EPA Ruling Fallout: short-term goals put ecology & environment in back seat

On Friday, the Obama administration backed off of it's plan to initiate strong standards for the reduction of ground-level ozone (smog) - standards recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its independent scientific advisers. After three years of championing the cause of setting realistic standards in terms of public and environmental health - standards by which would compel the energy industry to evaluate their current business models and be forward-thinking in the adoption of new technologies and business opportunities - the White House abruptly turned its back, instructing EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulations.

According to the New York Times, John D. Walke, clean air director of the advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council, likened the ozone decision to a “bomb being dropped.”

While environmental groups are, to put it mildly, disappointed in the President's action, lobbyists for the energy industry and other business interests are more than pleased. "The president's decision is good news for the economy and Americans looking for work. EPA's proposal would have prevented the very job creation that President Obama has identified as his top priority," said Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute".

The Associated Press reported, "The withdrawal of the proposed EPA rule comes three days after the White House identified seven such regulations that it said would cost private business at least $1 billion each. The proposed smog standard was estimated to cost anywhere between $19 billion and $90 billion, depending on how strict it would be. However, the Clean Air Act does not allow the EPA to consider how much it will cost to comply when picking a new standard."

What it all points to is the short-term mentality that is so prevalent in today's social and economic fabric. The economic policies and strategies, both government and corporate, that brought us to our current condition were years, if not decades, in the making and, as much as we would like it to be otherwise, it will not be undone in a great hurry. Regardless of that reality, the demand for short-term, silver bullet solutions is front and center of the minds of Main Street Americans and the politicians whose eyes are on the prize in the next election.

Environmental issues, getting off of our dependence on fossil fuels, alternative energy, ocean conservation through commercial fishing management and aquaculture, protecting endangered species - all of these are problems that require long-term solutions supported by bold leadership. The solutions will produce economic opportunities, fertile ground for innovative thinking and technologies, new jobs and revenue. But they require many industries to reinvent themselves and, in light of business' ingrained aversion to that, the quick fix and turning back of the clock are more attractive choices.

While President Obama is a sharp intellectual, he is stuck in the mud with an obstructionist opposition party who is dying to return to the "good old days" and he is decidedly exhibiting a deficit in leadership that is leaving him perceived as a push-over or, even worse to some of his supporters, as a Democrat in name only. This certainly isn't the country that he had hope to inherit when he was elected and I'm not sure that anyone from either party would be standing tall today, given that so much has occurred over the past few years which in many ways has been outside of the government's control or influence. But nonetheless, he is the man of the moment and he has yet to prove himself to be the leader for these turbulent times, akin to an FDR or a Reagan (to appeal to both parties).

“I think that two-plus years into Obama’s presidency is more than enough time for him to have established a clear weak record,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, which has been battling the president on endangered species. “The environmental movement needs to keep piling the pressure on and realizing playing nicey-nice won’t work.”

The Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, The American Lung Association, and other organizations will be reanimating lawsuits first initiated to force the hand of the Bush administration but subsequently put on hold when Obama's earlier stated position on ozone favored the tighter regulations.

"The Obama administration is caving to big polluters at the expense of protecting the air we breathe," said Gene Karpinski, the president of the League of Conservation Voters to the Associated Press. "This is a huge win for corporate polluters and huge loss for public health."

Within today's socio-political climate where labeling just about anything as "anti-job" can bring about its defeat, the current administration has done an about-face on several important environmental issues from oil drilling to EPA standards. If this trend continues, he could be faced with a short-term legacy - a one-term presidency - and a long-term legacy of lost environmental and public health opportunities that will impact generations to come.

A Green Dollar Across the Potomac: reduction in nitrates improves waterway's ecosystem

Sewage treatment seems like a practical and logical step from an environmental perspective. Much better to treat raw sewage than to flush it right out to sea. But in taking that step decades ago, there was a learning curve involved, and part of that curve was the realization of the impact that nitrates, produced by the treatment process, would have on fresh water and ocean environments.

