How Has The Bush EPA Failed? Let Me Count The Ways

This was Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) opening statement Sept. 24 during a hearing on President Bush's environmental legacy. The Administration did not send representatives to the hearing. A link to the testimony and the hearing webcast:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=724c7b97-802a-23ad-464e-0e960de2af74

The purpose of this hearing is to examine the Bush Administration’s record on important public health and environmental matters. Unfortunately, instead of reviewing accomplishments—we look back on years filled with environmental rollbacks that serve special interests, and do not serve the American people.


Today, this Committee will shine a light on the Bush Administration’s efforts to undermine EPA and the Department of the Interior’s mission to protect public health and the environment.

A clear picture of the Bush Administration’s environmental record can provide a roadmap for the next Administration and Congress which will be useful in the effort to reverse these dangerous decisions.

Time and again, the White House has interfered in EPA decisions that should be based on science and the law. Time and again, EPA has ignored the law and the advice of its own scientific experts.
Let’s take a look at a few examples of this disturbing record:

1. In one of its first official acts, the Bush EPA announced that it was suspending the newly strengthened standard for arsenic in tap water. After a public outcry and legislation blocking it, EPA finally retreated.

2. EPA proposed to do what it called the “CHEERS study” jointly with the chemical industry, in which low-income families were offered gifts and other incentives if they agreed to enroll their newborn children in pesticides studies in their homes over a two year period. After a great outcry, EPA cancelled the study. EPA recently tried to revive a study much like CHEERS, but retreated after our Committee’s staff asked detailed ethical questions about it, which EPA could not answer.

3. EPA set a weaker clean air standard for toxic soot than its independent scientific advisors, children’s health advisors, and its own scientists recommended. Soot kills thousands of Americans every year, especially children and the elderly.

4. EPA also rejected the advice of its own scientists, scientific advisors and children’s health experts, and set a weaker health standard for smog than the scientists recommended. Smog poses a serious health risk to millions of people, killing thousands of people every year.

5. EPA set a weaker standard for lead pollution in air, and for lead paint cleanup, than its independent scientific advisors recommended. As we all know, lead is highly toxic to children and can reduce IQ, cause learning and behaviour problems, and damage children’s developing brains.

6. The courts, including Bush-appointed judges, have repeatedly struck down EPA rules that weakened public health protections. Judges have used strong language to express their frustration with EPA’s failure to comply with the law, saying for example “only in a Humpty Dumpty world” would EPA’s explanations make sense, or that EPA “employs the logic of the Queen of Hearts” in Lewis Carroll’s classic Alice in Wonderland, in two EPA clean air cases.

7. According to a recent GAO report prepared at my request, EPA political officials worked with the White House and the Pentagon to undermine the process for evaluating toxic chemical risks. The Bush Administration’s system puts polluting agencies like DOD in the driver’s seat, with an ability to secretly stop or weaken EPA actions to control toxic chemicals like perchlorate, TCE, and other pollutants.

8. EPA has severely weakened its Office of Children’s Health Protection and largely ignored its Children’s Health Advisory Committee, as we learned from GAO just last week.
EPA’s record on global warming could hardly be worse.

9. Despite the President’s campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, the White House reversed course and rejected actions to control global warming pollution.

10. It literally took an order from the U.S. Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA to force EPA to begin to address the problem. Even then, the White House blocked EPA from issuing its proposed “endangerment finding” under the Clean Air Act, which would have given the green light to action on global warming.

11. The Bush Administration denied the California waiver, which would have allowed California and other states to set limits on global warming emissions from vehicles. EPA management, after meetings at the White House, reversed the agency’s plans and ignored unanimous career staff recommendations for the first time in 40 years under the Clean Air Act.

12. EPA has slowed down its Superfund program to practically a crawl. Over the last seven years, the pace of Superfund cleanups has dropped by about 50% compared to the last seven years of the prior administration, from about 80 cleanups per year to 40 or less.

