digital switch

February 17th.

If you have a television, you know why this date is significant. This is the day when all broadcasters are required to switch from analog to digital broadcasts. The decision was made by Congress in 2005 stating that digital was more efficient and allowed for the freeing up valuable chunks of wireless spectrum.

As a result, many programs were enacted for consumers to be able to make the switch, most notably the coupons to purchase the digital convertor boxes. However, The Commerce Department, the group responsible for handing out these coupons has run out money. This means the coupons cannot be made available to consumers.

In reaction to this news, Barack Obama has urged Congress to delay the switch. They fear that the government is not doing enough to ensure the success through out all communities, primarily rural, poor, elderly and minority groups.

This request has been met by criticism by varying groups, most notably the Bush Administration.

The one critique that environmental groups have had is that this new program does not take into account two things; the increase in purchase of plasma televisions, and the inadequacy in handling e-waste.

The problem of the convertor box is solved if you get a digital television, the most popular being plasma televisions. These are made using nitrogen triflouride, which is more damaging to the environment than carbon dioxide by 17,000 times. But if you do get a new television, what do you do with the old one? Many are taken to the dump, which is illegal. And, there are not enough e-waste programs to handle the abundance of discarded televisions. The switch is occurring without consideration for this problem being solved.

There is the hope that the digital switch is delayed, not only because many low income groups depend on their televisions for important news bulletins, but also because it many give the television and e-waste companies more time to come up with a solution.

A full account of the request by President-elect Obama can be found at The Boston Globe

surprise inspection: FDA

This publication has been very critical of the FDA in recent months. Under the Bush Administration, the organization has seemed to lean towards corporate well-being instead of patient well-being; allowing drugs, chemicals, and equipment to get approval without sound research. Bisphenol-A seems to be the leading example of such activity.

Well, we seem to not be the only ones. A group of scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team pleading with him to restructure the agency, saying managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced scientists to manipulate data in violation of the law, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Indicating that the organization is “fundamentally broken”, the scientists main concern centered around the review process for medical devices. The critics contend that it has been “corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk.”

The group also says that they have taken their concerns to the head of the FDA, Andrew von Eschenbach, as well as the Commissioner in Charge of Accountability and Integrity, Bill McConagha. The response has been less than positive as either nothing has been done or the problematic managers have been rewarded and promoted.

Much of this will have to be addressed to Tom Daschle, who is Obama’s appointment for the Department of Health and Human Services. It will be his responsibility to investigate the charges and make changes, appropriately.

We have reported in the past about the FDA’s failings with the approval of Bisphenol-A. The chemical was approved after only two multi-phase studies, which would be considered unacceptable, normally. There is even evidence that the chemical manufacturers, such as Dow, was allowed to write the safety and efficacy reports.

Since the approval, repeated studies have shown this to be a much more dangerous chemical than expected. Doing most of its harm because it acts as a hormone mimicker it seen as the cause of cancers, sterility and genital deformities. The chemical is used as a synthesizing agent during the process of plastics and other metals (such as soda cans). And, unfortunately, is found at high levels in products targeted towards children (bottles, toys, and drinks) making exposure to the the toxin abnormally high.

It will be very interesting to see how the Obama Administration follows up with FDA and the changes implemented.

news-in-brief, 1/9/09

In Obama’s Team, Two Camps on Climate, via The New York Times
Today, as the climate-change debate once again heats up, Mr. Summers leads the economic team of the incoming administration, and Ms. Browner has been designated its White House coordinator of energy and climate policy. And Mr. Gore is hovering as an informal adviser to President-elect Barack Obama.

As Mr. Obama seeks to find the right balance between his environmental goals and his plans to revive the economy, he may have to resolve conflicting views among some of his top advisers……

This CAFE Is Closed: Bush admin. won’t implement fuel efficiency rules, via GRIST.org

The administration’s move drew a sharp reaction from one of the biggest congressional backers of CAFE. “Apparently the Bush administration was too busy giving midnight regulatory handouts to its corporate cronies to complete its work on fuel economy standards for consumers,” said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. “I look forward to working with President Obama to implement this landmark CAFE legislation and get our national energy policy back on track.”

