What are the most recent developments regarding environmental matters.?

The major environmental issue remains the threat of global warming which the subject of a separate Newsbatch summary.

Why are environmental issues a major public policy challenge?

In the past three decades there has been a global awakening regarding environmental issues. Considerable progress has been made in addressing a variety of very complex and technical problems associated with a historical disregard of these issues. But environmental issues continue to be some of the most important and perplexing problems facing all governments today.

Part of the difficulty facing politicians and the public is the technical complexity of the subject. A full understanding of the risks is often limited to scientists who specialize in a particular field of knowledge. On some issues there is serious disagreement among scientists which puts lay policy makers in a very difficult dilemma.

The resolution of environmental problems also involves a careful balancing of competing interests and values. Business interests frequently resist attempts at environmental regulation and this resistance usually reflects a public demand for products and development. Some environmental activists oppose many aspects of further human economic development because of threats to the remainder of the ecosystem. Others are chiefly concerned about current and future threats to the health of the human population.

Environmental issues present special difficulties for developing countries. These countries pose the biggest potential threat of exacerbating threats to the environment. But absent massive infusions of assistance from richer countries, they simply cannot afford to match environmental controls being adopted by developed countries.

Newsbatch provides summaries on the following policy issues:

Air Quality

We have been concerned about air quality for over a generation. What progress has been made?

Due primarily to increasingly stringent emission standards and cleaner gasolines mandated by a succession of Clean Air Acts, air quality has improved.  (Click to see chart)   There has been significant progress in California where emission standards are the most stringent. While motor vehicles continue to be a major source of air polution  (Click to see chart), the number of unhealthy days in some major smog-prone cities such as Los Angeles has been reduced significantly.   Despite this progress, air pollution remains a health problem and many experts insist that more needs to be done. Basically due to increases in population, more areas of the country are experiencing air pollution problems.

Charts
(click to enlarge)

National Lands

What is the controversy concerning our national lands?

About 650 million acres of land is owned by the federal government. Much of this land is undeveloped land in western states. For the past several decades there has been an ongoing struggle between protecting lands in their natural state and the desire to convert these lands toward economic benefit is ongoing. For example, the Wilderness Society recently identified 15 locations as America's most endangered wildlands.  (Click to see map)

 Land Issue Links

Google Directory - Forests and Rain Forests

National Park Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States Forest Service - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bureau of Land Management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World Wildlife Fund

Worldwide National Park Information Page

The Wilderness Society

Sierra Club

Charts
(click to enlarge)

Species Preservation

What are we doing to protect endangered species?

The Endangered Species Act was enacted without controversy in 1973 with the simple but ambitious goal of reversing the decades of neglect and abuse that have pushed many irreplaceable species of plants and animals to the brink of extinction. Under the provisions of this legislation, plants or animals are classified as "endangered" or "threatened". Endangered species cannot be purchased or sold in interstate or foreign commerce. Endangered animal species cannot be killed, hunted, collected, injured, or otherwise subjected to "harm." The same restrictions apply to plants, except on private land, where the "take" of plants is not prohibited. Protections for threatened plants and animals are more flexible than those for endangered species, but in the case of a particular species may include any and all of the above measures. Despite the protections of this act, the number of plants and animals which are endangered has grown, but not dramatically for mammals and birds. Only 11 species have been de-listed to recovery although many others are under consideration at present.  (Click to see chart)   But 41% of the species have increased or stabilized in their populations under the protections of the act. And there have been successes. For example, the bald eagle population increased from a low of 400 nesting pairs in 1963 to just over 4,700 nesting pairs in 1995 within the contiguous United States. The 1972 ban on DDT was a significant factor in this recovery.

Charts
(click to enlarge)

Waste Issues

What improvements have been made in waste management?

The environmental awareness of the past three decades has prompted far better management of solid and liquid wastes.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was enacted by Congress in 1976. RCRA's primary goals are to protect human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal, to conserve energy and natural resources, to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. Handlers of hazardous waste must meet certain regulatory requirements. Generators and transporters must have government issued identification numbers, and comply with other regulations regarding the handling of hazardous waste. Treatment, storage and disposal facilities must meet even more stringent requirements, and must have a permit to operate. Landfills that collect household garbage are predominately regulated by State and local governments. EPA has, however, established minimum criteria that these landfills must meet in order to stay open. The only hazardous waste that municipal landfills can accept is household hazardous waste and waste that is exempt from hazardous waste regulation. State and local governments are responsible for implementing these provisions. Hazardous wastes that are generated in the home are not regulated by the federal RCRA program although many communities regulate their disposal.