Organic nitrogen (nitrates) has been shown to cause a marked increase in plankton and several forms of algae which reduce both sunlight and oxygen levels - thereby choking off aquatic plantlife and from there a cascading effect ripples through the aquatic ecosystem, eliminating fish, shellfish, and just about everything else within the ecosystem. Rivers, estuaries, and shallow bays have been hard hit by many years of treated sewage, but there are distinct signs that conditions can be improved - if not reversed all together.

A study monitoring the effects of reducing nitrates in the Potomac River, in the eastern United States, has verified a noticeable improvement in aquatic vegetation. With a return of this basic ecological building block, so returns the animal life. And the vegetation acts as a filtering agent and buffer against floating particles, thereby improving overall water quality.

According to NatureNews, a reduction of two-thirds in the discharge of nitrates (from 20 tons per day in 1990 to 6 tons in 2007) through improved technology is primarily responsible for the improvement. "'It [the vegetation] is the base of the food chain,' says [participating scientist Nancy] Rybicki. 'The number of fish, particularly young fish, and the number of invertebrates increase dramatically within the plant beds.'"
Not only does this improvement in the Potomac mean good news for adjacent waterways like the Chesapeake Bay, which has seen a disastrous decline in its crab and oyster populations over the years, but it gives hope for many bodies of water and shallow tidelands worldwide. With past attempts to improve conditions in the Chesapeake Bay having been largely unsuccessful, in 2009 President Obama mandated a change by executive order, recognizing the bay as a national treasure and calling on the federal government to renew efforts to restore it. Through improved sewage treatment technology and careful monitoring of conditions, improvements can be realized.

William Ball, environmental engineer at John Hopkins University was quoted as saying, "Because much of the nitrogen decrease in the Potomac has been due to advanced wastewater treatment, this study is a strong validation of the utility and importance of applying this technology worldwide."

Margaret Palmer of Maryland's Biological Laboratory in Solomons added, "If we can clean things up in the bay, it offers great hope for other ecosystems, such as the Black Sea, the Baltic and many others."

Read the article in NatureNews.

Self-Preservation: of nature and the institutions we turn to

Politics makes for strange bedfellows, as the saying goes. And so we must always be prepared to yank the sheets out from underneath to clean up the hankypanky. Basically, all these colorful metaphors reflect the need to maintain a healthy skepticism of political institutions, corporations, and, yes, even the non-profit organizations we often turn to who carry the cause of conservation.

Why? Self-preservation. It's fundamental, it's common to all living things. But I'm not talking about the self-preservation of nature, the cause that we are championing. Self-preservation is also a driving force behind less tangible or tactile entities - like, government, business, non-profits, and even public attitudes. Take these recent examples:

• President Obama opens up the possibility of offshore oil drilling off the east coast, in areas he had specifically vowed during his campaign that he would prevent. The California and Alaska coast were spared for the moment, but his actions set a dangerous precedent for future drilling in those areas. Why the turnaround? Self-preservation of possible energy/climate change legislation, of his presidency's effectiveness, his party's position of power and/or influence, and so on.

• Former Alaskan governor, Sarah Palin has tentatively inked a deal for a limited series on the Alaskan wilderness. With Ms. Palin's track record regarding oil drilling, polar bears, beluga whales, and more; for many conservationists, this would be like Michael Vick hosting a canine puppy series. So, why? Self-preservation of a cable network sure to get ratings, of a politician/celebrity positioning herself for both monetary and political gain.

• The UN-based CITES conference walks away from taking a pro-conservation stance regarding a variety of marine species. Why? Self-preservation again. This time with the economic interests of certain nations exerting their influence to such a degree that to resist would have threatened the stability of the organization - something that has plagued many UN-based efforts.

It is this fundamental and understandable sense of self-preservation which propels us to be skeptical of the institutions that are supposed to provide, support, or protect us. Skeptical but not cynical, for that can lead to disillusionment and rejection - which can lead you to either stockpile ammunition and live in a cave or become an eco-terrorist, both of which are ultimately counter-productive.

