Oil companies are legally protected from any accidental harm caused by trucks, boats and experiments that alter the polar bear’s environment (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
Just when you thought polar bears in the United States were safe under the Endangered Species Act… they’re facing a new threat. The Bush Administration has announced regulations that allow oil companies to harass polar bears while they explore for oil off the coast of Alaska. Richie Duchon has more:
Transcript
Just when you thought polar bears in the United States were safe under the Endangered Species Act… they’re facing a new threat. The Bush Administration has announced regulations that allow oil companies to harass polar bears while they explore for oil off the coast of Alaska. Richie Duchon has more:
Oil companies can’t kill polar bears. That still brings a penalty. But they are legally protected from any accidental harm caused by trucks, boats and experiments that alter the polar bear’s environment.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bruce Woods says oil exploration is not much to worry about.
“Believe me, you won’t find more concern for the polar bear anywhere than you will in this office, but we just don’t really believe that this activity at this level poses any significant threat. The threat to the polar bear is the loss of sea ice.”
Environmental groups are furious. They say the loss of sea ice from global warming is a threat to the polar bear, but they say we need to minimize other threats with a moratorium on oil exploration.
There is concern that new noises from energy research will disrupt the sage grouse's mating patterns (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
The push is on to find more energy in
western states. And wildlife experts are trying
to figure out how some rare birds will react to
the increase in mining and gas exploration. Bob
Beck reports biologists studying sage grouse are
introducing new sounds into their research:
Transcript
The push is on to find more energy in
western states. And wildlife experts are trying
to figure out how some rare birds will react to
the increase in mining and gas exploration. Bob
Beck reports biologists studying sage grouse are
introducing new sounds into their research:
Gail Patricelli is a researcher from the University of California at Davis. She studies the
mating habits of birds. And she says the habits of the sage grouse are the most
interesting. The males gather each spring on their traditional mating grounds,
known as a lek.
“The males gather during the spring, puff up and strut around. The females come
down to the leks during their breeding season, to pick
a mate. So they basically comparision shop. You will see females move along the lek,
sometimes by themselves, sometimes with big groups of females. But then they pick who they are
gonna mate with, they mate with them, and then they leave. And that’s the end of their
relationship.”
Beck: “What’s odd about this, is this all sounds vaguely familiar.”
Patricelli: (laughs) “A lot of people say that, but humans are very different. It’s sort
of analogous to a singles bar where people are just going to hook up.”
(sage grouse sound)
Patricelli watches and listens to these birds at a mating ground in Wyoming. She’s
learning how males get the attention of females.
“They have some particularly cool behaviors where they produce a sound that
radiates from vocal sacks on their chests – which are very bizarre looking
structures. But the sound comes out of the vocal sack, so the male has to aim the
sound appropriately at the female in order to impress her to mate.
(sage grouse sound)
So it’s not just his ability to
have the biggest, loudest, flashiest signal, but also to actually aim it appropriately at the
female. He has to know how to put on a good show, but respond appropriately and
be sensitive to what the female is doing.”
But the search for more energy is bringing new gas drilling and big trucks closer to
sage grouse mating grounds. This is happening at the same time the birds’ numbers
are declining. Researchers’ fear is the noise from energy development is disrupting
the sage grouse’s ability to hear each other, which is critical.
(truck sounds)
To find out, Patricelli is introducing recordings of gas rigs and trucks into her
research. She wants to see if sage grouse can adapt to the noise.
“So, there’s things that a lot of animals do to deal with noise in the environment.
And sage grouse may or may not be able to do that. They are not the brightest
(laughs) birds in the world.”
Wildlife Biologist Stan Harter works for the Wyoming Game and Fish department.
He’s watching the research with interest. Biologists worry that the birds are leaving
their mating grounds, trying to get away from the noise. His fear is that if the birds
are relocating they might be putting themselves at risk.
“In my mind, the birds can maybe move over here and strut okay, but are they
getting good nesting conditions over there? Maybe not. Is there a way we can allow them to co-exist more friendly?”
Harter openly admits that the sage grouse has declined in the West to the point
where it could show up on the endangered species list. If that happens, it could shut
down major portions of the state’s important energy economy. Similar to how the
spotted owl shut down logging in the Northwest.
So, wildlife officials are trying to find ways to make the birds and energy
development co-exist. They’re hoping that Patricelli’s research will guide them, not
just in reducing the noise, but in developing a plan to protect the sage grouse
population into the future.