The amount of solid waste generated per person increased significantly from 1960 through 1990 but has been constant since at a rate of slightly more than 4.5 pounds per person, per day.   About 30% of the waste constitutes paper materials; the remainder comes from a variety of sources. A major development in waste management has been the emergence of recycling which has received wide public participation. Presently over twenty percent of all waste is recycled, a significant increase from 1960. The recycling rate varies among common household materials.   The recycling trend has thus significantly reduced the overall increase in waste deposits.

But what about past disposals? What is the "Superfund"?

The discoveries of hazardous waste exposure and high incidence of health effects at the Love Canal, near Niagara Falls, prompted the 1978 enactment of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) also known as the "Superfund".

This legislation requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to monitor cleanups at sites which release hazardous substances into the environment. EPA is authorized to direct responsible parties to eliminate the threats posed to the environment and public health and "clean up" the site. In the event that responsible parties do not fulfill their obligation, EPA is expected to direct and finance the cleanup with Superfund dollars and responsible parties must then reimburse Superfund. Since the enactment of this legislation, the EPA has identified about 39,000 cleanup sites nationally   and progress toward cleanup has been slow but steady. Until recently the Superfund had a surplus and the cost of cleanup was largely paid through industry reimbursements to the Superfund. But Congress has not extended the "polluter pays" funding concept and now taxpayers are funding most of the cleanup  and therehas been a resultant reduction in overall funding. As a result, the rate of cleanup progress has significantly slowed.

Under the prior Superfund legislation, the generators of the hazardous substances, the transporters who selected the site, and the owners and operators (both past and present) of the facility or property where the substance was released were considered liable. Liability is strict, joint and several, and retroactive, and defenses allowed by the act are few. Because of the high cost of cleanup, the legislation contributed to costly litigation between businesses concerning their share of such liability. These controversies concerning these problems have contributed to the reluctance of Congress to renew the prior Superfund financing scheme. The shift of responsiblity to the taxpayers for cleanup has dismayed environmental groups. They note that the "polluter pays" concept is not only fair but also operates as a powerful disencentive for industries to engage in future acts of pollution.

Does the Superfund address gasoline storage leaks?

No. Congress had specifically excluded petroleum products (although not petrochemicals) from the Superfund law. But legislation passed in 1986 established a separate trust fund program for this problem. The money in the fund is derived primarily from a 0.1 cent-per-gallon federal tax on motor fuels and several other petroleum products. The legislation directed EPA to establish financial responsibility requirements for owners and operators to cover costs of taking corrective action and to compensate third parties for injury and property damage caused by leaking tanks. The regulations require insurance coverage of $1 million, or alternatively, owners and operators may rely on state assurance funds to demonstrate financial responsibility.

What are brownfields? What are they? What issues concern these sites?

In 1993 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to address sites that may be contaminated by hazardous substances but which did not pose a serious enough public health risk to warrant cleanup under the Superfund program. Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. They range in size from a corner gas station to abandoned factories and mill sites. Estimates of the number of sites range from the tens of thousands to as high as 450,000 and they are often in economically distressed areas. Brownfield sites face a paradox: they are generally not eligible for remediation funding under the Superfund program because they pose a low public health risk while, at the same time, developers may avoid them because of cleanup costs, potential liability, or related reasons, thereby stalling economic development.

On April 21 2001, the Senate unanimously approved a bill which would authorize $1.25 billion over the next five years to help state and local governments clean up and redevelop more than 450,000 brownfields throughout the country. The measure would also encourage the redevelopment of brownfields by grantingp a liability exemption to prospective purchasers who do not cause or worsen the contamination at a site. The legislation precludes the EPA from interfering in the state cleanups unless (1) a state requests assistance, (2) the contamination migrates across state lines or onto federal property, or (3) there is an "imminent and substantial endangerment" to public health or the environment and additional work needs to be done.

