President Bush's proposed budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers might reduce the number of dredging projects, which in turn would decrease the number of accessible waterways. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
Some of the nation’s ports could be unusable for transporting commerce if a Presidential budget proposal goes through. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley reports:
Transcript
Some of the nation’s ports could be unusable for transporting commerce if a presidential budget proposal goes through. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Christina Shockley reports:
President Bush has suggested cutting about half a billion dollars from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ budget. If that happens, the Corps says it might cut dredging projects for the nation’s smaller ports. Dredging removes sediments that naturally collect in waterways.
The process makes them safe for cargo-carrying ships to pass through. Wayne Schloop is the Corps’ chief of operations in Detroit. He says economies in this region depend upon healthy ports.
“I believe it would have a negative effect on the economies because there’s a lot of harbors along the Great Lakes whose local economies are sort of tied into the marine industry and shipping and navigation.”
Schloop says ports that transport less than a million tons of goods a year could be affected. He says that includes about half of the more than 60 commercial ports in the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes Restoration and Protection Strategy is being drafted, but some worry that the meetings being held are more conducive to talking than actual planning. (Photo courtesy of the EPA)
Last year, President George W. Bush ordered federal agencies to work with Great Lakes states, towns, and tribes to design a strategy to restore and protect the Great Lakes. An inter-agency task force is planning a summit this summer to release its plan. But some members of Congress are skeptical. They see the regional collaboration meetings as another chance for government to talk about a problem rather than do something about the problem. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Last year, President George W. Bush ordered federal agencies to work with
Great Lakes states, towns, and tribes to design a strategy to restore and
protect the Great Lakes. An inter-agency task force is planning a summit
this summer to release its plan. But some members of Congress are
skeptical. They see the regional collaboration meetings as another chance
for government to talk about a problem rather than do something about the
problem. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
All the different agencies and people are working on the draft of the Great
Lakes Restoration and Protection Strategy right now. It’s scheduled to be
released in July.
When the former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Mike Leavitt
first started talking about the regional plan last summer, he outlined it as
a way to spend tax dollars better.
“We have 140 different programs right now and I’m interested to make certain
we know how those dollars are being spent and that using to them to the maximum
efficiency, then we’ll have a plan, I hope, regionally, as to how to move
forward.”
But, in the meantime, major funding for some projects has been put on hold. Rahm Emanuel is, to say the least, skeptical of the process. Emanuel is a Member of Congress, a Democrat, from Chicago. He wonders what good this task force ordered by the President will do.
“Well, look. At least there’s an acknowledgement that the Great Lakes, Lake
Michigan and the other Great Lakes, need a focus and a strategy. But, we
know today everything that has to be done and it’s going to require
resources.”
But President Bush says he wants to coordinate the efforts of the federal
agencies so there’s less duplication and conflict between agencies, the
states, the cities and the tribes. Congressman Emanuel says that’s fine,
but there have already been lots of meetings, lots of studies and strategies
mapped out.
“My flashing yellow light here is I don’t want to waste more time on more
studies, more time on more talk when Michigan knows what it needs to do,
Wisconsin knows what it needs to do its part, and Illinois and Indiana know
what they got to do.”
Emanuel says everybody pretty much knows the job at hand. The problem is
money. And that’s where he thinks the Bush Administration is playing games.
“Are we doing this to stall, and not as a way of avoiding the hard, hard job
of putting resources toward proven strategies?”
Environmentalists are gearing up to make sure than the strategy to protect
and restore the Lakes isn’t just another piece of paper. They want the
federal, state, and local governments to draft a real plan, then
follow through, including finding the money that can actually make
something happen in the Great Lakes.
President Bush is calling for more money to be put into the Great Lakes Legacy Act, but some wonder if it will be enough. (Photo courtesy of the Michigan DEQ)
President Bush is recommending more money for
a program designed to clean up contaminated sediment
around the Great Lakes. But the program has a track
record of not being fully funded. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
President Bush is recommending more money for a program designed to clean up contaminated sediment around the Great Lakes. But the program has a track record of not being fully funded. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The President says he wants fifty-million dollars for the Great Lakes Legacy
Act, beginning this fall. But last year he asked for forty-five-million dollars and
Congress only granted half of that. It was the second year in a row that
Capitol Hill failed to fully fund the five year program.