The new administration of president-elect Barack Obama takes over on January 20. Obama has selected Republican representative Ray LaHood to head the agency.

US judge dismisses pollution case against Cargill, via MSNBC

The Cargill lawsuit alleged the company used chemicals linked to illnesses including lung congestion and organ damage, and that the hazardous substances eventually reached the groundwater and several private wells.

Cargill processed and stored agricultural seed at the plant from 1981 to about 2000.

For those who don’t know, Cargill is one of the main manufacturers of High Fructose Corn Syrup. Many credit Cargill and Monsanto as being the leading corporations that has turned our agriculture away from food farming and into commodity farming.

Tehran looks to the skies for cheap power from the sun, via The Guardian UK

Mention energy and Iran in the same sentence and you’re duty-bound to express some concern about the country’s ambitions for nuclear power and, as a result, raise dangerous questions about weapons. But while that are-they-aren’t-they game has been going on between the country’s leaders and the wider international community, renewable energy experts in Iran have been quietly working on capturing sunlight to power their country.

According to officials, Iran has started 2009 by inaugurating a pilot solar plant in Shiraz, Fars province. It is a concentrating solar power (CSP) system, using parabolic mirrors to focus sunlight onto a tube of water that is super-heated to make steam that is then used to turn electricity-generating turbines.

bush: last 12 days

Although there are only a handful of days before the inauguration of our new President, the legacy of the Bush Administration will remain for days, months, and maybe years, to come.

In his final days, we have seen the passing of a handful of midnight rulings that will greatly impact the environment. In addition, it was announced today that the administration will ending efforts to come up with better fuel efficiency rules, leaving that to Obama. (Which may benefit from being in the better hands, honestly.)

Here is some information of the midnight rulings that have a negative impact on the environment.

Endangered Species Act: A rule change was put in place removing a provision that requires Fish and Wildlife Service scientists to make sure that endangered species won’t be harmed by federally approved logging, mining and road-building projects. The evaluations will now be handled by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Federal Highway Administration. But many argue that their best interest is in the approval and implementation of the new projects, not the species affected.

In a separate announcement, the Fish and Wildlife Service said that it will prevent the effect of greenhouse gases on threatened wildlife from being factored into the Endangered Species Act.

Oil-Shale: An issuance of new rules that take the first step toward tapping an estimated 800 billion barrels of oil trapped in sedimentary rock in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado.

Oil shale is a sedimentary rock that contains trace amounts of oil, which can be extracted at high temperatures. But turning shale into usable oil is expensive, and the industry hasn’t been able to do it in a way that is profitable yet. There are also serious environmental consequences at every step. Digging the shale out of the earth damages the landscape, refining it dirties the air and both steps require massive amounts of water and energy.

Hazardous waste and air pollutants: The list of regulations about to get approved is astounding. Essentially, the EPA has opened the doors to a host of hazardous chemicals into our air and water. Here is a sampling:

-the definition of solid waste is revised
-fungicide limits are relaxed
-power plants are exempt from pollution controls
-ease of restirictions on power plants by national parks and wilderness
-hazardous waste to be used as fuel
-less reporting of animal pollution
-factory farms allowed to decide if they need a permit, or not, prior to dumping animal waste discharge
-lead standards lowered in air quality

and, believe it or not, the list goes on

Mining waste to be dumped in rivers and streams: The 25 year old ban disallowing the dumping of mining waste within 100 yards of rivers and streams has been lifted. Companies are allowed to place the bi-product of mining anywhere they like, even if it blocks the flow of important waters leading to towns or other ecosystems.

You can get a full listing of the midnight regulations from ProPublica

public works program, round 2

We have given money to the banks, we have given money to the cars, we have even given money to ourselves (albeit at much smaller amounts). Next up, we need to give money to our buildings, streets, and bridges.

However, this one can be done better than the other three gifts, with a bit of forethought. Environmental News Network posted a great OpEd piece about what should be considered in a new ‘green’ infrastructure built.