How does the U.S. compare to other countries in waste generation?

The U.S. is no longer the international leader in waste generation per capita but U.S. waste generation is still well in excess of the average for developed countries.

Where do Democrats and Republicans stand on waste issues?

Both parties support efforts to proper manage and clean-up wastes. Republicans tend to support measures to transfer responsibility for these processes from the EPA to state and local governments. They also tend to object to stringent liability requirements on businesses and landowners for the cost of clean-up. Republicans for the most part oppose the special taxes on polluters to finance the Superfund.

Google Directory - Hazardous_Materials

Waste management - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Superfund - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How Stuff Works - Landfills

EPA Cleanup Page

EPA Page on Wastes

EPA Superfund Page

Charts
(click to enlarge)

Return to Top

Nuclear Power Concerns

Do the environmental dangers associated with nuclear power justify its use?

This is a difficult question. At one time nuclear power was considered a very attractive alternative to the use of fossil fuels. Although the construction cost in creating such facilities are extensive, the plants can be cost effective because they do not rely on large quantities of expensive fuels. Nuclear power also has the advantage of significantly reducing greenhouse emissions. But concerns about the safety of nuclear power have again increased after a severe earthquake and tsunami struck northern Japan in March 2011. Damage caused by the tsunami interfered with the plant operations, causing a meltdown of three reactors, and there was a significant dangerous leakage of radiation, prompting evacuations in the area. In the wake of this disaster, there has been a significant international concern regarding the safety of nuclear power.

In the United States, nuclear power assumed an increasing amount of U.S. electricity production in the 1970's and 1980's but its development began to stall in the wake of the Three Mile Island incident in 1979. Still nuclear power is a major source of electricity transmission in the U.S., particularly in many southern and eastern seaboard states.   Globally, nuclear power is an important source of electricity generation in many countries and there has been a steady increase in the reliance on nuclear power. About 16% of the world's electricity is now produced by nuclear power and some countries rely on nuclear power for most of their electricity generation.   Before the Japanese disaster, U.S. public opinion had begun to shift regarding the desirability of constructing new nuclear power plants, but in the wake of the Japanese disaster, it has returned to prior levels.

• The ongoing possibility of an operational accident which could ultimately be catastrophic.

In addition to the Japanese incident, two other major nuclear power accidents have helped dampen the enthusiasm for nuclear power. In 1979, at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, there was a partial core meltdown due to a faulty valve and the failure of the instrumentation to properly inform the operators regarding the nature of the problem. Although there were no identifiable injuries from the accident, the incident was a public relations disaster for the nuclear power industry. A far more serious accident occurred in the Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986. This accident was due to faulty reactor design and also faulty instrumentation which prevented the operators from quickly correcting the problem. It produced a plume of radioactive debris that drifted over parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Scandinavia. Large areas of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of roughly 200,000 people. About 60% of radioactive fallout landed in Belarus. The overall health consequences of the incident are not completely clear. Most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain. The abandoned reactor site itself is a source of current concern because about 95% of the fuel remains inside. Efforts to permanently enclose it to prevent further decontamination have been unsuccessful. The problem has been more economic and political than technological. Among the former Soviet countries, the Ukraine's adjustment to a market economy and autonomy has been particularly difficult.

Proponents of nuclear power argue that the overall operational safety record of the nuclear power industry has been good and that improved plant design, automation, and operator training will effectively prevent future accidents. Opponents maintain that such safety can never be assured.

• The possibility of a catastrophic terrorist attack on a nuclear power facility.

Opponents of nuclear power express concerns that nuclear waste is not well protected, and that it can be released in the event of terrorist attack. Proponents of nuclear power contend, however, that nuclear waste is well protected, and state their argument that there has been no accident involving any form of nuclear waste from a civilian program worldwide. In addition, they point to large studies which tested the robustness of both reactor and waste fuel storage, and found that they should be able to sustain a terrorist attack comparable to the September 11. Perhaps the most significant concern involves a terrorist takeover of a nuclear facility. If a terrorist had the technical ability to operate the controls, a catastrophic event could be set in motion.

• The long term storage of nuclear waste.

