Climate and Energy Bill

  • The Senate's climate and energy bill was supposed to be introduced last April. It's release was delayed when Republican Senator Lindsey Graham withdrew his support. (Photo courtesy of The Architect of the Capitol)

The Senate is releasing their version of a climate and energy bill. And as Mark Brush reports, some political insiders are saying it’s now or never for action on energy and climate:

Transcript

The Senate is releasing their version of a climate and energy bill. And as Mark Brush reports, some political insiders are saying it’s now or never for action on energy and climate:

Most environmental groups argue that the Gulf Oil spill highlights the need to pass sweeping new energy legislation. And some political observers say Democrats will never have a bigger majority in the Senate than they do now.

So now might be the time for quick passage of the Kerry-Lieberman bill.
But a few others say there’s no need to rush things.
A climate and energy bill should be good policy first.

Frank O’Donnell is with the environmental group Clean Air Watch:

“There appears to be this real race to get something done before this window closes. The best kind of public policy is not always carved out under those circumstances.”

O’Donnell says the conventional wisdom that there will be no better time than now could be wrong.

He believes there will be other opportunities to pass climate change legislation in the future.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Overseeing Over-The-Counter Drugs

  • Consumer advocate Larry McNeely says there are not enough government inspectors keeping an eye on the pharmaceutical industry.(Photo courtesy of Clean Walmart CC-BY)

Some consumer advocates say more oversight is needed on over-the-counter drugs. Their concerns come after the recent recall of infant’s and children’s Tylenol and other medicines. Rebecca Williams has more:

Transcript

Some consumer advocates say more oversight is needed on over-the-counter drugs. Their concerns come after the recent recall of infant’s and children’s Tylenol and other medicines. Rebecca Williams has more:

McNeil Consumer Healthcare recalled more than 40 different varieties of medicine for babies and kids.

That happened only after inspectors from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found major problems at a plant in Pennsylvania. Inspectors found raw ingredients were contaminated with bacteria. They also found the company did not have adequate lab facilities to test the drugs. And they found the company did nothing after complaints from consumers who found dark specks in liquid Tylenol products.

Larry McNeely is with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. He says there are not enough government inspectors keeping an eye on the pharmaceutical industry.

“We need more of those inspectors and I think we were just lucky and dodged a bullet because we were able to stop this before somebody got hurt.”

The FDA says you should stop using all of the recalled products. But the agency says generic versions of these drugs are safe.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Studying Cancer Near Nuke Plants

  • The NRC tells people that living near nuclear power plants does not pose extra risk for cancer, and it points to a particular study, finished twenty years ago.(Photo courtesy of the Rancho Seco Reactor)

For decades, the federal government has said it’s safe to live near nuclear power reactors and it points to a particular cancer study to back that up. Shawn Allee reports, lately, the government worries that study’s out of date and it wants scientists to take another look.

Transcript

For decades, the federal government has said it’s safe to live near nuclear power reactors and it points to a particular cancer study to back that up. Shawn Allee reports, lately, the government worries that study’s out of date and it wants scientists to take another look.

The federal agency that’s looking for an up-to-date cancer study is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC.

It’s asked the National Academy of Sciences to do that study, but the Academy hasn’t made up its mind. The academy asked the NRC, the nuclear power industry, and the public to explain why a new study’s even needed.

It broadcast the hearing over the Internet.

“Our first speaker is Sarah Sauer, private citizen.”

Sarah Sauer is 16, but looks much younger.

“I am one of the statistics you’ll be studying. When I was seven years old, I was diagnosed with brain cancer. I hope in this study you will remember who you’re doing this for.”

“Thank you Sarah, let me invite your parents to say something if they’d like to.”

“I am Cynthia Sauer, Sarah’s mom. For my family and i this study is long overdue. nine years ago today, Sarah was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. The pain has been so shattering that we still cannot give it words.”

Cynthia Sauer tells the National Academy how her family once lived near the Dresden nuclear power station, about 50 miles Southwest of Chicago.

