Michigan’s Environment and a New Administration

  • Governor-elect Rick Snyder says businesses are overburdened with regulation. What will this mean for environmental regulations in the state? (Photo from Snyder campaign website)

There wasn’t a lot of talk about environment during the race for governor, but Governor-elect Rick Snyder made it clear during the campaign that he thinks the state’s regulatory system is broken and said he wants fewer regulations on businesses. That has some people wondering whether that means there will also be fewer of the regulations that prevent pollution in the state.


A related article in the Lansing City Pulse

Transcript

James Clift is here with me to talk about this. He’s the policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council. So do we know what to expect from the new governor?

Clift: It’s a little bit of a clean slate here. In his victory speech he talked about protecting and promoting the Great Lakes. We think that’s a good thing. He talked about the importance of revitalizing our central cities, including the city of Detroit. We hope to work with him on that. I’m a little concerned about some of his comments regarding regulations but we’re willing to work with him to make sure that unnecessary regulations are limited but the ones that are designed to protect the Great Lakes and the environment, we need to keep those in place.


There’s not only a new Republican governor, but the Michigan legislature is dominated by Republicans. They now have a supermajority in the Senate and a majority in the House. There’s this impression that Democrats tend to vote more favorably on environmental issues… has that actually proven to be the case?


Clift: In general, you see some of the innovation and ideas over the years come from the Democratic side of the aisle, but we’ve seen kind of broad, bi-partisan support for protecting the Great Lakes and our natural resources. So in times when – and this isn’t the first time that Republicans have controlled both chambers and have had the governorship – we haven’t seen a steep erosion. But you know, you have to watch things like funding levels for the departments to make sure that the people who are out there watching over our environment are properly staffed and funded to do so.


Some groups have expressed concern that a Snyder Administration would weaken protections on so-called factory farms. Do you think that’s likely to happen?


Clift: Most of these facilities are under permit today. Where I fear is kind of on the monitoring side. You know, are we doing enough monitoring to make sure that when these manure sludges are applied to fields that they’re not running into our rivers and streams.


Mr. Snyder said during the campaign that he would fast track permits for coal burning power plants. What would that mean for Michigan?


Clift: That’s a situation where I think he really does need to look closely at where’s the innovation occurring, how much innovation are we seeing in the renewable and energy efficiency areas? We need to keep our transition to clean energy going, because I think that’s what’s putting Michigan’s manufacturing base back to work, not some short-term construction jobs for a coal plant that will end up obligating Michigan ratepayers to buy more coal from out-of-state sources for the next 40 years.


During the campaign Mr. Snyder did express support for bringing more clean energy jobs to Michigan. Do you expect he’ll follow through on that?


Clift: I think he will. I mean, I do think this is where a lot of the venture capital is going these days. You’ve got some people doing just amazing work across the state. We’re using our automotive know-how and putting it toward clean energy. So we’re producing parts for wind turbines at a cost below the Chinese. A lot of really exciting things going on in that area and a lot of jobs being created in that area and I think he has to do everything he can to foster those gains we’ve made.


All right, well, thank you so much for your time.


Clift: Thank you very much.


James Clift is the policy director for the Michigan Environmental Council. That’s the Environment Report. I’m Rebecca Williams.

Interview: ‘Sound Science’

  • Oliver Houck is a Professor of Law at Tulane University in New Orleans. (Photo by Paula Birch, Courtesy of Tulane University)

Every once in a while, we
hear politicians using a
term that everybody thinks
they understand, but people
define differently. Lester
Graham talked with an expert
about one such term heard
a lot these days:

Transcript

Every once in a while, we
hear politicians using a
term that everybody thinks
they understand, but people
define differently. Lester
Graham talked with an expert
about one such term heard
a lot these days:

Lester Graham: I got to thinking about that when I heard Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma call for “sound science” at a recent subcommittee hearing, and then moments later senator David Vitter repeated that call for “sound Science.”

Vitter: “I think the answer is exactly what senator Inhofe and others have been saying—“sound science” complete focus on, complete reliance, on sound science above all else.”

Graham: So sound science, I think most of us think that means well researched, unbiased, verifiable, science. Joining us now, is Oliver Houck, he is a professor of law at Tulane University. So professor, what’s that term—sound science—mean to members of congress?

Oliver Houck: It means whatever they want it to mean. The first thing you have to understand is sound science is not a scientific term at all. It has no scientific definition. It’s like saying sound congressman or sound senator. It’s in the eye of the beholder. In the legal world, everyone knows what sound science is—it’s the science that supports your client’s position, and bad science is the science that’s on the other side. So, in the real world, it’s a very cynical term, and it’s very cynically used. That isn’t to say there isn’t junk science, but in the political world, this is a political term. Frank Lutz, the republican strategist in the early 2000’s sent a very well-known memorandum out to all republican congressman and senators saying that the coming issue was climate change, and the world consensus that this was urgent and something had to be done was overwhelming and irresistible. The only loophole—the only point of attack would be to attack the science. And so they did, with great success.

