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.

Predators and Posion Control: group questions USDA's use of powerful toxins

Over the years, government wildlife agencies have found themselves in the difficult situation of dealing with encroaching predators. Environmental changes to habitat or food supply or urban development have often pushed predators like coyotes into greater proximity with other animals and humans. It's not the predator's fault, but what to do when a coyote is feeding on local pets or commercial livestock?

Catching the animals in traps or hunting them to anesthetize and then relocate them can be logistically complex and sometimes meets with limited success as the predator often returns because the conditions that brought about the encroachment have not changed.

Poison has been a measure of last resort, but it brings with it tremendous risk to other unintended victims including endangered species like wolves and condors, not to mention domesticated pets and even humans. The Defenders of Wildlife is bringing the issue to the EPA as the poisons that have been used are extremely toxic and there is a question as to how well the placement and management of bait traps has been handled. The non-profit group - which focuses primarily on wolves, bears, and other threatened predatory mammals - has initiated a campaign to get the EPA to halt the use of two of the most common toxic compounds used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services: sodium cyanide and sodium monofluoroacetate (known as Compound 1080).

Here is an excerpt from their write-in campaign:
"As someone who is concerned about the safety of people, pets and wildlife, I strongly urge your agency to ban sodium cyanide and sodium monofluoroacetate (commonly called Compound 1080).

Sodium cyanide and sodium monofluoroacetate are considered to be some of the deadliest toxins known to humanity. Yet, Wildlife Services, a program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), regularly uses these two poisons to kill coyotes and other predators. In 2009, the two poisons killed an average of 1.5 animals every hour. In many instances, these deadly poisons are deployed on public lands.

But these poisons don't just threaten their intended targets. They can also poison any threatened or endangered species, people or pets that happen to come into contact with them.

Sodium cyanide is used in M-44 trigger traps, which kill more than 10,000 animals each year, including domesticated dogs and a whole host of other non-target species including kit foxes, ringtails, javelinas, and swift foxes. M-44s have also killed California condors and wolves.

Compound 1080 is classified as a chemical weapon in several countries. It is deployed in poison collars placed on sheep and goats and is highly toxic to birds and mammals. Carcasses with Compound 1080 must be handled as hazardous waste and, if ingested, can kill wolves and other animals. Compound 1080 has even been used to illegally kill wolves and people's pets.

The continued availability of these poisons poses a threat to people, pets and homeland security. Government reports have concluded that Wildlife Services has been unable to account for stockpiles of the toxins, which leaves the hazardous materials vulnerable to undetected theft and unauthorized use.

There are effective alternatives to these poisons, including a wide range of proactive, nonlethal methods for protecting livestock such as fencing, guard animals, fladry, non-lethal ammunition and improved animal husbandry.

For the safety of our people, our pets and our wildlife, I strongly urge you to ban the use of sodium cyanide and Compound 1080."

You can visit the Defenders of Wildlife website to learn more about this situation and how you can participate in voicing concern of the use of these poisons.

Toxic Fish Investigative Report: making consumers aware of what is in their local markets

While many of us bemoan the recent failure of CITES to initiate trade controls on bluefin tuna due to the concerted efforts of commercial tuna fishing interests, one of the strategies that we can turn to is to chip away at market demand. And one of the best ways to do that is to focus on the self-interest of the user: their own personal health.

Fish like tuna, swordfish, halibut, and others have exceedingly high levels of mercury that accumulate in their muscle and cartilage tissues, often times at levels well over recommended safe levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Got Mercury.org, a part of the Turtle Island Restoration Network, has just issued an investigative report where they sampled fish from 13 markets in the San Francisco area, ranging from a local Safeway to more higher end stores like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods. The fish samples were analyzed by an outside, independent laboratory - and the results were not good.

Over 40% of the fish had high levels of mercury (one sample registered over twice the EPA limit). Some of the stores had signs warning of possible mercury contamination; many stores did not. Click here to read the entire report.

Organizations like Got Mercury.org and media like "The Cove" are using a strategy which takes the position that if you don't care about the fate of the animal, at least consider what you are doing to yourself and your children. Perhaps a sad commentary on the attitudes of some regarding conservation, but in my book, whatever gets the job done.

Congrats to Got Mercury.org for telling it like it is.

Read more about Got Mercury.org. Read the entire investigative report.

Petition Drive: keeping the Clean Air Act strong at 350ppm

In the past several months, with the poor results coming from the COP15 conference in Copenhagen and the CITES conference in Qatar, environmental issues have taken a few lumps. It would seem that the policymakers and the industrialists have their own agendas and these don't seem to be aligned with the long-term interests of the planet. So, what to do? We take back the initiative!

