Our World and Everything in It

The Great Lakes are getting attention again with the Great Lakes Compact and the latest addition of $54 million per year for two years to the Great Lakes Legacy Act. There are 42 Areas of Concern that are toxic hotspots relative to the Great Lakes Legacy Act, and another 93 that are on the Superfund list as a national priority. That’s a lot of toxic spots.

I thought it would be interesting to find the 42 hotspots and found a Google map of at least 31 of them. I clicked on quite a few for more information.  There is an awful lot of work to be done. I don’t think the $54 million will make a dent and well, it’s going to take quite a long time. I know when they were cleaning up the Black Lagoon in the Trenton Channel it took most of the summer. Then there is the problem of where to dump the toxic stuff. Of course the Black Lagoon stuff ended up near my house. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/?p=21.

I wasn’t too happy about it.

Check out the Google Map of hotspots: http://www.healthylakes.org/areas_of_concern/2008/06/24/unearthing-the-great-lakes-areas-of-concern.

According to an article on ENS, “The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing today to review the Bush administration’s record on public health and environmental matters, but it was conducted in the absence of Ranking Member Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, a Republican and former chair of the committee.”

It figures. Remember Inhofe, the senator waiving his own list of scientists that don’t agree with global warming, many of which belong to the “The Friends of Science Society,” a Canadian group I’ve blogged about before that seem to have ulterior motives:

So Inhofe boycotted this meeting, urged two witnesses not to appear, and the rest of the Republicans on the committee didn’t show either. It’s only a matter of time hopefully that we find out just how much environmental damage the Bush administration did. It affects our health and the future of our children. This is why I cannot understand people’s grasping at straws to avoid admitting and dealing with a rapidly growing global warming problem.

According to the article, the GAO or Govt. Accountability Office has already uncovered the following:

·         EPA political officials worked with the White House and the Pentagon to undermine the process for evaluating toxic chemical risks.

·         EPA has severely weakened its Office of Children’s Health Protection and largely ignored its Children’s Health Advisory Committee.

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

·         In one of its first official acts, the Bush EPA announced that it was suspending the newly strengthened standard for arsenic in tap water.

·         The EPA story is the same for soot, smog, and lead standards - all weaker than its own scientists recommended.

·         Over the last seven years, the pace of Superfund cleanups has dropped by about 50 percent compared to the last seven years of the prior administration, from about 80 cleanups per year to 40 or less.

·         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.

I don’t know about anyone else, but with or without Inhofe and the Republicans presence on the latest committee, there is enough evidence above to show that more than likely we’ve been lied to about plenty relative to the environment. And the animals that have taken a hit because of Bush’s tampering with the Endangered Species List goes beyond polar bears.

I still have a qualm that when the Bush administration is over we’re going to hear these words regarding the state of our world and everything it it, “It’s much, much worse than we thought.”

Read the article: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2008/2008-09-24-02.asp.

The lawsuit is the latest attack on the EPA for not regulating emissions again. This time it’s emissions from oil refineries. The New York Times article stated that 15% of all CO2 emissions comes from oil refineries. The other states are

New York atty. Andrew Cuomo leads the current fight, claiming it’s another example of the Bush Administration’s “do-nothing policy” regarding global warming.

Last year the Supreme Court ruled that it was the duty of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas under the Clean Air Act. The NY Times article said, “Since then, the agency’s director has said it is the job of Congress to regulate them.” Don’t you love it?

The EPA is like Teflon. Nothing sticks. They’ve been sued to set standards for power plant emissions and recently by California to regulate emissions from autos.

As far as the EPA turning out any standards for any of the above, so far nada.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/us/26epa.html?_r=1&ref=environment&oref=slogin

The sun is getting brighter and hotter. We’ll feel it again on Friday when the temperature is supposed to hit 89. To stand with bare skin in the sun really burns hot regardless of a breeze. So we’re told to wear sunscreen, lots of sunscreen, and try to stay out of it.   

