Uncategorized

Industry ‘science’ generates confusion in other areas than just climate change.

Climate change is not the only place where interested obfuscation is pervasive these days.

Former energy department official David Michaels writes in the June issue of Scientific American that business groups are pursuing a broad strategy of manufacturing uncertainty around science that might hurt the bottom line. His examples include beryllium, used in nuclear weapons and linked to lung cancer (Michaels was the "chief safety officer for the nuclear weapons complex" as assistant secretary of energy for environment, safety, and health from 1998 to 2001), and the appetite suppressant and decongestant phenylpropanolamine (PPA), linked to hemorrhagic strokes.

But he makes broader indictments about the process of using industry funded "science" to contest inconvenient scientific research.

Industry have tried to manipulate science no matter which political party controls the government, but the efforts have grown more brazen since George W. Bush became president. I believe it is fair to say that never in our history have corporate interests been as successful as they are today in shaping science policies to their desires.

Incidentally, environmentalists come in for criticism as well. Michaels says:

Furthermore, the denial of scientific evidence and the insistence on an impossible certainty are not limited to business interests. For instance, some zealous environmentalists remain adamantly opposed to food irradiation--the use of gamma rays, x-rays or electron beams to kill microbes in meats and produce--even though the benefits of the practice greatly outweigh the risks.

Delay sure appears to have a conflict of interest on MTBE, but we’re sure it’s nothing.

The energy bill currently being hashed over in the Senate, if passed there, will go to a House-Senate conference committee. It may well die there. The most likely culprit is the issue of a legal liability shield for manufacturers of gas additive MTBE.

Who's the most stubborn champion of the measure, the one willing to kill his own party's bill by defending it? Tom Delay.

But oh, look at this:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay owns stock worth more than $50,000 in ExxonMobil, according to financial disclosure reports, while at the same time he is one of the driving forces behind legislation that would shield that company and other manufacturers of the gasoline additive MTBE from lawsuits that could cost them millions.

Already under fire for alleged ethical lapses, DeLay, a Texas Republican, has hired the Houston law firm Bracewell and Giuliani to defend against those charges. But the firm, in which former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani is a partner, also represents a host of MTBE manufacturers in court and in Congress.

But hold on, now, before you go jumping to conclusions ...

Dan Allen, DeLay's spokesman, scoffed at the suggestion the second highest-ranking House Republican has done anything untoward.

"First of all, everyone knows Congressman Tom DeLay bases his votes on the merits of legislation before him and only the merits of the legislation," Allen said.

Oh, right, right, I knew that! I just forgot for a moment.

(Via Carpetbagger via WM)

There’s more to talk about in Iran than nukes.

U.S. news coverage of Iran these days is a one-trick pony -- their nuclear program and what is George W. Bush going to do about it. Today, as Iranians vote for their new president, we may read a bit more. But there are environmental stories to tell, and in some cases they are a reaction to the cacophony surrounding the nuke story.

Last month I traveled to Tehran to attend the International Conference on Environment, Peace, and the Dialogue Among Civilizations and Cultures, a two-day conference co-sponsored by the UN Environment Program and the Iranian Department of Environment. The conference, featuring an eclectic mix of environment ministers and NGO and academic experts, was itself a bid for alternative dialogue on something, anything frankly, other than the contentious nuclear proliferation issue.

Because it was a UN-sponsored meeting, the incredibly valuable and thorough Earth Negotiations Bulletin team covered the event and provide a detailed summary and numerous pictures here and here. I wrote a bit more about the conference here as well.

Facts and figures on air quality and Latino health in the U.S.

92 — percentage of the U.S. Latino population living in urban areas in 20002, 3 80 — percentage of Latinos living in counties that violated at least one federal air-pollution standard in 20022 57 — percentage of non-Latino whites living in counties that violate at least one federal air-pollution standard in 20022 50 — percentage […]

GMOs have their upsides and downsides; a little balance is in order.

In my previous post, I noted some of the things we've done right as a movement. But as those who read my first two posts know, I think we're doing a lot of things wrong as well.

For example, lets take GMOs -- I want to build on Andy's excellent post from yesterday.

GMOs have been been a "Great Satan" of the environmental movement for some time now. And its not the goal of this post to say that GMOs are by any means universally necessary or desireable. But I do want to talk about the ways in which many environmentalists are oversimplifying a complex issue -- and hurting our credibility with the people who are aware of those complexities.

Don’t Go Fish

Historic bottom-fishing restrictions adopted for West Coast waters The Pacific Fishery Management Council this week approved a permanent ban on trawl fishing for nearly 300,000 square miles of federal waters off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. The plan — which will now be forwarded to the National Marine Fisheries Service for final approval; […]

Buenos Vistas

New EPA effort to cut haze in national parks The U.S. EPA this week released new regulations designed to clean up hazy air in 156 national parks and wilderness areas. The rules aim to eliminate 1 million tons of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide emissions a year by 2014. States must identify the industrial sites […]

The many things the movement has done well.

Well, I'm glad that I was able to start a spirited (and occasionally even polite) discussion with my previous posts on enviroliberalism (here and here).

However, despite my repeated denials, some posters seemed to think that I was blaming environmentalism for a variety of ills or hostile to the environmental movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just don't think that it is particularly useful or interesting for us to sit here "talking" about how wonderful we all are and how misguided/foolish/evil everyone else is. Nor do I think it is useful to pursue a general strategy of enviroliberalism, as I think it limits both our alliances and our policy visions. I've admired Grist for its willingness to think outside these traditional frameworks, which is why I was interested in writing here.

Senate includes renewables in its energy bill

Via Green Car Congress, the Senate rejected the Cantwell amendment [PDF] to the energy bill that would have reduced the amount of foreign oil imported in 2025 by 40% from the EIA's baseline projections [PDF].

By my calculations, even if we reduced the amount of oil we import in 2025 by 40% off the baseline, we would still import just as much oil as we did in 2003, since the EIA projects that number to grow by 2.4% annually (darn that compound interest!)

One amendment did get the paper clip of approval, though: the Bingaman amendment [PDF] that mandates electric utilities generate a certain percentage of their power from renewables, with that percentage increasing to 10% by 2020.

This should make achieving Action 1 of the Urban Environmental Accords a snap for most cities.

Don't worry, all you free marketeers out there: A utility that is just terribly bad at producing renewable energy can purchase credits if it's more efficient for them to do so.

The Bingaman amendment also does not include nuclear in its definition of renewable. Just solar, wind, geothermal, "ocean energy" (which I assume is tidal), and biomass.

New Urbanist goals seem practical and environmental alike.

You can't read about cities and urban planning for too long before you come across the concept of New Urbanism, which recently held its 13th annual congress in Pasadena, Calif. The movement gained notoriety after The Truman Show was filmed in the New Urbanist town of Seaside, Fla.

If that was all there was to the movement, given the plot to the movie, people might have jumped ship on the idea a long time ago, since from what I remember, the town seemed, well, quite scary. Too planned, and too controlled. You might even say centrally planned.

But the fiction of the movie doesn't quite match up with the facts and the ideas of New Urbanism.