Even if President Bush succeeds getting all the money he wants this year, EPA official Gary
Gulesian says it wouldn’t cover the fourteen projects waiting for federal dollars.
“So at this point we would not be able to fund all those projects assuming
they were all appropriate and we had the local matches in place.”
Environmental groups say they’re glad to see more money proposed for
sediment clean-up around the Great Lakes. But the groups say, overall, the
president’s budget makes significant cuts in other programs aimed at
cleaning up the nation’s water and air.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.
While many may be closely watching President Bush's foreign policy, environmental groups are still keeping an eye on actions the Administration is taking on the environment. (Photo by Eric Draper courtesy of whitehouse.gov)
The big environmental groups are assessing President George
W. Bush’s record on the environment. Mostly, they’re giving him poor marks. But after the Bush win in November, the real question is whether enough people care about the low rankings. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports:
Transcript
The big environmental groups are assessing President George W. Bush’s record on the environment. Mostly, they’re giving him poor marks. But after the Bush win in November, the real question is whether enough people care about the low rankings. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
With the country at war, a lot of people note President Bush has bigger issues than the environment to address. Greg Wetstone is a spokesperson for the environmental group, Natural Resources Defense Council. He says the Bush administration has been dealing with environmental regulations – quietly dismantling them.
“I think there has been a very concerted effort by the Bush administration to make these changes happen in a way that does not receive much public scrutiny.”
Wetstone says the NRDC’s most recent report on the Bush administration might not cause policy changes right now, but it does serve a purpose.
“This report, which is really an effort to document what’s happening because, you know, the day will come when we’re going to need to go back and try to fix as much of this as possible.”
And the environmental group says once the people realize the damage that’s being done to the environment, they’ll want it fixed.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
The re-election of George W. Bush has many environmental groups worried. (Photo by Judi Seiber)
Environmental groups worry that the Bush administration will further dismantle environmental protection laws during its next term. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Environmental groups worry that the Bush administration will further dismantled environmental protection laws during its next term. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The big environmental groups have been very critical of George W. Bush’s first term in office. Despite speculation that the President will take more moderate positions in this next term, environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council are skeptical. Greg Wetstone is the NRDC’s Director of Advocacy.
“We have to prepare for the worst and we’re hoping for something better. We would like to see this president use the election as an opportunity to embrace more broadly the support for environmental protection held across the public. But, we can’t be naïve.”
In a letter to NRDC’s members, the group’s president took it a step farther, writing that -quote- the White House attacks of the past four years are but the leading edge of a much broader assault that will come in a second term. Other environmental groups are expressing similar skepticism.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Mark Kubiske checks the valve that controls the flow of greenhouse gases to a stand of sugar maples, birch and aspen. (Photo by Jennifer Simonson)
One part of the greenhouse gas-making facility. (Photo by Jennifer
Simonson)
A stand of trees is surrounded by pipes that release greenhouse gases. (Photo by Jennifer Simonson)
Scientists from around the world are studying how higher levels of carbon dioxide will affect forests 100 years from now. They’re doing that by pumping higher levels of CO2 and ozone into stands of trees. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson visited the experimental forests and has this story:
Transcript
Scientists from around the world are studying how higher levels of carbon dioxide will affect forests 100 years from now. They’re doing that by pumping higher levels of CO2 and ozone into stands of trees. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson visited the experimental forests and has this story:
(sound of “quiet area”)
The north woods of the Great Lakes states are stands of millions of acres of pine, maple, birch, and aspen forests. It’s a perfect place to try to figure out how trees will react to the higher levels of ozone and carbon dioxide scientists expect in the future.
(sound of beeping fence gate)
The first thing you notice at Aspen Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Project – Aspen FACE for short – is two huge tanks inside the fenced in enclosure. Each one is bigger than an 18-wheel tanker truck. They’re full of carbon dioxide… CO2. So much CO2 is used in this experiment, the tanks are filled twice a day.
