The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants
Congress to lift its ban.
(Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)
President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:
Transcript
President George Bush says Congress
should remove the ban on offshore drilling
because there might be a decade’s worth of
oil off the US coasts. Lester Graham
reports that might be an optimistic estimate:
The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants
Congress to lift its ban.
At an Ohio factory, President Bush talked about wanting to find more oil in the U.S.
“One place where there is, the experts say is, a bountiful supply of oil, perhaps as much
as 10 years’ worth at current consumption rates, is the Outer Continental Shelf. That
would be offshore America.”
But the President’s numbers don’t add up.
The Energy Information Administration estimates off-shore there’s 18-billion barrels of
crude oil that are currently off-limits. The U.S. consumes more than seven-and-a-half
billion barrels a year. That means 18-billion barrels would only last the U.S. less than
two-and-a-half years – not the ten years the President suggests.
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.
An EPA scientist testing online sensors for water distribution systems (Photo courtesy of the US Office of Management and Budget)
Scientists at the Environmental Protection
Agency say government appointees have interfered
in scientific decisions. Rebecca Williams reports
the scientists say political pressure has become
more common during the past five years:
Transcript
Scientists at the Environmental Protection
Agency say government appointees have interfered
in scientific decisions. Rebecca Williams reports
the scientists say political pressure has become
more common during the past five years:
In a survey, more than 800 scientists reported interference in their work by
government officials. They say political appointees have used data
selectively to influence policy decisions, and ordered scientists to alter
information.
One scientist anonymously wrote, quote: “Do not trust the Environmental
Protection Agency to protect your environment.”
Francesca Griffo is with the Union of Concerned Scientists – the group that
conducted the survey. She says political interference with science has
happened before the Bush Administration.
“But I do think and what we have from the scientists themselves is this idea
that it’s gotten much, much worse, much more pervasive, much more common than it’s
ever been before.”
The EPA did not respond to calls for comment. But it’s been reported the
agency has said it carefully weighs the input of staff scientists in policy
decisions.
President Bush giving the State of the Union address (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)
President George Bush is proposing the next
step for the country to deal with greenhouse emissions
contributing to climate change. Lester Graham reports
the President’s proposal is not popular with everyone:
Transcript
President George Bush is proposing the next
step for the country to deal with greenhouse emissions
contributing to climate change. Lester Graham reports
the President’s proposal is not popular with everyone:
President Bush says he’s following his plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions that he first outlined in 2002.
“I put our nation on a path to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of our
greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002 I announced our first step: to reduce America’s
greenhouse gas intensity by 18% through 2012.”
That’s not an 18% reduction in greenhouse gases, but rather a slowing in growth of the
gases. President Bush says it’s time to look at the next step.
“Today I’m announcing a new national goal: to stop the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions by 2025.”
The President says some of the steps to get to that point are already in place: a
phased in new mileage standard for vehicles; increased use of renewable fuels such as
cellulosic ethanol, wind, and solar; nuclear, and clean coal power generation; and more
efficient appliances.
Some environmentalists say this move is a non-starter. Eileen Claussen is the
President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
“You could say ‘More of the same.’ Or, you could say that it’s worse because actually his
proposal is to let emissions grow for another 17 years.”
Claussen says greenhouse gas restrictions need to be put in place much sooner.
While the environmentalists think the President’s proposal is weak and offers few
specifics, conservatives think the President is reversing his course and headed for
economic trouble.
The conservative think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute says this move will
destroy President Bush’s legacy.
Marlo Lewis is a Senior Fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He says
capping CO2 won’t do enough to stop or even slow global warming and it will end up
being disastrous for the economy.
“It’s all cost for no benefit.”
Lewis expects a cap-and-trade program for greenhouse emissions will be put in place if
the President continues down this path. Lewis says if that happens, quote, “climate change alarmists” will never let it stop.
“Until basically you’re trying to run your economy on wind turbines and solar panels
which simply would not work.”
He says if the environmentalists want a future without fossil fuels and their accompanying
greenhouse gases, the country will need to dam up rivers for hydro-power and build a
bunch of new nuclear power plants.