It may sound a little 60's-ish corny, but it's time for the people to be heard again. If we can't depend on our institutions to do the right thing then the least we can do is let them know where we stand and that we are watching. If we can vote you out, we will. If we can refuse to buy your products, we will. And we will support those groups that actively promote the long-term interests of the planet - and by "planet" I mean plants, animals and humankind.

350.org and The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are starting a petition drive to keep the Clean Air Act strong by having greenhouse gases designated as "criteria" pollutants under the act and to get the 350ppm standard for CO2 emissions adopted by the EPA. If you recall, leading climate scientists have cited the 350ppm level as the point that must be attained if we are to have a fighting chance in getting a handle on climate change and insuring a manageable future for generations to come. Ambitious? Sure. Controversial? Absolutely. It will require a major commitment on the part of governments and industry. And there won't be 100% consensus within the scientific community that this is the right approach. Accept when we ask this simple question: what's wrong with reducing carbon emissions to that level? Will it harm the environment? Would we be moving in the wrong direction environmentally?

350.org and CBD are hoping to get 500,000 to sign on to the petition. No reason why not. Click here to read about it and add your name. And check out 350.org's web site, too. Lots of good information there.

Click here to sign the petition.
Click here to visit 350.org.

Clean Air Act: though threatened with restrictions, act has a history of doing good

As you may know from following U.S. news or from past postings in this blog, there is an ongoing political battle over the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and its ability to use the Clean Air Act to enforce standards that would require addressing issues regarding climate change and global warming. The previous administration had tried to weaken or limit the application of the Clean Air Act and though some action was taken by the current administration in rolling back those restrictions or limitations, it's not out of the woods yet.

The Center for Biological Diversity is using an email campaign to remind legislators as to the importance of a full and vibrant Clean Air Act by citing not the environmental or ecological implications and impacts, but by putting it in the context of dollars and cents, lost productivity, and increased human health hazard.

"It is directly responsible for saving lives, improving health, and decreasing hospitalizations and lost school and work days. According to the EPA, in 2010 the Clean Air Act will save 23,000 lives and prevent 1.7 million asthma attacks, 4.1 million lost work days, and more than 68,000 hospitalizations and emergency-room visits.

The Clean Air Act saves money and protects our economy. In its first two decades alone, the Act provided pollution reduction benefits 42 times greater than the estimated costs of regulation, including decreased healthcare costs and reduced lost work time worth $22.2 trillion. If implemented by the EPA as required by existing law, the Clean Air Act will produce similar benefits while reducing greenhouse pollutants."

Now, opponents of climate change or those favoring a more limited application of the Clean Air Act might argue with the stats listed above, but it makes for a more politically relevant debate when the impacts in question are immediately personal and not appear, at least to the politician, somewhat esoteric or obscure. Heaven forbid that these impacts might catch the attention of ... of... one of their... voters! Eeeuuuuwh!

Click here to send an email to your legislator.

Local Asian Fishermen At Risk: EPA awards So Cal groups' efforts to educate about polluted catch

Fishing and the consumption of seafood is a dietary foundation in many Asian cultures - either due to a lack of suitable, large scale food resources like cattle or poultry, or because of isolated geography, or because of religious or cultural preferences. Even as immigrants, they often bring their preferences for seafood with them.

Along the west coast of the United States, you can often find local Asian fishermen casting a line over piers or into the surf. Unfortunately, much of what they catch consists of small bottom feeders and these fish can often carry a lot more than a savory taste. They also can carry an unhealthy level of pollutants, including pesticides that have been banned for decades.

Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency awarded a collective of Southern California environmental, cultural and educational groups the agency's Environmental Justice Achievement Award for the group's efforts in educating local fishermen as to the dangers in consuming fish from the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Part of the Palos Verde Shelf, an EPA declared Superfund site, the peninsula contains one of the nation's largest deposits of DDT and PCBs, dumped into the waters by factories over 25 years ago.

As reported in the Los Angeles Times, the organizations receiving the award include Boat People SOS, Cabrillo Marine Aquarium, Asian Youth Center, Heal the Bay, and St. Anselm's Cross-Cultural Community Center. Collectively they distribute brochures and conduct outreach campaigns to reach the, primarily, Chinese and Vietnamese fishermen who catch local fish like white croaker and other bottom feeders.
"For years now, this group has gone out of its way to tell people 'Don't fish here, and if you're going to, don't eat the head or the tail and the skin, because the toxins accumulate in the fatty parts of the fish'," said EPA spokesperson Francisco Arcaute.

