ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

PERCHLORATE SAFE-LEVEL DEBATE CONTINUES

  I missed the original Wall Street Journal article, but one gets the sense of that article from a Letter to the Editor from Blogger Pasadena Pundit:

MSM [mainstream media] Gets Perchlorate Story Mostly Wrong -- Rebuttal Letter to Peter Waldman of Wall Street Journal on Perchlorate

To: Editor, Wall Street Journal From: The Pasadena Pundit Re: Peter Waldman, "Inside Pentagon's Fight to Limit Regulation of Military Pollutant" (P.1 banner headline) Peter Waldman, "Campus, Industry set up a Confab" (P. 5). Wall Street Journal, December 29, 2005

Wall Street Journal environmental journalist Peter Waldman's use of the rhetorical device of casting aspersions on the motives of Pentagon contractors in establishing a safe dose for perchlorate in drinking water misinforms the public and is an infuriating diversion from serious policy debate.

*Public and private water suppliers have shut down about 350 water wells in California and are paying 5 to 10 times the price for imported water supplies from the Colorado River Aqueduct that has nearly the same concentration of perchlorate in it (6 parts per billion) as most of the so-called contaminated water wells (6 to 10 parts per billion). Vast areas of the Texas panhandle have perchlorate from 20 to 60 parts per billion in soils and groundwater where no rocket fuel or munitions plants are located. For decades the drinking water in Chile has contained natural perchlorate at higher levels than that found in our groundwater with no measurably higher rates of childhood mental retardation. Perchlorate has also been found in rain and snow. Lab tests indicate it may be naturally produced by the exposure of natural salts to sunlight.

     The full text of the letter is at Pasadena Pundit's weblog (link set out above).

NEW STUDY INDICATES MOST EUROPEAN KYOTO SIGNERS AREN'T SERIOUS

  I have before cited to you various sources indicating that the Kyoto Protocol is in trouble and, in many cases, has been signed by hypocrites that have no intention of taking the drastic steps necessary to achieve compliance.  See "GLOBAL WARMING" under CATEGORIES, right-hand side of this page: HONESTY MAY BE MISSING FROM KYOTO AND MONTREAL EMISSIONS-REDUCTION AGREEMENTS, Posted December 11, 2005; CANADA HOSTS "MONTREAL ACTION PLAN" CONFERENCE, THROWING STONES FROM A GLASS HOUSE,  Posted December 10, 2005; IN THE "PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES" DEPT., Posted November 10, 2005; and KYOTO PROTOCOL ON THE ROPES?, Posted August 29, 2005.

     Yet another article, from AFP and appearing yesterday on Yahoo.com ("Most of Europe Set to Miss Kyoto Goals"), confirms that various signatory countries got good--but unjustified-- PR from approving Kyoto:

LONDON (AFP) - Most of Europe, which has criticized the United States over its stance on global warming, looks set to miss a set of goals to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol.

The findings by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), revealed Tuesday, will make embarrassing reading for European governments that have berated Washington for its refusal to ratify the United Nations pact.

Of 15 countries in Europe signed up to Kyoto, only Britain and Sweden were on target to meet their commitments on reducing harmful gas emissions by 2012, said the IPPR, Britain's leading progressive think tank.

In contrast, 10 nations -- including Ireland, Italy and Spain -- would fail to do so unless they took urgent action, it said.

"103 Acres Added to Bolsa Chica Reserve"

     The above headline is from The Los Angeles Times , which reported on December 22 (last Thursday) that

The last major acquisition for the Bolsa Chica wetlands in Huntington Beach was made Wednesday when the state bought 103 acres that activists had sought for more than a decade to preserve.

California Coastal Communities Inc., a Southern California homebuilder, sold the parcel near Warner Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway to the state Wildlife Conservation Board for $65 million.

     For the full article, click the link above (free subscription may be required).

MISSISSIPPI FEDERAL JUDGE IMPOSES PRISON TERMS FOR CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATIONS

  Per The Clarion-Ledger, a federal Judge in Mississippi imposed multi-year sentences on a real estate developer, his daughter (a real estate agent) and an engineer after the three were convicted by a jury for, among other things, violating the Clean Water Act.  Per the newspaper:

The defendants sold lots to 67 families in [a]... mobile home park, all or part of which turned out to be federally protected wetlands, and installed cheap septic systems that likely would fail and contaminate the drinking water.

