|
||
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|
Democrats Blast EPA for Clear Skies Ad Campaign WASHINGTON, DC, October 15, 2003 (ENS) - House Democrats say the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could be violating federal law by running an advertising campaign in Spanish language media for the Bush administration's controversial air pollution plan known as "Clear Skies."The air plan has stalled in Congress and has drawn harsh criticism from environmentalists, who believe it rolls back existing air pollution laws. Last month the EPA launched a new Spanish language campaign on the Hispanic Radio Network that includes spots promoting Clear Skies. On September 30, the agency ran a full page ad touting Clear Skies in "Al Diá" a Spanish language newspaper in Texas. In a letter sent Tuesday to EPA Acting Administrator Mariannne Horinko, three prominent House Democrats call the ad campaign unprecedented and say it appears to violate several laws. The letter was signed by Democratic Representatives John Dingell of Michigan, David Obey of Wisconsin and Henry Waxman of California. "We are not aware of any previous occasion on which the agency ran a paid advertising campaign designed to favorable influence how millions of individuals view a pending legislative proposal," the Democrats wrote in their letter to Horinko. Agency officials say the campaign helps the Hispanic community stay informed about environmental issues and contend it does not violate federal law. The House Democrats are not convinced and say the campaign appears to be in violation of the agency's current appropriations law and a law that bars federal agencies from expending funds except as authorized by Congress, as well as afoul of a law that prohibits federal officials from engaging in campaigns about pending legislative matters. "We request that you immediately discontinue these ads and any expenditures associated with this campaign until EPA's compliance with all appropriate laws, regulations and guidance can be determined," the Democrats wrote. They have asked Horinko to turn over all records relating to the campaign by October 24 .
San Francisco Bay in Decline, Conservationists Say SAN FRANCISCO, California, October 15, 2003 (ENS) - The ecological vital signs of the San Francisco Bay are not good, according to a local conservation group.An enviromental report card for the bay released Monday by The Bay Institute warns that native fish and wildlife populations have declined dramatically, invasive species are thriving, and water pollution levels have risen. The nonprofit research and advocacy group gave the bay relatively low grades - one B, three Cs, three Ds and one F. Long term trends for seven of the eight measure indicators are declining, the Bay Institute says, with only water quality showing long term signs of improvement. The other seven indicators are: habitat, freshwater inflow, food web, shellfish, fish, stewardship, and "fishable-swimmable-drinkable." Freshwater inflow, one of the keys to the bay's health, has suffered as fresh water has been diverted for agricultural use and human consumption. The report gave this indicator a D and noted that both long term and short term trends are poor - peak flows, which freshen the bay's waters, occurred for 11 days in 2002 compared to a historical level of 58 days. The problems with freshwater inflow have wreaked havoc with the food web of the bay - this indicator received an F from The Bay Institute. The report finds that plankton levels in the upper Bay have crashed, reducing food sources for native birds and fish, and facilitating the influx of invasive species. The habitat areas of the bay are not faring well, the report says, and earned a score of D+. Tidal marsh areas have decreased some 78 percent in the past 150 years and seasonal wetlands have decreased 75 percent. The organization reports that tighter laws and regulations could be stabilizing some 150 years of decline in the bay's native fish and wildlife populations. But commercial harvests of crab and shrimp are far below historic levels and fish populations are only stable at low levels, with some still endangered. Most fish caught in the San Francisco Bay are contaminated with harmful pollutants and are not safe to eat, a key factor in the report's grade of D+ for the indicator "fishable-swimmable-drinkable." In 2002, bay beach closures were up 200 percent compared with 2001, but drinking water quality has improved 25 percent in the past decade. The C grade given the bay's water quality reflects the finding that the open waters of the bay are cleaner than they were 30 years ago. But the conservation group cautions that pollution levels have not changed in the past decade and say less visible - but more persistent - toxic chemicals continue to be the major water quality problem. Stewardship of the San Francisco Bay received a C grade in the report. The report can be found at http://www.bay.org
Interior Ordered to Designate Habitat for Mexican Spotted Owl TUCSON, Arizona, October 15, 2003 (ENS) - The Interior Department must comply immediately with a previous court order to designate critical habitat for the threatened Mexican spotted owl, a federal judge ruled last week.U.S. District Court Judge David Bury rejected the Interior Department's argument that it has failed to comply with a court order to designate critical habitat for the owl because of funding constraints. Bury wrote in his ruling that the Interior Department has spent the past decade thwarting the stated purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) by "refusing to designate critical habitat." The ruling is another twist in a long running legal battle over the Mexican spotted owl between the Center for Biological Diversity and the Interior Department. The Center took the Bush administration to court last year over its revisions to the Clinton administration's proposed critical habitat for the threatened owl. In February 2001 the Bush administration revised the Clinton plan to designate 13.5 million acres of critical habitat for the species in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado. The new plan proposed a critical habitat designation of 4.6 million acres - excluding all national forests in Arizona and New Mexico. This move would facilitate logging in these forests, but 90 percent of known owl territories exist on these lands, which are administered by the Forest Service. In January 2003, Bury called the plan "nonsensical" and ruled it a clear violation of the ESA. The judge ordered the administration to fix the plan by October 13, 2003. In May 2003, the administration said the agency was running out of funds to complete a backlog of court orders to designate critical habitat and asked for extensions for 32 species. The Center agreed to give the agency an extension until April 2004 to designate critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl - with an interim deadline for a proposed designation on October 13, 2003. In July 2003, the administration sought another extension to move the final deadline back to January 2005. The Center agreed, but on the condition that the Interior Department agree to also complete long delayed recovery plans and listings for a number of other imperiled species. The administration balked at the offer and filed papers with the court on August 27, 2003 asking that the critical habitat designation be delayed until January 2005. Bury has ordered the Interior Department and the Center to meet within 15 days to negotiate a timetable for designating critical habitat for the species. The Center had asked Bury to hold Interior Department Secretary Gale Norton in contempt for not moving forward with the critical habitat designation, but the judge denied that request.