Congratulations to all members of the group. Although it has been many years, let's hope that someday the waters are once again clear and a dwindling number of fishermen can safely pull up a fish or two while the majority of us are relying on aquaculture for our seafood requirements.

Environmental Protection Agency: Senator trying to take key agency out of the loop

First, let's take a moment to give thought to those impacted by the earthquake in Haiti. Needless to say, international relief agencies need your support; the American Red Cross and International Red Cross are two of the leading organizations. Give what you can.

And let's not be distracted by comments from pompous religious zealots who wish to claim that this natural disaster is the fault of the Haitian people consorting with the devil. Small minds deserve small attention.

But back on the environment front, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski has proposed legislation - actually an amendment to be tacked on a government spending bill - that would deprive the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. The crux of the issue has to do more with politics than with a difference in environmental opinion. The EPA is an executive branch agency and there are those who would prefer to see greenhouse emissions regulation originate from Congress - a decidedly less scientific body greatly influenced by outside interests opposed to decisive action to curb CO2 emissions.

The EPA's December declaration that pollution from greenhouse gas emissions endangers public health and that the agency would take action under the Clean Air Act met with support from conservation and environmental groups and disdain from lobbyists and supporters of fossil fuel energy industries. But this recent announcement was not solely on the EPA's initiative; it was the result of a Supreme Court ruling some three years ago. As reported by the Miami Herald:

"The EPA's move to regulate carbon dioxide and other emissions is part of its compliance with a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases endanger the country's health and welfare. If the agency found that such emissions are indeed dangerous -- which it did -- the court instructed the EPA to address the problem."

The wheels of Congress and the EPA, both, turn slowly and it will be years before one can expect regulations to take effect. But action must be taken now if the scientific-based input from the EPA is to be considered and not shut out of the discussion. The Center for Biological Diversity has started a drive to send letters to all members of Congress to oppose the Murkowski amendment. If you would like to add your voice, click here.

We must not forget that there are strong forces at work in opposition of regulating greenhouse gas emissions. There are huge economic interests from industries who have operated on a centuries-old business model, that of utilizing fossil fuels (oil and coal), and are not prepared to accept the fact that that business model is not only a finite model, but that the inevitable change to cleaner alternative energies must start now in earnest.

If you would like to get a perspective from the "liberal, radical, tree-hugger" side of the aisle, there are interesting articles in the latest issue of Rolling Stone (Issue 1096). One article, by contributing editor Jeff Goodell, details the extent of the lobbying campaigns by the oil and coal industries; while writer Tim Dickinson follows up with an article listing 17 leading businesspersons and politicians and others who are pushing hard to derail efforts to curb global warming. It's always good to know who are policymakers are either up against or being influenced by.

Read the Miami Herald article on Sen, Lisa Murkowski.
Join The Center for Biological Diversity's letter campaign.
Read about climate change opposition in Rolling Stone.

Pesticides & Junk Mail: better ways to deal with both

Here are two news items from the Center for Biological Diversity that not only benefit the environment but will also have definite proactive effects on our lives. 

EPA proposes new pesticide regulation  
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a proposed regulation that will require pesticide manufacturers to list both active and inert ingredients on their products.  Apparently, the manufacturers currently are only required to list active ingredients which are those designed to kill the intended pest.  So-called inert ingredients can actually turn out to be hazardous.  Chemicals like formaldehyde, sulphuric acid, or known carcinogens have been used for this purpose and the EPA has recently designated 350 inert ingredients as being hazardous. 

If this proposed regulation is enacted, you, the consumer or farmer, will be able to better decide what product to use (if you are inclined to use any pesticides) by knowing ALL of the ingredients that would be entering the air, soil, or water.  

But as with many proposed regulations, there will first be a public comment period that will commence shortly.  It is anticipated that the pesticide manufacturers will add a dissenting voice.  If you would like to add your own voice of support, click here. 

Happy with your junk mail? 
I suspect not, yet millions of pounds of the stuff gets crammed into our mailboxes each week.  And that printed material represents the loss of thousands of trees.  But there's a way you can help to put a stop to it by visiting 41pounds.org.  This organization gets its name from the fact that the average adult currently receives about 41 pounds of junk mail each year.  

For a 5-year membership fee of only $41USD (that breaks down to $8.20USD a year), 41pounds.org will block your name from leading mailing list agencies in addition to catalogers you specify.  They guarantee that within 6-8 weeks you will see a noticeable drop in unwanted mailings, credit card offers, and catalogs.  