George Washington's dentures (Photo courtesy of the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research)
Some consumer advocate groups say there’s
another reason to fear a trip to the dentist. They
say dentists should stop using mercury to make some
types of metal fillings. Mark Brush reports the
groups recently settled a lawsuit with the Food and
Drug Administration:
Transcript
Some consumer advocate groups say there’s
another reason to fear a trip to the dentist. They
say dentists should stop using mercury to make some
types of metal fillings. Mark Brush reports the
groups recently settled a lawsuit with the Food and
Drug Administration:
Moms Against Mercury and several other groups sued the FDA. They said the agency
was failing to inform the public about the dangers of mercury in dental fillings.
Mercury can do damage to the nervous system. But people’s exposure from fillings has
long been debated.
Charlie Brown is a lawyer for the groups who sued the FDA. He says getting mercury
out of dental offices will protect those most at risk.
“It’s permanent damage to the developing brain. Not like a guy like me losing brain cells
everyday, but to the child whose potential is being destroyed by neuro-toxic damage.”
As a result of the lawsuit, the FDA changed its message about mercury exposure from
dental fillings. They now say the exposure might hurt the nervous systems in developing
children and fetuses.
The agency plans take a closer look at the science and issue a final rule next year.
Many people are against oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes because of environmental and safety concerns. (Photo courtesy of the
USGS)
The recently passed Energy Bill contains an amendment that permanently bans
oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Celeste Headlee reports:
Transcript
The recently passed Energy Bill contains an amendment that permanently bans
oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Celeste Headlee reports:
Legislative committees spent days working out the differences between energy
bills passed separately by the House and the Senate.
In the final version of the bill, Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak proposed
an amendment to permanently ban drilling in and under the Great Lakes. A
vote in committee overwhelmingly supported Stupak’s amendment. The
representative says Congress finally affirmed that drilling in the Great
Lakes is not worth the risk to the environment or human safety.
“Since 1979 – when directional drilling began in Michigan – until 2004, the
amount of oil and gas drawn from the Great Lakes wells produced only enough
natural gas to fuel the United States for nine hours and only enough crude
oil to fuel the United States for a mere 35 minutes.”
The President is expected to sign the Bill into law when it reaches his
desk.
There is currently a ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes, but it's only temporary. (Photo courtesy of the USGS)
Members of Congress from eight Great Lakes states have introduced legislation to permanently ban oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. They say the lakes are vulnerable to environmental damage if a temporary ban is allowed to expire. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton
reports:
Transcript
Members of Congress from eight Great Lakes states have introduced
legislation to permanently ban oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes.
They say the Lakes are vulnerable to environmental damage if a temporary ban
is allowed to expire. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton
reports:
The temporary ban on Great Lakes drilling is due to expire in 2007.
Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak says oil leaks from drilling pollute the
Lakes, and people could be injured or even killed by releases of toxic
hydrogen sulfide from gas drilling.
Four Great Lakes states have their own drilling bans. But Stupak says the issue is too important to take the risk that new state legislatures might lift the ban.
“We think it should be federal policy. The federal government has acted once or twice for at least these temporary bans that we have in place right now, so why don’t we just make it part of our
energy policy and permanently ban oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes?”
Stupak says a federal ban might also convince Canada to consider follow
suit. He says there are about eighty oil spills a year in the Lakes from
Canadian oil rigs.
Energy companies maintain the practice is safe both for the environment and people’s health.
Republican Congressman Mike Rogers. (Photo courtesy of house.gov)
Some environmentalists say they’re outraged that a Michigan Member of Congress blocked a bill to permanently ban oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Some environmentalists are outraged that a Michigan Member of Congress blocked a bill to permanently ban oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Republican Congressman Mike Rogers blocked a bi-partisan federal effort to ban drilling in the Great Lakes. Rogers’ office says taking state control away on drilling could lead to taking state control away on other issues such as water withdrawal. He doesn’t want the more politically powerful arid Southwest states using it as a precedent to take federal control of the Great Lakes.
Cyndi Roper is with the environmental group, Clean Water Action. Her group and others say under the guise of protecting the Great Lakes, Rogers is actually exposing the Lakes to new risks.
“By putting a ban on oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes, this isn’t an issue of control of the Great Lakes, it’s an issue of protecting the Great Lakes.”