13. We just learned that EPA has decided that it will not set a health standard for the toxic rocket fuel perchlorate in our drinking water, even though EPA data show that up to 16.6 million people are exposed to unsafe levels. Perchlorate is especially risky for infants and children, because it interferes with their thyroid, which controls normal development.

14. On occasion, EPA has taken a positive step, including the issuance of cleanup orders to the Department of Defense, though more work is needed to ensure DOD follows through. Unfortunately, the Bush record of rollbacks overshadows these efforts.

15. The Department of Interior record is causing concern as well. The Bush administration has also proposed to dramatically weaken the rules under the Endangered Species Act — another 11th hour attempt to undermine environmental protections in a manner that is not authorized by law.

The Endangered Species Act is one of America’s most successful environmental laws. Indeed, just last year, the Fish and Wildlife Service removed the Bald Eagle—the very symbol of our country—from the Endangered Species List.

The Bush Administration has proposed to rewrite the rules so that the most expert agencies in protecting endangered species, the Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, can be largely cut out of the process when agencies that want to build roads or big projects and must make a decision about whether their actions “may affect” a listed species. These two agencies are America’s primary wildlife agencies and have extensive expertise in assessing, protecting, and recovering threatened and endangered species.

- Sen. Barbara BoxerRemarks delivered to the U.S. Senate, Sept. 24, 2008

In Memoriam: Phil Clapp

Those how know me well know that at heart I am a hero worshiper. Today I lost one of my heros, and the environmental movement lost a true friend.

Philip Clapp, a lifelong champion for environmental causes and an early, eloquent voice on global climate change, died early this morning. He was 54. We will miss his vision, insight, and heart.

In 1994, Phil was tapped by Josh Reichert, environmental director of Pew Charitable Trusts, to start "Environmental Strategies," which would "assist environmental organizations to conduct public education campaigns on priority national environmental issues."

Environmental Strategies became the National Environmental Trust, and Phil helmed the group for over 14 years as it grew into one of the nation's most influential green groups. (Last year NET merged with the Pew Charitable Trusts to form the Pew Environment Group, with Phil as deputy managing director).

Phil was not only as a committed environmentalist, but also a savvy political operative. Many consider him the environmental movement's best strategist. In statements issued today by friends and foes, Phil's praises are being sung. Fred Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund, noted not only Clapp's "considerable political and strategic skills," but also "the intelligence and style" he brought to the environmental effort. Indeed, even his political enemies came to respect him. Said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), "while we were often on opposing sides of the political arena I always appreciated his commitment to public policy and passion for the environment."

I sat in several meetings on climate change and other issues over the years where Phil was present. I did not know him, but I knew his work and his reputation. One of the things I liked most about him was his sense of humor and irreverent nature. I appreciated it greatly, particularly during interminable treaty talks in gray humorless halls in places like The Hague and Bonn and Montreal. He was as witty as he was fierce.

He will be missed.

"Ambitious Incrementalism"? Please, we need "Courageous Reform"

Reform of the way the UN handles environmental issues is badly needed, argues Joy Hyvarinen. However, she says, governments may be getting mired in a fruitless dispute that will leave the basic flaws untouched.

The EU and the US are at loggerheads again in the international environmental arena.
After years of disagreement about climate change, the issue now is whether the UN's environment program (UNEP;http://www.unep.org/) should become a fully-fledged organization, with more power, money and autonomy.

The international organizations that look after the global environment need reform, but arguing about the institutional format for the UN's main environmental body is not necessarily going to help resolve the problems. The first thing to understand is that the UNEP is not the only UN body that concerns itself with the environment - far from it. Scores of UN organisations, agreements and programs tackle environmental issues.

Looking at the state of the world environment, business as usual is not an option
For example, a tropical forest country that wants to have a say in international decisions about forests should be attending meetings of the Rome-based UN Food and Agriculture Organization, the UN forest forum in New York, the Montreal-based global agreement to protect natural diversity, and the annual climate change meetings, to name a few.