(sound of filling tanks)
If you looked at the site from an airplane, you’d see 12 circular tree stands surrounded by 30 foot high pipes. Those pipes pour CO2 or ozone gases or both into the air surrounding birch, sugar maple, and aspen trees. The scientists know that greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere have been increasing. They believe two centuries of industrial pollution has contributed to the problem. And they expect the CO2 and ozone levels to double by the end of this century. They’re raising the level of greenhouse gasses in different mixes to see what the predicted levels will do to forests.
This open air project is different than previous experiments. David Karnosky is with Michigan Tech. He’s the Project Manager for Aspen FACE. He says before these kinds of projects, they just tested trees inside places like greenhouses.
“We needed to get out of those chambers. We needed to have a more realistic, real world sort of situation where we had multiple trees. We wanted real intact forest communities. We didn’t want to have just a small number of trees inside of a chamber.”
The United States Department of Energy launched this experiment in Wisconsin’s northwoods seven years ago. Karnosky says they’re learning how the trees react to the higher CO2 levels, and that could shape the future of the world’s timber industry.
“Who will be the winners? Who will be the losers? Will aspen or birch or sugar maple? In northern Wisconsin here we’ve got probably 40 million acres of those species mixes. What’s going to happen under elevated CO2 in the next 100 years? Will these forests remain as they are?”
(sound of driving on gravel)
Driving to one of the experimental circles, we pull up to a ring of trees. Mark Kubiske is one of the two full-time on-site researchers.
“Now this particular ring is an elevated CO2 plot. CO2 is delivered through this copper pipe. It runs to that fan, there’s a large fan right on the end of that gray building.”
The scientists have found that trees in the CO2 circles grow 30 percent faster than trees without the gas.
“The trees are larger in diameter, they’re straight, they have lots of leaf area, they just look very healthy. That is just in tremendous contrast to the ozone ring. We’ll go up around the corner and look at one.”
Nearby another circle of trees is not doing nearly as well. The trees are skinny, twisted not as tall as the other sites. Higher ozone levels are hurting the trees.
At the sites where pipes emit both ozone and CO2, the tree growth seems normal – except for some stunted maple trees. The leaves of the aspen and birch take in much of the CO2, convert it to sugar which goes to its roots, eventually becoming a natural part of the soil. That suggests forests may help alleviate gases that cause global warming. The Project Director, David Karnosky says CO2 and ozone appear to cancel each other out. But he says it’s too early to draw any firm conclusions. Ultimately, he says governments will be able to look at this glimpse into the future and try to come up with emissions policies that help.
“The whole issue of the Kyoto protocol, our government not signing off on that. There’s been some relaxing of the feelings from what I’ve seen from the President’s report now that they’re beginning to realize that elevated CO2 is having an impact on global warming and could be impacting our plant communities.”
Karnosky says it’s possible that besides reducing emissions, governments might determine that planting more trees might be very helpful in reducing greenhouse gasses worldwide.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mike Simonson.
Many groups, including environmentalists and industry lobbyists, are scrutinizing the presidential candidates' opinions on environmental policy. (Photo courtesy of georgewbush.com)
The presidential candidates haven’t spent a lot of time talking about conservation or the environment. On the campaign trail, nature has taken a backseat to the economy and security. In the first of four reports on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham looks at the environmental record of President George W. Bush:
Transcript
The presidential candidates haven’t spent a lot of time talking about conservation or the
environment. On the campaign trail, nature has taken a backseat to the economy and security. In
the first of four reports on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham looks at the environmental record of President George W. Bush:
President Bush doesn’t often use the words “environment” or “environmental.” He prefers
“conservation.” It’s part of his philosophy. He believes we should manage resources and believes
the government has tipped the scales too far in favor of preservationists at the expense of business and agriculture. On his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush likes to exercise by cutting brush to manage nature. It’s could be a metaphor for how he sees the larger issue. It seemed that way when he talked about his approach to the environment during the second debate.