She’d learned that power plant leaked radioactive water years ago.

Cynthia Sauer can’t say for sure the plant caused Sarah’s cancer, but she wonders … because other kids were diagnosed with cancer, too.

“I began searching for answers to my questions regarding the leaks and the numbers of children diagnosed with cancer in our small town.”

Cynthia Sauer turned to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The NRC tells people that living near nuclear power plants does not pose extra risk for cancer, and it points to a particular study, finished twenty years ago.

“The scientists in the ad hoc committee statement clearly stated the study was flawed and that further monitoring and investigation was needed.”

What are the flaws? For one, the old study concluded people living near nuclear power plants do not face extra risk of dying from cancer … but it didn’t answer whether they’re at risk of getting cancer.

It ignored cancer survivors or people who moved before dying of the disease.

Sauer tells the academy that … this is why we need a new cancer study – we just can’t be confident in the old one.

And that’s a problem because at least three million people live within ten miles of a nuclear power plant.

Some US Congressmen want the safety issue settled, and in fact, so does the nuclear power industry.

Ralph Anderson is with The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.

He says other studies suggest power plants are safe … so the industry has nothing to worry about from a new study – unless the Academy misinterprets results:

“There have been studies where people simply collect the data and let the computer go to work to bend the data in a wide variety of ways. We have been the victim of a number studies that have done precisely that. So, you end up with weird age groups and things like that because the data’s carefully selected to prove the point. That’s what we’d like to see avoided.”

So the public, the government and industry want some kind of follow-up study on cancer rates near nuclear power plants.

But that might not be enough for The National Academy of Sciences to move forward.
Many scientists say we can’t begin good studies, because it’s hard to collect the necessary data.
In fact, one group that says that … is the same group that conducted the original cancer study twenty years ago.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

EPA Targets Chemicals of Concern

  • BPA - one of the chemicals the EPA is focusing on - is found in many canned foods and drinks. (Photo source: Tomomarusan at Wikimedia Commons)

The Environmental Protection Agency
says it’s been operating under an
outdated law. The EPA administrator
says the agency has not been able
to adequately test the safety of
plastics and chemicals. Lester Graham
reports:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency
says it’s been operating under an
outdated law. The EPA administrator
says the agency has not been able
to adequately test the safety of
plastics and chemicals. Lester Graham
reports:

There’s this notion that the plastics and chemicals in the products you buy all have been tested for safety.

That is just wrong.

The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, wants Congress to pass laws to better regulate chemicals in the things we use. But getting a new law will take a while. So, in the meantime, Jackson says the EPA will do more under the existing law.

“Do as much as we can to identify the chemicals that are of concern to the public and move quickly to evaluate them and determine what actions need to be take to address the risks they may pose.”

The agency plans to first look at chemicals such as Bisphenyl A – BPA – used in some hard plastics, phthalates used in cosmetics and plastics, PBDE’s – a flame retardant that’s turning up in mother’s milk, and benzadene dyes and pigments.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

EPA Rules on Pesticide Residue

  • One crop that Carbofuran was used on is potatoes (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)

The Environmental Protection Agency says no amount of the pesticide carbofuran is safe on food. Mark Brush has more on the new EPA rule:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency says no amount of the pesticide carbofuran is safe on food. Mark Brush has more on the new EPA rule:

The EPA has been phasing out this insecticide, but it’s still used on some crops like rice, corn, and potatoes.

When people are exposed to carbofuran, it can cause damage to the nervous system. And the EPA is particularly worried about kids exposure when eating food or when drinking water near treated farm fields.

Potato farmers say they use carbofuran to kill bugs that resist other pesticides.

John Keeling is the CEO of the National Potato Council. He says they were hoping the EPA would let them keep using it.

“We had tried to work with the agency to modify use patterns, or limit the use to particular areas, so that we could continue to use the product – but they obviously didn’t continue in that direction.”