There is a moratorium on new drilling on the Lakes that expires in 2007. It will then be up to each individual state to decide whether to allow new drilling.
Oil drilling rigs similar to this one are popping up all over northeastern Ohio, and many residents and local governments are
opposed to the drilling. (Photo by Tammy Sharp)
In some states, local governments have been able to stop developments they thought might be bad for the area or damaging to the environment. But across the nation, state governments have been taking some of those decision-making powers away from local governments. The latest battle is over drilling for oil and natural gas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
In some states, local governments have been able to stop developments they thought might be bad for the area or damaging to the environment. But, across the nation state governments have been taking some of those decision-making powers away from local governments. The latest battle is over drilling for oil and natural gas. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports:
A year ago Joel Rudicil, owner of Bass Energy Company, couldn’t drill an oil and gas well in Mayfield Heights, Ohio. He had a property owner with more than twenty acres who was willing to deal. But city officials would not permit it.
“I had met with city council here on many occasions dating back to 1998 and they simply did not want well-drilling to occur in their community. So we were really at a point of just walking away from this opportunity, or litigation.”
Instead, he joined the oil and gas industry to lobby for a bill that would take authority to regulate drilling away from local communities.
(Sound of pounding)
Today, his workers are placing piping down well number three on the Knollwood Cemetery property in Mayfield Heights. Once the oil and gas bill became law last fall, all local laws pertaining to oil and gas drilling were scrapped and the state took sole authority.
“In our case, we’ve drilled 28 wells since the bill was signed into law.”
Eight of the communities where Bass Energy dug those wells had had regulations or outright bans on oil and gas drilling.
“Of those 28 wells that I just mentioned, we would not have been able to drill 20 of those wells.”
Mayfield Heights has become the poster child for Ohio’s battle for control of oil and gas drilling. Margaret Egensperger is the city’s mayor.
“Our area’s all built up here. Anywhere you’re going to build a well, you’re going to hurt our residential areas.”
Northeast Ohio is the most densely populated part of the state, but also has much of the oil and gas companies want to extract. Mayor Egensperger says one of the wells Bass Energy dug at Knollwood Cemetery was next to townhouses, condominiums, and the street.
Egensperger: “And they are right up by the condos and the noise was absolutely awful. I believe they drilled for 5 or 7 days there. We have a noise ordinance. The city was told that if, once they start to drill, if we stop them, that we’d have to pay 5-thousand dollars a day. So, of course we didn’t enforce the noise ordinance. That’s a lot of money.”
Niehaus: “It is what’s called state pre-emption…”
Republican state senator Tom Niehaus sponsored the bill that gives the authority to the Ohio Division of Mineral Resources.
Niehaus: “The state has exercised its right to say that this is an important state resource. I personally feel, and my fellow legislators felt, that the state division was in the better position to evaluate whether or not drilling should be permitted in certain areas.”
Grant: “What to do you say when they say ‘we know our issues, we know our citizens, we know the land here and our planning better then the state could ever know it’?”
Niehaus: “I probably would agree that they know their local community better, but I would argue that they do not know the best way to tap the natural resources that exist underneath the land.”
Many local governments are like Mayfield Heights; they want to fight the state law in court, but worry it would cost too much money.
Some homeowners are also concerned that oil and gas wells will reduce their property values. But the oil and gas industry feels there are bigger issues at stake. Tom Stewart, Director of the Ohio Oil and Gas Association, says the nation needs energy.
“And you see how emotionalism is stifling what we need to do in this country to find the energy sources we need. And obviously we’re not doing the job, because you’re paying $2.30 for a gallon of gas. Right? We’re not doing the job. And we’re fighting wars. Meanwhile, we have this wonderful resource base in the United States, and every hole is a fight.”
It’s arguable whether the relatively small amount of natural gas or oil reserves left in the continental United States will make any real difference in the price of gasoline at the pump. Many city officials believe the trend tonward bigger government control will have much larger costs.
Many worry that drilling on the Great Lakes is not only unhealthy for the environment, but the residents who live near the drilling facilities as well. (Photo courtesy of the Michigan DEQ)
Two members of Congress are fighting over whether the federal government should ban drilling for oil and gas in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Two members of Congress are fighting over whether the federal government should ban drilling for oil and gas in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Right now it’s up to each state to decide whether to allow drilling. Bart Stupak is a Deomcrat Member of Congress from Michigan whose district touches three of the Great Lakes. After an incident in his district where hydrogen sulfide fumes from a gas well head made residents and emergency workers sick… he’s for banning drilling altogether…
“We should just once and for all permanently ban oil and gas drilling in and on the shores of our lakes through a method called directional or slant drilling. There’s so little oil and gas there, it’s not worth it.”