I do use it, but wondered why my face felt like I have gravel under my skin whenever I applied sunscreen, especially the really good stuff. And I get darker and darker anyway. I’ve got a pretty good tan considering I wear 45 SPF, a big hat, and long sleeve men’s shirts for yard work. I’ve been telling my doctor for years that I do apply sunscreen, lots of it, but I tan anyway. Now I read this article that the FDA was warned to provide more information about sunscreen.

 According to the article on World Wire:

Sunscreens pose scientifically well-documented risks. While well known for over a decade, they remain unregulated by the FDA, and ignored by the industry.

Sunscreens are based on six ingredients, some of which actively penetrate the skin, accumulate in the body, and have been identified in urine and breast milk. More ominously, these ingredients have toxic hormonal effects, known technically as “endocrine disruptive.” Evidence for these effects has been well documented over the last decade. This includes stimulation of human breast cancer cells in test tube experiments, and increased uterine growth in immature female rats following skin painting or feeding.

Of major concern, and still ignored by the FDA, is the increasing addition to sunscreens of unlabeled atom or molecule size zinc oxide or titanium dioxide particles. Technically known as nanoparticles, they increase the durability and effectiveness of these products. However, as reported in over two dozen scientific publications since 2003, including those by an Environmental Protection Agency research team and the International Center for Technology Assessment, nanoparticles can penetrate the skin, invade blood vessels, and produce devastating distant toxic effects.

I think I’ll stick to just the big and big shirt until this mess gets straightened out.

Read more: http://world-wire.com/news/0808070001.html

First I read one of those quick moving news feeds that the EPA warned it’s enforcement officers not to speak to Congress. That little bit of info just peaked my curiosity–speak up about what?

Now four senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee are urging Steven Johnson, the third EPA administrator under Bush, to resign as it appears he lied to a Senate committee.

Johnson claims he acted alone when he decided California should not regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles, but he was originally going to issue a partial waiver to CA. Someone changed his mind. The preceding EPA administrators left just as questionably and quickly as Johnson.

Christine Todd Whitman, 2001-2003, resigned just before reports of the clean up of 9/11 came out and according to SourceWatch,  “Eric Shaeffer, the EPA’s head of regulatory enforcement under Whitman, resigned under protest. He told Flanders that Whitman is ‘a Republican first and an environmentalist way down the list.’”

Michael Leavitt was Bush’s second appointee as EPA Administrator. Twelve states and several NE cities sued the EPA to block the new Clean Air rules during his leadership. The states argued the rules would weaken both environmental and health protection for citizens. Nice real nice. Scientist’s discontent with censorship was surfacing along with altered reports about global warming too. Leavitt left the EPA to head up Health and Human Services. That’s when a memo from Leavitt’s new department suggested its employees should buy hybrid. It suggested the whole federal fleet should go hybrid. This suggestion was via e-mail to 67,000 employees! So was Leavitt environmentally minded or not, altering reports of global warming on the one hand, then telling employees to buy foreign hybrids on the other?

And now Stephen Johnson appears to have succumbed to political pressure from the White House too. Who will be the replacement this time, someone from oil, someone from the NRA and/or hunting industry, or lumber, or coal…? I mean we had Steven Griles as Deputy Secretary of the Interior that oversees the EPA, and USFWS among other things, that resigned and went to work for Conoco Phillips oil as a lobbyist. The Deputy Chief of Staff to the Dept. of Interior, Sue Ellen Wooldridge, denied living with Griles when she still worked for the EPA. And then there was Philip Cooney, former head of the White House Council for Environmental Quality. Cooney was caught editing important data from scientific reports for quite awhile as well as pressuring the EPA to go along, so much so, that in 2002 the EPA removed an entire section on global warming from its annual report about air pollution. Cooney came to his position at the council as a lawyer and former lobbyist  for the American Petroleum Institute.  He left to work for Exxon Mobil. Right now a former lobbyist for an Intl. Hunt Club heads the USFWS. Ethics abound in the Bush administration.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902020.html 

I read in the Union of Concerned Scientists newsletter, Volume 10, Number 3, Summer 2008, that the U.S. Senate approved bipartisan legislation in March to improve the effectiveness of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Good idea after last summer’s tainted spinach, tainted lettuce, beef recalls, and toxic toys went unchecked.

