|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
Bush Seeks Increase in Ozone Depleting Methyl Bromide WASHINGTON, DC, March 9, 2004 (ENS) - The Bush administration intends to increase production of methyl bromide, considered the most potent ozone depleting chemical still in widespread use.While it is being phased out under international treaty, methyl bromide is still produced for use as an agricultural pesticide and soil fumigant and in the shipment of commercial goods. Under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, the United States agreed to limit and phase out ozone depleting chemicals, including methyl bromide. Some 183 nations have ratified the treaty aimed at protecting the Earth's ozone layer, which shields the planet from cancer causing ultraviolet radiation. Methyl bromide production has already been cut to 30 percent of peak 1991 levels under the Montreal treaty. The remaining 30 percent is to be phased out by 2005, except for uses that the treaty parties agree are "critical." But Bush administration demands filed with treaty authorities this week would increase production of methyl bromide by more than one-third, reversing 10 years of progress in eliminating the chemical. "This is the first time any country has tried to reverse the phase out and increase production of an ozone destroying chemical that is supposed to be eliminated," said David Doniger, climate center policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "The Bush administration is putting Americans' health at risk by catering to big chemical and agribusiness companies." The Bush administration request exceeds the requests from all other countries combined, and would allow 21.9 million pounds of methyl bromide next year and 20.8 million pounds in 2006. The administration's new request adds to excessive U.S. exemption demands already rebuffed during Montreal Protocol negotiations last November in Nairobi, Kenya. A special negotiating session will be held March 24-26 in Montreal to try again to reach agreement. Environmentalists say the administration is responding to pesticide, chemical and corporate agribusiness firms that are eager to relax the protocol. The California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Strawberry Commission have in the past stated their opposition to the phaseout of methyl bromide. "These exemptions reward powerful growers and food processors that have dragged their heels and failed to adopt safer alternatives," Doniger said. "Those who have invested time and money to do the right thing get penalized." Strawberry Commission Chairman Mark Murai said in Nairobi that research on viable alternatives to methyl bromide is continuing, but suitable alternatives are still in short supply. Methyl bromide is used to control insects, nematodes, weeds, and pathogens in more than 100 crops including peppers, eggplants, and sweet potatoes, forest nursery seedlings, fruit tree nurseries and orchards, and in ginger production.
Conservationists See Favoritism in Otero Mesa Drilling Plan ALBUQUERQUE, New Mexico, March 9, 2004 (ENS) - Conservationists opposed to the Bush administration's decision to ease environmental protections from an oil and gas drilling plan for New Mexico's 1.2 million Otero Mesa desert region say the move was the result of pressure from a major campaign contributor to the President and Republican organizations.The Otero Mesa extends eastward from the Hueco Mountains to the Guadalupe Mountains and north from the Texas border into New Mexico. The area is a biologically rich grassland with a supply of clean ground water large enough to supply more 800,000 people or half of New Mexico's current population. Ground water is vulnerable to contamination by oil and gas drilling. A new report from the nonprofit Campaign to Protect America's Lands hones in on the political influence of the Yates Company, which wants to drill in Otero Mesa. The report notes that in January 2004 the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), under pressure from administration officials, "suddenly and illegally eliminated dozens of environmental protections from a plan to manage new oil and gas development on southern New Mexico's Otero Mesa." "The Bureau's reversals, coming after more than five years of state and public participation in defining necessary protections, stand to benefit one company and the family that owns it more than any other - the Harvey Yates Company, owned and run by members of the powerful Yates family, long time political affiliates with members of the Bush administration and major financial supporters of the President's party," the Campaign to Protect America's Lands states. The administration defended its decision as environmentally responsible and says its plan will allow 141 wells across some seven million acres. But there is no shortage of critics, including New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, a former energy secretary in the Clinton administration, who has pledged to fight the BLM's Otero Mesa plan. The report targets political donations and cozy relationships with key Bush administration officials in the Interior Department and the White House. Yates family members and their companies donated $145,000 to the Republican National Committee from 2000-2004 - including $90,000 in soft money directly from the Yates Petroleum company to the Republican National Committee. In 2002, employees of the Yates Petroleum Company were the largest donors of political money in New Mexico, outranking even the state's Republican Campaign Committee with $101,066 in contributions. Yates oil interests also enjoy a close working relationship with embattled Department of the Interior Deputy Secretary Steven Griles, who faces multiple ethics allegations for his failure to recuse himself in dealings with former clients. Yates and Griles remain financially connected, though now through an intermediary. Griles is currently being paid $284,000 per year by National Environmental Strategies, a lobby firm at which Griles was a senior partner and where Yates remains a client. The Campaign to Protect America's Lands report identifies a total of nearly $250,000 in Yates family and employee contributions to national Republican groups during 2000-2004. Griles' calendar records show that he personally met with top BLM officials about Otero Mesa in December of 2002. Griles is the chief Interior Department point person for energy development in the Western U.S. Bush administration officials have repeatedly rebuffed questions about Griles' ethics and conflicts of interest, and say their energy policy balances the environmental and economic concerns of the public. Conservationists are unconvinced. "It is one thing to suspect that there is a real appearance problem when it comes to campaign contributions and insider influence," said Campaign to Protect America's Lands Director Peter Altman. "But it is rare to find so much blatant evidence." "What we uncovered connects the dots between the Yates agenda and the Bush administration's decisionmaking process on Otero Mesa," Altman said. "These people were not just content to wire the process from the outside with campaign contributions. They also had things 'wired' on the inside with the biggest of all the heavyweights who possibly could weigh in on the Otero Mesa question."
