Open Architecture Network

It was later than usual when we set off this afternoon for our second trip onto the lagoon. A world-renown marine scientist, Bruce Mate from the Marine Mammal Institute at Oregon State University, was on a boat nearby and he arrived for lunch and conversation with my colleague Joel Reynolds, himself world-renown in whaling circles for his work in saving Laguna San Ignacio and from challenging the Navy’s use of sonar.

Mate specializes in tagging whales with GPS devices that can track their migratory patterns and other activities. He showed us data from one of his latest studies that he believes demonstrates that sperm whales work together in hunting for squid, apparently their favorite food. He described a complicated dance among three male whales to encircle and ultimately consume a school of squid.

After talking for two hours, Bruce and his wife needed to get back to their boat and we prepared for our second visit to the lagoon. This time we stayed closer to camp and within 15 minutes we were surrounded by whales, whales that were clearly friendlies who wanted to interact. The first whale I touched was approximately 35 feet long. It seemed to be unattached, meaning that it could be a male or a female that had not conceived this cycle.

When it did bring itself to the side of our boat, most everyone on board got a stroke. I petted its head, rubbing across the barnacles and touching some smooth rubbery skin. I wasn’t sure what to make of my first experience. When asked how I felt, my only answer was that I had process it for a while. When presented with something so unusual, so unexpected, so unnatural, you have to think a bit.

(While you pause to think, take a look at the following video. It isn't the best but holding a Flip camera and touching a whale isn't the easiest thing in the world to do! But stay with it and you'll see an astounding shot of a farewell gesture. And, yes, I'm the one saying "oh my, oh my." And then read on for a wonderful spyhop and then we get our first visit by a friendly baby.)

Within ten minutes, the time for thinking time was clearly over. After an astounding close spyhop, a baby whale floated over to our boat and within seconds its head was coming ever closer. Suddenly I stroked the head of a baby whale as the mother watched nearby (and I got it all on film...see below for some beautiful shots of the baby).

No process needed. For many (most?) people, life is inalterably changed at the moment you feel the soft skin of the baby of any species. Then add the notion that the baby weighs a few tons and spends the vast majority of its time diving deep under water, far from any human interaction.

My husband Tim cried when I showed him the video clip of the baby. I didn't cry when it happened but I did change. And dramatically so. Who wouldn't?

***

I recently returned from a five-day trip to Mexico to visit the site of one of NRDC's greatest wildlife victories. Over the next week or so, I'll be writing about the journey. Up first was Fear, Awe and Anticipation. Then I chronicled my first whale watch in the Friendlies at Laguna San Ignacio. Future blogs will focus on the history of NRDC's battle to save the lagoon, birding in the mangroves, spying an octopus in the tidal flats and maybe more!

The trial of the Syncrude Canada, Ltd. oil company is now almost three weeks old. Syncrude is facing criminal charges for the death of over 1600 migratory waterfowl at its Aurora tailings pond in St. Albert, Alberta on April 28, 2008. A major point of contention that has emerged in the trial has been around the use of deterrents (noise cannons and scare crows) to keep the ducks from landing on the tailings pond. Syncrude attorney Robert White has argued that a late winter storm prevented Syncrude from deploying them by April 28 while Crown prosecutor Susan McRory maintains that Syncrude “ought to have known” that such an incident could have occurred, pointing out that other companies in the area had their bird deterrents in place by that time.  

The Crown’s focus on Syncrude’s failure to deploy deterrents neglects a more important point in this trial: the tailings ponds themselves are illegal under the Migratory Birds Act of 1994 (MBA). The MBA clearly prohibits the depositing of substances that are harmful to migratory birds “in waters or an area frequented by migratory birds.” The existence of tailings ponds in Alberta’s Boreal Forest, where between 22 million and 170 million migratory birds come to breed every year, is a blatant violation of this prohibition, of which the Syncrude trial is only one example. The annual rate of tailings pond-related bird fatalities is estimated at anywhere from 8,000 to a staggering 100,000 plus, many of which go unreported. Such a high fatality rate should come as no surprise, since tailings ponds, located right at the heart of migratory birds’ breeding ground, cover over 50 sq. miles and contain billions of gallons of toxic waste. Even at the lowest level this fatality rate is unacceptable under the MBA. This trial should demonstrate to the federal and provincial governments that they have a legal obligation to reevaluate their relationship with the oil companies who are gutting the Albertan landscape in search of bitumen.  The existence of tailings ponds, an unavoidable by-product of tar sands extraction, violates the letter of the law, with lethal consequences. Now that this situation is on display, there is no excuse for government inaction. Convicting Syncrude under the MBA will set a precedent that is applicable to all tar sands-extracting companies in the region. Tailings ponds pose an unlawful risk to the wildlife in the Boreal Forest, regardless of the presence of deterrents. At the very least, this fact should prohibit the provincial and federal governments from approving further tar sands expansion.

Such a situation should also make policymakers in the United States reconsider its involvement with tar sands extraction. To date, the strongest manifestation of this involvement is the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. According to a briefing recently released by the NRDC, this massive project, if approved by U.S. and Canadian authorities, will transport up to 900,000 barrels of tar sands oil from Alberta to the United States per day. This will cause a dramatic increase in extraction, thus further expanding the tailings ponds. On top of that, the XL pipeline will jeopardize our national oil savings goals, cause an increase in carbon emissions, and endanger the rural Midwestern landscape which it will cross to reach the Gulf of Mexico. When all of these pitfalls are considered along with the legality issues surround the tailings ponds, the prohibitive costs of tar sands become all too evident. There is simply no way we can be responsible stewards of our environment while still scraping bitumen from beneath the surface of Alberta, a process which will only expand with the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. The Canadian governments and the U.S. government should take this trial as an indication of what tar sands really are: an expensive, impractical, and toxic source of energy with a legally precarious method of extraction.  At a time when our environmental and economic future depends on transitioning to clean energy, it makes no sense for energy companies, with the support of government, to be trying to exploit bitumen. 