FMC Corporation makes the chemical. Officials there issued a statement saying they’ll fight the EPA’s new rule.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Greening of Religion

  • The Dalai Lama giving a lecture at the University of Michigan on April 20, 2008. (Photo by Mark Brush)

There’s a change going on in the religions
of the world. More people are hearing a green
message when they go to their place of worship.
Mark Brush reports major religious leaders are
spreading a message of caring for the earth:

Transcript

There’s a change going on in the religions
of the world. More people are hearing a green
message when they go to their place of worship.
Mark Brush reports major religious leaders are
spreading a message of caring for the earth:

The Dalai Lama is talking about the environment. And tens of thousands of people are
packed into this basketball arena to hear his message. This kind of a talk is a natural
fit. In the Buddhist tradition all sentient life forms are sacred. So you might not be
surprised to hear that the Dalai Lama thinks we need to cut our cravings for more and
more material stuff.

“We always want more and more and more – like that. So I think some lifestyle, I think have to, have to change. But this is not my business.”

(applause)

This kind of message is now coming from other religions too. The Vatican recently
declared pollution a sin. And, when he went to the United Nations, the Pope told
international leaders to work together on climate change and environmental protection.

And many Protestants are now spreading the green gospel. And it’s not just the more
liberal members of the church. Leaders on the left and the right are going beyond the
pulpit to preach about the environment. You can even catch them on primetime TV.
Here’s a clip from a commercial by ‘We Can Solve It dot org’. Preachers Al Sharpton and
Pat Robertson sit side by side on a couch by the ocean.

“Al lets face it. We’re polar opposites.”

“We couldn’t be further apart. I’m on the left.”

“And I’m usually right. And we strongly disagree.”

“Except on one issue. Tell ’em what it is reverend Pat.”

“That would be our planet. Taking care of it is extremely important.”

While this is a new topic for some religious leaders – other groups have been working for
a long time to green the church. The Evangelical Environmental Network promotes
something called “Creation Care.” And they faced a lot of push-back when they first started.

Jim Ball is the president of the Network. He says the environment was largely ignored
by evangelicals – but now that’s changed. As proof he says 120 senior evangelical
leaders signed onto to an initiative that promises to do something about climate change.
And he says many of them are quite conservative. Ball says these leaders started to change when
they got an earful from their own kids and grandkids.

“So it was the younger generation saying to some of these senior leaders, “you know, you
really need to stop just looking at this and saying ‘you know, that’s for other people.’
You’ve got to look at this and understand this is a serious problem.”

But not everyone is accepting this green sermon. Some in the Christian Church point to
the book of Genesis and believe man should have dominion over nature. They think
environmentalism goes beyond tree hugging and actually promotes worship of nature
instead of God.

Andy Hoffman is a professor at the University of Michigan who speaks on religion and
the environment. He says these kinds of interpretations of the Bible prevent
many people from taking environmental issues seriously.

“Many religious people are skeptical or cautious about environmentalism. They look at
people who care about the environment as deifying the environment. And therefore they
see a challenge there. And that’s really not the case. It’s completely consistent to be
a devout Christian, or a devout Jew, or a devout Muslim and care about the environment
and have those two mesh quite nicely. So to have religious leaders come forward and
articulate this viewpoint dispells that myth and takes away that problem.”

Hoffman says these religious leaders connect people to their moral values. And if
caring for the environment is a part of that – it can go a long way in changing the way
people live.

For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Asian Carp Barrier Not Enough?

  • A new electric barrier is being built, but some worry that flooding might help Asian carp to sneak past it into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (photo courtesy of USGS)

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is building a nine million dollar electric barrier to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. But now the Corps is warning the fence in Romeoville, Illinois, might not be enough. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lynette Kalsnes reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is building a nine million dollar electric barrier to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes. But now the Corps is warning the fence in Romeoville, Illinois, might not be enough. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lynette Kalsnes reports:


The Army Corps is building the electric barrier in the Chicago Sanitary & Ship Canal. But the Des Plaines River runs near the canal, and it often floods in the spring. Chuck Shea is the project manager for the Army Corps of Engineers. He says they might need to build a flood wall or levee so high waters can’t sweep fish past the new barrier.