It seems there has been political interference in the work of CPSC employees like statisticians, psychologists, chemists, and engineers. The legislation is meant to keep science independent of political tactics to ensure consumers remain safe. There are whistle blower protections built in to the legislation that extends to other employees of companies regulated by the CPSC. The agency must also accept anonymous complaints via the Internet.

The Union of Concerned Scientists worked with doctor’s and consumer groups to put this Senate Bill together and encouraged scientists to speak up if they have had political interference in the past.

There is a House Bill that addresses the same problems but lacks the whistle blower protections. The idea now is to combine the bills to become the strongest legislation possible.

I’m certainly glad this is happening, but does it occur to anyone that we are now in the habit of writing legislation to keep the Bush administration’s mitts out of most things scientific, that we’ve had to use the supreme court and federal court judges to get the EPA to act on our behalf relative to the environment, and to get the Dept. of the Interior to move on putting polar bears on the endangered list?

If the agencies that are in existence to keep the public, environment, wildlife and habitat, food, and imports safe are being kept from doing their respective jobs by interference from politicians, then instead of doing this round about and creating new legislation, on top of legislation that already exists, wouldn’t it just be easier to get rid of the politicians affecting the problems? Remember to vote for a heck of a lot more than president this November, like voting out of office those that interfere with our safety, the earth’s safety, and wildlife looking to survive in a safe haven. 

My 85-year-old mother asked me why there aren’t as many stars at night? I told her; to begin with, it has to be a clear night to see a bunch of stars. She said it seems when she was young there were a lot of starry nights. She’s intently watching the skies over Monroe to see if we have any clear nights, and how many stars are visible.

She thinks there aren’t as many clear nights because of pollution. My mother also remarked that some of her friend’s children were down from northern Michigan for a visit and it was quite noticeable to them that our skies are different, not as clear, even in the daytime.

I’m still wondering when the EPA is going to release reports about all types of things in our air, water, and land mass. It’s the same old stall or obstruction used by the Bush Administration against the environment for 8 years. I witnessed the put-off again on the news today when President Bush, during his talks in Britain with Gerald Brown, said that the U.S. would embrace environmentalism when China and India agree to the same pact or “whatever the U.S. does just won’t be affective.”

What a crock. First of all the U.S. only has 300 million citizens compared to both China and India with over one billion citizens each, yet the U.S. holds its own creating one quarter of earth’s total pollution. I think we could make quite a big dent in cleaning up the environment without China and India along for the ride. Has this administration ever heard the term, leading by example? Besides India is making huge strides by using their pollution for methane production to fuel their cooking and lighting needs. Bio Tech India has both a portable and permanent models of residential bio mass digesters. Just feed the digester food scraps and it produces methane gas to burn. Bio Tech India is also working on incorporating human waste into the works. India is already using the cow dung from its sacred cows for methane and energy production. Just think of all the fuel we could get from doggy parks, and litter boxes.

So it’s the same old song and dance from Bush. I really didn’t expect much more from his regime, but then I read an article on ENS website that congress is wondering about the big stall on reports about clean air, water, and land too, and what it’s costing us health wise.  It seems Congress “questioned the health effects of a new White House policy that delays the completion and release of chemical assessments into a public database maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

There it is, the purposeful stall from the Bush regime that delays the release of assessments that inevitably affect our health in a bad way, but no doubt help some big polluter down the line. I’m starting to feel like a Polar Bear more and more all the time.