1.) Reduce funding of sprawl-inducing bypasses, new highways through rural land, and other highway projects that reinforce automobile-based development
2.) Support bicycle pathways and bicycle lanes on roadways to make bicycle commuting and bicycle travel more viable. Bicycle access should be considered with all roadway projects.
3.) Provide incentives that influence driving behavior, including greater use of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on highways, congestion pricing, downtown access tolls, employee-provided transit passes, and elimination of employee parking subsidies.
4.) Create wildlife passages across roadways. Wildlife underpasses and overpasses can reduce roadkill as well as habitat fragmentation.

There are more, so please check out the original article.

dear barack and michelle

Written for Grist.org, an open letter written by the top climate scientist, James Hansen, and his wife, explain why the current policy approach to climate change solutions are ineffectual and possibly a waste of time.

The entire letter is worth the time spent in reading it and deserves a great deal of attention. They suggest three primary steps that need to be taken: a moratorium and phase-out of coal plants that do not capture and store CO2, an increase of price on carbon emissions via a “carbon tax and 100 percent dividend”, and urgent R&D on fourth generation nuclear power with international cooperation.

There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative reports in response to a Presidential request1. NAS was set up by President Lincoln for just such advisory purposes.

Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science indicates to be required.

The importance of this letter is for you, the citizen, to read and know what you need to demand of your policy makers. We, as a community, need to remember that the bottom line is that Barack, Michelle, Joe and Hillary are our employees. Our voice is an indication of measurables that we expect to be met, as any employer would give a staff member.

The time for celebration is over. We, now, need to demand that the change promised is the change done. This letter is a must read and a great starting point in educating yourself of the policy that must be enacted for the human race to survive.

news in food

Here are a handful of interesting links in food news for this week

Growing More Corn for Ethanol Makes Pest Control Harder, via the NY Times

Critics say turning more acreage over to corn to make fuel can lead to higher prices for other crops, increased soil erosion and other negative effects.

In a report in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Douglas A. Landis of Michigan State University and colleagues show that increasing the corn acreage can reduce the abundance of insect predators that control aphids, the most significant soybean pest in the United States.

Let’s Ask Marion Nestle: Are The USDA’s Organic Standards A Sham?, via Huffington Post

Cheating is the Achilles’ heel of organics. The entire organic certification system is based on trust. If trust goes, the organic industry collapses like a house of cards. Organics means two quite different things. To people who care about the food system, organics is about growing crops and raising animals using methods that are good (for the health of people and animals), clean (for the environment), fair (to the people who produce the food), and sustainable (meaning renewing–not wasting or destroying–the earth’s natural resources).

To everyone involved in raising and selling organic foods, organics is a business. This business commands higher prices if–and only if–buyers believe that the food is produced according to those criteria and is better for their health and that of the planet.

(edit. note: really good article)

Will Obama Integrate Food, Farming & Health Policies?, via ENN

Diet-related diseases continue to escalate – specifically in our children. Researchers predict that as a result of the continued rise in overweight, the children of today will have a shorter lifespan than their parents. Overweight and obesity alone have translated into skyrocketing health care costs which are bankrupting families and the health care system.

Likewise, the number of family farms and acres used for growing food is falling, while the cost of farm inputs are increasing. Subsidized crops such as corn, soybeans and wheat have flooded supermarkets with more processed, packaged “food-like” substances. Often, these foods are of low nutritional value and high in sugar, fat and salt.

A dichotomy exists between agriculture policies and Dietary Guidelines for Americans – yet, ironically, both are overseen by the USDA. Current food and farm policies stand in the way of making healthy food the easiest choice.

first 100 days

Yale e360 is a fantastic site, for those who have never visited it. This week they have gathered some of the best minds to address what Obama should do in his first 100 days.

Although the respondents — including entrepreneur Paul Hawken, Rajendra Pachauri of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, activist Van Jones, and green investing leader Mindy Lubber — represent a broad range of interests, they were largely in agreement on how best to solve the current economic and environmental challenges. Basically, they agree that weaning the country off fossil fuels and onto renewable sources of energy is the single best way to rebuild the U.S. economy; that Obama must use all the tools at his disposal — from invoking the Clean Air Act for regulating greenhouse gas emissions to persuading the new Congress to put a price on carbon — to tackle climate change and spur the move to alternative energy; that under an Obama administration the United States must lead in forging a new global climate change treaty; and that, given the rapidity of global warming, Obama must be made fully aware of the “scary” scientific facts — as environmentalist Bill McKibben puts it — and move with a sense of urgency.

