EPA is 40 and no less controversial

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is 40 years old this week. It may have been born later, or it may not have been born at all, if not for a dedicated U.S. lawmaker and a burning river.

Gaylord Nelson was a progressive Democrat and a conservationist who became governor of Wisconsin in 1958. Through a penny tax on cigarettes he acquired one million acres of open space for state park land.

In 1962, Nelson (right) went to the U.S. Senate. Among other things, he authored the bill that created the Appalachian Trail System. In several ways, for several years, he tried to bring the nation's polluted and endangered environment to the attention of Congress and the public.

In 1969, he hit upon the way. Modeled on the teach-in protests against the Vietnam War, Nelson envisioned a nationwide, environmental teach-in day. Earth Day, he called it and when, in April of 1970, the first Earth Day was held, it was a huge success.

But it may not have been so big a thing if not for the burning river.

That would be the Cuyahoga River in northern Ohio, which runs through Cleveland and, because it was so filthy thick with oils and other pollutants, it used to, periodically, catch on fire.

Reportedly, the Cuyahoga caught on fire 13 times from 1868 to 1969. In 1952, the fire on the river was so bad it caused over a $1 million in damages to boats and riverside buildings. In June 1969, a photographer for Time magazine took pictures of the smoking, flaming river, which appeared in the publication and outraged, embarrassed and concerned a great many Americans.

The environment, and cleaning up the environment, became serious subjects on a lot of people's minds. But no one could say just how many people until, that is, April 22 of 1970, when 20 million Americans turned out in cities and towns and on college campuses throughout the country for Senator Nelson's Earth Day.

The one skill that everyone agrees is possessed by every successful politician is his or her ability to count people. When 20 million people want things done, and say so, things get done. By July, President Richard Nixon was proposing an Environmental Protection Agency. Soon after, Congress was establishing one. On December 2, 1970, the EPA was born.

In the three or four years following the first Earth Day in 1970, there was a tsunami of new environmental laws in America. These laws governed clean air, clean water, endangered species, toxic substances, pesticides, marine mammals, etc. . Along with the creation of the EPA, the Council on Environmental Quality and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were created.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said the founding of the EPA "might well be the best idea Richard Nixon ever had."

Brune is a fan of the EPA, as are many environmentalists.

Working through the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, the EPA has brought Americans cleaner air to breathe and safer water to drink, Brune said.

EPA regulations and enforcement have not "just improved the view from downtown L.A. and Great Smoky Mountains National Park," they have also "saved tens of thousands of lives, every single year, and trillions of dollars," Brune said.

Brune also credits EPA with successfully fighting acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer.

"Two big problems that the EPA can take credit for solving by regulating chlorofluorocarbons and sulfur emission respectively," he said. "And the lead additives that used to be in gasoline are just one of the carcinogens the EPA has taken out of our daily lives. We'll never know exactly who didn't get cancer during the past four decades as a result, but it certainly could have been you or someone you love."

Brune also points to the Energy Star efficiency program that the EPA originated.

"I can't think of another federal agency that's done so much to save millions of ordinary people money every day," he said. "And you can choose a car with better gas mileage -- the EPA practically invented fuel efficiency."

Other environmentalists are equally as complimentary.

"The Environmental Protection Agency has made terrific improvements in our health and quality of life by reducing pollution in the 40 years since it was first created," said Pete Altman, climate campaign director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"It has sharply reduced pollution from automobiles, industrial smokestacks, utility plants and major sources of toxic chemicals and particulate matter," Altman said.

Several environmentalists noted that the EPA Superfund program, where highly polluted sites are identified and remediated, is virtually the only way to get polluted sites cleaned up, since corporations do not act responsibly and states lack the means to do anything substantial.

While conservationists and other "greens" sing Happy Birthday to the agency, not everyone is wearing a party cap.

Newt Gingrich, former Republican Congressman from Georgia and Speaker of the House in the 1990's, considers EPA an oversized bureaucracy that often oversteps its regulatory bounds.