Court Orders Florida to Rein in Dairy Farm Pollution TALLAHASSEE, Florida, March 9, 2004 (ENS) - Florida's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has failed to implement and enforce a permitting program for large dairies as required by Florida law and the federal Clean Water Act, a Florida court ruled on Monday.The ruling by Leon County Judge L. Ralph Smith, Jr. also found the DEP could not rely on voluntary programs in lieu of Clean Water Act permits for dairies or any other industry in the state. Voluntary programs, he said, "are clearly an insufficient substitute for mandatory governmental regulation through a proper permitting procedure as required by law." The ruling is the result of a May 2001 lawsuit filed by the Clean Water Network and three Florida conservation groups that charged the state environmental agency failed to require federal Clean Water Act permits for dairies with more than 700 mature cattle. "Judge Smith had to remind the Florida Department of Environmental Protection what its name stands for," said Melanie Shepherdson, the Natural Resources Defense Council attorney representing the conservation groups. "The agency was protecting the dairy industry, not the environment, allowing it to contaminate Florida waterways with animal waste. This court order will force DEP to protect state waters." The judge found that the DEP shirked its responsibility to safeguard the state's water supplies from dairy pollution. He noted that the state agency never required dairies to apply for Clean Water Act permits. "The DEP's implementation of constitutional and statutory duties to abate pollution and protect natural resources from pollution from [concentrated animal feeding operations] is so inadequate as to closely resemble a delegation of its duties to the industry it is required to regulate," Smith wrote. "Such agency action can not continue." Smith ordered the DEP to immediately require the 55 large dairies in the state to apply for Clean Water Act permits, to enforce state law requiring all dairies to file pollution reports, and to develop an enforcement program to control water pollution from the 55 dairies in operating without Clean Water Act permits. "Judge Smith was loud and clear - industry can not police itself," said Linda Young, who filed the law suit on behalf of the Clean Water Network. "Our state government has a duty to protect our waterways and our health, and it is a sad day when you have to go to court to force it to do its job."
Florida Goes Easy on Corporate Polluters WASHINGTON, DC, March 9, 2004 (ENS) - Corporations who violate pollution laws in Florida are almost always able to negotiate their way out of paying fines, according to a report released Monday by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).In a report entitled Let's Make A Deal: Corporate Avoidance of Pollution Penalties in Florida, PEER The report examines the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) enforcement actions over the past five years. It finds that the DEP almost never takes unilateral action against corporate violators - instead the agency works out a "consent order" with the polluter. These arrangements follow a clear pattern, according to PEER, with corporate violators seldom if ever required to pay civil penalties. The report finds that criminal charges are not pursued, even against repeat violators with long records of multiple pollution offenses and in some settlements, corporate polluters are given new permits that increase the amount of pollution the companies are allowed to emit. "Pollution pays in Florida; it is just a cost of doing business as usual," said Florida PEER Director Jerry Phillips, a former DEP enforcement attorney. "Until the state adopts enforcement approaches that take the profits out of polluting, the DEP is just spinning its wheels." PEER says that in Florida only small businesses are ordered to pay civil fines without being offered alternatives. Large corporate violators, however, bargain with the DEP to obtain alternative resolutions that are supposed to prevent or clean up pollution at a cost equal to or greater than the civil penalties for which they should be liable. But PEER reports corporate violators prefer these alternatives because they are often tax deductible and allow companies to avoid fines by investing in capital improvements. In addition, PEER finds these alternatives preferable for violators because they often involve substantial forgiveness or reduction of the total penalty amount before calculating the value of the alternative. Avoidance of civil penalties cuts revenue going into the state Ecosystem Management and Restoration Trust Fund, which is supposed to finance a wide range of pollution prevention and clean-up activities, ranging from Florida's fragile coral reefs to gritty industrial "brownfields" in Florida's cities. "Floridians lose twice with this kid glove treatment of corporate polluters: once by forfeiting penalty revenue that should be used to clean up our state and twice by having to spend their tax dollars dealing with the messes left behind by polluters who rip and skip," Phillips said.