So rather than throw in the towel when progress seems mired in institutional self-interest, I hope that conservationists - young or old, veteran or neophyte - can retain these attitudes and continue to press forward:

Determination: Remember that, while there are bound to be setbacks, the cause of conservation is also one of self-preservation - that of the entire planet - and that is a fundamental worth pursuing.

Reasonability: This is to say that if you want to convert or change someone's position, you had better have your arguments well-founded and indisputable. There will always be debate, so it behooves us to make accurate and rational arguments, devoid of acrimony or exaggeration.

Proactive: To get self-preserving institutions to act on behalf of a larger cause or greater good, such as conservation, requires relentless pushing and nudging. They may do so kicking and screaming or only doing so when they perceive it as also serving their own self-interests, but it can be done - at the ballot box, in the courts, at the check-out counter, and even at the grass roots level in the court of public opinion.

Do what you can when you can. And retain a healthy dose of skepticism.

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion." - Thomas Jefferson

Political cartoon 2010 by Toles/Washington Post

U.S. Energy Policy: CA governor to assess President's first-year accomplishments

The Los Angeles Times' Greenspace environmental blog reported today on an interesting web cast taking place on Tuesday, January 19th at 7:00pm Pacific Standard Time. California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will assess President Obama's first year accomplishments in energy policy as part of an Energy Task Force conference panel.

Why listen in? Well, for one thing, it would be interesting to hear a conservative with a less-than-conservative approach when it comes to the environment, discuss the energy track record of a so-called liberal who has been criticized by many environmental groups for not following through on campaign promises - quite an odd blend of positions and attitudes. And for another, it's important to know what direction our decision-makers seem to be heading, regardless of how maddening listening to political verbosity can be.

Here's Margot Roosevelt's post from the Los Angeles Times:

On Tuesday night, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will join a panel, along with former Secretary of State George Shultz, to talk about President Obama's first-year record on energy policy. The moderated question-and-answer session is part of an Energy Task Force conference at Stanford's Hoover Institution, a conservative think-tank.

It will be webcast live at 7 p.m. Pacific at www.gov.ca.gov.

Schwarzenegger frequently boasts that California leads the nation in environmental and energy policy. The state enacted a law to curb global warming emissions in 2006, and it is on the verge of adopting regulations to implement a roughly 15% cut in greenhouse gases below today's level. Meanwhile, Obama has also pressed ahead on climate issues, pushing for congressional legislation. He has backed the Environmental Protection Agency's recent declaration that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health, and can thus be controlled under the existing Clean Air Act if Congress fails to adopt a climate-specific law.

The Schwarzenegger and Obama administrations cooperated on mileage standards for new cars, after the Golden State passed the country's first rules to control greenhouse gases from vehicles. Last week, California adopted a first-in-the-nation mandatory green building code.

350 Reasons: new web site promotes species protection from climate change

In anticipation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meetings to be held in December at Copenhagen, the Center for Biological Diversity has launched a new web site: 350 Reasons.

The site provides information on 350 species of flora and fauna subject to decline or extinction due to climate change. The significance of the number "350" is that it ties in with the level of atmospheric CO2 emissions (350 parts per million) that has been proposed by many leading scientists as the goal we all should be striving for. Currently, we are averaging 387ppm and it's increasing.

The web site allows you to look up specific species or families - or you can select your home state or region on a map and see what species are at risk.

The web site is all part of an effort to bring more awareness to the importance of the December meetings. You can review the site and sign a petition to President Obama, urging him to follow the proposed 350 ppm guideline as an international objective and mandate in climate change policy.

Check it out here.

U.S. and Climate Change: a need to get the eye on the ball

There has been a lot of politics flying around the U.S. of late with considerable attention being placed on the healthcare reform debate. While complicated, it is an issue that the current administration would like to see resolved soon, as there is another strategic issue looming on the horizon that President Obama would like to address: climate change and the related issue of a national energy policy.

What's putting the pressure on the administration are several events coming up soon that will require the U.S. to take definitive steps and have concrete positions or policies. Without the proactive participation of the United States, there can be significant international implications that could hamper overall progress.