Graham: Has this term ‘Sound Science’ always been attached to this political baggage?

Houck: Yes it has, but it’s come in different forms, and it’s not always been purely environmental. The term was actually invented by Phillip Morris, and the tobacco institute back in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s when the tobacco wars were going on and the industry was denying any addictive effects and any carcinogenic effects. And so Phillip Morris had the audacity in 1992 to set up something called the “advancement of sound science committee” and that was, of course, its lobby to pick apart scientists whose findings were otherwise. While of course Phillip Morris buried all findings of the same effects, and burying that ultimately lead to civil suits and brought it down—but only a peg. This has always been the blast back—if you can stop this thing at the beach by discrediting the science, you don’t have to deal with any regulatory or any other requirements. So-

Graham: So calling for sound science is a delay tactic.

Houck: oh, clearly so, clearly so. And they know it, and they know it.

Graham: Oliver Houck is a professor of environmental law at Tulane University in New Orleans, and author of the book Taking Back Eden: Eight Environmental Cases that Changed the World. Thanks very much.

Houck: My pleasure, thank you.

Related Links

The New South, With a Tinge of Green

  • Some are calling Alabama the future 'green hub of the South.' (Photo source: Wikimedia Commons)

When Forbes Magazine ranked states
by their “greenness” the usual
suspects topped the list – Vermont,
Oregon, and Washington – all progressive
states known for their environmental
movements. Maybe not surprisingly,
seven out of the ten “least green”
states were in the South – the land
of coal mines and timber plots.
But as Tanya Ott reports,
there’s a growing environmental
movement down south and some of
its members might surprise you:

Transcript

When Forbes Magazine ranked states
by their “greenness” the usual
suspects topped the list – Vermont,
Oregon, and Washington – all progressive
states known for their environmental
movements. Maybe not surprisingly,
seven out of the ten “least green”
states were in the South – the land
of coal mines and timber plots.
But as Tanya Ott reports,
there’s a growing environmental
movement down south and some of
its members might surprise you:

(sound of cars driving past)

I’m standing in a vacant lot in downtown Birmingham, Alabama. I see overgrown weeds and closed businesses, but James Smith sees something entirely different. He’s President of an international company called Green Building Focus. When he looks at this lot, he sees an uptapped market. He wants to build an eco-industrial park here.

“There are many companies out there in other parts of the country who want to have access to the southeastern market, they realize it’s one of the fastest growing markets in the country. And if you draw a 500 mile radius around Birmingham you hit every major developing area in the southeast. It’s really the ideal location geographically to become a regional manufacturing hub for sustainable products.”

Alabama, a green hub of the south? This is the land of mega-churches and Republicans, not environmentalists.

“The federal trend over the last 10 years, longer than that, no doubt has been if you’re a Republican you can’t be an environmentalist.”


That’s Gil Rogers. He’s an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. He says nationally Republicans get a bad rap for denying climate change and trying to roll back the endangered species list. But at the state and local level, things are often different in the south.

“We have a lot of republican champions, as an example, in the Georgia legislature that are Republicans in terms of wanting lower taxes and less government intrusion into a lot of aspects of life. But then will go and realize that there needs to be more done in the way of environmental protection of water resources or of air quality. That those have real public health impacts.”

Rogers says these leaders often have strong ties their own piece of nature – maybe a stretch of land or a river.

“I’m a tree hugging, liberal – I mean a tree hugging conservative, Republican! (laughs) which I know some people may say is an oxymoron. But (laughs)”


But Charlie Houser loves Magnolia River.


(sound of boat motor)

He fires up his pontoon boat to give me a tour. Houser grew up here in Magnolia Springs, Alabama. When he moved back to retire, he worried about what he saw.


“I didn’t see the sea grass. We lost blue crabs, we lost pike.”

He blames agricultural runoff full of chemicals. So, Mayor Houser and the mostly republican town council passed really tough land use rules. All new buildings have to set back 75 feet from the river. New subdivisions have to keep their run-off on site. And it’s working. The brown pelicans are back and the river is less cloudy. The state has named Magnolia River an Alabama Outstanding Waterway.

Gil Rogers, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, says there are still big environmental threats in the south. Coal mining, timber, and other industries. But he’s optimistic.

“People have started to recognize that there’re some real threats from population growth, poor development patterns. So I think there is a movement here going on and it’s unique to the south, I think, in a lot of ways.”