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2008/2008-06-12-093.asp

If you’ve never heard of or viewed the panorama of Utah’s Red Rock Canyon area, do it. It is absolutely beautiful. I saw a travel channel segment on Zion National Park and want to visit there. It looks like a place of God. Our national parks are a real treasure, but the Bush administration doesn’t have much time left, and is trying for land grabs right out of OUR national parks to drill for oil.

If Bush has his way, oil drills will destroy eleven million acres of national park in Utah’s Red Rock Canyon. I’m hearing about these attempted land grabs happening all over the place. What I want to know is what is the sense? We know we’re short of refineries in the U.S. It’s a well known fact every time the U.S. has an oil crisis, large or small, that right away we want to invade new areas and drill for more oil. But it’s of no use unless it’s refined, and we don’t have enough refineries.

And it’s not likely we’ll be seeing brand new refineries in the future because of global warming. And yes even the Bush/Cheney administration admitted quite a while ago in 2002 that humans do indeed cause global warming. The U.S. EPA submitted a 268-page report to the UN back then admitting to and agreeing with scientists that oil refining, fossil fuel power plants, and car emissions are significant causes of global warming.

It’s 2008. What aren’t they getting? I know what the Bush administration is getting–more neglectful of our rights when they simply try to take over public lands for nothing more than filling the pockets of the rich from oil production. Trashing these beautiful areas of our country will not sit well with a court system that has been standing for the environment in a number of cases so far.

According to an Earthjustice report, just recently another federal court judge ruled that: “After years of court battles, Kane County must halt its illegal efforts to create roadways through Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and other wilderness areas,” which is in another area of Utah’s Red Rock Canyon. A U.S. District Judge “ordered the county to take down its signs inviting vehicles into areas closed to protect sensitive streams, wildlife habitat, archeological treasures, and wilderness values.”

This is good news but Dirk Kempthorne, Secy. of Interior, needs to hear from us again, even though he and the Bush administration know that attempts to drill in Utah’s Red Rock Canyon is going to meet with some mighty big resistance since this judge’s ruling.

http://action.wilderness.org/campaign/utahm00/xwnke5k44xx5mjj?

http://www.earthjustice.org/news/press/2008/utah-county-must-stop-illegal-seizure-of-rights-of-way.html

Bush admits humans cause global warming: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2023835.stm

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_the_us_lack_sufficient_oil_refining.html

Now that the polar bears made the list, the push is on for global warming legislation. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has scheduled the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act S2191 for a floor vote in early June.

It looks like another senate vote that requires 60 votes. Currently about 40 senators support the bill, and another 20 are undecided. Environmental Defense Action Fund  “is working to find the votes and to strengthen, protect and pass the bill to put the Senate on record in favor of a strong policy to cap and reduce America’s global warming pollution. But I don’t think this is a strong policy yet. It’s a start.

I’m not the only one that thinks so. I ran into this article on http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/tags/americans_climate_security_act that says Friends of Earth took out ads to oppose this bill. FOE “thinks it does not go far enough and would be a windfall to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries.”

I saw another URL that Greenpeace opposes it also. So I looked the thing over @ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s2191is.txt.pdf.

I found a lot of things right off the bat that were ludicrous like the sections below:

On page 7:  (5) the ingenuity of the people of the United States will allow the United States to become a leader in curbing global warming. Sure, but only if Big Oil and those in its pockets let us do so.

Then page 8 says that the idea is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough between 2007 and 2050 to avert the catastrophic impact of global climate change and to accomplish that purpose while preserving (23) robust growth in the United States economy, and (24) avoiding the imposition of hardship on United States citizens.

Right, just like many state energy packages lately that throw the entire burden on consumers in the form of higher rates. Boohoo, multimillion-dollar companies can’t afford to change quickly. What, they couldn’t see this coming for the last 8 years? Heck, there were climate change talks in 1994. I did a blog on companies that just forged ahead with their polluting practices, regardless of a growing global movement for the environment, that in the end would cry they couldn’t afford a fast turnaround. Why should we pay for their lack of foresight? Oh we have to think of the economy. We can’t let big business falter. Well why don’t we do away with the old fat cats and get new environmental industry going? The economy isn’t choosy about what affects its growth.