Stupak introduced an amendment to ban drilling in the Great Lakes… but another Member of Congress from Michigan, Republican Mike Rogers blocked it. Rogers’ office says taking state control away on drilling could lead to taking state control away on other issues such as water withdrawal. He doesn’t want the more politically powerful arid Southwest states using it as a precedent to take federal control of the Great Lakes.
Opinions vary on Cheney's environmental policy. Some say he's done well, some say he hasn't done enough. (Photo courtesy of
georgewbush.com)
The political campaigns have been preoccupied with war, jobs, and health care. There’s been little mention of another issue that some Americans also find very important: the environment. As part of a series of profiles on the presidential and vice presidential candidates’ records on the environment, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham looks at Vice President Dick Cheney:
Transcript
The political campaigns have been preoccupied with war, jobs, and health care. There’s been
little mention of another issue that some Americans also find very important: the environment.
As part of a series of profiles on the presidential and vice presidential candidates’ records
on the environment, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham looks at Vice President
Dick Cheney:
This fall, during a campaign stop, Vice President Cheney was asked about his concerns and
philosophy on the preservation, conservation, and sustainability of water and natural resources.
The Vice President told his audience that he shared their concerns about the environment.
“Anybody who spends any time on waters, fishing, as I do – steelhead in northern British Columbia
when I get a chance and for trout in Wyoming and various places – it’s a fantastic resource. And
we really have an obligation to try to improve it and pass it on to the next generation in better
shape than we found it. I think we’re doing, as a general proposition, we’re doing pretty well.
Better than we used to.”
But most environmental groups are concerned Vice President Cheney is leading the effort to roll
back many environmental protections. Group after group is critical of the Vice President’s
actions.
“Cheney’s role has really been to be the front guy to fight for the industry’s agenda.”
Greg Wetstone directs the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Action Fund. Wetstone says Cheney
has become an easy target for criticism by the environmental movement. Wetstone says it’s clear
that Dick Cheney has wielded more power than most vice presidents have in the past.
“Well, the Vice President has clearly played a huge role in shaping this administration’s
policies on the environment and especially energy policy. It was Vice President Cheney who
led the Energy Task Force that met secretly with top industry lobbyists and shaped the policies
that were proposed by this administration while shutting out the advocates for a cleaner
environment. The polluters basically all but held the pen in crafting this administration’s
energy policy.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council sued the Bush White House, calling for the release of
documents related to the secret meetings. The courts ordered some documents to be released.
And the environmentalists say those papers confirmed the role of gas and oil industry lobbyists
in drafting the Bush energy policy.
Chris Horner says he took part in some of those meetings. Horner is a Senior Fellow at the
free-market think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He says the Vice President
worked hard to include environmentally friendly approaches when drafting the policy for energy.
“He pushed heavily in his energy plan for windmills, solar panel, transition to gas even more.
He didn’t just consult with free-market groups like ours. The reportage notwithstanding, I went
in several times to meet with these people and I passed very hard left-leaning groups on the way,
in the waiting room on the way out. The administration met with greens. They met with
free-marketers. They met with everyone.”
But the environmental groups argue the gas and oil industry had too much influence on the plan
that is supposed to regulate them.
The League of Conservation Voters has given the Bush administration failing marks for its
handling of environmental issues. Betsey Loyless is the group’s vice president of policy. She
says the energy task force is a good example of how Vice President Cheney contributed to what
her group sees as failure.
“We have an energy bill that wants to open sensitive public lands to drilling. That’s part of
the Cheney philosophy. We have a secret energy task force that wants to subsidize, at the
taxpayers’ expense, the coal, oil, and gas industry. That’s at Cheney’s behest. I mean,
Cheney has been the real leader.”
Vice President Cheney’s defenders say he’s only being realistic and practical. They say the
nation’s energy security should not be put at risk because of a few environmental extremists.
While Cheney is villified by the environmentalists, it doesn’t appear that all voters view him
in quite the same terms.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
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.
Oil companies are legally protected from any accidental harm caused by trucks, boats and experiments that alter the polar bear’s environment (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
