We All Live Downstream

by Alex Yerkey

I watched the U.S. House of Representatives “hard at work” until (far too) late into the early morning last Saturday. They were debating on the Continuing Budget Resolution. As amendment after amendment was proposed that would roll back environmental protections and endanger public health, I was struck by a single recurring thought: that the EPA may be a victim of its own successes.

That may sound a little crazy, but stick with me for a second. The EPA would not be such a target for the House Republicans (and more than a few Democrats) if these Representatives – and, perhaps more importantly, their constituents – regarded air and water pollution or environmental degradation as grave threats to their health or way of life. I think that a large part of the reason we don’t feel these threats so intensely is that the EPA has been so effective in confronting exactly these threats over the last four decades.

Could even the staunchest conservative in Congress get away with defunding the EPA if the evening news featured regular stories on how acid rain threatened to decimate urban buildings and rural crops alike – as was once the case? Fortunately, EPA –ironically, through a cap-and-trade program created under the Clean Air Act – brought acid rain pollution under control in the 1990s. Many Americans no longer regard acid rain or similar pollution problems as serious environmental or public health threats.

When the idea of cutting EPA’s funding comes up, the response you often hear goes something like this:  “I’m not wild about it, but times are hard, and it’s not like there’s some imminent environmental disaster right around the corner.”

But even a cursory look at events of the past year shows how dangerously mistaken this perspective actually is. EPA has as big a role as ever to play in protecting us from grave environmental and public health risks: Gulf oil spill #1, Gulf oil spill #2, the Enbridge oil spill that fouled Michigan’s Kalamazoo River, and, also here in Michigan, the recent spill at a natural gas well just south of Traverse City. Fossil fuel extraction, refining, storage and combustion all carry serious ongoing risks. Longer term, fossil fuel use unchecked means greenhouse gas pollution that brings the biggest existential threat to our way of life in the 21^st Century.

That’s the scientific reality. But sometimes it seems the only reality that matters is whatever public perception is able to gain the upper hand in today’s polarized and increasingly propagandistic media environment. Perception can have as much to do with people’s willingness to give their elected representatives a pass on the egregious misbehavior unfolding today as Congress “does its business.” Too many of us have been fooled into accepting the notion that the real wolf at the door is the three-headed monster of “runaway government spending,” a budget deficit “spiraling out of control,” and what everyone agrees are unacceptably low employment numbers.  Once you buy into this perception, it can be hard to resist the push for deep cuts in anything that seems less than strictly necessary.

Without a grave and imminent threat to confront, EPA falls all too easily into the “stuff we like but simply can’t afford right now” category. The problem is, too many numbers are missing from this equation: the cost of health problems from water and air pollution; the good jobs created by clean energy companies; the huge economic benefits realized every day here in Michigan and around the country by people and businesses whose livelihoods rely on clean water, clean air and a safe, healthy environment.

Nothing seems to matter in the current debate except for those government expenditures that address immediate threats to the country. Which of those threats have been diminished today by EPA and environmental success stories like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act? Which of today’s imminent environmental and health threats simply don’t register in the public’s consciousness?

I sincerely hope the U.S. – both its government and its people – can talk ourselves off the current cut-happy ledge, before too much damage is done. It would be tragic if reduced enforcement and increased clean air and clean water violations by run-amok polluters – which would surely follow – are what it would take to wake people up and get things headed in the right direction again. Are we really ready for a return to the days when waste-choked rivers regularly burst into flames?

Decades of steady progress toward cleaner air and water did not happen through hope or good intentions or voluntary actions by for-profit corporations. Those efforts succeed at delivering environmental and health protection results because clean air and clean water were deemed to be public policy priorities and were funded as such.

EPA still has many dragons left to slay. Much of our water today still fails to meet quality standards for drinking, fishing, or bodily contact. Smog is a persistent problem, and if warming climate trends continue, it’s only going to get worse. Unregulated Black Carbon soot carries a cancer risk seven times that all other air pollutants combined and is also big factor making climate change worse. Environmental and health protection challenges like these may not yet be perceived broadly as “hair-on-fire,” “wolf-at-the-door” threats, but it is only a matter of time before their economic, environmental and social costs will be overwhelming.