And finally my favorite part that really disappointed me about this bill is on page 13. It’s the same do-you-think-we’re-stupid list of what constitutes greenhouse gas:

(15) GREENHOUSE GAS.—The term ‘‘greenhouse gas’’ means any of—
       (A) carbon dioxide;
       (B) methane;
       (C) nitrous oxide;
       (D) sulfur hexafluoride;
       (E) a hydrofluorocarbon; or
       (F) a perfluorocarbon

This is the same long tired list that allows the removal of one or two gases while not reducing any of another. As long as the total greenhouse gas emissions of an industry falls within the limits of what that industry is allowed per year, and this sounds really high also, than it’s legal. This is what is wrong with the cap and trade solution, too many gases on the list to choose from. What if all industry decides to go the easy, cheap route and eliminates the same two gases only? For example: A coal burning facility decides to install what is called a scrubber on its plant. Lets say the scrubber collects most of the sulfur emissions and nitrous oxide depending on how it’s configured, and that alone lowers the overall emissions of the plant that’s allowed by law. CO2 just keeps on spouting forth. This is not to say that the sulfur or nitrous oxide is any less dangerous to overall global warming. Actually, it’s worse, but CO2 is the most concentrated in the atmosphere right now, and it’s not being dealt with because that industry concentrates on sulfur or nitrous oxide or hydrofluorocarbon instead.

All in all, it looks to me like the U.S. Court of Appeals did the environment a whole lot more justice than this bill when it vacated the EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule and told them cap and trade of mercury is nothing more than moving that pollution around. Amen.   

A report about the Colorado River and benzene was on BBC and I caught some of it, but the articles I found about it are extensive. BBC previewed a citizen singing a country song about poisoning his water with benzene. I guess people are just giving up the fight against big corporations taking over areas and punching holes in the ground for natural gas.

The article explains the process to obtain natural gas. I had no idea how toxic it is. “Each hydraulic fracturing attempt on a gas well uses about 1 million gal of fluid and most wells are “frac’ed” about 10 times, said hearing witness Theo Colborn, president of the Endocrine Disruption Exchange, a nonprofit group that focuses on health problems from low-dose chemical exposures. Many different chemicals—including surfactants, lubricants, foamers, plastics, biocides, antioxidants, acids, and alkalis—are employed for fracturing operations, she said. These chemicals are added to alter the underground strata to allow methane to escape up the well pipe, she said. Her group has identified 171 products used in Colorado containing altogether 245 different chemicals, 92% of which have adverse health effects, she explained. She went on to say the chemicals have multiple health effects as developmental toxicants and endocrine disruptors that have adverse affects on hormones in the body.

There are lots of side affects. “More than half the volatile chemicals on the list Colborn’s group has identified irritate the skin, eyes, nose, lungs, and stomach. Some affect the nervous system, causing headaches, blackouts, and memory loss, she explained. ‘About 55% can cause cardiovascular and kidney damage, and 35 are carcinogens,’ she noted.”

Meanwhile, another article discloses how badly this particular natural gas exploration is beating up an entire area as well as leaching dangerous chemicals into the Colorado River. The implications are bad considering the Colorado is the only water supply to the four fasting growing states in the southwest. All that population explosion is dependent on this river, which is bad enough, let alone contaminating it too.  “Green activists blame the Bush administration for opening the door too widely for energy companies, a charge backed up by a trail of executive orders and administrative actions, as well as the 2005 Energy Policy Act approved by a then-Republican-led Congress — all geared toward deriving more energy from public lands.”

 http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/86/8606gov1.html

http://www.saveroanplateau.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=68&Itemid=36