Authorities received complaints from residents about sewage, stomach illnesses and well water with a bad odor, color and taste.

     The Judge also imposed $1.4 million in fines on the three defendants.  Ouch.

     This case stands in sharp contrast to the Rapanos case (see "WETLANDS" under "CATEGORIES" on the right-hand side of this page), wherein a Michigan federal Judge was of the view that the government was overreaching in its Clean Water Act prosecution of Mr. Rapanos for filling in alleged wetlands on his own property (the wetlands were remote from any navigable waters). The Judge refused to send Mr. Rapanos to jail. Of course, in Mr. Rapanos' case, he was not deceptively selling wetlands to third parties.

     As reported in previous Posts/this Blog, the Rapanos case is presently before the US Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court's ruling in the case will provide key guidance in the interpretation of the CWA.

SCHWARZENEGGER MAKES KEY ENVIRONMENTAL APPOINTMENTS

     The California Governor announced the following appointments, per the Sacramento Bee's December 23 edition, as reported by Big News Network:

     -  Maureen Gorsen to head the Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC"); Ms. Gorsen is presently a deputy secretary for law enforcement and counsel at California EPA

     -  Robert Sawyer to chair the State Air Resources Board; Mr. Sawyer is a Professor Emeritus at UC Berkeley

     -  Joan Denton (reappointment) to head the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA")

     Each of these appointments requires State Senate confirmation.

    

MORE TREES, BETTER ENVIRONMENT? ANOTHER MYTH SHATTERED

     The world, alas, is a complicated place.  There are a lot of "on the one hand, on the other hand" realities that make the ideology behind the stop-global warming campaign seem somewhat simple.

     The latest example of reality intruding on ideology appears in an article in today's edition of The Guardian (Great Britain) newspaper.  The article, entitled "Tree planting projects may not be so green", observes:

Researchers have found that planting trees to soak up carbon can have detrimental knock on effects. "I believe we haven't thought through the consequences of this," says team-member Robert Jackson at Duke University in North Carolina, "I think the policy could backfire on us, but it will take decades to play out."

His team pooled more than 500 separate yearly observations from studies from five continents which compared planted areas with plots nearby that did not have trees. They report in Science that the plantations had a drastic effect on stream flow. By sucking water out of the ground and evaporating it from their leaves the trees reduced flow by half. And 13% of streams dried up for at least a year. This would have effects downstream where less water would be available for plants and animals.

The team found that nutrients in the soil were also affected by tree planting. Calcium, magnesium and potassium were all depleted while sodium was enriched, meaning that plantation soil was more salty on average. All of these changes would affect the range of plant species.

     In any event, whatever beneficial effect tree-planting my have in reducing    CO2 emissions may be short term, because the trees themselves ultimately become part of the problem:

Tree-planting has always been a controversial method of soaking up CO2 because it is little more than a short term fix. Once the trees die they rot, releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere.

     The Guardian article is a stark reminder that politicians and the public need to think through supposed anti-climate change measures which may radically alter our lifestyles for little or no ultimate environmental benefit.

ON A PERSONAL NOTE...

     Beginning today, I am on vacation through next Friday, December 23.  So--no more Posts until then.

     Also, beginning January 1, 2006, I will be joining Lewitt, Hackman, Shapiro, Marshall & Harlan, 16633 Ventura Blvd., 11th Floor, Encino, California 91436-1865 as Chair of the Environmental Litigation and Transactions Department.  My virtual address (this blog) will, of course, remain the same.

Regards.

YET MORE VARIABLES IN GLOBAL WARMING ANALYSES

     What's a global-warming ideologue to do?  After focusing on greenhouse gases as the cause of global warming, a new study suggests that land cover needs to be factored in to climate change-- and that, while land cover changes enhance global warming in some areas, such changes actually significantly decrease such warming in other areas.  So says Science Daily in a web article out today, entitled  "Changes to Land Cover May Enhance Global Warming in Amazon, Reduce It in Midlattitudes":

New simulations of 21st-century climate show that human-produced changes in land cover could produce additional warming in the Amazon region comparable to that caused by greenhouse gases, while counteracting greenhouse warming by 25% to 50% in some midlatitude areas. The simulations from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) show the importance of including land cover in computer-model depictions of global change. The results will be published in the December 9 issue of Science.

