Home

An apology, this newsletter was to be published right on the heels of Earth
Day.   My computer fell victim to the W32 Sassar B worm. Took the better part
of 5 days to whup that invasion. I've noticed these worms seem to be showing
up more and more frequently. Could it be the result of global
warming???

Earth Day has come and gone and our livable Earth, though bruised and
battered, is still functioning, at least for the moment. It was quite a while ago
when we offered the last environmental update. Seems it's time to revisit the
subject. Let's review a couple of things that have gone on in the past 6
months or so.

On Earth Day the President was 'up East' talking about how our air is cleaner
today than it has been in recent years.   He touted how he is committed to the
stewardship of our Clean Air, Clean Water and the environment in general.
Meanwhile on Earth Day, EPA officials, in Washington, were meeting with oil
executives to consider a plan for temporarily reducing pollution standards for
gasoline. This will, of course, increase sulfur emissions. "The EPA notes that
sulfur has been associated with serious respiratory illness and asthma while
also aggravating existing cardiovascular diseases." [1]. The Administration's
intent is to reduce gas prices from 2 to 5 cents a gallon in some parts of the
country by allowing imports of cheaper gasoline exceeding 120 ppm of sulfur
(the current standard). The easing of the restrictions is being suggested this
year; the year when refineries were to begin reducing of sulfur content from
120 ppm to 30 ppm by 2006. [2] But never fear, the Saudi's have assured us,
that after they make a hell of a profit from us this summer, they will open the
spigots in time for the election.

As I reviewed the past several month's environmental activities, I realize two
things: 1. I should not have waited so long to write this update, 2. the Bush
administration has been very busy tearing down, reversing or avoiding
compliance with the environmental advances made within the past 20 years.
When I listen to the pundits on TV they proclaim the war and the economy are
the big issues. Environment ranks way at the bottom of the list of concerns of
the public today. We focus on the 3000 killed in the towers, the 700 troops
killed in Iraq. These are staggering numbers that hit close to home. We can
relate to these numbers personally. We are less stunned by the over 10,000
civilian (non combatants) killed in Iraq in our effort to free them [3]. And
shame on us for that lack of compassion and concern. Yet here at home the
"EPA released a new study that nearly doubled, from 320,000 to 630,000, its
estimate of the number of newborns exposed annually to high levels of
mercury." [4] This fact isn't even a concern to us! 630,000 children who run
the risk of growing up with learning deficiencies. This number is not even on
our horizon?!

Why is the environment way down the list of public concerns? Is it the lack of
"Shock and Awe", the lack of media coverage or have we just become
complacent about things environmental? Could it be that us "tree huggers"
are those people that are Way Out There and generally considered Kooks?
Saving the whale and the porpoise seems like something we ought to do but it
wont effect me personally, I don't eat whale. I have never seen a spotted owl,
I have seen a snail darter (but not for long) and who cares if the caribou and
polar bears have to move over a bit so that we can drill for oil, as long as I can
get gas for my car cheap.!   The publicized issues just don't come across as
affecting the average Joe or Jane. It's hard to really relate to them
personally. It's hard to recognize that this "is in my back yard"!

Well here are a few of the environmental regulatory changes proposed within
the past three years. Hopefully pointing out the personal implications of these
changes will allow you to recognize that it doesn't have to go "Bang or Boom"
to kill you. To live comfortably we must rely upon a healthy environment. If we
don't work with the environment, helping it to deal with the pressures we put
upon it, it too can become a killer.

The EPA late last year, issued a proposal to revise earlier clean water
standards. The problem involves sewage treatment plants and their inability
to adequately process sewage during peak wet weather periods. Rather than
require the sewage plants to expand capacity, and fund the needed
expansions, the administration decided to allow the plants to blend raw
sewage with treated sewage that is dumped into our waterways. This will allow
pathogens and the bacteria that cause E Coli, Hepatitis A and some other
culprits I cannot even pronounce to be released in greater numbers into the
water you eventually drink or play in.   The "EPA has found that discharges of
inadequately treated sewage spread pathogens and disease in U.S.
waterways. Experts estimate that there are 7.1 million mild-to-moderate cases
and 560,000 moderate-to-severe cases of infectious waterborne disease in
the United States annually. While most people recover from the diseases
spread by waterborne pathogens in sewage, they can threaten the lives of
young children, the elderly, cancer patients, and other people with
compromised immune systems." [5] Being one of the elderly and having
young grandchildren, this becomes very personal to me!

