araujo Pinto)
Delegates from around the world
recently met in Poland for talks on
climate change. Lester Graham reports
talks started out optimistically, but
that didn’t last:
Transcript
Delegates from around the world
recently met in Poland for talks on
climate change. Lester Graham reports
talks started out optimistically, but
that didn’t last:
190 countries were represented at the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. The meeting set the stage for replacing the Kyoto Protocol next
year.
Martin Wagner is an attorney with the environmental group Earth Justice. He says,
the first week delegates were talking in the corridors about Barack Obama and U.S.
finally tackling climate change. One person called it the ‘Obama Buzz’. Wagner
says the end of the convention was a buzz-killer as Congressional staffers arrived.
“The staff members of Congressional representatives made statements clearly
intended to reduce any expectations that the U.S. would have the necessary be able
to get an agreement by the end of next year.”
That’s when the agreement is to be signed. The hope is Congress will figure out
what the U.S. is willing to commit to before the Climate Change agreement is
finalized.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
It is predicted that the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is the size of the state of Massachusetts (Photo courtesy of NASA)
A scientific panel wants two
federal agencies to start working together,
to reduce pollution. Fertilizer pollution
is causing problems for the Mississippi
River system and contributing to a ‘Dead
Zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:
Transcript
A scientific panel wants two
federal agencies to start working together,
to reduce pollution. Fertilizer pollution
is causing problems for the Mississippi
River system and contributing to a ‘Dead
Zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:
Nitrogen and phosphorus come from fertilizers used on lawns and farm fields. The chemicals
pollute water throughout the Mississippi River Basin and down to the Gulf of Mexico. The
National Research Council has been studying the problem.
David Dzombak is an Engineering Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, and helped the
council write a new report. He says the biggest recommendation is for the US Environmental
Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture to team up.
“This is a very large scale problem. It’s taken many years to develop and will take many years to
turn around.”
And Dzombak says the two agencies need to get started. The report recommends the federal
agencies work with states to restrict the amount of fertilizer that can go into streams and rivers. It
also calls for a network of experiments to filter or buffer the fertilizer runoff in badly-polluted
watersheds.
Environmentalists warn the Endangered Species Act is in danger during the last months of the Bush Administration (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
The Bush administration is making a proposal that environmentalists
say will weaken the Endangered Species Act. The proposal would eliminate a
requirement for independent review of big federal projects such as highways,
bridges or dams. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The Bush administration is making a proposal that environmentalists
say will weaken the Endangered Species Act. The proposal would eliminate a
requirement for independent review of big federal projects such as highways,
bridges or dams. Lester Graham reports:
Right now the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service
reviews anything like that that could harm endangered species.
The Secretary of the Interior says the existing regulations create unnecessary conflicts
between agencies and delays on important projects.
The new proposal would let the agency in charge of construction decide for itself if the
project would affect an endangered species.
Bob Irvin is with the environmental group, the Defenders of Wildlife. He says this
proposal eliminates safeguards.
“Previously the Fish and Wildlife Service had a role in reviewing the impacts of those
actions. So, literally, what the administration is proposing is to put the fox in charge of
the chicken coop.”
That’s not the way the Department of Interior sees it.
Kaush Arha is a Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Department of Interior. He took
issue with the fox in charge of the chicken coop metaphor.
“I think that’s an exaggerated statement. And it is unfounded hyperbole. What you are
referring to as “fox” in that particular issue are very, very well qualified, very well
respected and dedicated natural resource management agencies like the U.S. Forest
Service, like Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers and others.”
But, no matter how dedicated those wildlife officials are, the Bush administration has a
reputation of putting political pressure on scientists in several agencies, and science
has been changed or rigged in favor of industry.
But the Interior Department says the agencies operate within a political environment.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Arha says, besides, the agencies already make decisions
about federal projects and the Endangered Species Act this way. The proposed
changes would just make current practices clearer for the agencies without completely
overhauling the procedures.
“This captures the existing practices, clarifies and gives more direction and it is narrowly
tailored to do so.”