With only nine months left in President Bush’s final term in office, the President’s
proposals might not mean that much. Eileen Claussen with the Pew Center on Global
Climate Change believes other politicians are well ahead of the President on the issue.
“The good news is that I’m not sure that his strategy here is really relevant. We have a
Congress that is working hard to come up with a bill that would cap emissions. We
have governors in 23 states who are working on cap-and-trade programs to limit their
emissions. We’ve got three presidential candidates – all three – who support capping
emissions.”
President Bush announced his plan to deal with greenhouse gases in preparation for
the G-8 summit of industrialized nations this summer. The President says, there, they plan to come up with
a plan that will call for rapidly developing nations such as China and India to make the
same kind of restrictions as the U.S. so that the United States is not at an economic
disadvantage.
Congress appears poised to approve billions of dollars to help
cities renovate their aging sewage systems. That could prevent a lot
of sewage dumps into lakes and rivers. But the funding – if approved by Congress –
might not get the President’s signature. Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
Congress appears poised to approve billions of dollars to help
cities renovate their aging sewage systems. That could prevent a lot
of sewage dumps into lakes and rivers. But the funding – if approved by Congress –
might not get the President’s signature. Tracy Samilton reports:
Many American cities have sewage systems that dump untreated sewage
into nearby waters during heavy rainstorms. The problem contributes to
beach closings, and in some places, sewage even backs up into people’s
basements.
But the price tag to fix one mid-size sewage treatment system can be
hundreds of millions of dollars. Without federal help that can be out
of reach for many cities. Katherine Baer of American Rivers says the
problem will be worse soon:
“We have systems all around the country kind of hitting that place
where there’s a lot of population growth and older systems, and all of
a sudden they’ve kind of come up with a perfect storm causing a lot of
sewage.”
There’s considerable support for the funding in the Senate, but no
support at all in the Bush Administration. The President has
indictated he will veto the bills if they reach his desk.
Peter H. Gleick, President and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, is concerned that without reducing greenhouse gas emissions, global warming will have dire impact on water resources. (Courtesy of the Pacific Institute)
With concern about climate change growing, some scientists are trying to determine how global warming will affect sources of water. Lester Graham spoke with the President of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick about what climate change might mean to weather patterns:
Transcript
With concern about climate change growing, some scientists are trying to determine how global warming will affect sources of water.
Lester Graham spoke with the President of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick about what climate change might mean to weather
patterns:
PG: Overall, the planet is gonna get wetter because as it gets hotter, we’ll see more
evaporation. The problem is, we aren’t always gonna get rain where we want it.
Sometimes we’re gonna get rain where we don’t want it. And at the moment it looks like
the biggest increases in rainfall will be in the northern regions where typically water is
less of a problem. Or at least water quantity is less of a problem. And we may actually get
less rainfall in the Southwest where we need it more.
LG: Let’s talk about some of the precious areas to North America. For instance, a lot of
people are worried about snow pack in the Rockies.
PG: Yes, well, one of the most certain impacts of global climate change is going to be
significant changes in snowfall and snowmelt patterns in the western United States as a
whole, actually in the United States as a whole because as it warms up, what falls out of
the atmosphere is going to be rain and not snow. Now that really matters in the Western
United States, in the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada where our snow pack really
forms the basis of our water supply system. Unfortunately, as the climate is changing,
we’re seeing rising temperatures and decreasing snow pack. More of what falls in the
mountains is falling as rain, less of it’s going to be snow. That’s going to wreck havoc on
our management system, the reservoirs that we’ve built to deal with these variations in
climate. Incidentally, it’s also going to ruin the ski season eventually.
LG: You mentioned that the farther north you go, according to some models, we’ll see
more rain or more precipitation. At the same time, with warmer temperatures, we’ll see
less ice covering some of the inland lakes, such as the Great Lakes, which means more
evaporation. So, what are we going to see as far as those surface waters sources across
the continent?