“I guess you’d say I’m a good steward of the land. The quality of the air’s cleaner since I’ve been the President. Fewer water complaints since I’ve been the President. More land being restored since I’ve been the President.”
While President Bush believes he’s striking the right balance between conserving natural
resources and not regulating business excessively, many environmentalists think the Bush
Administration’s approach to environmental issues is way out of whack.
Betsey Loyless is the Vice President of Policy for the League of Conservation Voters. The LCV
keeps track of votes and issues and grades politicians on their decisions.
“League of Conservation Voters gave George Bush an “F,” the first “F” we’ve ever given out in
modern history to a president because his policies of anti-environmentalism spread across the
board of dirty air, dirty water, degrading our public lands and jeopardizing our energy future by
focusing on 19th century energy policies that don’t meet our 21st century needs.”
President Bush largely ignores criticism from environmental groups. He sees them as extremists.
On the campaign trail, he frames the debate about the environment in terms of finding a better
balance between the protecting the environment and keeping jobs.
“If we want to keep jobs here in America and expand the job base, America must be the best place
in the world to do business. That means less regulations on our business owners.”
You would think that would make business and industry-types happy. But even there, the
President has his critics. The free-market supporters are disappointed in George Bush. They feel
he should have stuck to the ideas he had when he was running for president four years ago: Roll
back regulations that some businesses say cost a lot of money with little benefit to the
environment. The Property and Environment Research Center – self-described as the center for
free market environmentalism – gave the President a “C-minus” grade on his mid-term report card
because the free-market thinkers believe the Bush Administration compromised its original
proposals to please environmentalists and ended up pleasing no one.
Even some in President’s own party are unhappy with the Bush administration’s dealings with the
environment. The group, Republicans for Environmental Protection, backed by former Republican
EPA Administrators and other prominent Republicans say the President got it wrong. Jim DiPeso
is the group’s Policy Director. His group believes the Bush administration could have done more to
protect the environment.
“Well, our board took a look at the issue and decided that President Bush had not earned our
support based on his record over the last four years. So, because we have a policy of not
endorsing Democrats, the only alternative that we had in order to express our disappointment was
simply to withhold an endorsement for the presidential race this year.”
But the majority of Republicans say the President is making progress on environmental issues.
Lynn Scarlett is one of the architects of the Bush environmental policy. She is Assistant Secretary
of the Department of Interior’s Office of Policy Management and Budget.
“This administration has the highest dollars ever expended by any administration going towards
environmental protection whether it’s on the pollution side and pollution clean up or on the land
management and conservation side. We have a number of new programs the President initiated.
So, there is an awful lot that is occurring that is getting results on the ground.”
President Bush believes the government should be partners with private landowners and
industry… encouraging them to be more environmentally friendly instead of relying on regulations
to mandate less pollution and better stewardship of the land. Environmentalists say that leaves too much to chance and the potential cost to the planet is too dear.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Many environmental groups say that Edwards is doing a great job of supporting environmental issues, but some are arguing that his voting record says otherwise. (Photo by Dave Scull, courtesy of
johnkerry.com)
With concerns about the economy, the war on terror and the war in Iraq, politicians have not spent a lot of time on topics such as the environment. As part of a series of profiles on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that the candidate with the shortest record of public service is the candidate who talks the most about the environment on the campaign trail. Here’s a look at Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards:
Transcript
With concerns about the economy, the war on terror and the war in Iraq, politicians have not
spent a lot of time on topics such as the environment. As part of a series of profiles on the
presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports that the candidate with the shortest record of public service is the candidate who talks
the most about the environment on the campaign trail. Heres’a look at Democratic vice presidential
candidate John Edwards:
Senator Edwards thinks the Bush campaign is vulnerable on environmental issues. When asked about
his positions on the environment, he often begins by talking about the things he feels are at risk
under Bush administration.