Environmentalists such as Bob Irvin see something much more sinister than the
administration making things clearer for the different agencies affected by the
Endangered Species Act.
“With barely five months left in the administration, they’re trying to ram through a
proposal to weaken the Endangered Species Act. This is completely in keeping with the
anti-environmental record of this administration. But it is also completely outrageous.”
Environmental groups likely will end up taking the issue to court. The Bush
Environmental Protection Agency tried a similar attempt to by-pass independent
review. The federal courts struck that effort down.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Lake Superior's South Shore, Wisconsin
(Photo by Dave Hansen, courtesy of the EPA)
There’s a new agreement that says the
Great Lakes water has to stay in the Great Lakes.
It’s been approved now by all eight of the states
and the two Canadian provinces that border the
Lakes. Rick Pluta reports the agreement is now
on its way to Congress:
Transcript
There’s a new agreement that says the
Great Lakes water has to stay in the Great Lakes.
It’s been approved now by all eight of the states
and the two Canadian provinces that border the
Lakes. Rick Pluta reports the agreement is now
on its way to Congress:
The Great Lakes region was worried that drier parts of the country and the world might
be eyeing the largest supply of freshwater on Earth.
Ten years ago, a Canadian company got permission from Ontario to send millions of
gallons of water to Asia via tanker ships. Fierce opposition from around the Great Lakes
region put an end to that project. But regions neighboring the Great Lakes basin still see
them as a possible cure for their water shortages.
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm says the Great Lakes compact offers an answer to
anyone outside the region who wants to get their hands on that water.
“Can’t touch this. (laughs) That’s what we say. They need to look at their own way of
preserving and managing their resources.”
When Granholm signed new laws in a ceremony here on the Lake Michigan shoreline,
Michigan became the last of the eight Great Lakes states to formally join the compact.
The compact was put together by leaders of the US states and two Canadian provinces
that border the lakes. Granholm says, once it’s adopted by Congress and signed by the
president, it will give the Great Lakes states new authority to protect their water.
“This allows me as governor to veto any large diversion of water, so we can put a stop to
it ourselves. It really allows us the autonomy of protecting these Great Lakes overall.”
It took 10 years for the Great Lakes states to get the compact through their legislatures
and signed by their governors. Members of Congress from the region are hoping it won’t
take quite so long to get it to the president’s desk.
Chicago Congressman Rahm Emanuel is expected to lead the effort to get the compact
through the US House. He says congressional hearings will begin this year and the
compact should be approved in time for it to be sent to the new president in early 2009.
Emanuel says he’s not expecting any problems.
“Because people understand and know, this is our Yellowstone Park, this is our Grand
Canyon. This is a national treasure. There’s been a lot of work and years of effort to get
this done. The good news is a lot of the chairmen of the committees that are relevant, come
from the Midwest, know how important the Great Lakes are and will act with due speed
in getting it done.”
Both the Republican presidential candidate John McCain and Democratic candidate
Barak Obama have said they would sign the compact.
Environmental groups are among those backing the deal. But many of them say it
still comes up short because it does not stop bottled water from leaving the Great Lakes
region.
Cyndi Roper is with Clean Water Action.
“Water is water. You can’t fill a tanker with water and take it out of the Great Lakes, but
you can fill that same tanker with bottles of water and ship them to other parts of the
country and other parts of the world, and we believe as we move forward, that’s a very
dangerous precedent to set.”
She says that’s because many millions of gallons can still trickle out of the lakes – even if
it’s 12 ounces at a time.
Some feel the Great Lakes are being ignored by Congress (Photo courtesy of Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, NOAA)
The Great Lakes might be the most ignored
resource on the continent. Great Lakes advocates
say they have not been able to get enough attention
or money from Congress. Rebecca Williams reports
one group is outlining what needs to be done to fix
the Lakes before climate change makes things worse:
Transcript
The Great Lakes might be the most ignored
resource on the continent. Great Lakes advocates
say they have not been able to get enough attention
or money from Congress. Rebecca Williams reports
one group is outlining what needs to be done to fix
the Lakes before climate change makes things worse:
Washington D.C. is a long way from the Great Lakes. Most members of
Congress don’t live near the lakes. And many don’t understand just how big
they are.