Yesterday, EPA released the results of its assessment of chemical spot-on flea & tick treatments, following the recent sharp increase in reported pet poisonings. As I mentioned in my last post, NRDC was watching closely – as we’ve been working hard to protect pets & families from toxic chemicals in products like this.

After revisiting the safety of these products the agency had previously approved, EPA announced it will increase restrictions on the products and urged consumers to use them with extra care. It will immediately start looking at labels to see which need "stronger and clearer" warnings, and it will "develop more stringent testing and evaluation requirements for both existing and new products."

From 2007 to 2008, there was a 53% increase in pet poisonings from the spot-on products, so it's really good to see EPA taking action to protect our cats and dogs from the hazards of flea-control products. The EPA actions announced yesterday may help prevent poisonings related to misuse of these products and expand the data available to EPA for further evaluations.

Unfortunately, these actions don't address the larger concerns about the safety of the chemical pesticides used in flea-control products for either pets or families. Based on EPA's analysis, not all of the pet poisonings can be explained by people wrongly using the product.

This calls into question the safety of the products themselves. A question which was not answered by EPA in yesterday's announcement. Some of the chemicals included in EPA's assessment, such as permethrin and amitraz, are known to pose serious health risks to people. Other dangerous chemicals, like propoxur and tetrachlorvinphos, are used in flea & tick collars – products still not even covered by EPA's new actions.

EPA's actions are a good start to make flea control products safer but there's a lot more work to be done.

In the meantime, check out our Green Paws website (www.greenpaws.org) for more information on the hazards of flea control products and how to protect your pet and family. There, you’ll find tips, resources & opportunities to take action like these:

• Text service for your phone – just text "pets" and the name of the product to 69866 to get a text back with toxicity information and alternatives.

• Consumer-friendly online guide breaks down products by brand and chemicals, and rates their safety – including telling you which ones to avoid at all costs.
• Easy, chemical-free tips to control fleas
• Tell PETCO & PetSmart not to wait for EPA, but to be proactive and protect kids & pets from dangerous flea and tick control products.

The Adopt-a-Highway program has had success in removing litter from our roadways. Even though our roadways may be prettier due to the lack of litter, a harm related to roads exists that in many ways is more frightening.  The harm emanates from the noxious stew of pollutants from the cars and trucks that rumble down our highways each day. 

A barrage of studies have highlighted the major impacts on the health and welfare of residents associated with living in close proximity to highways.  For example, a recent study from researchers at the University of Southern California (“USC”) found that artery wall thickening among people living within 100 meters of a Los Angeles highway progressed twice as quickly as those who lived farther away. Another Southern California study from the USC research team documented the impairment of normal lung development from long term exposure to highway pollution among children between the ages of 10 and 18. 

This severe public health issue impacts many throughout the country. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 35 million Americans live within 100 meters of major highways.  In the Los Angeles region, there are approximately 1.5 million people residing near major roadways.  Thus, significant populations are suffering from the lack of action to clean up the air in our highway corridors.  

But, we are seeing more and more attention given to this issue, and now it is just a matter of our regulators catching up.  A recent article in LA Weekly by Patrick Range McDonald highlighted this issue through the lens of the stylish lofts that are popping up around Los Angeles near our major highways.  I suppose the real question these days is how much more information needs to be generated before our agencies take serious action to protect the millions of residents impacted by living close to highways. 

Fed up with a lack of action, a coalition of health, environmental, and environmental justice groups asked top environmental officials in California to take this critical public health threat more seriously. The groups asked that our lead air pollution control agencies, including the California Air Resources Board, work together to more fully monitor the levels of pollution near highways.  Currently, there has been an unwillingness to even place long-term air pollution monitors near highways in California.  Apparently, some fear that we might uncover a public health issue that may be difficult to solve.   This approach is akin to going to a doctor and having that doctor not run a test for fear that she may have to prescribe some medicine.  We cannot continue to stick our heads in the sand and ignore the harm highway pollution is imposing on those living close to roads.  The stakes are just too high.     

Next week, the International Maritime Organization will be meeting in London to consider a proposal that would drastically cut harmful air pollution from the largest, dirtiest ships at North American ports.

If successful, next week’s meeting will be a major step forward for public health in cities and towns up and down our Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf of Mexico coasts - and even hundreds of miles inland.

Here's the background:

Only the IMO can set standards for all of the ocean-going vessels at our ports, such as oil tankers, container-carrying cargo ships, and large cruise ships.  In October 2008, after several years of debate, the IMO adopted a new global pact to reduce ship emissions. 

Most significantly, the new pact includes a provision that allows individual countries to create special Emission Control Areas (ECAs) to accelerate the reduction of ship pollution off their coastlines.  Last March, the Obama administration and the Canadian government proposed the creation of a joint US/Canada ECA that would require ships within 200 nautical miles of our coastlines to use fuel that has 98 percent less sulfur than in current ship fuel, and will cut their smog-forming nitrogen oxides emissions by 80 percent and their cancer-causing particulate soot emissions by 85 percent, starting in 2015.

