Latest Articles

Kathryn Fuller, president of WWF, answers questions

Kathryn Fuller. With what environmental organization are you affiliated? World Wildlife Fund. I’m the president and CEO. What does your organization do? What, in a perfect world, would constitute “mission accomplished”? Our mission is the conservation of nature. We seek through our network of offices in about 100 countries around the world to save the […]

Frog findings jump into public eye in Minnesota

There's been a flurry of activity in the Minnesota press about atrazine, frogs, and skullduggery. As reported initially by Tom Meersman of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, a well-known UC Berkeley biologist, Dr. Tyrone Hayes, was first invited, and then disinvited, to give the keynote speech at a conference organized by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Emails obtained by the Star-Tribune between Hayes and a member of the Pollution Control Agency staff indicate that pressure was brought by the state Department of Agriculture to block the talk.  Hayes has demonstrated that when tadpoles are exposed to atrazine at levels widely found in Minnesota drinking water, they grow up hermaphroditic, something no self-respecting frog -- or at least one interested in reproducing successfully -- would want to be.

How is environment going to play on Tuesday?

In mid-October, three headlines from around the country on the same day gave a clue. While the Chicago Tribune reported that the environment wasn't figuring at the national level, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Detroit Free Press reported that in New Mexico and Michigan, environmental issues could tip the balance. Similar coverage has come from Nevada, Maine, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. While Maine doesn't appear to be in play, the other states all are, for a total of 42 electoral votes.

At least in this electoral cycle, all environmental politics are local, but they may add up to significant national impact.

Where to go with this?  Every day, 7 days a week, 365/6 days a year, newspapers are covering stories around the country about how environment is affecting people's health. Little stories, big stories. Local. National. Human interest. Scientific revelations. Corporate misbehavior. Scandalous coverup. Bureaucratic shenanigans.

Stories about times and places where the steps needed -- and eminently feasible -- to protect people's health just aren't being taken. And also, examples (albeit fewer) of when the right thing was done, problems were eliminated or avoided.

These stories aren't about far-off places (although there are those, too ...). They're about what your family is breathing and your neighbors are drinking. The nasty ingredients in cosmetics that aren't disclosed. The unintended consequences of making consumer goods out of plastics that contain biologically-active molecules, turning on genes when they should be shut off, or preventing them from making proteins you need to resist disease.

About how all this is making people sick ... or worse.

So here we are, at the end of an electoral cycle in which in at least a few places, environmental issues, particularly related to health, may have affected the results.

It's the end of this one. Wednesday begins the next.  If the hints we have now prove true, then the stage is set for environmental health to emerge as a much bigger issue in 2008.

[For more coverage of this cycle, go here.]

Declaration of dependence

Factcheck.org, the website the vice president tried to make famous, has this to say about the two presidential candidates' energy plans:  "Kerry and Bush Mislead Voters With Promises of Energy Independence."

The website, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, writes:

Kerry focuses on conservation efforts, but most agree his plan is little more than an outline. Bush supports expanded drilling in Alaska to increase domestic oil supply, but the US has only about 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. At current rates of consumption that would only last 4.5 years.

Factcheck.org seems to hang its hat on a Rocky Mountain Institute study that found that the U.S. could end its reliance on foreign oil by 2040 -- "but that would require a ten-year investment of $180 billion, and such steps as taxing gas-guzzling vehicles and providing government subsidies for low-income buyers of fuel-efficient autos. Neither candidate is proposing anything close to that."

In many ways, the conclusions of Factcheck.org match those reached by New Yorker author John Cassidy in his recent piece "Pump Dreams; Is Energy Independence An Impossible Goal?"

Dole-ing Out Favors

A lobbying success story, from the maker of atrazine The manufacturer of atrazine, an herbicide connected by studies to frog deformities and increased risk of prostate cancer in humans, spent $260,000 lobbying the U.S. EPA and other government bodies on behalf of the chemical. Not only that, but Syngenta Crop Protection enlisted the formidable lobbying […]

Overpowering

Utilities seek to build power plants near national parks Visibility in many U.S. national parks is declining and demand for electricity is rising — two trends that are set to collide. Since 2000, the number of applications to build power plants within 62 miles of park boundaries has quadrupled, relative to the previous five years. […]

Bhopal Lowball

Bhopal disaster victims seek to quadruple compensation Victims of the devastating 1984 industrial gas leak in Bhopal, India, have appealed to the country’s Supreme Court to quadruple the amount of compensation they will receive. They have long charged that the Indian government has been slow to distribute funds from a $470 million settlement paid by […]

A green financial expert dishes up election-related investment tips

Matt Patsky knows his green. As the election looms, green-investing guru Matt Patsky has joined the political fray, making the radio talk show rounds to tell investors and voters why another Bush presidency will not only be bad news for the environment but also a disaster for the market. Patsky is the portfolio manager for […]

Photos of B.C.’s renowned — and threatened — Great Bear Rainforest

The Great Bear Rainforest of British Columbia — home to the legendary white spirit bear, as well as huge grizzlies, rare wolves, countless salmon, and other wildlife galore — is one of the only remaining pristine regions of temperate rainforest left on earth. Take a virtual tour through this biological hotspot with the Raincoast Conservation […]

Pete Myers

What a great deal!  The American Chemistry Council, a large trade association of companies manufacturing chemicals, has entered into a partnership with the US EPA to measure how much of pesticides and other chemicals get into kids up to age 3 when homes are sprayed regularly.  

Participating parents get $970 over two years, if they consent to "routine spraying," although apparently "routine" includes "homes with potentially high pesticide use." EPA's fact sheet says they're only going to work with households that already use pesticides.  Let's hope the money doesn't lure some families in economic trouble into taking risks they wouldn't have.  

The press coverage (Chemical and Engineering News, The Washington Post) doesn't note if there is separate compensation for health care costs.  

Any university-based study would require informed consent by participants. Perhaps toddlers in Florida have already taken short courses in pesticide toxicity.

ACC is putting $2.1M into the funding pool, EPA another $6.9M. With all the recent furor over conflicts of interest at NIH, you'd think that the EPA would want to keep the fox out of the chicken coop.