The problems associated with nuclear waste have been very difficult. Unfortunately, there has been little progress in identifying acceptable solutions for the storage of this waste. A legislative mandate to obtain a storage location by 1998 was not met and nuclear utilities have successfully sued to hold the Department of Energy liable for the costs of future storage of utility-generated waste.

The main concern involves the storage of high level nuclear waste from weapons manufacturing and spent fuel from commercial reactors operated by utilities. There has been tremendous difficulty in identifying a site for permanent storage for this waste. The problem is confounded by concerns associated with transportation of these materials. Much of the inventory of high level waste is presently stored at three federal sites operated by the Department of Energy in South Carolina, Washington and Idaho.

The safety of geologic disposal of highly radioactive waste, as planned in the United States, depends largely on the characteristics of the rock formations from which a repository would be excavated. Because many geologic formations are believed to have remained undisturbed for millions of years, it appears technically feasible to isolate radioactive materials from the environment until they decayed to safe levels. But much of the problem results from the inherent uncertainty involved in predicting waste site performance for the 10,000-year period (or longer) that nuclear waste is to be isolated. Opponents of geologic disposal have urged greater emphasis on new or alternative technologies that might allow entirely different approaches to high-level radioactive waste management.

The primary site selected for storage is the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. The state of Nevada has fought DOE's efforts to move nuclear waste to this site based on safety issues. Legislation to use Yucca Mountain as an initial temporary site for commercial waste was vetoed by the Clinton Administration and the Senate fell three votes short of overriding the veto.   The Clinton Administration's position was that nuclear waste should not be stored temporarily near Yucca Mountain before the site had been found suitable for permanent underground disposal. This generally has been the view of most environmental organizations. The Bush Administration supports the use of the Yucca Mountain site. In 2002, Congress voted to approve the site . However, the Obama Administration has called for a new review of disposal options and the entire project has been suspended. Several European countries have active programs dedicated to safe permanent storage of the waste but there is no international agreement at present regarding the most appropriate method.

Nuclear Waste Links

Google Directory - Nuclear Waste

How Stuff Works - Nuclear Power

Nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository - Wikipedia

Department of Energy - Nuclear

Return to Top

Charts
(click to enlarge)

Water Quality

What has been done about waste discharges into our waterways and oceans?

Since passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, most of the conspicuous water pollution of the later 1960s and 1970s has been eliminated.

A major feature of this legislation authorized federal financial assistance of municipal sewage treatment plant construction and set standards for proper secondary treatment of this waste water. By 1988, 86% of all cities met the 1988 deadline. The remainder were put under judicial or administrative schedules requiring compliance as soon as possible. However, many cities, especially smaller ones, continue to make investments in building or upgrading facilities needed to achieve secondary treatment.

Although sewage treatment has eliminated a major source of water pollution, progress in dealing with industrial polluters appears to be unsuccessful in many areas. The Clean Water Act also requires industrial and municipal dischargers to obtain permits. Sources are required to maintain records and to carry out regular monitoring activities. Permits are issued for 5-year periods and must be renewed thereafter to allow continued discharge. The success of this permit system has not been uniform. Many states have not regularly renewed permits on a timely basis.  (Click to see map)  The result is that multiple violations are quietly tolerated in many states  at very high levels of pollution.

Charts
(click to enlarge)

Chemicals in Air and Food

What have we done to protect ourselves from chemicals in the air and food chain?

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, published in 1962, focused worldwide attention on the potential for dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other contaminants to persist in the environment and harm fish and wildlife. The United States responded by establishing programs to control these chemicals. Over the last several decades, the use of some persistent contaminants such as DDT and PCBs was greatly curtailed, and concentrations in fish and wildlife significantly declined.  (Click to see chart)   Although overall concentrations have declined, residues of these contaminants remain widespread, and fish consumption advisories remain in effect for some waters.

Charts
(click to enlarge)

Genetically Modified Foods

What is the conern about genetically altered foods? Has the government determined them to be safe?

Yes, the FDA has determined these foods to be safe because they are "substantially similar" to the foods that they are replacing. But the possible health affects have not been fully studied.