EPA Proposes to Add 11 Sites to Superfund List WASHINGTON, DC, March 9, 2004 (ENS) - The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed on Monday the addition of 11 new high risk hazardous waste sites to the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).Of the 11 sites proposed for listing, two sites are former mining sites, one site has significant drinking water contamination from unidentified sources, one site has significant water resource sediment contamination, and one site has residential soil contamination. The sites present a wide array of contaminants, including lead, arsenic, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and volatile organic compounds. The NPL identifies for the states and the public those sites that appear to warrant remedial action. If cleanup of these sites is eventually funded, the EPA will work with states, tribes, local communities and other partners to identify land reuse options and opportunities at these sites. The 11 proposed sites are: Jacobsville Neighborhood Soil Contamination in Evansville, Indiana; Devil's Swamp Lake in Scotlandville, Louisiana; Annapolis Lead Mine in Annapolis, Missouri; Picayune Wood Treating in Picayune, Mississippi; Grants Chlorinated Solvents Plume in Grants, New Mexico; Diaz Chemical Corporation in Holley, New York; Peninsula Boulevard Groundwater Plume in Hewlett, New York; Ryeland Road Arsenic in Heidelberg Township, Pennsylvania; Cidra Ground Water Contamination in Cidra, Puerto Rico; Pike Hill Copper Mine in Corinth, Vermont; Ravenswood PCE Ground Water Plume in Ravenswood, West Virginia. With the 11 new sites proposed to the NPL, there are now 65 sites proposed and awaiting final agency listing determination. But critics question the Bush administration's commitment to the Superfund program and say site listings and cleanups have declined due to underfunding. "Communities with toxic waste sites know that getting a site on the list is the first step in getting it cleaned up," said Julie Wolk of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). "But EPA is listing fewer sites, and even those sites that are listed will not have enough money for cleanup." The issue of funding has emerged of late as the primary one facing the Superfund program. A recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office found appropriations for the Superfund program - when adjusted for inflation - have fallen some 35 percent or $633 million since 1993. Congress created a trust fund to pay for cleanups of nongovernment sites and devised a polluter pays tax to pay for those sites. The polluter pays provision expired in 1995, when the trust fund was at a historic high of some $3.6 billion. The trust fund is now empty and failure to revive the polluter pays tax has increased the share of the share of the program's costs carried by the federal government from 18 percent in 1995 to 100 percent. The Bush administration opposes reinstating the fees unless reforms of cleanup standards and polluters' liabilities are enacted, a position environmentalists say mirrors that of industry. "The Bush administration is letting polluting industries off the hook again and leaving regular taxpayers to pay the cleanup costs," said Wolk. "Congress should reinstate Superfund's polluter pays fees, re-fund the program, and start listing and cleaning up more toxic waste sites," she concluded. Congress has also failed to act - last year a measure to reinstate the provision failed.
Channel Island Foxes Listed as Endangered WASHINGTON, DC, March 9, 2004 (ENS) - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed four Channel Island fox subspecies as endangered under the Endangered Species Act.The Santa Cruz Island fox, Santa Rosa Island fox, San Miguel Island fox and Santa Catalina Island fox were all listed as endangered - each subspecies occupies a separate island. A species is endangered when it is likely to become extinct within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. "Island foxes are a coastal treasure and they need protection if they are to survive," said Diane Noda, field supervisor for the Ventura Office of the Fish and Wildlife Service. "This listing will help further efforts of the National Park Service and others to save this rare animal." The listing is the product of a legal settlement between the Bush administration and the Center for Biological Diversity, which has long lobbied for the endangered listing. The island fox is a distant relative of the California gray fox and is believed to have floated out to the Channel Islands on a raft of logs some 16,000 years ago when ocean levels were very low. As ocean levels rose, the three northern Channel Islands - San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz - were formed, and a different subspecies of fox evolved on each island. Between 2,200 and 4,300 years ago, Native Americans transported foxes to the southern Channel Islands - San Nicholas, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente - where they too evolved to become unique subspecies. Overall, island fox numbers have fallen from approximately 6,000 individuals in 1994 to fewer than 1,650 today. The four newly listed subspecies have suffered steep population crashes in recent years. On San Miguel Island the population declined to just 15 animals, then 14 were captured for captive breeding, leaving only one individual in the wild. There are now no wild island foxes left on San Miguel Island. The primary cause of the decline of the foxes on San Miguel, Santa Rosa, and Santa Cruz islands is predation by golden eagles, which were initially drawn to the islands due to the presence of non-native pigs. The Fish and Wildlife Service is participating in a long term study of bald eagles, which are being reintroduced to the islands. Bald eagles, which historically nested on the islands and would not be a threat to the foxes, are territorial and, if re-established, could keep fox-eating golden eagles away from the islands. The primary cause of the decline of foxes on Santa Catalina Island is the rapid spread of canine distemper, which is transmitted by pet dogs. According to the terms of the agreement, the Fish and Wildlife Service will designate critical habitat for the four subspecies by November 1, 2005.