Certainly, it’s creating some interesting alliances – like environmentalists teaming up with hunters. Rogers says, at least in the south, he’s seeing more cooperation than ever.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tanya Ott.

Related Links

Senator Exposes Smoking Gun?

  • Senator John A. Barrasso from Wyoming (Photo courtesy of the United States Congress)

Conservative bloggers, radio talk show hosts, and even Republican leaders are making a big deal about a White House memo. Lester Graham reports the White House seems surprised by the furor:

Transcript

Conservative bloggers, radio talk show hosts, and even Republican leaders are making a big deal about a White House memo. Lester Graham reports the White House seems surprised by the furor:

During a hearing Republican Senator John Barrasso waved around a memo he said was proof the Obama administration was moving ahead with the regulation of global warming gases without having the science to back it up.

“It’s here, nine pages. This is a smoking gun, saying that your findings are political not scientifica (sic) — not scientific.”

The memo was part of a larger document from the White House Office of Management and Budget.

It’s routine to get opinions about potential regulations from different agencies.

We called the Office of Management and Budget repeatedly, asking which agency wrote the unsigned memo. No one would go on tape, but instead referred us to their blog – which basically said: this opinion is not a big deal; the EPA is operating under the law, and the science backs up any potential regulation of greenhouse gases.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

GOP Cap & Trade Numbers Wrong

  • Republicans in Congress incorrectly cited an MIT report on cap-and-trade, claiming it would raise consumer energy prices by $3,400. The report actually said $340. (Photo courtesy of GOP.gov)

House Republicans used an M.I.T. report to come up with cost estimates for the carbon cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports the author of that report has informed the Republicans their conclusions are almost ten times higher than the report indicated:

Transcript

House Republicans used an M.I.T. report to come up with cost estimates for the carbon cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports the author of that report has informed the Republicans their conclusions are almost ten times higher than the report indicated:

The House Republicans recently issued a press release that claimed the carbon cap-and-trade program would cost every American houseold more than $3,100 a year. They based it on that report. Problem is, the author of the report –an economist– says that’s just wrong. John Reilly says when a House Republican staffer called Reilly the economist made it clear the Republicans’ number was wrong by a factor of ten.

“To the extent they knowingly took wrong numbers, they’re really kind of just misinforming the debate and trying to scare people with numbers that really aren’t accurate. If they’re just confused, I’ve sent a letter now. In principle they could put out a press release that said that they had made an error and the right number is actually 340 not 3,100 or something.”

The discrepency was first noted by PolitiFact, a truth squad project at the St. Petersburg Times.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

GOP ENVIROS FOR McCAIN

  • John McCain is giving Republicans for Environmental Protection a candidate to endorse. (Photo by Vincent Duffy)

The conservation movement started with
Republican president Teddy Roosevelt. But these
days it’s the Democrats who have the environmental
vote. That conventional wisdom might not be as
accurate this year. As Vincent Duffy reports,
Republican presidential candidate John McCain is
sounding like an environmentalist:

Transcript

The conservation movement started with Republican president Teddy
Roosevelt. But these days it’s the Democrats who have the environmental
vote. That conventional wisdom might not be as accurate this year. As
Vincent Duffy reports, Republican presidential candidate John McCain is
sounding like an environmentalist:


The last time we had a presidential election, George Bush was the
Republican candidate. That was a problem for Jim DiPeso. He’s the policy
director for a group called Republicans for Environmental Protection. Given
Bush’s track record on the environment, DiPeso and his group could not endorse
him. And with a name like Republicans for Environmental Protection, there was
no way they were going to endorse a Democrat.


This election, DiPeso says his job is easier. His group is endorsing John
McCain:


“He clearly is the one with the best environmental record. He is the one who has done the most serious thinking
about the issue. He has offered serious proposals and we think that with John
McCain as President, our country’s environment would be in very good
hands.”


John McCain: “Now, my dear friends, I believe that climate change is real…”


That’s John McCain on the campaign trail. He was talking to voters in
Michigan where cars are still a big part of the economy. Cars that emit
greenhouse gasses. Cars that are blamed for global warming:


“And I’ll be glad to argue that with you, and discuss it, and debate it more.
But let’s suppose that I am wrong, so we mover forward with these green
technologies and all we’ve done is given our young people a cleaner planet.
But suppose we are right and do nothing, then what kind of a planet are we
going to hand these young people?”


Tailoring his speech a bit for a Michigan audience, McCain said there’s still
a future for the auto industry. But he says that future needs to use the green
technology on display at this year’s auto shows:


“You’ll see that there are hybrid cars. You’ll see that there are battery driven
cars. You’ll see that we can develop ethanol-driven automobiles. It can begin
here in Michigan and it can begin with green technologies.”