Superfund Cleanup - Since 1980 a tax has been imposed on industries that
produce toxic waste. The purpose of this tax is to require polluters to
contribute to a fund to clean up the sites as needed. This insures that tax
payers don't have to pick up the bill for companies and agencies that leave a
toxic mess. Clean up is paid from the fund not the general tax revenue.(you
pollute, you pay) Ronald Reagan stated it this way " These sites represent
the legacy of decades of neglect. We, as a society, must address these
serious health threats." [6] He then sent a proposal to Congress designed to
add 1 billion dollars a year to the fund for the next 5 years by taxing the
polluters. President after President has re-approved this program until now.
The Bush Administration has no plans to re-approve the superfund program.
For the future it will be up to the local governments, or states to clean up
these sites. This cost will be passed on to you in local and state taxes. "In
your back yard"?- "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that
one in four Americans lives within 4 miles of a hazardous waste site."(7) In my
searching there appear to be at least 10 major sites within our metro area.

I mentioned mercury earlier. Even with a number like 630,000 kids each year
being put at risk from over exposure to mercury, the Bush administration is
reducing the requirements to clean up that toxin. Christie Whitman, President
Bush's first EPA boss endorsed the Clinton plan to reduce mercury emissions.
(Reduce by 90% by 2008).   Mike Levitt the new EPA chief has proposed new
regulations that coal fired electric plants reduce mercury emissions by 70 % by
2018. (29% by 2008) [8] Some in congress have discovered the EPA got
some help from industry in framing this change "Specifically, it appears that
EPA has proposed a regulatory approach to mercury air pollution that in part
is copied word-for-word from memos prepared by the law firm Latham &
Watkins, which represents some of the largest polluters in the country,” [9]
And the real kicker to this new program is that not every plant has to reduce
emissions. If some plants clean up their operation they can sell credits to
dirtier plants and as long as the industry as a whole meets the goal everybody
is happy.... Unless of course you live close to a plant that made no
improvement!. . There is a whole "nuther" aspect to the mercury problem that
involves nine chlorine plants that lose (emit) more mercury per year than all of
the coal fired electric plants The Administration's position on these plants is
essentially: we don't know how to fix it, so we will ignore it... It's just too
mysterious, we don't know where it goes.

Hurrah for President Bush. He is budgeting 1.2 billion dollars toward the
development of pollution free hydrogen powered cars. The only emission will
be clear water no exhaust fumes. Using existing technology like wind turbines
and solar panels this could be the Green Party's dream. But... and isn't there
always a But. " What Bush didn't reveal in his nationwide address, however, is
that his administration has been working quietly to ensure that the system
used to produce hydrogen will be as fossil fuel-dependent -- and potentially as
dirty -- as the one that fuels today's SUVs. According to the administration's
National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, drafted last year in concert with the
energy industry, up to 90 percent of all hydrogen will be refined from oil,
natural gas, and other fossil fuels -- in a process using energy generated by
burning oil, coal, and natural gas. The remaining 10 percent will be cracked
from water using nuclear energy" [10]   Curses! Fooled again!

I think with these few examples I have laid the groundwork for my point. This
administration does not care about the environment where it might cross
purpose the expansion of industry. Please realize; Environment is: Water, Air,
Land, Trees, Fish, Foul, Animals, & You and Me. I have chosen not to go into
the environmental budget cuts where environmental programs have been
squeezed from 32.2 billion in 2004, to 30.3 billion in 2005, to 29.6 billion in
2006 with further cuts in the future. Please note that in these examples I have
even considered "nature", I have not hugged a tree, or even stroked a
salmon. The issues covered here have been those that occur "in your back
yard" and affect YOU and your health.

There are about 100 more topics that I didn't discuss. But all of them, like the
examples above lead us to face that our whole environment is in jeopardy
under this Administration. Shock and Awe quickly attracts your attention, but
be wary of those quiet changes that are occurring in your surroundings that
may turn into a killer, too.

A fitting end. A letter to the editor published in the KC Star April 28, 2004
titled: Earth Day Hypocrisy. "The hypocrisy of this president doing anything on
Earth Day besides handing out licenses to his oil buddies to despoil the public
wilderness would be laughable if the damage he has done is doing and will
continue to do to not only the environment but all other aspects of this great
nation wasn't so serious and perhaps irreparable... For him to claim anything
but total opposition to any form of environmental preservation is only slightly
less incredible than the fact that many , perhaps a majority of Americans
believe him or simply do not care"    Erich Noll

Into which of these categories do you fall?

Take Care
Paul






						"We have not inherited the world from our Forefathers: We have borrowed it from our Children" Kashmiri Proverb

							Administration's Efforts to Roll Back Environmental Policies