Federal Protection Sought for Vanishing Corals SAN FRANCISCO, California, March 9, 2004 (ENS) - Conservationists have petitioned the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to protect three coral species native to Florida and the Caribbean under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).The three species - elkhorn, staghorn, and fused-staghorn coral - were the primary components of coral reef ecosystems throughout the Caribbean for nearly 500,000 years. But since the 1970s these species have declined some 80 percent to 98 percent in major portions of their range - an unprecedented rate of loss unmatched in the history. Scientists fear that if these losses are not arrested and reversed, these species could go extinct within the foreseeable future. The unprecedented decline of these coral species is due to the combined effects of disease, thermally induced bleaching, physical destruction from storms, predation, competition, and activities that degrade habitat and water quality. In addition, there is ample evidence that each of these threats has been exacerbated and accelerated by a driving force - global climate change. The Center for Biological Diversity, which filed the petition last week, hopes it will put added pressure on the Bush administration to more aggressively tackle the issue of climate change, something the White House has steadfastly opposed. Listing these coral species under the Endangered Species will prohibit taking of the corals, protect their critical habitat and force the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop a recovery plan. The Center believes that because greenhouse gas emissions are the driver of global warming, the listing of these corals would require greenhouse gas emitting industries to consider the well being and recovery of these corals before they are given permits to pollute. "Requiring greenhouse gas emitting industries to consider how their activities are impacting our most productive marine ecosystems is not only right in principle but also eminently sensible," said Brent Plater, staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. Plater added that the destruction and loss of these coral species and therefore the loss of major portion of the Florida reef tract ecosystem will result in "the loss of billions of dollars to our economy, the loss of an unknown number of medicines, and decimate local biodiversity." "It is just common sense to consider these impacts before it is too late," he said.
State of Kansas May Get Oversight of National Refuge WASHINGTON, DC, March 9, 2004 (ENS) - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in negotiations to turn management of the Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge over to the state of Kansas, according to internal agency correspondence.An agency email, released last week by the Blue Goose Alliance and the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), notes that discussions are "just now getting underway." But the concept - and the potential of a precedent of turning national refuges over to state agencies - concerns PEER and the Blue Goose Alliance, a national conservation group. The agency email from the Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge manager notes that the agency has assessed the management potential of the refuge for migratory birds and threatened and endangered species. "The fundamental biology indicates that the management potential for trust resources is limited," according to the email. "Consequently, our Regional Office has determined that it is appropriate to discuss future management options with the Kansas Dept. of Wildlife and Parks and the US Bureau of Reclamation." PEER Refuge Keeper Gene Hocutt, a former refuge manger, warns, "this stated rationale for dropping Kirin out of the National Wildlife Refuge System could be applied to scores of refuges across the country." Established 50 years ago, the Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge is a prime bird watching site, providing spring and fall habitats for an array of migratory species. Covering nearly 11,000 acres, Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge is the oldest and one of only four national wildlife refuges located in the State of Kansas. The National Wildlife Refuge system encompasses 542 refuges covering more than 96 million acres. Although Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge is suffering from years of drought affecting much of Kansas and states further south it remains the only water-uplands habitat in a wide surrounding area committed to refuge purposes. Critics of the concept say transferring the refuge to the state could allow commercial and recreational uses incompatible with providing suitable wildlife habitat. In a joint letter of protest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, PEER and the Blue Goose Alliance write that "efforts to remove Kirwin National Wildlife Refuge [violate] Refuge System law, would set an unwise and dangerous precedent, do not give adequate consideration to the contributions Kirwin makes to its establishing purposes and the National Wildlife Refuge system mission, and would provide no savings while contributing to a loss of scarce water related prairie habitats." Any divesting of the refuge to state authorities would be subject to public review and comment.
|