Cleaning up these floating smokestacks is critical.  Most burn residual bunker fuel, which can contain up to 45,000 parts-per-million (ppm) of sulfur, and lack even the most basic of pollution controls.  Sulfur is a naturally-occurring presence in petroleum, and its presence leads to sulfur dioxide and particular matter emissions (aka soot) that trigger asthma emergencies, cancer, and thousands of premature deaths across the U.S. every year.  Plus, sulfur in the fuel ruins anti-pollution catalysts and filters, just as lead in gasoline was once a barrier to effective catalytic converters in cars.  (In contrast to dirty ships, diesel fuel used in trucks and buses in the U.S. was capped at only 15 ppm in late 2006, leading to new diesel engines that are more than 90 percent cleaner than they were prior to that date.)

The health benefits of implementing the ECA will be huge.

Air quality will improve along the coasts and even hundreds of miles inland, with air quality benefits extending all the way to Nevada, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania - and even the Grand Canyon.  EPA esimates that implementing the ECA will avoid as many as 14,000 premature deaths in 2020, and nearly five million people will be relieved from acute respiratory symptoms each year.  As with all EPA's diesel rules over the past decade, these financial benefits will far, far, far exceed the expected implementation costs—in fact, EPA estimates that there will be more than $34 in health benefits for every $1 in implementation cost.

And there may be significant climate benefits too.

Scientists are increasingly pointing to black carbon emissions as an important issue in the acceleration of melting sea and glacial ice, especially in the Arctic region.  Because black carbon emissions last only a few weeks in the atmosphere, cutting them today should help slow the pace of this melting.  Reducing ship pollution will cut these black carbon emissions, and the benefits will be greatest for ships travelling in the northern latitudes to and from our continent.  At the IMO meeting, there will also be consideration of additional black carbon strategies for shipping.

I'll be attending the IMO meeting as a member of the U.S. delegation, joining officials from EPA, the Coast Guard, and other agenices as we advocate for this critically important step forward.

Stay tuned as this story develops.

As many NRDC specialists are posting blogs on critical water issues, you may be itching to get your fingers in the mix.  Now is the time! 

The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting is partnering with Helium to get your voice heard on the most pressing issues of the day. We want to know your thoughts on questions raised by Pulitzer Center-sponsored reporting projects around the globe – and the winning essays will be showcased on the Pulitzer Center’s website and on Helium. Winning writers will also receive a Pulitzer Center Global Issues/Citizen Voices Award.

When selecting the winner from the top 10 ranked entries on Helium, the Pulitzer Center especially values vivid, well-articulated essays that reflect unusual insight, a clear point of view and, where appropriate, original reporting. Anything fictionalized or not based on the writer’s own observations should be clearly marked as such in the body of the text.

The deadline for the World Water Day Writing Contest is Wednesday March 31. The Pulitzer Center Global Issues/Citizen Voices Award in this contest will be announced on Friday April 9.

The Valero Initiative has been dealt another blow: the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) has declared the study that the campaign is relying on to scare voters is “useless.”

The Texas-based oil funded campaign to suspend AB 32 has been claiming that AB 32 will hurt the economy.  However, the LAO says that the single study that the pro-pollution campaign relies on to bolster this claim has “major problems involving both data, methodology, and analysis.”  The LAO is the latest in a line of economists to shred the Varshney study.

• Stanford Professor James Sweeney concluded the Varshney report’s “estimates are highly biased, are based on poor logic and unsound economic analysis.”
•  Chris Thornberg and Jon Haveman, founding principals of Beacon Economics, said the report was “one of the worst examples of schlock science we’ve ever seen.”
• Dr. Frank Ackerman of Tufts University also completed an analysis, finding the Varshney and Associates study to be “deeply flawed and shoddy economic analysis.”
• Matthew Kahn of UCLA echoed such criticism: “(their) cost estimates are fatally flawed and vastly over-state the expected costs of compliance with AB 32.”

On the other hand, many studies have shown the benefits of implementing AB 32:

• Dr. Chris Busch, Center for Resource Solutions (12-09) – Found that the consensus among economists who have looked at AB 32 is that tackling climate and a growing the economy are not mutually exclusive, but complimentary.
• Next 10/Collaborative Economics (12-09) –   Since 2005 alone, green jobs have grown 10% in California, while statewide job growth was only 1%.
•  The Pew Charitable Trusts (6-09) –   California already has the most clean energy jobs in the nation.  As of 2007, California had 10,209 clean energy businesses, directly employing 125,390 Californians.  AB 32 will assure that even more jobs are created. 
• Prof. Roland-Host, UC Berkeley/Next 10 (10-09) – Failing to implement AB 32 will harm California’s economy.  Absent AB 32-induced savings, increased fossil fuels prices will shrink California’s economy by over $80 billion and result in more than half a million fewer jobs by 2020.
• Brattle Group/UCS (12-09) – AB 32 will not harm small businesses.  Even in an “Extreme Case” scenario, designed to unrealistically over-estimate AB 32’s costs and show a 28% increase in energy prices, expenditures for the average small business would increase only 0.4%.
• Roland-Holst & Frederich Kahrl, UC Berkeley/Next 10 (11-08) – California’s quality of life, natural environment, and economic health are all at risk from global warming.  In the real estate market alone, $2.5 trillion of the state’s $4 trillion in property assets risk damage or destruction from global warming.

The message from the LAO and others is clear: Valero and Varshney need to get their facts straight.