41pounds.org is a non-profit organization and, just to be clear, I'm not getting any compensation for plugging this group.  You could do all the leg work yourself and save the cost of membership - if you are tenacious enough.  But as a former marketing exec, I can tell you that the direct mail industry counts on the fact that you won't bother.  To visit their web site and learn more, click here.

From Forests to Sharks to CO2: good news and bad

Here's a mixed bag of news items - some good, some bad; some new, some nagging old issues that haven't been resolved.

An effort by the prior U.S. administration to remove the U.S. Forest Service's requirement to consider wildlife habitat when planning clear-cutting, mining, or road building proposals in addition to the banning of environmental impact reports when planning long-term development - all was struck down by a federal judge. This judgment will help protect up to 193-million acres of national forestland from Alaska to Florida.

Australia and New Zealand have announced a joint Antarctic whale research expedition that will gather data in a non-lethal manner. The significance of this announcement, just prior to the upcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission, is that it challenges Japan's loophole whereby they having been taking whales "for scientific research." Although Japan has stated that the killed whales are not used for commercial purposes, many organizations have purported that is not the case.

Papua New Guinea (PNG) is one of the South Pacific's gems in terms of both its vibrant coral reefs and its lush tropical forests. Those forests have been used so far as an economic boon to the island in the newly hatched world or carbon trading. Though not yet recognized by the UN, the Reduction of Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) has been working with some industrialized nations in speculating on REDD credits. However, there are some legal issues over the ownership of large tracts of rain forest that threaten the program, with the potential for clear cut logging looming.

Shark fishing and finning on a large industrial scale has been the concern of many pro-shark organizations. But we must be mindful of even the small operations - island villagers that are tempted by the high price for shark fins - as these can also have a devastating impact on shark populations since the reproductive rates of these animals is typically very low. On the island of Darien, Panama, a group of tourists came upon a beach strewn with the rotting carcasses of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of juvenile sharks, stripped of their fins. No one could specifically lay blame to any one group of fisherman or village at this point, but it was clear it was not the typical approach used by a large commercial operation. What was doubly disturbing was the fact that, as juveniles, these sharks undoubtedly had not had a chance to breed and at least add to their population, no matter how slightly. Panama has several laws prohibiting or regulating shark fishing, but enforcement in remote fishing villages is another matter.

I reside in California, so I was pleased to hear that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has cleared the way for California to enforce automobile emission standards that are stricter than the national standards. California has been a leader, pushing for this waiver for some time and there are several other states, as many as 15 potentially, that could follow suit. Automobile manufacturers are under tremendous pressure to respond to both the current economic conditions and the demands of a growing environmental consensus - they can either willingly adjust to a new reality or be pulled kicking and screaming.

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.)

#6 in CO2 Emissions: cruising the seas out of the spotlight

When we consider the impact of global warming and climate change on the land, air, and sea, we often think of the combined CO2 emissions generated by different nations and their various commercial and/or public sources. But do you know what ranks as the 6th highest producer of carbon dioxide, just behind the 5 nations with the largest combined output of all sources?

Global shipping.

That's right. Right near the top of the list of major CO2 polluters. And it continues unregulated by any U.S. or Kyoto Protocol limitations. Why? Well, for one, it's a bit removed from the public spotlight, cruising the seas as it were, underneath the radar of public awareness. And for another, the shipping industry is both a fragmented and powerful commercial force that requires major international intervention to bring it under control.

What is there to regulate? Engine types, fuels, proper operational maintenance, emission standards - in many ways, what we do (or should be doing) regarding auto or factory pollution can be applied to shipping.

If we in the United States can get the EPA on board, this can be a major first step not only for the U.S. but for the world as it can set a new standard, particularly if the United States seriously considers getting back in lock step with the rest of the industrialized or developing world and considers aligning itself with the Kyoto Protocol or its possible future manifestations.

To that end, Earth Justice, Oceana, Friends of the Earth, and the Center for Biological Diversity have petitioned the EPA and, due to a lack of response by the EPA, are preparing to take legal action. To learn more about this issue, click here.

Refinery Pollution: U.S. Court closes loophole

In another piece of encouraging news, the U.S. Court of Appeals decided on Friday to close a gaping loophole in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations on refinery pollution by striking down a provision that allowed refineries to exceed pollution limits during start-ups, shut-downs, and equipment outages.