PG: Without a doubt, global climate is changing. And it’s going to get worse and worse
as humans put more and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And as it gets
warmer, we’re going to see more evaporation off of the surface of all kinds of lakes,
including especially the Great Lakes. And interestingly, even though we don’t have a
great degree of confidence of what’s going to happen precisely with precipitation in the
Great Lakes, all of the models seem to agree that over time, the Great Lakes levels are
going to drop. And it looks like we’re going to lose more water out of the surface of the
Great Lakes from increased evaporation off the lakes than we’re likely to get from
precipitation, even if precipitation goes up somewhat. And I think that’s a great worry for
homeowners and industry around the margin of the lake. Ultimately for navigation,
ultimately for water supply.
LG: There’s a lot of talk about the gloom and doom scenarios of global warming, but
they’ll be longer growing seasons and we’re also going to be seeing, as the zones change,
more of this fertile ground in as northern US and Canada get longer growing seasons.
That’s not a bad thing.
PG: There are going to be winners and loser from global climate change. And
interestingly, there are going to be winners and losers at different times. Certainly, a
longer growing season is a possibility as it warms up. And I think that, in the short term,
could prove to be beneficial for certain agriculture in certain regions. Interestingly
though, and perhaps a little depressingly, over time, if the globe continues to warm up, if
the globe continues to warm up, evidence suggest that the short term improvements in
agriculture that we might see might ultimately be wiped out. As it gets hotter and hotter,
some crop yields will go down after they go up. We’re going to see an increase in pests
that we didn’t used to see because of warmer weather. Unfortunately, pests like warmer
weather. Furthermore, if we don’t really get a handle on greenhouse gas emissions, if we
don’t really start to cut the severity of the climate changes that we’re going to see, the
doom and gloom scenarios unfortunately get more likely. Over time, the temperatures go
up not just one or two or three degrees Celsius but four or five or eight degree Celsius.
And that truly is a catastrophe for the kind of systems we’ve set up around the planet.
HOST TAG: Peter Gleick is a water expert and President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, based in California.
The Bush administration is proposing to sell 200 thousand
acres of national forest land. The proposal has drawn fire from environmentalists who are concerned about the long-range effects of the plan. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Steve Carmody reports:
Transcript
The Bush administration is proposing to sell 200 thousand acres of
national forest land. The proposal has drawn fire from environmentalists
who are concerned about the long-range effects of the plan. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Steve Carmody reports:
The National Forest Service is proposing to sell hundreds of small
parcels of forestland over the next five years. The parcels average 40
acres in size, and the forest service says the sales would generate roughly
800 million dollars, which would be used for rural schools and roads.
Sean Cosgrove is with the Sierra Club in Washington D.C. He says
these parcels may be small, but the effects on larger eco-systems could
be significant.
“It’s kinda like taking a handful of buckshot and throwing it at a large
piece of butcher block paper. You may not cover that whole entire area,
but you can put holes all the way thru it, where it’s going to have an
impact.”
In this region, Michigan would be the most effected state, with nearly six
thousand acres in the Hiawatha and Ottawa National Forests on the
block.
In Minnesota, nearly three thousand acres in the Superior National Forest
are also targeted under the plan.
The head of the Ford Motor Company is petitioning President Bush to convene a summit on U.S. energy policy and the role automakers should play. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Quinn Klinefelter has more:
Transcript
The head of the Ford Motor Company is petitioning President Bush to convene a summit on U.S. energy policy and the role automakers should play. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Quinn Klinefelter has more:
For much of the past decade, the auto industry has successfully lobbied Congress and the Administration against raising fuel economy standards which, automakers say, would force them ro raise prices.
Now, however, Ford Motor Company Chairman Bill Ford Jr. is requesting that the President hold a summit to discuss improving fuel mileage and limiting America’s dependence on oil.
Ford recently announced that roughly half of the models it offers would be available in hybrid form or other more economical versions by 2010. Ford supported the Bush Administration’s Energy Policy Act, but company officials say the country is in the midst of an energy crisis and the President must do more to help consumers.
White House officials say the President is considering the proposal.
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.
A former industrial site is being redeveloped with parks, wetlands and homes. Residents have high hopes the new development will boost the local economy. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
A riverfront park is part of the redevelopment.
