Uncategorized

Umbra on lead pipes and drinking water

Dear Umbra, I live in New York City, which is reputed to have some of the best drinking water in the U.S. But I also happen to live in an old building that probably has lead pipes, so I buy Poland Spring water in five-gallon jugs each month. I’d prefer to drink tap water, but […]

Geoff Dabelko

It was fitting that recognition of environment's links to conflict and security came out of Norway last week when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to Wangari Maathai of Kenya for her decades-long work through her Green Belt Movement.  We often count on the Norwegians, and the Nordics in general, to get it right early and for the rest of us to catch up.

In fact it was nearly twenty years ago when Gro Harlem Brundtland, then Prime Minister of Norway, chaired the World Commission on Environment and Development, a group of international bigwigs that authored the influential volume Our Common Future.  We remember that 1987 book that set the agenda for the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio for its widely accepted definition of sustainable development (meeting the needs of current generations without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own). But often forgotten is the chapter where the Brundtland Commission explicitly traced the destructive links between environment, conflict, and security.

So it was doubly disappointing to read in The New York Times the disparaging quotes from officials of both right and left-leaning parties in Norway in the wake of the announcement.

Live chat about the environment in election 2004

At 1pm ET on Monday, The Washington Post is hosting a live chat with Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation Voters.  Go submit a question and tune in when it gets underway.  If you feel you simply must mention Grist, well, who am I to stop you?

UPDATE: It's underway. Head on over.

UPDATE: It's over, but it's still on the site. It was mildly interesting -- as much as hasty replies in one hour can be. My efforts to submit a question subtly hyping Grist were for naught. Sigh.

Ineffectual protest: it’s what minority parties do

Earlier this week we pointed to a story about the Bush administration going lightly on a practice called "hydraulic fracturing," a method of getting more oil and gas out of the ground that may or may not pollute groundwater and most definitely represents considerable profits for a lil' company called Halliburton.  An EPA official -- Weston Wilson, an environmental engineer -- involved into the agency's analysis of the practice is seeking formal whistle-blower protection, saying the study was flawed and biased.  (He is one of an unusual number of whistle-blowers popping up in the Bush administration, as this story makes clear.  Wonder why?)

Anyway, it's unlikely it will go anywhere, but five members of Congress -- four Dems and Jim Jeffords (I!) -- have petitioned the EPA inspector general to investigate the matter. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) even had the temerity to wonder whether "political considerations improperly influenced" the EPA study.  Perish the thought!  

Developing.  (Maybe.)

Potomac Daddies

Male bass in Potomac River laying eggs Male bass in the South Branch of the Potomac River in West Virginia are laying eggs. This is not behavior that people in the know typically expect from male bass. While researchers assume that pollutants of some sort are responsible, this particular stretch of the Potomac does well […]

Frog and Toad Are Dead

One-third of amphibians threatened with extinction If it is true that amphibians are, as Conservation International’s Russell Mittermeier puts it, “one of nature’s best indicators of overall environmental health,” then we are all in big trouble, because amphibians are having a seriously rough time of it. According to a massive new worldwide study involving more […]

Judicial rulings on environment split along party lines

An analysis of judicial rulings by the Environmental Law Institute shows that judges appointed by Democrats are markedly more likely than judges appointed by Republicans to rule in favor of plaintiffs who sue the feds for violating certain environmental regulations -- and the disparity is even more striking when the focus is on judges appointed by President Bush.

White House favoring Halliburton over clean water

OK, you might want to sit down, because we've got a real shocker here: The Bush administration, headed by two former oil executives, one of whom was the CEO of Halliburton, from which he still receives payments, may be pulling strings to help shield the company against environmental regulation. The issue in question is "hydraulic fracturing," a relatively new technique for extracting oil and gas that generates about a fifth of Halliburton's energy-related revenue -- $1.5 billion a year. Since a group of Alabamans sued in 1995, saying the practice fouled their drinking water and seeking to have hydraulic fracturing regulated under federal drinking-water law, Halliburton has lobbied aggressively to avoid such regulation. The U.S. EPA recently finished a study of the practice, concluding that it is benign, but agency insiders have heaped scorn on the report, saying it was produced by a highly biased panel containing at least one Halliburton employee. One 30-year EPA veteran last week submitted a statement to Congress and the EPA inspector general seeking whistle-blower protection and calling the report "scientifically unsound and contrary to the purposes of the law."

Bush admin fights off environmental restraints on military

In the presidential campaign of 2000, Bush vowed to force the military to "comply with environmental laws by which all of us must live," but according to a comprehensive investigation by USA Today, he has done the opposite. Since assuming power, the Bush White House has worked closely with the Defense Department to deflect military responsibility for cleanup of polluted sites, ward off new regulations on contaminants like perchlorate and trichloroethylene, and reduce the U.S. EPA's power to investigate and enforce environmental violations at military sites. Though the $4 billion a year the Pentagon spends on environmental compliance represents less than 1 percent of defense spending, the administration is determined to reduce the number. The Pentagon has argued that environmental compliance reduces military readiness, but has offered no evidence, and according to an internal Pentagon memo recently obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, cuts in military environmental programs may actually cost more, and have a more substantial effect on readiness, than compliance.

Umbra explains ultraviolet ratings

Whatever are we to make of the UV ratings bandied about on some radio and TV stations?