According to an article in today's Los Angeles Times, President Obama is in need of shifting the national focus because, first, he has a major climate change speech scheduled at the United Nations tomorrow (Tuesday). Then he meets with the G-20 later in the week in Pittsburgh, where climate change and energy will be a major economic topic. Then there is a major international conference in Copenhagen in December, charged with developing an international agreement on how to deal with climate change. Should the U.S. not be properly focused on the issues at Copenhagen, it could be very disruptive to the conference's potential for success.

The administration is also having to tackle a related issue having to do with whether to allow oil drilling in the Arctic, which was first proposed by the Bush administration near the close of its term (300,000 signatures opposing the drilling along with support of over 400 scientists were delivered to the Department of the Interior today as part of a public comment period).

While there are many conservationists, ecologists, and environmentalists that all agree on the need for a sound strategy to deal with climate change and its related issues, it's not all quite so rosy throughout the international diplomatic community. Major industrial nations and 2nd/3rd world countries can have competing or conflicting interests or agendas, based on issues of cost, responsibility for emission levels, demand for economic development - either with new energy sources and power plants or with deforestation. Many countries recognize the problems but have different ideas as to what they can economically do about it.

It is a global issue and a complicated one in finding the necessary common ground or solutions to move forward effectively, to really make a difference. But it is one that can't be ignored, whether you believe that climate change is solely mankind's fault, part of a cyclical natural change, or a little of both.

Read L.A. Times article.

U.S. National Oceans Policy: important task force in charge of charting the future

Did you know that June was National Oceans Month? Neither did I but a proclamation was made by the Obama administration to that effect - one of many proclamations that are made, distributed, and then (if not picked up by the media) sink into oblivion.

It actually comes on the heels of a more important presidential memorandum where President Obama outlines the needs and a time frame for a National Oceans Policy. This too has been going on a bit on the sidelines, what with all the attention on healthcare reform, a unifying energy policy, and foreign policy. But as critical as the oceans are to the future of this planet, for the United States to have a national policy regarding our coastlines, rivers, and lakes is paramount.

An Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force has been set up and public hearings have been scheduled. The first was held in Anchorage, AK in August. The next meeting is tomorrow, 9/17, in San Francisco, CA, and the last meeting will be on 9/24 in Providence, RI. These meetings are open to the public. Following the hearings, the Task Force will have another 3 months to develop a working plan, "a recommended framework for coastal and marine spatial planning."

"The oceans, our coasts, and the Great Lakes provide jobs, food, energy resources, ecological services, recreation, and tourism opportunities, and play critical roles in our Nation’s transportation, economy, and trade, as well as the global mobility of our Armed Forces and the maintenance of international peace and security," President Obama wrote in the memorandum. "We have a stewardship responsibility to maintain healthy, resilient, and sustainable oceans, coasts and Great Lakes resources for the benefit of this and future generations."

"The challenges our oceans, coasts, and Great Lakes are facing are complex, and to meet these challenges we must have the participation of a wide spectrum of views from within the federal government," said Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "The Task Force has a wealth of opportunity to make our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes healthier - both environmentally and economically."

If you can't attend one of the public hearings, you can submit comments online - but to be seriously considered your comments must be relevant to the issues and objectives of the Task Force (read about them on the Council for Environmental Quality web page). In other words, no rants, just solid comments and suggestions.

Although this has had little press, it is vitally important as it will set the tone and agenda for this administration when it comes to ocean conservation.

Politicians Recognize Global Warming: but oil drilling looms

A report was just released by the White House that declares that harmful effects from global warming are already hear and worsening. Now for many of you who have followed this issue, your first response might be "Well, duuuuh." But this is the first climate change report from the current administration and it is the strongest to date emanating from the White House.

"This is not a theoretical thing that will happen 50 years from now," said co-author Anthony Janetos of the University of Maryland. "Things are happening now."

Interestingly, this report was based on a report initiated near the end of the Bush administration who was forced by a lawsuit to produce a draft for Congress that was notably different from their typical dodge-and-weave approach.

Political machines - and, I dare say, humans in general - are inclined to act when disaster is on their doorstep. Proactive or long-term strategies seem to run counter to their nature, so this report is important as it basically states that the ostrich can no longer hide in the sand.

