Environmental News and Issue Thread

Originally posted by Scriabin
I agree with this analysis to a great extent.

It isn't that America will not respond to direct legislation so much as using that method is a very inefficient and costly way to go.

Once again the problem is basically a political one. Today's New York Times runs an editorial questioning taking funds away from completing the licensing process for Yucca M ...[text shortened]... g to understand the politics of these issues, not merely opine about their substantive merits.

I agree

It's not enough to have a really good idea - or even a solid set of rational arguments for why it's so good. You need to be able to sell that idea to the masses. And most of those masses aren't economists or scientists (or college graduates for that matter).

I find it interesting that after the elections are over, the campaign process suddenly stops.

Whenever a major bill or idea is introduced, there should be a series of debates similar to the presidential debates - where each side (not necessarily limited to only two sides) sends a representative and they spend a couple of hours discussing the various facets of the bill.

This did happen once - when NAFTA was being debated, a public debate was held between Ross Perot and vice president Al Gore - I thought this was a great idea.

In addition to debates between top political leaders, there should also be a special "experts debate" where each side would send an expert with solid credentials to debate each other.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I agree

It's not enough to have a really good idea - or even a solid set of rational arguments for why it's so good. You need to be able to sell that idea to the masses. And most of those masses aren't economists or scientists (or college graduates for that matter).

I find it interesting that after the elections are over, the campaign process sudde ...[text shortened]... s debate" where each side would send an expert with solid credentials to debate each other.

Off topic, but how do you like NAFTA now?

Originally posted by joe beyser
Off topic, but how do you like NAFTA now?

NAFTA is the world’s largest free trade area. The agreement between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico links 439 million people and produces $15.3 trillion in goods and services annually. Some of the advantages include a tripling of trade between the NAFTA signatories from $297 billion in 1993 to $903 billion in 2007. Critics say that the agreement has led to a net loss of 879,000 jobs in the U.S., and a decline in labor protection and degradation of the environment in Mexico.

I'll concentrate on the latter point. Among the three nations involved in NAFTA, the environmental effects on Mexico are perhaps the most alarming as realities of poverty, national debt and sparse and poorly trained officials make it virtually impossible to remedy or even fully evaluate the situation.

The border region between the U.S. and Mexico has been hit particularly, due to intense industrialization associated with free trade zones and maquiladora industries. This area is known for its poor drinking water, inadequate sewage treatment, mass squatter settlements with deplorable living conditions, exploding population rates, and rapid industrial expansion by industries whose air and water emissions are insufficiently monitored. Every day untracked, unmonitored hazardous waste from maquiladora companies are dumped onto vast stretches of desert near the border cities. Likewise, there is rising concern regarding vast marine pollution and endangered marine resources caused by petroleum spills and wastes from oil operations off the coast of Mexico. Such carelessness is beginning to hit home in the United States, as hundreds of miles of Texas beaches are becoming polluted beyond use. Due to the expansion of multinational corporations into Mexico from the U.S., there is a substantial increase in the transportation of goods across the border. Mass waves of trucks idling in traffic at international bridges and border crossings have led to substantial photochemical smog problems in Tijuana - San Diego and Ciudad Juarez - El Paso. Finally, as a result of the immense poverty, such border cities as Ciudad Juarez and Nuevo Laredo lack sewage treatment plants. Thus millions of gallons of raw sewage are poured daily into the Rio Grande, the main source of drinking water. In addition to having profound effects on the health of the nearby residents, industries are having increasing difficulties finding fresh water for their processing needs. It appears that this cycle of anti-environmental industrial procedures will soon come to a screeching halt, due to an outright lack of resources. If these corporations continue to pollute the land and resources that sustain them, they will quickly find that there is nothing left to assist them in their once massively profitable industries.

With recent reports that even low level exposure to arsenic may compromise the immune system, concerns about water contamination from the carcinogen may be justified.

More than 20 percent of private domestic wells contain at least one contaminant of potential health concern, according to a March 2009 study by the U.S. Geological Survey.

In samples taken nationwide, the USGS found that about 43 million people, or 15 percent of the population, use drinking water from private wells, which are not regulated by the government.

A recent report by scientists at the Marine Biological Laboratory and the Dartmouth Medical School found that low level arsenic exposure can significantly compromise a person’s immune system, leaving them more susceptible to viruses such as H1N1.

USGS scientists sampled 2,100 private wells in 48 states and found that the inorganic contaminants most frequently found, at concentrations of potential health concern, were radon and arsenic.

Arsenic is a well-known toxic chemical that the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization list as a known carcinogen. While arsenic occurs naturally, it can also be found in industrial applications such as leather and wood treatments and pesticides

Man-made arsenic contamination results from the manufacture of metals and alloys, petroleum refining, and the burning of fossil fuels and wastes.

Arsenic is listed second only to lead as the main contaminant on the National Priority List of Superfund sites. The problem with arsenic, according to the EPA report, is that it cannot be transformed into a non-toxic material. It can only be transformed into a form that is less toxic when exposed to living organisms in the environment.

“Because arsenic is a permanent part of the environment,” states the report, “there is a long-term need for regular monitoring at sites where arsenic-containing waste has been disposed of and at sites where it occurs naturally at elevated levels.”