Don Scavia used to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in Washington.
“I’ve spent 15 years inside the Beltway and I just know that the Great Lakes just don’t
have the same sense of urgency and importance inside the Beltway as some other places like the Chesapeake Bay and others have. Senators and
Congressmen don’t have boats on it like they do on the Chesapeake. I think
it’s a matter of if you haven’t been here, if you haven’t seen them, you
really don’t get it.”
These days, Don Scavia is a scientist at the University of Michigan. He’s a
co-author of a report on global warming and the Great Lakes. He says we
need to help the Great Lakes adapt to the changes that are already happening
because of global warming.
“The restoration strategy is put in place specifically to increase the
resiliency of the Lakes, increase the buffering capacity of the Lakes, to allow them
to adapt to this near-term climate change.”
Just about everyone around the Great Lakes has noticed that water levels are
dropping. Recreational boats can get stuck. Big cargo ships can’t get into
harbors. And they have to carry lighter loads when lake levels drop. That
means more trips, and, eventually, higher prices for all of us. And
climate change might make it worse.
On top of that, the Great Lakes are struggling with fisheries collapsing,
invasive species damaging the ecosystem, and pollution that’s never been
cleaned up.
Jeff Skelding is with the Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition.
“When Great Lakes effort began, we had a lot on our plate to deal with and
then we looked at the science of global warming and its impacts on the Great
Lakes it kinda froze us in our tracks. Now we’ve got global warming to
contend with.”
So, what do the advocates want from Congress?
There’s a $20-billion price tag on Great Lakes restoration.
Bits and pieces of it have gone before Congress. And there’s been some
progress on money for things like restoring wetlands. But for the most
part, most of the time, the Great Lakes just haven’t been a priority in
Washington.
Rahm Emanuel is a Congressman from Illinois. He holds a leadership position
among the House Democrats. He says he hopes the money will be approved by
Congress sometime soon.
“I don’t want another study, I don’t want to pay for another analysis, I’m
over studied, over analysis-ed. We know what it takes to fix it, we know
what the pollutants are, now we’ve got to put our money where our mouth is.”
Politically, the time might not get any better for Great Lakes advocates.
There’s a Census coming up and new Congressional district lines will be
drawn. The Great Lakes region will lose representation in the US House.
That means the Great Lakes states will lose clout in Congress.
So, the region’s members of Congress need to get a Great Lakes restoration
package to the next President before that happens. Great Lakes advocates
are hoping the next President – whether it’s McCain, Obama or Clinton – will
give the Great Lakes more attention, and money.
Michaels' book about industry's influence on science. (Oxford University Press)
Bisphenol-A, in bottles like these, is one instance where Michaels says companies are calling for more data, even though the picture is clear (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
There’s a lot of confusion about global
warming. Is it real or not? Are the ingredients
in our food, our soap, the household products we
use all safe? Even if they’re not, there’s a
whole industry that’s working to make you, and
Congress, uncertain. David Michaels recently wrote
about this. His book is titled ‘Doubt is Their
Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens
Your Health.’ Lester Graham talked with Michaels,
who says companies today base their approach on the
tactics of big tobacco. The tobacco companies
successfully obscured the connections between
smoking and lung cancer for decades.
Transcript
There’s a lot of confusion about global
warming. Is it real or not? Are the ingredients
in our food, our soap, the household products we
use all safe? Even if they’re not, there’s a
whole industry that’s working to make you, and
Congress, uncertain. David Michaels recently wrote
about this. His book is titled ‘Doubt is Their
Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens
Your Health.’ Lester Graham talked with Michaels,
who says companies today base their approach on the
tactics of big tobacco. The tobacco companies
successfully obscured the connections between
smoking and lung cancer for decades.
David Michaels: “Companies know that by putting off the scientific debate for as many years as
they can, they can keep doing the work that they’re doing and not be disturbed. It works.”