According to a suit filed by Earthjustice, a nonprofit environmental defense firm, on behalf of the Sierra Club and other environmental groups, refineries have overused and/or abused this regulation, enabling them to spew tens of millions of pounds of excess toxic pollutants annually.

"We are elated," said Jesse Marquez, head of the Wilmington, CA-based Coalition for a Safe Environment, a plaintiff in the suit.

The court had ruled that the EPA's regulation exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act. This ruling will impact facilities nationwide, particularly in Southern California, Texas, and Louisiana where there are concentrations of refinery facilities.

Saving the Arctic: petitioning the U.S. to step up to the plate

Several leading conservation organizations along with the mayors of San Francisco and Pacific Grove, California; and Juneau, Homer, and Shishmaref, Alaska have petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish comprehensive regulations governing greenhouse gases to protect the Arctic regions and, in so doing, North America and the world.

"We're all in the same boat—whether you live in northern Alaska or southern California, we all have a stake in the enormous impacts climate change is already having on the Arctic," said Keith Addis, Chairman of Oceana's Board of Directors. "Quite simply, as goes the Arctic, so goes the planet."

The conservation groups included the Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, and Alaska Conservation Solutions. Trying to undo years of neglect or political intransigence on the part of the EPA, efforts are being made to get the EPA back on track, particularly in light of growing scientific evidence as to the effects of climate change - from melting sea ice and permafrost to encroaching warm climate flora and fauna to changing weather patterns, caused by fossil fuels and/or other man-made activities - by using the Clean Air Act as the vehicle to provide the EPA with the federal authority it requires to protect the public and the environment.

"As the Arctic melts, California feels the heat. The Arctic is where these impacts are seen first, but the effects experienced by Alaska communities are not only crucial to the people who there, they are a wake up call that our economies and communities are at risk everywhere," said Dr. Denny Kelso, Executive Vice-President for Ocean Conservancy.

I had the opportunity to document on film the effects of climate change in the Arctic - including striking footage of the lowest recorded levels of summer sea ice - for the marine research and education organization, InMER. Some of the results and images from that expedition will be available soon as part of a leading internet company's online ocean project, currently under wraps but should debut in the next few weeks.

If change is to come in how the U.S. government operates, as has been touted throughout the recent presidential election, the EPA is one agency that needs to review its original charter and take a leadership role. (Read Ocean Conservancy press release.)

The Terminator: moving climate change to the front page

California's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger continues to push environmental issues to the forefront - this time by holding a conference in Los Angeles with governors and international representatives (see link/video). Preparing for hoped-for progress from a new administration, the Governor is looking for consensus that will help push the U.S. into a more leadership position in the battle to address global warming. That would most likely mean a new Kyoto Protocol treaty - one in which the U.S. plays a more positive role.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, the conference was presented with a video message from President-elect Obama. Regarding the upcoming Kyoto Protocol talks to resume in Poland, Obama said:

"Once I take office, you can be sure that the United States will once again engage vigorously in these negotiations. . . . Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response."


On the flip side, the L.A. Times also reported that the Environmental Protection Agency plans to weaken the exisiting regulations regarding clean air in national parks, making it easier for the construction or operation of nearby coal and oil refineries - all to the objection of many of the EPA's own senior officials and experts. For some time, the current administration has been using the EPA to run roughshod over the objections of its own experts. Hopefully that will change with the changing of the guard.

Couple steps forward; couple steps back. Let's make sure the new administration moves forward in the right direction. They seem well-intentioned but we must be vigilant.

Politics interferes with the EPA . . . again

Nothing too profound with the above heading; unfortunately, it's been going on for years. But the latest news bite has to do with apparent efforts to alter sworn congressional testimony to play down the threat of global warming, thereby mitigating the need for regulating greenhouse gas emissions (Washington Post / Los Angeles Times).

Former EPA official, Jason Burnett, claims that behind-the-scenes efforts by unnamed members of the Vice President's staff succeeded in deleting scientific information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as testimony regarding health risks from climate change to be presented before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, headed by Barbara Boxer. By eliminating any documentation of these health effects, the current administration is trying to skirt around a Supreme Court ruling that required the EPA to implement regulations on polluters when greenhouse gas emissions were shown to pose a risk.

Now I try not to get too political in this blog. After all, there isn't one political party that is a perfect angel when it comes to the environment. But it all comes down to forward-thinking leadership. And that seems to be a commodity in short supply these days. There is no doubt there are challenging decisions that lie ahead. But the more we avoid them, the more difficult they will be when we finally have to address them. I'd rather address them now than later. But that's just me - I'm not running for a 4-year term.