Gringrich has said that EPA should be replaced with a leaner agency that will work to protect the environment and not serve as a political tool to be wielded by the White House.

In his 2010 book, To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine, Gingrich writes: "The EPA has become an engine of undemocratic bureaucracy filled with people who seek to impose their fanatical views on an unwilling American population. The EPA and its entire regulation-litigation, Washington-centered, command-and-control bureaucracy needs to be replaced."

In a televised interview in May 2010, Gingrich said, "if you look at the degree to which they now issue rules, believe they can regulate the entire carbon economy - and again, you want to talk about socialism. How about having a government agency of unelected people who decide they can literally rewrite the entire economy based on carbon?"

Gingrich is referring to the controversy over what part carbon dioxide emissions play in environmental pollution. The Obama administration took office claiming it would reduce the nation's "carbon footprint" by introducing cap-and-trade legislation that would force companies to lower their CO2 emissions or pay for a failure to do so.

When cap-and-trade legislative proposals foundered against industry-backed opposition, the EPA approached the issue from a regulatory standpoint.

In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5 to 4) in that the Massachusetts v. EPA Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases, if the gases are indeed a threat to human health. The court directed the EPA to review the latest science on climate change and make a decision.

"EPA officials under President Bush did not determine that carbon dioxide was a threat to human health, but EPA officials under President Obama did determine it was a health hazard," Patrick Michaels, senior fellow on environmental studies at the Cato Institute, pointed out.

Michaels added that bureaucracies like the EPA "are probably going to be biased towards researchers whose findings are favorable to the bureaucracy's agenda."

The EPA's research found that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that is detrimental to human health and, therefore, can be regulated by EPA. The agency has since issued guidelines to the states for regulating carbon dioxide emissions. There is opposition from business and industry, as well as their advocates in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and in government.

"America faces a very difficult economic climate as unemployment continues to hover near 10 percent. At a time when small business owners and working families struggle to find stable financial footing, the EPA's decision creates more headwinds and is counter-productive to getting our economy back on track," said U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor (right), R-VA, who will be House Majority Leader next year.

"This Administration needs to focus on policies that encourage growth and job creation - period," Cantor said. "Instead, this misguided plan allows the EPA to impose regulation that will place heavy administrative burdens on state agencies that will result in increased costs for businesses and consumers."

Cato's Michaels said that this latest flap on carbon dioxide is the result of the EPA growing from a needed agency into a large, unwieldy and inefficient bureaucracy.

"The EPA has grown tremendously since its inception and it suffers from the problems of a mature bureaucracy," Michaels said. "It has many more employees and it goes looking for things to do. But what it finds to do has less of a return on the investment of its time and energy. Its regulations become more stringent while it produces less noticeable effects."

Michaels said that if people do not like what the EPA is doing, the only way they have of changing things is by "voting in a new boss." Since the EPA is a Cabinet-level agency, the EPA's "boss" is the President.

But the EPA's defenders say that business interests have always complained that environmental regulations would hurt business, and that history has, time and again, proven their concerns to be groundless.

Gina McCarthy (right), the EPA's assistant administrator for air and radiation,said the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions would be similar to the permitting process industrial facilities go through regarding other pollutants.

"For 40 years, we have found a way to issue permits that allowed the economy to grow," McCarthy said. "We will not stop that with the greenhouse gas process."

The US Chamber of Commerce, said Altman from the Natural Resources Defense Council, "has launched a campaign to demonize the EPA and oppose the next generation of safeguards it is putting in place to protect our health. This isn't new for the Chamber. It has previously opposed efforts to reduce toxic mercury pollution and chemicals in kids' toys."

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently went to bat for her agency.