HOUGHTON, Michigan, October 15, 2003 (ENS) - Ozone has been long known to be harmful to many kinds of plants, but researchers now believe it can also affect the very earth in which they grow. Ozone can reduce soil carbon formation - a measure of the amount of organic matter being added to the soil - according to researchers at Michigan Technological University and the North Central Research Station of the U.S. Forest Service. Their findings are published in the October 16 issue of the journal "Nature." The scientists exposed forest stands to increased levels of two atmospheric pollutants, ozone and carbon dioxide (CO2). Ozone pollution is formed when chemicals produced by burning fossil fuels and from industrial processes react in the presence of sunlight and warm temperatures. They found that soil carbon formation dropped off dramatically in the plots fumigated with a mix of ozone and CO2 compared to CO2 alone. "This research shows that changes in atmospheric chemistry can cascade through the forest and affect soils," said Dr. Kurt Pregitzer, a coauthor of the Nature paper and a professor in Michigan Tech's School of Forest Resources and Environmental Science. "Reductions we have observed in plant growth under elevated ozone appear to result in similar reductions in soil carbon formation." The findings could have implications for the health of forests in areas with high levels of ozone, according to Dr. Wendy Loya, the lead author of the paper and a postdoctoral research scientist at Michigan Tech. "Under normal conditions, forest litter, which is made up of fallen leaves, twigs and dead roots, decomposes and releases carbon that is then stored in the soil," she said. "Under conditions of elevated ozone, the amount of soil carbon formed is reduced." The soil in the plots exposed to an ozone/CO2 mixture gained only half the carbon as plots fumigated with carbon dioxide alone. The researchers say plants and soils may be less able to clean the air of excess CO2 when ozone levels are high. This casts some doubt on the ability of forests as to act as carbon sinks to absorb CO2 and mitigate the greenhouse effect of the gas.
Enviros Defeat California Trout Plan ALPINE COUNTY, California, October 15, 2003 (ENS) - The U.S. Forest Service has withdrawn a controversial plan to remove nonnative trout from Silver King Creek within California's Carson-Iceberg Wilderness Area.The plan would have allowed the use of a pesticide to kill the unwanted fish before replacing them with Paiute cutthroat trout, a native fish listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In August 2003, the Toiyabe National Forest gave approval to California Department of Fish and Game to apply the pesticide Rotenone in 11 miles of the Silver King Creek drainage, a tributary to the East Fork of the Carson River. Studies show that Rotenone causes significant long term effects on aquatic invertebrates, the food source for trout and other aquatic life. Environmentalists sued to block the plan and force the Forest Service to carry out a full public environmental review of the project, including consideration of less harmful means to remove non-native fish. The Center for Biological Diversity and a California ecologist filed a suit in August 2003 claiming approval of the poisoning project violated the National Environmental Policy Act. The plaintiffs said the Forest Service conducted an inadequate environmental review of the project, including failure to evaluate the potential ecosystem damage from the poisoning and potential irreversible damage to the food chain Paiute trout depend upon, and failure to consider non-chemical restoration alternatives. The Forest Service has withdrawn the project and is in the process of revising the Paiute Cutthroat Trout Recovery Plan. "We fully support the removal of non native fish and the restoration of Paiute cutthroat trout throughout their historic range in the Sierra, however, there are potentially very serious consequences to poisoning this ecosystem and we want to make sure the right tool is chosen for the job," said Jeff Miller, spokesperson for the Center. "If you are attempting to fix an expensive watch, you do not reach first for the sledgehammer - neither should the state necessarily be poisoning streams in a wilderness area without looking at other options," Miller said.