Making deep cuts now at EPA and in the most successful clean water, clean air and health protection programs will make things worse even faster, and the future clean-up costs even greater.

Now would be a very good time to let your U.S. Representative know what you think of his/her vote on the Continuing Resolution.

Alex Yerkey is a Campaign Organizer with Clean Water Action, based in Ann Arbor  Michigan.

by Lynn Thorp

There’s dire news about climate change pretty much every week now.  There’s also promising news about what we can do to address global warming if we can find the political will to do so. This week’s United Nations Environmental  Programme report on Black Carbon is no exception, and it reinforces the importance of Clean Water Action & Clean Water Fund’s work to reduce diesel pollution.

You might not be pleased to learn that some pollutants, including Black Carbon, are “short term climate forcers,” which means their impact on our climate is powerful and immediate.  But the report demonstrates that we already know how to limit these emissions and that this clean up offers multiple benefits.

Black carbon is a form of particulate matter emitted by diesel engines and other sources.  It’s a big contributor to global warming because it is about 2000 more potent than the same about of carbon dioxide CO2 over a 20 year period.  It’s affects on climate are more immediate than those of the more well-known greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide (CO2). Particulate matter, including black carbon, has big impacts on human health and is responsible for respiratory illness and premature death.

But wait…. there’s good news too.  Reducing Black Carbon emissions reduces global warming now, whereas carbon dioxide emissions reductions take decades to start reducing global temperatures.  We also already have the technology and many programs in place that can reduce Black Carbon pollution.  One way is to reduce pollution from old dirty diesel engines.  Clean Water Action and Clean Water Fund work with the nationwide Diesel Clean-Up Campaign to do just this.

Right now, the U.S. Congress has the ability to clean up construction equipment as part of the Transportation Reauthorization bill, and fund the highly cost-effective Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), which was reauthorized with overwhelming bi-partisan support in the recent 2010 “lame duck” session.  Clean Water Action has helped win local and state action as well, for example Rhode Island’s model local and state initiatives.

Diesel pollution is just one part of the Black Carbon problem, but it’s one where the solutions are at hand and offer cost-effective and common sense ways to protect people’s health and curb global warming at the same time.

That seems like a win-win.

Lynn Thorp is National Campaigns Coordinator for Clean Water Action & Clean Water Fund

Triclosan fact#1: this chemical ingredient is found in more than three quarters of liquid hand soaps in the U.S., and is also added to products like cosmetics, cutting boards and children’s toys.

Triclosan fact#2: manufacturers include it for its supposed “antibacterial” properties, yet triclosan is no more effective of an “antibacterial” than plain old soap and water.

Triclosan fact #3: it’s regulated by two federal agencies, by the Food and Drug Administration (responsible for cosmetics safety), as an antibacterial chemical, and also by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (responsible for toxic pesticides, like triclosan).

Triclosan fact #4: it’s everywhere, and researchers have detected traces of Triclosan in a majority of Americans, including pregnant women.

Triclosan fact  #5: this pesticide can lower sperm production, harm immune systems, disrupt hormones, have adverse affects on fetal growth and development, may contribute to antibiotic resistance, AND also harm’s aquatic life.

Yes, like many other personal care products, the ones containing Triclosan are essentially “designed for the drain.” They are absorbed into our bodies, washed off of our bodies, and end up in our water as a matter of course. That’s in addition to wastes and discharges produced during manufacture, which can also end up in our water.

Triclosan fact #6: Europe and Japan have made moves to limit Triclosan in cosmetics and some U.S. cosmetics firms are moving away from its use.

Given the facts, you have to wonder, “Why is Triclosan still in widespread use here in the U.S.? What are we going to do about it?”

Well, what are you going to do about it?

Triclosan fact #7: Several members of Congress are pushing FDA and EPA to take a harder look at Triclosan, and there is a petition before EPA right now, asking for a ban on Triclosan for non-medical uses (toys, cosmetics, cutting boards, etc.)

EPA’s official comment period on the proposed ban, originally only open through February 7, 2011, was recently extended until April 8, 2011 in response to strong levels of public interest in the matter. (Federal Register petition, Docket #EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0548). There’s still time for you to register your personal support for the concerns raised in this petition.