In the ongoing onslaught on the science underlying global warming, one recent criticism has focused on the finding that global warming could cause large-scale dieback of Amazon rainforest as cited in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (a point spun by the opponents of action on global warming as this post highlights).  Leading scientists with years of experience studying the Amazon rainforest have just released a letter that puts into perspective this recent controversy.  The gist of their conclusion is that we should still be concerned.

In the letter (available here), 19 highly respected scientists who conduct research on Amazon forests, climate, and/or fire refute claims that there is no link between drought (one of the possible impacts of global warming in this region) and Amazon dieback.  This “controversy” arose because the IPCC cited a study by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) instead of a peer reviewed journal as is common practice by the IPCC.  And a recent study from researchers at Boston University claims to “debunk myths about vulnerability of Amazon rainforests to drought” (as you can see here by the coverage). 

But as it turns out the WWF study was merely a collection of a large body of peer reviewed articles and as these leading scientists conclude: 

“the statement made by the IPCC about the sensitivity of Amazon forests [to] drought was consistent with our knowledge at that time, and has been reinforced by new studies.”

In response to the Boston University study that supposedly “debunked” the “myth” of Amazon dieback due to drought their response was:

"First, there is no myth.  Rather, there are multiple, consistent lines of evidence from ground-based studies published in the peer-reviewed literature that Amazon forests are, indeed, very susceptible to drought stress. Second, nothing is debunked by the new study."

So why do we care about this potential dieback of the Amazon rainforest?  The Amazon Basin’s trees hold carbon stocks equivalent to more than a decade of global fossil fuel emissions.  The forest also releases enough water to the atmosphere via evapotranspiration and to the ocean via river outflow to influence world climate and ocean circulation systems.  So if you are trying to reduce global warming pollution and minimize the impacts from global warming, the last thing you want to do is create conditions that lead to a huge increase in emissions (massive Amazon dieback) and that could exacerbate one of the possible impacts of global warming (changes in ocean circulation).

So what is the connection between this huge carbon stock, rainfall, fires, and global warming?  As this post on RealClimate from a forest scientist highlights: “The evidence for the possibility of a major die-back of the Amazon rainforest is due to two factors:

1. That climate change induced decreases in rainfall in the dry season occur, and
2. The trees cannot tolerate these reductions in rainfall.

As the 19 scientists point the link can be as follows:

“Reductions in rainfall can affect Amazon forests by increasing tree mortality, but also by increasing their susceptibility to fire.  The initial fire kills trees, increasing the likelihood of subsequent fires for years afterwards in a vicious positive feedback loop.”

As the RealClimate post points out there is some uncertainty about whether rainfall will be reduced in the Amazon due to global warming, but several peer-reviewed studies have shown that this is a real possibility. 

So the Amazon rainforests aren’t totally “out of the woods” or guaranteed to “go up in smoke”, but they are still very susceptible to dieback due to global warming as these respected scientists highlighted.

I for one would rather not risk losing an area of rainforest larger than the continental U.S. because some ill-cited peer reviewed studies or new study raised some uncertainty.  As my colleague has pointed out (here and here) there are plenty of facts on-the-ground that point us clearly towards the need to reduce our global warming pollution.  The Amazon and the planet aren’t worth such a risky bet.

Today, the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) publicly released its interim report on the science used in the biological opinions protecting salmon, delta smelt, and other endangered fish in California’s Bay-Delta estuary.  The NRC’s report confirms that the agencies used the best available science in developing these biological opinions, finding that these protections are “scientifically justified” and have a “sound conceptual basis,” as Mike Doyle reported yesterday and the Los Angeles Times reported this morning.

The NRC’s conclusion is consistent with the findings of the numerous internal and external peer reviews of the two BO’s and their methodologies, which were conducted both before and after the two opinions were released.  These BO’s, together, have 78 separate requirements.  Given the complexity of those requirements, the relatively few recommendations for improvements are striking.

It is important to read the NRC review in the context of the scientific and agency reviews of the previous biological opinions.  By contrast, those previous BO’s were found to have violated agency procedures and were found not to have incorporated the best available science.  Those reviews led a federal court to reject them – leading to these new, and clearly improved, BO’s.

Beyond the specifics of the BO requirements, the NRC also confirmed the impacts that water projects have had on the fisheries in the Bay-Delta, finding that “there is much general evidence that the profound reduction and altered timing of the delta water supply has been part of the reason for the degradation of these species’ habitats”.

Of course, peer reviews are supposed to be critical, and the Bay-Delta is a very complex ecosystem; therefore, the NRC panel did make several recommendations regarding implementation, particularly focused on ensuring that monitoring and adaptive management provisions in the BO’s are implemented.  Fortunately, the current implementation of the BO’s requirements is already being driven by careful monitoring, scientific input and adaptive management.

Some water users have argued that these BO’s have failed because delta smelt and salmon haven’t yet recovered after a year or two of implementation.  The NRC rejected that notion, concluding that, “[r]eversing or even slowing the declines of the listed species cannot be accomplished immediately.”  Indeed, given the three year life cycle of salmon, the salmon that returned in the past few years all migrated to sea before any pumping restrictions were imposed, and have never benefited from these protections.

In developing these biological opinions, the fisheries agencies carefully analyzed the impacts to water supply, and narrowly tailored the pumping and other restrictions to minimize impacts to water supply while still preventing the extinction of the species.  There is no question that under the biological opinions, less water can be exported from the Delta estuary than as compared to the record high levels of water exports that occurred under the prior, unlawful biological opinions.  But the NRC found that none of the other alternative measures that were presented to the panel would provide equal or greater protection to the species while allowing more water exports.