A major problem with international environmental decision-making is that the various UN bodies are not joined up. Priorities are unclear and there is much overlap and duplication of work. Another problem has been an explosion of new multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), put in place to deal with the increasing problems that require international cooperation.
There are currently more than 500 of them.

International treaty meetings are very complex. For example, the main UN treaty to protect species and ecosystems can require specialist knowledge of issues ranging from shrimp farming and desertification to intellectual property rights and the legal regime for marine life on the deep sea bed, at a single meeting. Government representatives spend an enormous amount of time at international conferences about issues such as climate change, biodiversity, desertification and wildlife. A huge number of decisions and recommendations emerge from these meetings; but few will ever be read by those who are supposed to put them in practice on the ground.

Developing countries in particular are struggling with implementation, lack of financial assistance from the international community and the many reporting obligations under various MEAs.
Implementation raises an important question about international diplomatic decision-making and in-country realities.

Nothing will change without greater political will and unless rich countries provide more funding to tackle international environmental issues.

The discussions about strengthening international environmental organisations and agreements are taking place at UN headquarters in New York. It is hard to see how lessons from the ground on what actually works - and what doesn't - can find their way into these discussions.
Now, a new debate threatens to distract attention from the real needs for reform.
The EU wants a UN Environmental Organisation (UNEO), which would mean turning the UNEP into a freestanding agency, with its own budget. The EU's proposal is backed by a group of about 50 countries called "Friends of a UN Environmental Organisation". The US opposes the proposal.
Would a UNEO be more effective than UNEP in stemming the rising tide of environmental destruction? Maybe; but no institutional format will ensure good environmental decision-making, unless the political will is there.

The UNEO would not depend on voluntary funding, as UNEP does, which could make a difference; but the EU has not yet presented detailed proposals, making it difficult to assess what the added value of an UNEO would be. However, it is essential to tackle the problems in the international decision-making architecture for environment. The system of organizations and agreements that we have now is not effective enough to deal with the world's escalating environmental problems.

There is a need to move beyond the stalemate about whether UNEP should become a UNEO, with imaginative proposals that make the best of the existing structure and fill institutional gaps where needed.

Following the UN's 60th anniversary in 2005, the UN ambassadors from Mexico and Switzerland have been leading discussions with other government representatives in New York about how to strengthen international environmental organisations and agreements.
Last year the ambassadors presented a set of "building blocks" for further discussion.
The building blocks are issues which governments agree need to be tackled to make international decision-making work better: strengthened scientific assessments, better monitoring and early warning capacity, closer co-ordination and co-operation among UN agencies, and financial assistance to developing countries.

Progress has been slow. One issue to be decided now is whether the discussions could move into negotiations, ie actually making decisions about what should be done to improve international organisations and institutions.

Even if the discussions become negotiations, the Swiss and Mexican ambassadors have noted that the time is not right for decisions about major changes, because states have such different views. The task of the ambassadors is not one to be envied.

Looking at the state of the world's environment, business as usual is not an option. It is time for decisive action to improve international organisations and decision-making.
The world needs UN organizations that are set up so that they can deal effectively with our current problems, monitor the state of the world environment and respond to new threats, and take the lead in ensuring that countries do their bit.

Last year the UN ambassadors identified "ambitious incrementalism" as a guiding principle for the discussions in New York. This diplomatic-speak is intended to reflect lofty long-term aims, based on a step-by-step approach, while taking into account that governments do not agree on what the long-term aims should be. This year, the ambassadors stated that "as for ambitious incrementalism, they now hope to move with speedy circumspection".

Nice turns of phrase, but they risk describing plain old business as usual. Perhaps what is needed now is something like "courageous reform". The bottom line is that nothing will change without greater political will and unless rich countries provide more funding to tackle international environmental issues. Without that, restructuring the international environmental decision-making architecture will simply be a diversion.