“Over and over and over, whether it has to do with protecting our air, protecting our water,
whether we’re going to become energy independent in this country, protecting our natural
resources, making sure that we protect our lands, our national forests – all these issues
that are so important – making sure we don’t drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, all these
things are important because we have a responsibility to our children and our grandchildren
to leave this planet better than the way we found it. And that’s what we’ll do when John Kerry’s
our President.”
Although John Kerry has not spent a lot of time talking about the environment himself, Senator
Edwards knows that over 20 years in the U.S. Senate Kerry has a lifetime approval rating from the
League of Conservation Voters of 92 percent. The average Democrat has an approval rating of 70
percent… the average Republican an approval rating of 13 percent.”
Betsey Loyless is the League of Conservation Voters vice president of policy. She says
Edwards’ own record on the environment is not nearly as extensive.
“Senator Edwards has a short record on the environment because he’s been in the Senate only
one term, but his record has been, I think, has been quite good for a one-term senator. And,
he has been a leader on clean air issues. This administration, the Bush administration, had
pushed to weaken Clean Air Act standards as they apply to these old grandfathered power plants
that are the biggest of polluters. Senator Edwards led the charge to tell the Bush administration
to stop that policy on behalf of power plant operators and utilities.”
Senator Edwards did not get that job done. The Bush policy to allow power plants to make
improvements without updating pollution control equipment was put into place.
John Edwards talks about that losing battle while he’s on the campaign trail. He says he –
at least – wanted studies to see if the experts thought the changes in the regulations on the
old coal-fired power plants would affect human health.
“I mean, the laws had been there for 25 years. Can’t we take six months to figure out if you
change them what it’s going to do to people? And they refused to do it. Here’s why: they know
the answer. They know exactly. They were for it because the big energy companies are for it.
It’s just no more complicated than that. And so, that’s one example of the fight.”
Senator Edwards’ fight hasn’t been going on very long. Before his election to the U.S. Senate,
he held no legislative seat.
Jack Betts is an editorial writer and columnist for the Charlotte Observer. He’s followed
Edwards’ political career for the last few years. Betts says the environmental groups in
Edwards’ home state of North Carolina seem to approve of the senator’s positions.
“John Edwards in his Senate campaign six years ago was identified as the more likely
to be a strong advocate for the environment. And I think that helped him to election then.
And I don’t think he’s done anything to reverse those expectations about how he would stand
on the environment in the future.”
Senator Edwards’ critics say really it’s hard to say how he’d stand on any issue. They point to
his voting record for the last couple of years, noting that he was often absent. He’s missed
votes while on the road campaigning to be the Democrats’ presidential nominee… and now
campaigning as vice presidential candidate. But the environmental groups seem confident
that as vice president, John Edwards would fully support what they would expect to be a
pro-environment Kerry administration.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
A group called Scientists and Engineers for Change is touring battleground states, campaigning against the Bush Administration.
(Photo by Emanuel Lobeck)
A group of prominent American scientists, including 10 Nobel prize-winners, will bring a campaign against the Bush Administration to key battleground states in the region. The group says the President has misused and marginalized scientific research. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:
Transcript
A group of prominent American scientists, including 10 Nobel prize-winners,
will bring a campaign against the Bush Administration to key battleground states
in the Great Lakes. The group says the President has misused and marginalized
scientific research. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein reports:
The political advocacy group formed last week is called Scientists and Engineers for
Change. Stanford University professor Douglas Osheroff is a member. He won the Nobel
Prize for physics in 1996. He says the Bush Administration is compromising scientific integrity.
“Having scientists reporting to middle-level bureaucrats who simply don’t have the background
to assess what the scientists are saying and he, of course, has essentially put a gag order
on scientists that are paid by the government directly. They are really not free to say what
they want.”
Osheroff also says President Bush and Vice President Cheney’s ties to the oil industry have
led them to minimize evidence of climate change.
Members of the Scientists and Engineers for Change will speak in Battleground states
like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania this month.
The group has no direct ties to Senator John Kerry’s campaign. The Bush campaign hasn’t
responded to the group’s claims.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.
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.
President Bush's proposed budget for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers might reduce the number of dredging projects, which in turn would decrease the number of accessible waterways. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