A coalition of health, environmental and consumer groups is demanding that health products giant Johnson & Johnson remove tiny amounts of two chemicals suspected of causing cancer from its Johnson's Baby Shampoo and other products.

In a letter sent late Friday by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics to J&J's chief executive, William Weldon, the seven-year-old group asks the company by the end of August to reformulate its personal care products so that they are free of 1,4-dioxane and any preservatives that release formaldehyde.

The letter was signed by nearly 50 groups representing about 1.7 million members, from the Environmental Working Group and Friends of the Earth to the American Nurses Association and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Johnson & Johnson spokesman Bill Price said, "The trace levels of certain compounds that were noted by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics can result from processes that make our products gentle for babies and safe from bacteria growth. Many regulatory agencies around the world consider these trace levels safe."

Price said the New Brunswick, N.J.-based company takes concerns about its products "very seriously" and would consider meeting with the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. He said J&J has no immediate plans to remove the two ingredients.

The chemicals in question are 1,4-dioxane, a byproduct of the manufacturing process, and the preservative formaldehyde, which is slowly released by a chemical called Quaternium-15 to kill bacteria. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde both are probable human carcinogens; formaldehyde also is a skin, eye and respiratory irritant.

"There's really no excuse for a baby shampoo marketed as the No. 1 choice of hospitals to contain chemicals suspected of causing cancer," Lisa Archer, the campaign's national coordinator, told The Associated Press in an interview.

Tests by an independent laboratory commissioned by the campaign, Analytical Sciences of Petaluma, Calif., found Johnson's baby shampoo had 210 parts per million of formaldehyde, and about two dozen other products out of 48 tested had similar or higher levels.

Johnson's baby shampoo also had a low level of 1,4-dioxane, a chemical banned by the European Union that was also found in three Aveeno baby wash products made by J&J, Johnson's moisture care and oatmeal baby washes, and about 25 baby and personal care products made by other companies.

Though the amounts in question are so small that many deem them safe, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, acting director of consumer group Public Citizen, said, "Generally with carcinogens, there isn't any safe level."

The campaign notes that the two chemicals are not listed on product labels because they are contaminants, not ingredients.

How does the nation's largest electric and gas utility view the Waxman-Markey climate and energy legislation that is making its way through the House?

Helen Howes, vice president of environment, health and safety at Exelon, has given her company's take on the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill and the effect it will have on utilities. Howes also assessed the Obama administration's approach to handling nuclear power as part of the energy policy puzzle.

Howes thinks utilities will be treated reasonably well under Waxman-Markey. Utilities represent something like 40 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Howe says "Clearly, we're interested in some allocation of allowances. The numbers we're hearing sound reasonably fair."

Howes says Exelon's focus on Waxman-Markey was "clearly on the title dealing with climate change." On the renewable side of things, Howe says "We recognize renewables has to be part of a low-carbon future. It's got to be part of the generation mix, so we're supportive of renewable energy standards."

On the approach the Administration is taking on Nuclear Power, the Exelon executive, whose company is the largest US provider of nuclear energy, says Exelon thinks there is an acknowledgment "clearly that nuclear has to be part of the solution going forward. It's a low-carbon generation source."

Twenty percent of the electricity in the U.S. currently is produced from nuclear power. Howes says "it has to be part of the options. I think the challenges going forward will be how do deal with some of those more difficult issues like Yucca Mountain ..."

While nuclear needs to play a role, at the same time Yucca is being shot down. Howes says: "Right, it means we'll look for other options for the long-term storage of used fuel. Yucca Mountain was, from our perspective, a pretty attractive option. Clearly, customers have paid towards the establishment of Yucca Mountain, but if there is no Yucca Mountain, we will work with the Department of Energy and others to find another option."

With cap and trade and energy policy discussions dominating Congress's agenda this spring there are many questions about the economic impacts of a cap and trade.

What are the numbers?

How much of a financial impact will a cap-and-trade system have on the average American?

Is that number enough to continue making the economic argument against cap and trade?

According to Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, an energy research and consulting firm, the answers are both yes and no to the latter question. Book says the reason is that "an average is an average and it affects people who are directly average in directly average ways."

According to Book, the number is about 0.4 percent of one's disposable income for every $10 per metric ton, which is an average on a national basis. That calculation could be a little high or a little low, Book says, depending on what assumptions you want to make, but it seems at the surface to be a relatively affordable number.

Books says the problem is the variability. The variability is an extreme at the edges. If you have very little income even a small change makes an extremely big difference and so Book says the arguments on both sides hold some validity.

"Yes," Book says, "it's a small number in the average, but in the objective case for the person who has to look at this as a sacrifice it's a big one."

One of the issues under the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill being debated is how to handle allowances. As to what Book believes is the cleanest way to handle allowances while bearing in mind all the different interests that are involved, Book says "This is where every economist in the world says the right thing to do is a carbon tax or a full auction and none of them will ever be elected to office in the United States. The right thing to do is to figure out how to get the system going in a way to get everyone's buy-in. And a phased auction where you have allocations of allowances, which is different from taking dollars out of the general fund of the treasury. It's actually creating a new proxy currency and giving it out in proportion to the disadvantage parts of the economy. That's the only way ahead. It's been done by precedent in and it's going to be, I think, the path through which this bill eventually passes."