Lester Graham: “We hear about Bisphenol-A in plastics, of course we hear about mercury in fish,
phthalates, even something like dioxin – industry scientists say ‘we’re safe, these are in minute
quantities’ or ‘the jury is out on just how dangerous this chemical is’. If they are dangerous, why
doesn’t the government make that determination and phase these products out?”
Michaels: “Well, right now, the Bush administration has absolutely abdicated its responsibility to
protect the public’s health and the environment. It’s not even a question of phasing them out, the
Bush administration has turned a blind eye, and said ‘we’re not even going to think about those
chemicals’. I’m hoping that as public consciousness of this increases, we’ll have more demand on
regulatory agencies to do something.”
Graham: “You’re very critical of the Bush administration in the book, saying scientific review
boards are stacked with industry officials. Why, or how, does the scientific community continue to
allow that?”
Michaels: “Well, the scientific community doesn’t have the power to stop it. But the scientific
community has me furious about this. And over and over again, not just individual scientists, but
mainstream science organizations, like the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
have issued statements, have passed resolutions complaining, criticizing the Bush administration.
But that’s all we can do. Congress has to stop it. And, the American public has to stop it.”
Graham: “The members of the Bush administration often point out, ‘hey we can’t make knee-jerk
reactions, over some single study, or even a small group of studies, we really need to rely on
sound science, this needs more review’. And it sounds like common sense to many of us.”
Michaels: “Well, when I hear the Bush administration call for ‘sound science’, I see what they’re
doing is calling for something that sounds like science, but isn’t. Bisphenol-A is a great example.
There are well over 100 studies showing that this causes endocrine disorders and reproductive
disorders in laboratory animals. And there are less than a dozen studies that say it doesn’t cause
it. The question we have to ask is: should we be exposing our babies, our children, ourselves to
potentially toxic chemicals that we don’t know that they’re safe?”
Graham: “And Bisphenol-A is, of course, used in plastics, in liners of canned foods, and so forth.
It’s a product that we come across a lot.”
Michaels: “Not only that, the studies are right now that 90% of us have Bisphenol-A in our body.
We can tell that from studies where we’re are excreting it in our urine. So, it’s out there are we’re
being exposed to it. We don’t know what the effects are, but since it causes harm in animals, why
should we be exposing ourselves to it?”
Graham: “You note that journalists are often the victims of their own determination to get both
sides of the story. What are you suggesting? That journalists ignore industry when it questions
studies or scientific method? That would assume that corporations are always bad actors.”
Michaels: “No, but I think it’s very important to note, for example, when an industry scientist
criticizing the study, to note, for example, that, you know, that this criticism is being paid for by the
industry. But the other criticisms, which are, you know, are independent, often paid for by the
government through grants to universities, are independent, and therefore have a lot more validity.
We have example after example, in the book, and all through the medical literature, of companies
that essentially create studies that provide the results they want. In my reviewing it, I’ve never
found a study which disagrees with what the sponsor wanted them to hear. It’s just overwhelming.”
An EPA scientist testing online sensors for water distribution systems (Photo courtesy of the US Office of Management and Budget)
The investigative arm of Congress says the
government is taking too long to review safety data
on chemicals. Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
The investigative arm of Congress says the
government is taking too long to review safety data
on chemicals. Rebecca Williams reports:
The Government Accountability Office says it’s taking the Environmental
Protection Agency too long to determine the safety of chemicals. The GAO
says reviews of chemicals should only take about 2 years. But some have
taken 10 years or longer.
The GAO also says a recent change could corrupt the system.
That change allows other federal agencies to make comments about chemicals,
but keep those comments hidden from public view.
John Stephenson is with the GAO. He says that threatens the system’s
integrity.
“There are just too many opportunities for non-scientists to intervene in
this scientific process and the result of that is it’s stretched out the
process for a given risk assessment.”
And a recent survey of EPA scientists found that political pressure from the
White House has been more common under the Bush Administration.
Obama delivering the American Recovery and Reinvestment speech on Thursday, January 8, 2009 (Photo courtesy of the Obama Transition Team)