You can go HERE for the full article. It will be interesting to see if he follows any of the advice.

do you like clean water? then, you better pay attention…

The Colorado River is the water (and power) source for millions of people; it provides power to 3 million homes, waters 15% of our agriculture in the West, and gives one in 12 people something to drink. That is why many are concerned about its sustainability and longevity as a provider. In fact, many do not know this, but one environmental group has called listed it as the “most endangered” waterway.

The reason: the region could contain more oil than Alaska’s Arctic Wildlife Refuge and people want to get at it. And, now.

Rulings under the Bush Administration have not helped, either.

In the eight years George W. Bush has been in office, the Colorado River watershed has seen more oil and gas drilling than at any time in the past 25 years. Uranium claims have reached a 10-year high. Last week the departing administration auctioned off an additional 359,000 acres of federal land for gas drilling projects outside Moab, Utah.

As still more land is leased for drilling and a last-minute change in federal rules has paved the way for water-intensive oil shale mining, politicians and water managers are now being forced to ask which is more valuable: energy or water.

 

“The decisions we are making today will be dictating how we will be living the rest of our lives,” said Jim Pokrandt, a spokesman with the Colorado River Conservation District, a state-run policy agency. “We may have reached mutually exclusive demands on our water supply.”

It is estimated that if all the oil and natural gas drilling that has been requested to be done, were in fact, done, the annual demand would be the equivalent of shutting off the water to all of Southern California for five days. Oil shale drilling is the equivalent of 79 days.

And then there is a question of contamination. The major mining companies claim that they adhere to the EPA guidelines, but those guidelines are getting less strict every day. Add on top of that, Uranium mining, and there is the potential of radioactive material infecting our water supply.

Scientists say some degree of pollution is inevitable, because mining sometimes uses toxic chemicals like cyanide. It also exposes naturally toxic metals that would otherwise remain deep underground.

Drilling for uranium creates pathways where raw, radioactive material can migrate into underground aquifers that drain into the river. Surface water can seep into the drill holes and mine shafts, picking up traces of uranium and then percolating into underground water sources. The milling process itself creates six pounds of radioactive and toxic waste — including ammonia, arsenic, lead and mercury — for every ounce of uranium production.

So, this has become a question of competition: food and water for the citizenry or lack of dependency on foreign oil. Not to put too much pressure on the Obama Adminsistration, but many are looking to them to undo the leniency allowed by his predecessor and to come up with a happy medium between the two.

The full article can be found at ProPublica.

i think i beg to differ

In an exit interview with Fox News, President Bush said that he “didn’t compromise his soul” during his administration. I know that this is going to ruffle some feathers, but I ask, what kind of person has a soul that has no issues with destroying nature and the people he is supposed to ‘lead’?

In the next month we are going to see countless examples as midnight rulings take affect under this administration. Of the 50 or so rulings expected, 36 of them directly affect the well being of our citizenry, either in aiding the destruction of our planet or in the allowance of toxins into our environment, affecting our health.

In another move that solidifies the Bush policy into the American public, it seems the EPA is undergoing a reorganization.

According to an employee of the ORD (EPA’s, Office of Research and Development) — who asked to remain anonymous to avoid reprisals — a department-wide staff meeting on 18 December reiterated plans mooted in recent months, including abandoning many small projects led by a single principal investigator (PI) in favour of broad, multi-agency, multi-disciplinary projects. It is not yet clear when these changes will take place.

The move is seen by many scientists not as sensible streamlining, but rather as an attempt to push through Bush administration objectives before the keys to the White House are passed to Obama.

ORD labs are in 13 locations around the United States and employ 1,900 people, including support staff. Much of their research focuses on the environment, human health and risk of exposure to pollutants.

I will leave it to you to make your own opinions about the move. Maybe, we should trust the EPA when they say that this is just a standard re-organization. Maybe we should look at the type of people who will lose their jobs in January 20th when Obama takes over and wonder what their motives may be. I do think it is very interesting timing.

The whole article is HERE.

« Previous Page — Next Page »