On the relationship of economic activity to environmental air quality, Book has testified before Congress that ""Nothing cleans the air better or faster than an economic slowdown."

Book says "economic output is directly related to environmental pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases and other aspects of the things the Clean Air Act would have to address.

"And here's the question that I think we have to ask. If you get skinny by starving you kind of lose muscle at the same time that you lose the fat. That's not a great time to argue that you should starve some more.

"And the real question is what are we going to do in response to having lost this weight through illness?

"Are we going to heal the economy in a way that brings it cleaner and more economically vibrant into the future?

"Or are we going to potentially compromise one goal for the other as this country has done very often in the past?"

Question for the group: is this a false dilemma, Hobson's choice, Morton's fork?

Originally posted by joe beyser
Off topic, but how do you like NAFTA now?

The opponents of free trade often argue that "jobs are being shipped overseas" or they cite the adverse environmental impacts. Supporters of free trade emphasize how it'll boost the economy. But the real issue should be about economic growth in GENERAL.

Long-term economic growth is achieved by finding ways to produce goods and services more cheaply. The REAL issue is that usually this means either finding ways to produce the same amount of stuff with fewer workers (which destroys jobs) - OR by reducing the skills needed to do the job (allowing lower skill, lower wage workers to replace higher skilled workers).

For the economy to maintain strong and steady growth, there must be an ongoing destruction of jobs in many industries - or else those jobs are "shipped out of middle class" areas and sent to places where low-skilled workers reside, whether it be China or somewhere within the US. While the economy is always creating lots of new jobs, many of those who lost their jobs struggle to find a replacement that pays nearly as well - so even while overall per capita incomes rise, there are many losers.

As for the environment, economic growth has been one of the major threats - whether it be increased pollution, increased development on once pristine habitats, increased pressure on scarce natural resources etc. When a beautiful forest is replaced by a vast tract of McMansions, the loss of that forest is never factored into the GDP.

This doesn't mean that economic growth (or freer trade) is bad -- it just means that it's not 100% good. But it's interesting that labor and environmental issues are raised frequently when free trade is discussed, but these same issues are ignored when economic growth in general is concerned. Why is that?

The debate over nuclear power continues.

A top Senate Republican reportedly said yesterday that the USA should double its number of nuclear reactors, a potentially $700 billion proposal that calls for building 100 more over 20 years.

"It is an aggressive goal, but with presidential leadership it could happen," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the third-ranking Senate Republican. "I am convinced it should happen because conservation and nuclear power are the only real alternatives we have today to produce enough low-cost, reliable, clean-energy to clean the air, deal with climate change and keep good jobs from going overseas."

Steve Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, called Alexander's proposal "reckless."

"Nuclear power is a problem, not a solution," Smith said. "New nuclear reactors are expensive, create significant water use and thermal pollution risks to our communities and produce radioactive waste that after 50 years we still have no long-term solution for"

What are the three top global "megatrends" for corporate America to notice?

E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., one of the world's oldest chemicals companies, sees its future in food and energy security.

Speaking at a Sanford Bernstein conference in New York, DuPont CEO Ellen Kullman said 77 percent of her company's $1.4 billion research and development budget is directed at three global "megatrends" -- increasing food productivity, decreasing dependence on fossil fuels and protecting lives.

Kullman's comments come amid weak global demand for her 207-year-old company's core products -- particularly within the motor vehicle, construction and industrial markets.

DuPont is developing hybrid and insect-resistant varieties of corn and soybeans, as well as stronger encapsulant sheets to protect solar cells on photovoltaic modules.

DuPont also expects to expand its "protecting lives" segment, which includes Kevlar vests for soldiers, to the transportation, power transmission, and oil and gas markets.

Originally posted by Scriabin
The debate over nuclear power continues.

A top Senate Republican reportedly said yesterday that the USA should double its number of nuclear reactors, a potentially $700 billion proposal that calls for building 100 more over 20 years.

"It is an aggressive goal, but with presidential leadership it could happen," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), the th ...[text shortened]... roduce radioactive waste that after 50 years we still have no long-term solution for"

okay -- we have here the beginning of a debate

Alexander says nuclear power is the only real alternative we have currently to fossil fuels (besides conservation) -- and Smith says nuclear power is expensive and risky.

Now are these two willing to listen to each other and come up with a nuclear power plan that Alexander would consider to be effective that also addresses most or all of Smith's objections?

Or are both of these people merely speaking on behalf of an interest group that isn't interested in making any concessions. In which case, nothing will come of it.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
okay -- we have here the beginning of a debate

Alexander says nuclear power is the only real alternative we have currently to fossil fuels (besides conservation) -- and Smith says nuclear power is expensive and risky.

Now are these two willing to listen to each other and come up with a nuclear power plan that Alexander would consider to be effectiv ...[text shortened]... group that isn't interested in making any concessions. In which case, nothing will come of it.

I would say the latter is more probable