"The last 40 years show no evidence that environmental protection hinders economic growth," Jackson said. "Neither the recent crisis nor any other period of economic turmoil was caused by environmental protection. In fact, a clean environment strengthens our economy. "

Jackson continued: "Special interests have spent millions of dollars making the case that we must choose the economy or the environment, attacking everything from removing lead in gasoline to cleaning up acid rain. They have consistently exaggerated the cost and scope of EPA actions, and in 40 years their predictions have not come true."

"Instead of cutting productivity, we've cut pollution while the number of American cars, buildings and power plants has increased. Alleged 'job-killing' regulations have, according to the Commerce Department, sparked a homegrown environmental protection industry that employs more than 1.5 million Americans," Jackson said.

The Sierra Club's Brune, while wishing the agency happy birthday, also wished it good luck.

"Whether it's regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, stopping the destruction of Appalachian watersheds from mountaintop-removal coal mining, or ensuring that we don't poison our drinking water with fracking chemicals and toxic coal ash, the EPA has some of its biggest fights still ahead of it," he said.

Source:
International Business News, "EPA is 40 and no less controversial", accessed December 5, 2010
The Rumpus, "The Rumpus Interview with Earth Day Organizer Denis Hayes", accessed December 5, 2010

From the Inbox: Vote: Great Outdoors, Great Ideas

		Vote for Our Great Outdoors Pristine habitat is essential to the survival of imperiled lynx and other wildlife. Lynx. Wolves. Polar bears. Each of these wondrous, imperiled animals relies on America’s great outdoors to survive… and they are all counting on you to speak out and vote in an unprecedented effort by federal officials to collect citizen input on the management and preservation of America’s great wild spaces. In response to the Obama Administration’s Great Outdoors initiative, Defenders of Wildlife’s staff of experts has put together a series of ideas, and we need your vote to make them a reality. Help wildlife conservation be one of the top 10 ideas for America’s Great Outdoors! Please register as a member of the Great Outdoors America Community and cast your vote for one of these great ideas (details voting instructions are listed below this list): Idea #1: Protect and Restore Ecosystems that are Resilient to Climate Change. To assist fish, wildlife and other natural resources and human communities to adapt to climate change, any initiative must include the conservation of large, connected landscapes to help build resiliency. The decisions we make today may well determine the fate of imperiled polar bears, lynx, wolverines and other animals threatened by climate change. Vote for this Idea Idea #2: Focus Federal Resources on Key Places. Whether it’s the treasured watershed of the Chesapeake Bay or Yosemite National Park and the Sierra Nevada Mountains that provide most of California’s water supply, some places – due to their ecological importance or their iconic status – are of key importance to the nation. The administration’s approach to conservation should focus on these key landscapes into which we will make our biggest investment. Places like the Chesapeake Bay are home to bald eagles and other quintessential American wildlife. Vote for this idea Idea #3: National Wildlife Refuges are an essential part of America’s Great Outdoors. Research shows that these refuges and efforts on nearby private and public lands have been essential to our success in restoring and conserving ducks and other waterfowl. The Refuge System should be at the center of this administration’s Great Outdoors conservation initiative, through the creation of new refuges and expanded support for existing refuges. Our National Wildlife Refuges provide essential habitat for ducks and other waterfowl. Vote for this idea How to Cast Your Vote 1. Click on any of the links above. 2. Click the “Promote” link. Just click on the green text (as highlighted below) to cast your vote for our wildlife and the wild places they need to survive. 3. Register your name and email address. Verify your vote by providing your name and email address. 4. Cast another vote! Click another link to make your voice heard: Idea #1: Protect and Restore Ecosystems that are Resilient to Climate Change. Idea #2: Focus Federal Resources on Key Places. Idea #3: National Wildlife Refuges are an essential part of America’s Great Outdoors. America’s great outdoors are one of the most important and treasured parts of our county. Please cast your vote today and help us preserve these special places for future generations. For the Wild Ones, Tim Male Vice President of Conservation Policy Defenders of Wildlife

From the Inbox: Urge your representative to co-sponsor the national Toxic Chemical Safety Act