Eat Beef, Kill The Planet

If you want to help fight global warming, be a vegetarian one day a week. People should have one meat-free day a week if they want to make a personal and effective sacrifice that would help tackle climate change, this according to the world's leading authority on global warming.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which last year earned a joint share of the Nobel Peace Prize, said that people should then go on to reduce their meat consumption even further. Pachauri, who was re-elected the panel's chairman for a second six-year term last week, said diet change was important because of the huge greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental problems - including habitat destruction - associated with rearing cattle and other animals. It was relatively easy to change eating habits compared to changing means of transport, he said.

Here is a fact I found surprising: the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide. The agency has also warned that meat consumption is set to double by the middle of the century.

'In terms of immediacy of action and the feasibility of bringing about reductions in a short period of time, it clearly is the most attractive opportunity,' said Pachauri. 'Give up meat for one day [a week] initially, and decrease it from there,' said the Indian economist, who is a vegetarian.
However, he also stressed other changes in lifestyle would help to combat climate change. 'That's what I want to emphasise: we really have to bring about reductions in every sector of the economy.'

A Refresher Course on Recycling

Most of us toss cans in the recycling bin and never give them a second thought. But they’re big business to the country’s thriving recycling industry: 56,000 operations (according to the most recent study by the National Recycling Coalition), which collectively make $236 billion a year and employ 1.1 million people. That’s more than the trash-disposal industry brings in. So how does it all break down? Here is a primer.

Plastic

Most plastics are recyclable, but not all plastics are recyclable everywhere. Almost all recycling programs accept plastics numbered 1 and 2. (Look for the number on the underside of a product, inside the ubiquitous triangle of chasing arrows.) But the numbers are not regulated federally; 39 states have various rules, so what you see can be inconsistent. Here, a cheat sheet.

No. 1: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET, PETE), the most widely recycled plastic, is used for soft-drink bottles and is also commonly found in textiles, which explains why a bottle can be turned into fleece.

No. 2: High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is used for detergent bottles and grocery bags.

No. 3: Polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl) is what salad-bar containers are made from.

No. 4: Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) is used for dry-cleaning and fresh-produce bags.

No. 5: Polypropylene (PP) iswhat makes bottle caps, yogurt cups, and drinking straws.

No. 6: Polystyrene (PS) is also known as Styrofoam.

No. 7: These “other” plastics, such as polycarbonate baby bottles, are generally not recyclable at most centers.

Paper

Putting the wrong type paper in the wrong bin can make a difference. Recycling facilities work to keep similar papers together so they can get the most money for their products. (For example, office paper, which has long fibers, is worth a lot more than the “mixed paper” of cereal boxes, which has shorter fibers.) Another factor is food contamination. Plastic, glass, and metal containers are cleaned to remove food, but paper is not. Food particles can contaminate an entire batch, as the food (along with the paper) begins to biodegrade if it is left to sit. When paper is recycled, it is pureed into a pulp “smoothie” and passes through screens that take out anything that’s not paper: chunks of wood, plastic, or glass; paper clips; staples. It’s then treated with chemicals to remove inks, which means recycled office paper can still be white.

Metal

Recycling metal saves an enormous amount of energy and money. All steel products, for example, contain at least 25 percent steel scrap, which requires 75 percent less energy to produce than “virgin” steel and explains why scrap metal has become a valuable commodity. Recycling just one aluminum can saves enough energy to run your TV for 2 1⁄2 hours. Metal is separated into two piles — ferrous (containing iron) and nonferrous. The device that figures this out? An industrial-size magnet that attracts ferrous metals, like steel, but not aluminum, which is nonferrous.

Glass

Recyclable glass almost always refers to “container” glass — that is, bottles and jars. Other types, like windshields and Pyrex, have different melting points and are not accepted by most recyclers.