Survey Finds Many Americans Unaware They Eat GM Foods NEW BRUNSWICK, New Jersey, October 15, 2003 (ENS) - Although awareness of genetically modified (GM) foods is on the rise, most Americans are unaware that they are already eating GM foods, according to a new nationwide survey.The study found that while Americans seem to know more about genetic modification than most Europeans, American's overall knowledge about both GM foods and food production is relatively low. The national telephone survey of 1,200 randomly selected Americans was released on October 15 by the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers' Cook College. Estimates suggest that as much as 80 percent of processed food in the United States may contain a component from a GM crop, in particular biotech corn, soybeans and cotton. The study found that 52 percent of the respondents were aware that GM food products are currently for sale in supermarkets. This is up from the 41 percent figure in the Food Policy Institute's 2001 survey. Only 26 percent of Americans surveyed believe they have ever eaten GM foods - a 6 percent increase since 2001. "Most Americans have no idea that foods with genetically modified ingredients are already for sale in the United States," said Dr. William Hallman, associate director of the food biotechnology program at the Food Policy Institute and lead author on the study. "But bottom line, if you eat processed foods, you are probably eating GM ingredients." A key reason why Americans may be unaware of the presence of GM foods is the lack of labeling - currently available GM foods are not labeled as such. The study finds Americans' desire for labeling of GM food products remains uncertain. Prior to mention of the issue of GM foods, survey participants were asked what information they would like to see on food labels and less than one percent said they would like to see labels contain information about whether the food has GM ingredient. But later in the interview - when asked directly if they would like to see GM food labels - 94 percent said yes. The survey found that Americans' basic knowledge about farming and food production was also low. Only about half knew that most of the corn grown in the United States is used to feed animals, only 46 percent recognize that sugar is not the sweetener used in most processed foods, and 16 percent incorrectly believe that peanuts grow on trees.
Pennsylvania Approves Power Plant on Brownfield Site MORRISVILLE, Pennsylvania, October 15, 2003 (ENS) - Pennsylvania state officials say all state environmental approvals have been completed for a new power plant that is being developed on a former brownfield site.The $800 million Fairless Energy Works power plant, owned and operated by Dominion Energy, will run on natural gas and is expected to produce some 1,200 megawatts of electricity. At a tour of the facility - slated to come on line next summer - Rendell said water discharge permits have been issued to U.S. Steel Corp., which will receive and treat wastewater from Dominion's power plant. Along with air quality permits issued to Dominion between August 2001 and February 2003, all state environmental approvals have been obtained by the facility, which will use best available technology standards to limit air emissions. To minimize contaminants, the energy giant agreed to burn only natural gas and control its nitrous oxide emissions through the use of a selective catalytic reduction system. "This new power plant is part of the second generation of prosperity for U.S. Steel's Fairless Works site," said Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell. "We can see the tremendous potential that this industrial park offers tenants like Fairless Energy Works - easy interstate and rail access to New York and the entire East Coast, and easy access to an ocean vessel port." Since 1998, Pennsylvania state officials have worked with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Steel to address the development of the 2,500 acre former U.S. Steel Fairless Works site, where there are now 42 tenants on 400 acres of the former brownfield. The announcement comes amid growing interest in the economic opportunities of redeveloping brownfields, which are formally contaminated vacant lots and industrial sites. A survey by the U.S. Conference of Mayors finds that redeveloping brownfields could generate more than 575,000 new jobs and $1.9 billion annually in new tax revenue for the nation's cities.
Researchers Offer Kyoto Alternative WASHINGTON, DC, October 15, 2003 (ENS) - A global treaty focusing on intercontinental air pollution could be a better approach to controlling climate change than the Kyoto Protocol, according to a new scientific study.In the new study, researchers from Columbia University, Harvard and Princeton acknowledge the need to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but propose that a treaty dealing with air pollutants like ozone and aerosols, which can cause health problems, could prove more realistic. Such a treaty would - by targeting health related pollutants - "would tie in to regulations that most countries are already pursuing on a domestic basis," according to lead researcher Tracey Holloway. "The Kyoto Protocol addresses carbon dioxide emissions, which have no direct health impact, so they are not regulated currently as air pollutants," said Holloway, who was at Columbia University when the study was done and is now with the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The findings of the study appear in the October 13 edition of "Environmental Science & Technology" a peer reviewed journal of the American Chemical Society. The researchers focused in on ozone and aerosols because both have lifetimes of about one week - long enough to be transported from Asia to the United States, as well as shorter distances across the Atlantic - and both pose health risks associated with respiratory disease. These pollutants also contribute to large scale climate problems, the researchers note, so the implications of controlling them go beyond air pollution into the realm of climate change. An international air pollution treaty would not encounter the roadblocks that the Kyoto Protocol, yet to be ratified, has faced, Holloway said. "It would be serving the self interest of participating countries to address short term health risks," Holloway said. "Regulation could take shape without immediate reform of the domestic or international energy economy, and energy savings implemented to achieve air quality goals could have the win win effect of reducing carbon dioxide emissions as well." |
|