Donate Join NRDC and help protect the planet's wildlife and wild places Explore Subscribe to NRDC Online, our weekly newsletter, for news you can use Plug In Connect to Switchboard, the NRDC blog Reach Out Send messages in style with our beautiful nature postcards Update Use your Action Center Profile to manage your subscriptions and personal info July 27, 2010 Urge your representative to co-sponsor the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act The Toxic Substances Control Act, the law regulating the use of industrial chemicals, was enacted in 1976 and is in serious need of an overhaul. Although other laws require pharmaceuticals and pesticides to undergo safety testing before they are available for purchase, the Toxic Substances Control Act has allowed thousands of industrial chemicals -- used in children's products, cleaning products, toys, furniture and electronics, and as oil dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico -- to reach consumers without that same precaution. Rather than requiring chemical manufacturers to prove the safety of their products before putting them on the market, the Toxic Substances Control Act compels the Environmental Protection Agency to prove that a chemical is unreasonably dangerous before its use can be restricted or prevented. To make matters worse, the law drastically limits the EPA's ability to obtain information from companies about the potential environmental and health effects of the chemicals they produce. In April, Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ) introduced the Safe Chemicals Act to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. Now Rep. Waxman (D-CA) has introduced a House companion to that bill, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act, moving us one step closer to passing these much needed reforms into law. Like its Senate companion, the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act would strengthen the current law by shifting the burden back to the chemical industry to prove its products are safe, establishing health standards for chemicals to protect children and other vulnerable groups, and strengthening the public's right to know about the safety and use of chemicals. What to do Send a message urging your representative to co-sponsor the Toxic Chemicals Safety Act (H.R. 5820). President announces new national oceans policy For the last year, you have sent tens of thousands of comments urging the Obama administration to establish the nation's first-ever comprehensive policy for our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes. And we are thrilled to report that on July 19th President Obama signed an executive order to do exactly that! Just as we have a Clean Water Act for our water and a Clean Air Act for our air, we now have a national policy for our oceans that will help better protect, maintain and restore ocean ecosystems. Our oceans, coasts and the Great Lakes are valuable economic engines providing jobs, food, energy resources, recreation and tourism, and the administration's ground-breaking action will help ensure that our oceans are better managed to meet the needs of present and future generations.   Thanks to everyone who took action, and congratulations on this remarkable victory! You can read the full executive order at the White House website.

From the Inbox: This Green Life

JULY 2010: It's not a pristine wilderness, but this urban wildlife refuge sure serves a lot of people and animals—and is about to get a much needed clean-up.