The NRC’s work is far from complete.  In its second report, due in 2011, the NRC is directed to develop recommendations for how best to adaptively manage the Bay-Delta ecosystem, including addressing so-called “other stressors,” and to identify sustainable levels of water exports from the Delta and advise how to best restore and sustain the Delta, which will help inform the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Plan and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.  The NRC’s involvement in the Delta should help ensure that sound science is used in these processes to best restore and protect the Delta environment.

Ultimately, California must reduce its dependence on water exports from the Delta.  Last November, the California legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger made this a formal State policy, and the NRC’s second report should help the Delta Plan and BDCP to achieve this policy.  The best tools to help us get there are investments in the Virtual River of efficiency, water recycling, stormwater capture, and other alternative supplies  These water sources are environmentally sustainable, cost-effective and relatively resistant to impacts from climate change.  By investing in these tools, we can restore the Delta and its magnificent wildlife, and still meet our water supply needs, so that future generations of Californians will be able to enjoy grilled California salmon, asparagus, and tomatoes, rather than having to choose between them.

The NRC’s interim report lays a foundation for larger efforts to restore the health of the Delta and improve water supplies.  The NRC’s report next year should provide even more guidance on how best to adaptively manage the Delta and meet California’s water supply needs for the future.

Last month I noted that Pennsylvania had acknowledged its need for better groundwater protections and was proposing new rules to strengthen its standards for gas well construction.

This month, the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has proposed new rules for hydraulic fracturing "to insure the protection of fresh and potable (USDW) waters." Among other things, the Commission has proposed new rules that require operators to do more to identify where water sources are in relation to drilling, and request more information about the ingredients of hydraulic fracturing fluids. Comments are due on Monday and I look forward to seeing how people feel about these proposals.

For those of you who have been following the growing concerns over the widespread use of the pesticide atrazine in the United States, you probably know that EPA recently announced it was going to conduct a top-to-bottom review of the chemical’s safety (for NRDC’s comments on the EPA review, click here).* 

What you may not know, however, is that states can also initiate their own reviews—federal environmental law allows states to set standards that are more restrictive than those mandated by the EPA.

Minnesota recently took this much needed step when it decided to open its own review of atrazine to determine whether tighter standards were needed.  So far so good.  Two months ago, Minnesota released the results of its review and invited comment.  On Wednesday, NRDC submitted its comments on the review, which starts with our recent report on atrazine contamination in the Midwest, Poisoning the Well.  Unfortunately, the conclusions in Minnesota’s review fall far short of the mark.  Here’s the top line results of our analysis:

• Minnesota minimizes much of the recent science on atrazine’s effects.  This includes studies that indicate that prenatal atrazine exposure may increase risk of poor birth outcomes and birth defects in infants, as well as studies that links atrazine urine levels in farm workers and rural men to reproductive effects, such as low sperm count and motility.
• The report also ignores much of the experimental literature on atrazine’s endocrine disrupting effects, including a recent study reporting that 10 percent of male frogs that were born and raised in water contaminated with 2.5 parts per billion (ppb) of atrazine grew up with female sex characteristics, had reduced levels of male testosterone hormone, reduced sperm levels, and decreased fertility.
• The report mischaracterizes the economic benefits of atrazine use.  Minnesota fails to discuss (or mischaracterizes) studies that predict very small crop yield losses from phasing out atrazine, as well as one study that found that, despite a ban on the use of atrazine in Italy and Germany (both corn-producing nations) since 1991, neither country has recorded any economic effects.
• The report relies on inadequate and probably faulty water monitoring data to reach its conclusions.   Minnesota’s review relies on the results of 2,782 samples taken from the 544 community water systems.  While that might sound like a lot, it averages to only about 5 samples taken per system. Moreover, these samples were taken over a period of 9 years. This averages out to fewer than one sample per system per year. Simply put: samples taken a few times a year, or once a year, or as little as once every three years (as was the case for some systems) should not be relied on. Dangerously high spikes of atrazine can occur in drinking water for just a few weeks out of the year. If a system samples only once a year or a few times a year, it is very likely that that sample will miss the spike entirely and give the false impression that there is little to no atrazine in the water.

Hopefully, Minnesota will take these comments to heart and revise its assessment.  The North Star state could sure use it.

_______

*Quick atrazine primer: Atrazine is used mostly on corn, sugarcane and other crops to suppress weed growth. United States farmers apply an estimated 60 to 80 million pounds of atrazine active ingredient annually. Because it is typically used in the spring before crops are planted and when rains are frequent, atrazine is often transported in runoff from fields to nearby surface waters. As a result, atrazine is the most commonly detected pesticide in U.S. waters, present in more than 75% of stream samples and 40% of shallow groundwater samples in agriculture areas across the United States.  It is an endocrine disrupting chemical, meaning that it can disrupt normal hormone function in a wide variety of organisms, including people.

Reuters AlertNet carried a blog by Frances Beinecke in which she explained that a White House Task Force’s findings about widespread climate change impacts on every aspect of our society should be seen as credible and significant… Peter Lehner spoke with TIME.com about the recent NRDC analysis of simple changes individuals can make to reduce U.S. global warming pollution by 15 percent; USA Today’s Green House blog also highlighted the report by NRDC and the Garrison Institute… Reuters cited a new NRDC white paper on state vulnerability to rising gasoline prices and the need for climate and clean energy legislation…

Bob Deans discussed how economic worries are related to people’s environmental concerns in AOL News… In the Washington Post’s Post Carbon blog, Andrew Wetzler expressed disappointment about the failure of a recent global conference to limit the hunting of polar bears… Metro New York quoted Eric Goldstein about toxic pollution threats in New York City…

Distressed city neighborhoods, more than others, are deficient in environmental amenities, particularly those that are typically provided by nature.  That is almost a tautology, but they especially need trees, pocket parks, rain gardens, vegetated swales, permeable pavements, roof gardens and other urban green infrastructure to provide multiple environmental and quality-of-life benefits.  So says Pace University law professor Alexandra Dapolito Dunn in a terrific new article published in the Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review.