“It’s possible that water from the Des Plaines River could run into the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal. And if it was a large enough flood and there were fish in the right place, they might be able to use that as a pathway to enter the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal.”


Shea says while this possibility is unlikely, it still will be an important issue to study down the road. He says the more pressing concern is that an existing temporary barrier could wear out before construction on the permanent barrier is finished.


Asian carp have been spotted about twenty miles downstream from the electric fence. The giant fish are considered a threat to sport and commercial fishing. Shea says state officials are working to find money for the last phase of the electric barrier project.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lynette Kalsnes.

Related Links

Fire Retardant Chemicals Ring Alarm Bells

  • Meredith Buhalis and her daughter Zoe. Meredith's breast milk was tested for PBDEs as part of a study by the Environmental Working Group. (Photo by Meredith Buhalis)

Flame retardant chemicals help make our lives safer.
The chemicals are designed to keep plastics and foam from
catching on fire, but the flame retardants are worrying some
scientists because these chemicals are turning up in people’s
bodies, sometimes at alarmingly high rates. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Flame retardant chemicals help make our lives safer. The chemicals are designed
to keep plastics and foam from catching on fire. But the flame retardants are
beginning to worry some scientists because these chemicals are turning up in
peoples’ bodies. Sometimes at alarmingly high rates. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:


If you take a look around your house, you can find a lot of things that have
flame retardant chemicals in them. They’re in your television set, the cushions
in your couch, and the padding underneath your carpet. They’re known as poly-bromiated-diphenyl
ethers, or PBDEs. And they’re either mixed in or sprayed on plastics and foam to keep a fire
from spreading.


Five years ago a Swedish study found these chemicals were accumulating in women’s breast
milk. Studies in the U.S. followed, and researchers also found PBDEs in Americans, but at
even higher levels. In fact, Americans have some of the highest levels ever measured. And
over time, the levels have been going up.


(sound of baby)


Meredith Buhalis was one of those people measured in a study by an envrionmental organization
called the Environmental Working Group. Buhalis and 20 other first time moms sent in samples
of their breast milk. When the samples were tested, all of them had some level of PBDEs in
them. Buhalis says when she read the results she didn’t know what to think.


“I guess I kind of read the results and the study was like, ‘Oh, well that sort of sucks.’
I wish I knew more about what that meant. ‘Cause I don’t. You know, they don’t know what
that means.”


Scientists don’t know how or if the chemicals affect human health. And some scientists
think the government and the chemical companies aren’t doing enough to look into PBDEs.


(sound of typing)


In his office at the University of Texas in Dallas, Dr. Arnold Schecter is working on an
article about the flame retardants. He’s been studying toxic chemicals for more than thirty
years. He and some of his colleagues think PBDEs are a lot like another type of chemical…


“It reminds us of PCBs. PCBs structurally are similar to the PBDEs. So there is the worry,
or the concern, that they may have many, if not all, the toxic effect that PCBs have on humans.”


So far the data on PCBs strongly suggest that the chemicals can cause cancer in humans as
well as other human health effects such as damage to the nervous and immune systems. The
companies that manufacture the flame retardants say it’s not fair to compare PBDEs with
PCBs. They say the chemicals are vastly different.


But no one really knows whether the chemicals are similar in the way they affect human
health. That’s because no one’s studied the human health effects of PBDEs.


“Unfortunately, there are no published human health studies and I don’t believe any have
been funded by the federal government to date. Nor by industry, nor by any foundations,
which is a bit different than the situation with PCBs and dioxins years ago when many
studies were being funded.”


Some animal studies suggest that the chemicals can permanently disrupt the hormone and
nervous systems, cause reproductive and developmental damage, and cause cancer. All that
makes scientists such as Dr. Schecter especially concerned about the most vulnerable
population – developing babies.