Saving an Urban Wild Land A good news story One of the natural places NRDC works to protect is very near and dear to my heart. Though not officially an NRDC BioGem—or any kind of wilderness—it is as irreplaceable in its own way as Yellowstone. And like much of the Yellowstone area, it is managed by the National Park Service. At the heart of this special place is a wildlife refuge, the only one of its kind in the national park system. But the true wonder of it is that it is in New York City, my hometown. I am speaking of Jamaica Bay, which sits at the southern intersection of Brooklyn and Queens—so close to me I can get to it by public transit. My web design firm works with an NPS partner organization, the National Parks of New York Harbor Conservancy, so that is another point of connection for me. Within Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge, you can hike wooded trails, kayak through wetlands and do world-class bird-watching. Some 330 bird species have been observed there—20% of North America's total. And you don't need to know a sandpiper from a tern to enjoy the spectacle. Birds are not all. Jamaica Bay is home to 60 species of butterfly and 80 species of fish, as well as reptiles, amphibians and small mammals. Every spring diamondback terrapins crawl up on the beach to lay their eggs. The horseshoe crabs also come ashore to mate and dig nests, as I have witnessed myself on a guided walk with park rangers. This sanctuary for humans and wildlife is like another world. And yet, from certain spots, the Empire State Building is clearly visible in the distance. The "A" train periodically rattles across a bridge (yes, that storied train of song) and planes from nearby JFK Airport rise overhead. It is just that rare mix—of being in the city but not of it—that makes Jamaica Bay so important to protect. The threats are formidable. One is sea level rise from global warming, which is contributing to the alarming disappearance of the marsh grass islands that dot and define the bay—both ecologically and aesthetically. These islands are projected to vanish within 15 years if the present trend continues. The other main threat is local and therefore more easily addressed—effluent from four sewage treatment plants that flood the bay with nitrogen. If you garden (and even if you don't), you may know that nitrogen helps plants grow. Well, it has the same effect in an aquatic environment—with consequences that can be disastrous. Alga can proliferate, reducing oxygen in the water, which makes the environment inhospitable to fish and other creatures, with domino effects on the birds that eat them and animals that eat the birds. It's an undesirable chain of events in any habitat, let alone a wildlife refuge. Maybe you've heard of the gigantic dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Before the BP oil spill, it was the Gulf's chief environmental problem. The cause is fertilizer run-off into the Mississippi River, which lets out into the Gulf. (Nitrogen is a key ingredient in fertilizer.) Virtually nothing lives in the dead zone, which this year is projected to reach 6,500 to 7,800 square miles, roughly the size of New Jersey. That is the effect of excess nitrogen and other plant nutrients writ large. Back in my small corner of the world, the dead fish regularly found floating in the bay provide evidence of our local nitrogen problem. Experts suspect that the high levels of nitrogen are also contributing to the problem of the disappearing marsh islands. But here, at last, is the good news! New York City has agreed in principle to a sewage treatment plan that will nearly halve nitrogen discharges into the bay, as well as to significant improvements in water quality monitoring. In addition, the city has pledged $15 million over five years for marsh restoration, which, it is hoped, the federal Army Corps of Engineers will match, two to one. There's more. The Army Corps of Engineers, in partnership with the National Park Service, has been restoring marsh islands with material dredged from the harbor floor to deepen shipping lanes. And soon, the National Parks of New York Harbor Parks Conservancy will be launching a "Campaign for Jamaica Bay" to leverage government funding for the bay with private sector support—and a roster of programs and activities that will benefit the community. One interesting plan for the bay is oyster bed restoration. A keystone species that was once abundant in the bay and throughout the harbor, oysters eat algae and filter nitrogen from the water. Their return could play a significant role in bringing the ecosystem back to health. It is still unclear what the future holds for Jamaica Bay, but the prospects have begun to look brighter. From your vantage, wherever you reside, it may not seem to matter much. Jamaica Bay will never match the majesty of the great wild places that you dream of visiting one day. But Jamaica Bay is in a city where millions of people live—and can be visited any day. That, in a nutshell, is the beauty of it. —Sheryl Eisenberg Related TGLs The Fall Migration Bird watching as ecologic relief In the Bay of Whales A kiss and tell story Getting in Touch Out of the park and into the wild On This Topic CATBIRDS, TOWHEES AND CRICKETS are among the wildlife I encountered on a visit to Jamaica Bay last September. On the trip, I collected sounds and pictures for an interactive "soundscape" for the National Parks of New York Harbor Conservancy. YOU CAN DOWNLOADfree ringtones and wallpaperYouTube video by kelsadee.based on audio and photography from my visits to Jamaica Bay. The chiming sound of spring peepers (that's a peeper above) is an early sound of spring at the refuge and makes a particularly good ringtone. See how a peeper makes his call in this Resources New York Harbor Parks Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge 10,000 Birds Jamaica Bay Birding (amazing photos!) NRDC's Switchboard NYC to Clean up Jamaica Bay Gotham Gazette Can the City & Oyster Save Jamaica Bay? The New York Times Scientists Baffled by Loss of Marsh Muck to Restore Islands in Jamaica Bay Goddard Institute for Space Studies The Vanishing Marshes of Jamaica Bay: Sea Level Rise or Environmental Degradation? Gulf Restoration Network The Dead Zone