(Today’s post is co-authored with my NRDC colleague Rachel Sohmer, who has written here before on the benefits of urban nature and more.)

Among environmental professionals, city green infrastructure is usually discussed as a matter of stormwater management, and Dunn has written a particularly helpful introduction to the subject from that perspective. We wish she had also included an explanation of why low-density development isn't the answer, but the point here was to focus our attention on the other end of the development spectrum. Dunn believes that green infrastructure investments directed to the urban core would not just be good for the environment; they would help alleviate urban poverty.

As Dunn explains, many cities have already successfully implemented strategies to protect water resources, but “green infrastructure has additional and exceptional benefits which are not frequently highlighted or discussed. Not only can it achieve water quality goals, protect sewer systems, and recharge groundwater supplies, but it also can improve air quality, provide green collar jobs, become a source for affordable produce, reduce crime, promote community interconnectedness and reduce energy costs for the urban poor.” But, for the most part, where green infrastructure could do the most good, you are least likely to find it.

Of course, none of the quality-of-life benefits linked with green infrastructure are specific to disadvantaged neighborhoods. They benefit neighborhoods of all sorts. But Dunn’s implied point is that the absence of green infrastructure in pockets of poverty puts these already stressed communities at even greater risk. Take, for example, the higher cost of food. Low-income city dwellers must pay up to thirty percent more for food compared with low-income rural and suburban residents, primarily due to food transport costs and postharvest losses. And healthy foods, particularly produce, might not be available at all. Likewise, heavy air pollution loads contribute to high rates of asthma in poor urban communities, several times the national average.

Unfortunately, even though targeting green infrastructure programs in distressed urban areas could provide much benefit to communities in need, there are considerable legal and policy barriers in the way. As Dunn explains, retrofitting existing neighborhoods for green infrastructure isn’t cheap, and cities and community development entities are often severely budget-constrained. Even when adequate funding exists, there may be a lack of political will to direct green infrastructure investments to areas where the resulting benefits, like neighborhood beautification, might be considered less visible.

So what can we do? Dunn reviews several big-picture, long-term strategies for getting more green infrastructure on the ground, from creating more public funding opportunities to refining cost/benefit models to battling political inertia with public awareness campaigns. That’s not an exhaustive list – we highly recommend downloading the article for a closer look.

The good news is that several cities are leading the way in green infrastructure initiatives that benefit lower-income communities. The article mentions Seattle and Philadelphia, among others. Even at the federal level there is a growing recognition that green infrastructure is an effective and economical way to reach sustainable development goals. Dunn cites the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “stimulus”) of 2009, for example, which provides significant green infrastructure funding to states for water quality compliance purposes. To that we can add the recently introduced and NRDC-supported Green Infrastructure for Clean Water Act of 2009, which would establish several research centers, a dedicated green infrastructure program at the U.S. EPA, and grants to help communities – especially lower-income communities – implement their own green infrastructure projects.

No doubt we’ve got a long way to go, especially when it comes to meeting the complex challenges of distressed urban areas. But considering all that green infrastructure delivers, we remain optimistic that green infrastructure initiatives will only gain momentum and support going forward. As Dunn puts it, “given the growing stresses on urban centers and the urban poor, taking [steps] to make city life healthier and more sustainable can only yield further benefits in the future.”

Thank you to our colleague Madeline Fraser Cook, director of the Green Development Center at the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, for flagging this article for us.

Kaid Benfield writes (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment.  For more posts, see his blog's home page. 

Tomorrow, the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council will publicly release its interim report on the science behind environmental protections in California's Bay-Delta estuary.  Apparently, however, someone leaked a copy of the executive summary of the report to Mike Doyle of McClatchy News, whose posted his story here.

It sounds from Doyle’s article that the National Research Council's report confirms that the agencies used the best available science in developing protections for endangered salmon and other fish in the Delta (Doyle writes that the committee concluded that the protections are “scientifically justified" and have a “sound conceptual basis,” and that “The conclusion undercuts a common farmer criticism”).  

Scientific reviews are supposed to be critical, and undoubtedly, there is some criticism of the biological opinions in their report.  But if Doyle's story is accurate, it appears that the National Research Council has concluded that the pumping restrictions and other protections for salmon, steelhead, and delta smelt are scientifically justified.  If that's indeed the case, it would be good news for the fishing communities, tribes, and businesses who depend on the health of the delta and our state's salmon fishery.

We still haven't seen the report itself, which is supposed to be made public tomorrow.  But now I really can't wait to read it...

Today was quite a day. Reports of three different spills from natural gas production operations crossed my desk. Unfortunately, I expect these reports to only increase as natural gas drilling expands dramatically in many states, regulations are not updated to reflect current operations, and state agencies don't beef up enforcement and, more importantly, penalties. Here's the news:

Flower Mound, TX: 3,000 gallons of used hydraulic fracturing fluid was spilled.

Waterville, PA:  substances used in drilling were seen flowing into a creek.

Bee Branch, AR: dumping of suspected fracturing fluid from a tanker in the middle of a residential neighborhood, pooling in the street. Company employees stated the substance in the tanker was "tree sap."