A quiet revolution has engulfed the agricultural industry during the past decade. Advances in biochemical science have resulted in the immediate introduction of food varieties that are "genetically engineered". By modifying DNA characteristics, scientists have successfully incorporated into plants both input traits designed for the convenience of growers, processors and marketers and output traits aimed at providing direct nutritional and food quality benefits to consumers. Input traits include pest and disease resistance, herbicide resistance, and other techniques designed to increase crop yield. Because of more predictable yields, these products have quickly gained acceptance among American growers. Over 80% of American soybeans and nearly 50% of American corn is presently based on genetically engineered products.   Globally, the percentage of acreage devoted to these crops continues to climb.

Some environmentalists argue that the dangers posed by GM foods involve the possibility that the food will produce a protein that is toxic or allergenic to some or all human beings, the nature and potency of that protein's toxicity or allergenicity, and the magnitude of dietary exposure to that protein. Genetic modifications designed to enhance input or output traits might incorporate proteins that induce allergenic responses in some sensitive people. Supporters of genetically modified crops respond that there are actually some current health benefits from these products and more can be developed. In addition, they note that 81 scientific studies financed by the European Commission have all shown no evidence of risk to human and animal health or to the environment from genetically modified crops.

Despite these studies, the European Union has not been receptive to the introduction of these foods. Labeling requirements requiring identification of all GM food products has effectively prevented European agricultural interests from using this technology. Almost 80% of acreage devoted to these foods is presently located in two countries: the U.S. and Argentina.   The European resistance to these foods has had trade reprecussions and has contributed to the present international tension between Europe and the United States. Unlike Europe, public opinion supports the technology in the U.S.  although much of the public lacks information on the subject.

Where do Democrats and Republicans stand on genetic foods?

Nationally, the issue does not generate much partisan debate. The 2004 Democratic platform was silent on the issue while, without specifically referring to genetically modified foods, the Republican platform lamented the "outrageous" trade restrictions imposed by Europe on American crops and livestock. A 2002 ballot initiative in Oregon to require labeling of genetically engineered food got less than 30 percent of the vote. Bills to require labeling of genetically modified foods have failed in California, Maine, Michigan and Vermont in recent years.

Return to Top

Genetically Modified Food Links

Google Directory - Genetically Modified Food

Genetically modified food - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How Stuff Works - Genetically Modified Foods

BBC: Questions and Answers on Genetically Modified Foods

Charts
(click to enlarge)

Global Population Growth

How are population trends affecting the global environment?

The world's population has increased dramatically in the past century.   The growth has been primarily related to dramatic increases in life expectancy and reduced infant mortality . But the evidence clearly suggests that as societies become more modern and experience human development, a "fertility transition" occurs. In highly developed societies, people choose to limit family size to about two children. In low developed societies, people tend to produce large families. In 1990, 50% of the world's population were living in low developed societies and the birth rate was high. By 2005, only 5% of the world's population were living in such societies. In many countries, there is even concern that a low fertility rate coupled with an aging population will severely curtail economic growth.

The environmental consequences of maintaining the world's high population level are significant.

In terms of providing the basic necessities of life, the evidence suggests that the present high level of global human population is sustainable. So far, world agricultural output has outpaced the world's population increase even though many of the world's agricultural regions remain poorly developed. Although the global water supplies are being severely challenged in some regions, better water management and delivery can effectively address this problem.

The major potential environmental impact of present and future high global population levels is associated with the consequences of poorly regulated economic development. Carbon dioxide emissions are disporportionately high in countries with advanced economies. The destruction of global rain forests is related to both population pressures and poorly regulated economic motivations. Although some believe that an environmental catastrophe is inevitable unless there is an immediate drastic reduction in world population levels, others believe that the environmental damage caused by high population/developed economy societies can be repaired and controlled if there is sufficient international political will to address the problem.

General Environment Links

Natural environment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About.com: Environment

Environmental Organization Web Directory

EnviroLink

Almanac of Policy Issues

United Nations Environment Program

European Environmental Agency

Environmental Defense

Friends of the Earth

Greenpeace USA

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)

Nature Conservancy

Sierra Club

World Resources Institute

World Wildlife Fund (U.S)

CATO Institute: Natural Resources and Environmental Studies

Population Links

Google Directory - Population

Wikipedia - Population 

Population Reference Bureau 

Population Connection (formerly Zero Population Growth) 

Population Growth from About.com

Charts
(click to enlarge)