(Photo by Shawn Allee)
Brownfield redevelopers are hoping to entice people to live along the riverfront, too. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
As the American economy shifts away from heavy industry, each closed factory risks becoming a brownfield. That’s a site that contains potentially hazardous materials. For the past decade, the federal government has provided help in assessing and cleaning these properties. It has proved to be one of the most popular environmental programs. It’s giving hope to small towns that need help in remaking their landscapes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:
Transcript
As the American economy shifts away from heavy industry, each closed factory
risks becoming a brownfield. That’s a site that contains potentially
hazardous materials. For the past decade, the federal government has provided help in assessing and
cleaning these properties. It has proved to be one of the most popular environmental programs. It’s
giving hope to small towns that need help in remaking their landscapes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:
When a Rust Belt city loses another factory, the townspeople don’t suffer
just from the loss of jobs. They’re often stuck with crumbling buildings or even polluted land. Not to mention, the local economy isn’t strong enough to fix them up.
It’s a dilemma familiar to East Moline, a small Illinois town that sits
along the banks of the Mississippi River. Since the early 80s, the town’s lost thousands of jobs in the farm machinery
industry. Rich Keehner is the City of East Moline’s assistant administrator. He says
there is a plan for the industrial riverfront.
“Right now there’s a movement to relocate or pull industrial uses from the
river. And then of course turn that riverfront property into bike paths or some
recreational activities to improve our quality of life. And that’s exactly
what we’re doing here.”
It’s a simple idea: move industry away from the river and work with
developers to make it an attractive place to play or even live. But it’s just not that easy. Keehner says developers won’t build on these sites until it’s clear what kind
of pollution, if any, might be there.
Testing the area’s soil and water can get expensive, so sites can remain
empty for years. Meanwhile, developers look for greener pastures. Really, they can just build on farmland instead.
During the past decade, the U.S. EPA’s paid for pollution testing at hundreds
of sites. The agency also funds some cleanup and other costs. East Moline’s used several grants to develop eighty acres of riverfront donated
by the John Deere Company.
With the Mississippi riverbank at his back, Keehner points out some new
houses developed on the site.
“It’s got some great amenitities, located next to the bike path. You
can just wake up any time night or day and look out at the river. And your
neighbors are very limited; it’s very peaceful.”
The district also boasts a small light house, a lot of park space, and some
wetlands areas. Keehner says brownfields grants funded about six percent of the project’s
total cost. That doesn’t sound like much, but the money’s played a key role. He says private money couldn’t be secured until there was progress on the
environmental front.
A lot of environmentalists and civic groups applaud the program even though
a lot of credit goes to someone they often criticize. Namely, President
George Bush. His critics admit the brownfields program is one of the brighter spots of
his environmental policy.
In 2002, President Bush signed legislation that expanded the program’s
funding and breadth. Alan Front is the vice president of the Trust for Public Land, a
conservation group.
“The administration, ever since signing that bill, has budgeted about 200
million dollars a year to make this program really vibrant and so not only
have they created the wallet, but they’ve filled it in a way that really
benefits communities around the country.”
Front says the expansion’s brought a tighter focus on the environmental
needs of smaller towns. Apart from the grants, there’s another reason for the program’s popularity. The EPA trains city administrators to use federal brownfield money to
leverage private dollars.
Charles Bartsch has been teaching such courses for ten years.
He says, to compete with larger cities, smaller towns need to show they
understand their local economies.
“I suggest to towns what they should do first of all is to decide what their
competitive economic niche is.”
That means, developing around a community asset, like East Moline’s tried
with its attractive riverfront. Bartsch says, for all the progress small town administrators have made, they’re still pretty isolated. He says they need to cast a wide social net, so
they can find the best advice.
“The key thing is less knowing how to do it yourself, but more knowing who to
reliably call to walk through ideas and walk through options.”
The brownfields program does have its critics. They say it’s tilted in favor
of land development over open space and they worry about how much oversight
there is of environmental testing.
Back at the East Moline site, it’s easy to see why small towns are
participating. Residents there now have more access to the river, bike paths, parks, and,
for some people, new homes. East Moline, and a lot of other small towns like it, are seeking even more brownfields money.
They’ve got a lot of other sites that want a chance at a new life.
The President already has lifted an executive ban on offshore drilling. He now wants Congress to lift its ban. (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)