Jane Lubchenco, director of NOAA, says, "This report provides the concrete scientific information that says unequivocally that climate change is happening now and it's happening in our own backyard."

As encouraging as this report might appear as an indication of the current administration's commitment to change, we must still be diligent and even skeptical. Last week, a Senate committee voted to open millions of acres of the eastern Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas drilling. The energy industry is still committed to status quo, expanding a dwindling supply of fossil fuels, and has yet to fully embrace the need and development of alternative energy sources. Therefore, their continued pressure and influence on the political decision makers is as strong as ever.

Oceana.org has some suggestions and steps you can take. Make sure your political representatives know how you feel and let's watch the Obama administration closely to ensure that we get the necessary change that was promised and, more importantly, that the environment needs.

Endangered Species Act: government feet-dragging over critical corrections

The issue of overturning many of the 11th hour steps taken by the previous U.S. administration that weakened environmental protections and regulations have been addressed several times in this blog in the past (Click here and here). But one of the big challenges we face is the tendency for government to procrastinate, stall, or stonewall acting on environmental or conservation issues until it is more convenient or financial feasible (as if nature is listening to our endless stream of rationales).

The Center for Biological Diversity(CBD) is focused on an upcoming deadline regarding a procedural process to undo crippling changes to the Endangered Species Act(ESA):

Dear Richard,

A crucial deadline is looming: By May 9, the Obama administration has to seize its opportunity to overturn last-minute Bush administration regulations that gut the Endangered Species Act, or it will miss the chance. The Bush rules exempt thousands of federal activities from review under the Endangered Species Act, and specifically exclude greenhouse gas emissions from regulation. If this administration doesn't withdraw those "extinction rules" by May 9, they will stay in effect -- a disaster for endangered species.

Congress specifically empowered Obama's secretaries of Commerce and Interior with the authority to overturn the Bush extinction regulations with the stroke of a pen. The secretaries of Commerce and Interior jointly administer the Endangered Species Act, with the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (under Commerce) responsible for marine species such as whales and sea turtles, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (in Interior) responsible for species such as wolves and polar bears.

While more than 80,000 people have written to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar demanding he revoke the Bush rules, Gary Locke has only recently been confirmed as secretary of Commerce and has yet to take a position on the issue. Similarly, Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the new head of the National Ocean Atmospheric Administration, has failed to take a public position on rescinding the extinction rules. Please contact Secretary Locke and Dr. Lubchenco and urge them to immediately revoke the Bush extinction regulations.

The Endangered Species Act has served nature well for 35 years. And it's more important today than ever. Here's a link to a CBD web page where you can add your voice. Click here.

From Wolves to Sharks: undoing 11th hour damage from a prior administration

In December and January, I posted items regarding the previous U.S. administration's 11th actions to change or loosened environmental protections. These ranged from removal of the Gray Wolf from the endangered species list to allowing federal agencies to move forward on projects without consulting with environmental experts to looser air quality standards. (Read prior postings: Dec. '08 / Jan. '09)

• The challenge was that to undo the damage required a complex and lengthy process. But an amendment to a spending bill will empower President Obama to reverse the rule (one of the few times that something tacked on to a bill made any sense).
• Shortly after his inauguration, the president ordered all pending Bush regulations to be frozen. The Dept. of the Interior has cancelled oil and gas drilling leases near national parks (another piece of 11th hour chicanery).
• In addition, the president has directed the EPA to reconsider its denial of California's request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for automobiles (California's proposed regulations are stricter than federal standards).

Shark News!

Additionally, the Shark Conservation Act (H.R.81), that was making progress in 2008 but ultimately languished and was reintroduced by Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo, was passed by the House of Representatives on Monday. H.R. 81 requires that all caught sharks must have their fins naturally attached. This will allow better enforcement of anti-finning laws and better management of catches (it's difficult to determine the number and species of sharks being taken when all there is for inspection is a hold full of fins).

The Senate must pass the legislation and many of the NGOs are lining up support efforts to make sure voices are heard. Check in with Oceana.org to see what you can do. (Oceana press release.)