And McCain isn’t getting endorsements from environmental groups just
because he mentions global warming and green technologies on the
campaign trail. Allan Lichtman is a history professor at American University
and writes books on American politics. He says McCain’s legislative record
backs up his speeches about the environment:


“John McCain, at least since 2000, has been one of the strongest advocates
of action on global warming and action on the environment. Indeed, a few
years ago he teamed up with Senator Joe Lieberman, then a democrat, for a
bipartisan proposal, a modest proposal, on global warming that didn’t pass,
but certainly put John McCain at the forefront.”


Republicans for Environmental Protection want to point out that while
McCain might share the Democrats’ concern for the environment, his
solutions are Republican solutions. For instance, here’s an example of what
McCain calls green technology:


“And by the way one of them is nuclear power. Uh, I believe we have to go
back to nuclear power and my friends, it’s safe. We’ve sailed navy ships
(interrupted by applause). We have sailed navy ships around the world for
sixty years with nuclear power plants on them and we’ve never had an
accident.”


McCain says nuclear power is better for the environment because it doesn’t
produce the greenhouse gasses believed to cause global warming. Professor
Lichtman says the issue of nuclear power is still a major disagreement
between the parties:


“Uh, Republican environmentalists pretty much strongly come down on the
side of nuclear power which obviously helps cement their alliance with at
least an important industry. While those on the Democratic side and
traditional organizations tend to be much more leery of nuclear power and
favor putting emphasis on things like solar energy, geothermal energy,
biomass energy and wind energy.”


Nuclear power is not the only issue where McCain and many environmental
activists disagree. McCain says he would repeal President Clinton’s ban on
building roads in national forest preserves. He also opposes a carbon tax on
polluters. But for Jim DiPeso and his colleagues at Republicans For
Environmental Protection, McCain does solve a problem. It gives them
someone they can endorse.


For the Environment Report, I’m Vincent Duffy.

Related Links

Energy Bill by the Numbers

  • George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. (White House photo by Chris Greenberg)

The energy bill signed by President Bush has a little bit of something to make almost
everyone happy. Lester Graham reports on some of the highlights:

Transcript

The energy bill signed by President Bush has a little bit of something to make almost
everyone happy. Lester Graham reports on some of the highlights:


The Energy Independence and Security Act is massive, but it can be boiled down to
just a few numbers. First, 35 miles per gallon by 2020… That’s when automakers
have to increase the fleet average by ten miles per gallon.


Second, 36 billion gallons by 2022. That’s when ethanol producers have to increase
production by a factor of five. And two-thirds has to come from sources other than
corn.


And these numbers – 100 watts, 60 watts – those kinds of incandescent lightbulbs
are to be phased out, replaced by more energy efficient lighting.


Most environmental groups can find something to like in the bill. Farmers like it for
the ethanol mandates. And big oil companies like the Act for what’s not in it:
billions of dollars of proposed taxes blocked by Republicans in the Senate.


For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Presidential Profile: George W. Bush

  • 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.

Related Links

President’s Address Neglects Environment

President George W. Bush’s recent State of the Union address was noted for not saying much about the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

President George W. Bush’s recent State of the Union address was noted for not saying much
about the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


After President Bush’s speech, environmental groups and others noticed the President barely
made a reference to the environment. Wayne Fields is a professor at Washington University who
studies State of the Union speeches. He says that’s not typical.


“Well, especially in the last 30 years, issues of air quality, water quality have been very high in
the State of the Union agendas for both parties.


Fields says since the State of the Union speech highlights a president’s accomplishments and
plans, no mention of the environment says a lot about President Bush’s priorities.


“The fact that it wasn’t there suggests that it’s not an issue that he thinks is terribly important to
his constituency nor terribly important to his reelection since this is an election year speech.”


The Democrats’ response to the President’s State of the Union address also failed to mention the
environment.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Power Shift for Great Lakes Governorships

The recent elections mean that there’s a power shift in the region. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that a group made up of Great Lakes states governors will change dramatically:

Transcript

The recent elections mean that there’s a power shift in the region. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that a group made up of Great Lakes states
governors will change dramatically:


Of the eight Great Lakes states, five of them have elected new governors. And most of
the new governors are from a different party than their predecessor.


“Actually, this is the largest turnover in one election cycle that the Council’s had in its
twenty-year history. ”


That’s Maggie Grant with the Council of Great Lakes Governors. The council deals with
issues surrounding the Great Lakes and trade in the region.


“We don’t see major policy shift, although, we look forward to the new energy and ideas
of our governors that they bring to the table.”


Coming to the table are a lot more Democrats. Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania all elected Democrats to replace their Republican governors. Grant says
party affiliation isn’t that important to the group – fighting for the Great Lakes region is.


For the Great Lakes Consortium, this is Lester Graham.