These are just a few examples, but I was sad to hear of them all. They emphasize the need to close the loophole in our federal hazardous waste law that allows any toxic oil and gas waste to escape waste management standards with which other industries must comply.

In related news, the Sullivan County, New York Legislature unanimously voted to ban natural gas drilling on county-owned property until its impact on the environment, safety and public roads and bridges is identified and addressed.

The Onondaga County, New York Legislature voted to prohibit hydraulic fracturing on county property until better information is available about potential effects on health and the environment.

You may have heard the news, but early this morning we got word that the nations meeting at the Convention on International Trade Endangered Species (CITES) rejected an United States proposal, supported and encouraged by NRDC, that would have ended the international commercial trade in polar bears and strengthened the regulation of polar bear sports hunting.

My colleague Zak Smith is in Doha, Qatar, and has been blogging about our fight for polar bears (you can read his posts here, here, and here).

There’s no doubt about it, the vote was a big loss.  Canada alone takes about 300 polar bears for international trade and sports hunting each year—this is an unsustainable and unnecessary stress on the population.  And the Canadian populations are particularly important to the fate of the bear.  At the end of the day, our loss was the result of the failure of the European Union to vote to protect polar bears.  It’s a particularly frustrating outcome, given that both the European Parliament and the European Commission had formally supported increased protections.

But I comfort myself that some good did come out of the process.  As the result of the U.S. proposal, Canada significantly cut back on its polar bear quotas, in a (successful, as it turns out) attempt to head off further CITES restrictions.  In the Baffin Bay, for example, Canada recently announced that it was going to cut it total quota from 105 bears to 65 bears over the next four years.  Over the phase-in period alone, that’s 100 bears that won’t be shot thanks to our efforts.  A lot of the credit goes to NRDC’s members and activists who have been incredibly active in making their voice heard to both the Canadian and the U.S. governments.

In the coming days our polar bear team will regroup and figure out the best way to continue the fight.  There are still measures that the CITES convention can take to reduce polar bear trade and there are other international agreements and strategies we will be taking a close look at.  Stay tuned…this fight is far from over.

Monday, March 22nd 2010 is recognized by the United Nations as World Water Day, a time to raise awareness of the global water crisis and focus on the solutions.  The challenge is tremendous, almost 900 million people lack safe drinking water  and 2.6 billion people lack adequate sanitation (or safe toilets).  NRDC has fought for clean water for decades and I am happy to report that my colleagues are writing this week about water’s intersection with so many environmental and health issues. 

The Obama Administration has recognized the importance of the issue and is reaching out with key events to demonstrate its commitment to global water.  I just finished a call this morning with Under Secretary of State Maria Otero about water policy during which she laid out key priorities for U.S. water activities around the world.

Under Secretary Otero announced that on World Water Day, Secretary Clinton will reinforce the U.S. commitment to global water – focusing on increased access to safe water and sanitation and improving the efficiency and management of water resources.  Otero said they are working toward long-term sustainable solutions to prevent water from becoming a growing source of conflict and tension.  The Under Secretary’s recognition of the role of watershed management is important to highlight, and a key part of the Paul Simon Water for the Poor Report. Notably the Obama Administration plans to integrate their food security and global health initiatives into U.S. water policy, through a comprehensive approach to development and water.

Otero stated:

Water is essential to all that we do, we can’t do without it and its irreplaceable. 

Lack of clean water and sanitation is the second leading cause of death of children under five around the world.  We need to use water more effectively and conserve water.  As people around the world are facing the impacts of climate change especially the increases of floods and droughts –  we know that managing water wisely is more critical.

These comments are very welcome from the Administration, but we also need Congress to act.  That is why NRDC is calling upon Congress to increase funding for water and sanitation programming and we are working with over 30 organizations to raise awareness  about the water and sanitation crisis. 

In Washington DC on Tuesday March 23, 2010 you can make a difference by taking action on Capitol Hill for those who lack water and sanitation.   

Two ways to get involved:

• Sign up for advocacy day on the hill by clicking on the link and signing up-you can participate in meetings with Members of Congress and their staff throughout the day.  This event begins at 9:00 a.m. with activities lasting throughout the day, including participation in the World’s Longest Toilet Queue.
• If you’ve only got one hour:  Meet us at Upper Senate Park for a rally on the hill.  Students, educators and politicians will gather to form a line at Upper Senate Park to make the 'World’s Longest Toilet Queue'.  Our ‘Queue’ is part of a global mobilization to demonstrate solidarity with those who have no clean water or safe sanitation and show Congress that they must increase resources to solve the global water and sanitation crisis.

         The line forms at exactly 1:30 and will be completed by 1:45!

Let’s show the Administration and Congress that the time is now to confront the global water crisis and win!

A recent AP story exposed that a state regulator in California fast-tracked drilling permits to help a company at the expense of proper oversight and safety for the local community.

Among other things, the regulator wrote in an e-mail to a drilling company: ''Just keep up the good work and I will TRY to keep (my boss) from hitting you guys with any more retarded fines ... Remember, I'm on YOUR side ... go PXP!''

My colleague Damon Nagami is working with local community groups in the Los Angeles area to strengthen environmental protections where drilling takes place. I have blogged before about lax state enforcement and oversight. Communities around the country have lost confidence in state regulators, who are allowing oil and gas drilling to release dangerous pollutants into the environment and threaten clean air and clean water around the country.

Another sign of growing support among businesses that want meaningful climate legislation: The United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is announcing that Weyerhauser, one of the world’s largest forest products companies, is joining the business-enviro coalition pushing for clean energy and climate legislation.