Because of the concerns, the biggest manufacturer of these chemicals in the U.S. has agreed
to stop making two of the PBDE formulations that were found to accumulate in people. Great
Lakes Chemical says production will stop by the end of this year. The chemicals will be
replaced with another type of brominated flame retardant.


The Bromine Science and Environmental Forum is a trade group that represents companies
that make the flame retardants. Peter O’Toole is the group’s U.S. Director. He says so
far the amount of chemicals found in people doesn’t concern the companies, but the upward
trend does.


“And again, it wasn’t of alarming numbers, but the manufacturer was concerned that these
numbers were going up nonetheless. And they thought it was prudent, and they talked to the
EPA and EPA thought it was prudent if there was some sort of mutual phase out of those materials.”


Dr. Schecter says he commends the company for taking this step. But he says even though these
two formulations will be phased out, the flame retardants are already in our environment now.
He says his research has found high levels of PBDEs by wiping the plastic casing on television
sets, and in the dust found in homes. He says what’s in our homes now isn’t going to vanish,
so we need to figure out how the chemicals get into us, so we can avoid potential health problems.


For its part, the U.S. Envrionmental Protection Agency says large-scale human health studies
take a long time to develop. An agency spokesperson says the EPA first needs to learn how a
person becomes highly exposed. After that, they say researchers will be able to ask the question,
“for the highly exposed people, are there any health effects?”


(sound of baby)


That leaves people such as Meredith Buhalis, with a lot more questions than answers.


“We are thinking of having another baby, and I think I would really like to know more about
PBDEs. I think about it when I think about that.” (to her daughter) “Oh thank you. Hi, baby.
Hi, Zoe.”


The Federal government doesn’t plan to regulate the chemicals anytime soon. But some states
aren’t waiting for more studies. A handful of states have placed restrictions on certain
types of PBDEs. And in other states, legislation is pending.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Candidates Play on Water Diversion Issue

Great Lakes water has become an issue in this year’s presidential campaign as both candidates try to pick up valuable votes in the swing states. Both of the major party candidates say they’re against diverting the water to other states, and both say their opponent has been inconsistent on the issue. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:

Transcript

Great Lakes water has become an issue in this year’s presidential campaign as
both candidates try to pick up valuable votes in the swing states. Both of the
major party candidates say they’re against diverting the water to other states,
and both say their opponent has been inconsistent on the issue. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:


President Bush says he favors keeping Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes.
He said so this summer during a campaign stop in Traverse City, Michigan.


“My position is clear. We’re never going to allow diversion of Great
Lakes water.”


And John Kerry says he is against diverting Great Lakes water. It’s one of six
points included in his recently-released plan to clean up and preserve the lakes.
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm discussed that plan in a conference call
with reporters.


“They are adamantly opposed to diverting water from the Great Lakes
basin. They will institute a no diversions policy for the Great Lakes.
They will block any water diversion.”


And while both the Bush and Kerry campaigns are promising not to let other
states tap into the Great Lakes, they’re accusing each other of going back and
forth on the issue. Bush says back in February, Kerry referred to the diversion
issue as a “delicate balancing act.” The next day, Kerry’s campaign said the
Democrat was “absolutely opposed” to diversions. The Kerry campaign
says back in 2001, President Bush expressed support for diverting Great Lakes
water to the Southwestern United States. The president wasn’t that specific
about it, though he did say he’d be open to discussions about water with
Canada’s prime minister.


Michigan’s Governor Granholm says there’s no immediate threat that Great
Lakes water would be diverted, though she says it has to be a concern as the
dry, Southwestern part of the United States continues to add people, and
members of Congress who might one day vote on such an issue.


But some experts say diversion of Great Lakes water is much more likely to happen
in areas closer to the Lakes. They say diverting water to the arid Southwest
would cost too much.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Michael Leland.

Related Links