The addition comes at a time when climate legislation is once again on the political radar screens. As Shell Oil Chairman Marvin Odum recently wrote in the Houston Chronicle,

"We are closer to, not further from, enacting climate and energy legislation ...By working together, stakeholders, both individually and through organizations like USCAP, can set the course for comprehensive energy and environmental legislation that puts us on a path to a secure and sustainable energy future."

Business support for climate legislation extends well beyond USCAP. The broad-based American Businesses for Clean Energy, a list of companies from all sectors and of all sizes that support comprehensive climate legislation, passed the 2,600 mark yesterday.

And We Can Lead just finished up its three-week "Race for American Jobs" to "drive home the enormous economic benefits of comprehensive climate and energy legislation."

The New Hampshire Business Review reported that "N.H. execs back climate bill," quoting Michael Skelton, vice president of the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce spoke in support of clean energy legislation, who said

Businesspeople are starting to see green practices as an economic issue that saves money and creates jobs.

That statement really sums up why more and more businesses recognize the importance of Congressional action on climate. As the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, the White House is hearing and relaying the message that

Investors are so uncertain about the future cost of emitting greenhouse gases that they are sitting on capital rather than pouring it into “clean” technology, new power plants or energy-intensive manufacturing.

This is a point Kevin Walsh, managing director of power and renewable energy at GE Energy Financial Services, emphasized in the same story:

People need to realize this is a global market for our capital. Our money is going to go where we see long-term certainty … and if Europe has a better framework, that’s where our money’s going to go.

If the U.S. is to compete globally in clean energy, Congress needs to get us in the race.

Here’s an insight from relating human behavioral science to transportation:  people who use a particular form of transportation such as driving or taking transit sometimes misunderstand the motives of those that use a different mode.  We generally have a basic understanding of why we may take the bus, for example, but we make the assumption that the guy who drives is doing so because, well, he’s the kind of guy who drives. 

In fact, it’s not that simple.  Except for those of us who are environmental purists – and I am not one – our behavior stems not (or seldom) from something intrinsic to how we feel about driving or transit but, rather, on our particular circumstances.  For most of us, how we get somewhere depends on how well each available mode meets our needs.  This sounds sort of self-evident, but unfortunately the fallacy – that people in [insert name of community] do not and will not use transit in the future, given evidence that they don’t use it now – still infects too many transportation planning and investment decisions.

Michael Druker, a student in behavioral neuroscience at Waterloo University in Ontario, and writer of the blog Psystenance, calls this “the fundamental attribution error.”  In a recent post, he explains:

“In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency for people to over-attribute the behaviour of others to personality or disposition and to neglect substantial contributions of environmental or situational factors. (Actually it isn’t quite fundamental, as collectivist cultures exhibit less of this bias.) People are generally more aware of the situational influence on their own behaviour.

“Thus, the fundamental attribution error in transportation choice: You choose driving over transit because transit serves your needs poorly, but Joe Straphanger takes transit because he’s the kind of person who takes transit. This is the sort of trap we find ourselves in when considering how to fund transportation, be it transit, cycling, walking, or driving.

“Let’s say you live in a suburban subdivision. You can afford to drive, and it’s the only way you can quickly and easily get to your suburban office and to the store, and pick up your child from daycare. How do you interpret the decision of other people to take transit? Is it something about the quality of transit where they are? More likely you are going to attribute it to something about those people themselves — they’re poor, or they’re students, or they’re some kind of environmentalists. It’s difficult for people to realize the effect of the situation, e.g., one with frequent transit service to many destinations along a straight street that is easy to walk to. (I’d also point out that students, the poor, and even environmentalists do drive as well.)

“Why do Europeans walk more, cycle more, and take transit more? Surely it is something about their culture? But this is an excessively dispositional attribution. I won’t deny that culture plays some role in transit use, especially in the decisions that lead to the creation of transportation infrastructure. But that infrastructure itself and the services provided on it are a strong influence on the transportation choices people make. The European infrastructure situation facilitates those other modes of travel much more so than does typical North American transportation infrastructure.

“Where our infrastructure gets closer to the European model, so does the transportation mode choice, and conversely, where Europe is more like the North American model, Europeans turn out to drive more.”

Read Druker’s entire post here.  Transportation planner and writer Jarrett Walker called it “the most important blog post you’ll read this year.”  On his blog Human Transit, Walker adds:

“My own work is built on the belief that people making routine trips will make reasonable choices based on their situation and options, subject to the limits of their information.  Everybody knows that they do this, but they need to be reminded that everyone else does too . . . 

“When we say that Americans drive because they're a car culture, we imply that that the choice of most Americans to drive isn't a rational one, in light of each person's situation, and therefore requires a cultural explanation . . . 

“But in the places most Americans live, given the current economics of driving, and transit options being as they are, the decision to drive is rational for most of the people making it.   If most Americans are in situations where driving is the rational choice, we don't need the ‘car culture’ to explain their behavior, and we can see a clearer path to changing it, by helping to change people's situations. 

“Conversely, car advocates who cite current car use as evidence that people want to drive cars are also making the attribution error; they're implying that everyone who rationally chooses to drive is culturally committed to driving.  That's wrong; some of the people driving cars would like to be in a situation where they didn't have to.”

Sounds right to me.  If we want more people to use environmentally preferable ways of getting around, we need to build the kinds of communities and provide the kinds of convenient and comfortable alternatives that make the preferable choices also the rational ones.

Kaid Benfield writes (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment.  For more posts, see his blog's home page.