***

[The study says that] "land use is a relatively small influence. However, there are regions where it's really important," ....

Although the two IPCC scenarios studied agree on the impacts of land use in some regions, they produce contrasting results in others....

To bracket a range of possibilities, the group examined two contrasting scenarios for greenhouse emissions and land cover put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The more pessimistic scenario assumed that emissions will increase steadily, while the more optimistic scenario assumes rapid gains in energy efficiency.

The results for the first scenario show that deforestation adds 2°C (3.6°F) or more to surface temperature across the Amazon by 2100. Cooling occurs in the nearby Pacific and Atlantic waters with a weakening of the large-scale Hadley circulation that drives tropical and subtropical climate. In turn, moisture penetrates further north and produces a cooling, moistening influence across the U.S. Southwest during that region's summer monsoon.

While deforestation acts to warm the tropics by replacing forests with less productive pasture, converting midlatitude forests and grasses to cropland tends to act as a cooling influence, because the crops tend to reflect more sunlight and release more moisture into the air. Feddema and colleagues found that expanded agriculture tends to counteract global warming by as much as 50% across parts of North America, Europe, and Asia. In Canada and Russia, boreal forests add to regional warming as they spread north over time.

     This new study once again (see previous "Global Warming" Posts under Categories, right-hand side of this page) points out how little we know about both the causes, and the effects, of climate change.  Given that the Kyoto and recent Montreal protocols would, if seriously enforced, result in economic havoc for an at-best uncertain environmental benefit, rational people will see the need for caution before concluding that the sky is falling.

HONESTY MAY BE MISSING FROM KYOTO AND MONTREAL EMISSIONS-REDUCTION AGREEMENTS

  Yesterday, I Posted comments on the new agreement reached by 157 countries in Montreal regarding greenhouse-gas emissions, speculating that one reason so many developed countries have been willing to sign this type of agreement is because the countries have no realistic expectation of complying with the restrictions supposeduly being imposed.  Some further support for this view is found in the comments of Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore,  who is reported by Cybercast News Service ("Former Greenpeace Co-Founder Praises US for Rejecting Kyoto") to have observed:

Montreal (CNSNews.com) - A founding member of Greenpeace, who left the organization because he viewed it as too radical, praised the United States for refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

"At least the [United] States is honest. [The U.S.] said, 'No we are not going to sign that thing (Kyoto) because we can't do that,'" said Patrick Moore, who is attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal.

Moore noted that many of the industrialized nations that ratified the treaty limiting greenhouse gas emissions are now failing to comply with those emission limits. Moore, who currently heads the Canadian-based environmental advocacy group Greenspirit Strategies helped found both Greenpeace in 1971 and Greenpeace International in 1979.

"Canada signed [Kyoto] and said, 'Oh yeah, we can do that,' and then it merrily goes on its way to increase CO2 (carbon dioxide) emissions by even more than the U.S.," Moore told Cybercast News Service.

      Indeed, as to Canada in particular, the chances are nil that it will in fact endure the economic hardship imposed by draconian greenhouse-gas emission reductions in light of Alberta's recent announcement that the Province will not be bound by federal emissions-limiting goals.  As reported in Globe and Mail (November 22, 2005; "Alberta will ignore Kyoto guidelines"):

Ottawa — Alberta will not be bound by federal regulations on greenhouse emissions, says a spokesman for the province's Environment Department.

Robert Moyles said Tuesday that Alberta will introduce its own regulations to govern greenhouse emissions — and they will take precedence over federal rules.

The comments open a gaping hole in the credibility of Ottawa's plan for achieving its commitments under the Kyoto protocol, with less than a week before a UN conference on climate change opens in Montreal.

"Our regulations, we believe, will take precedence as soon as they take effect," Mr. Moyles said in an interview. "Industry (in Alberta) will be bound by Alberta regulations."

"Alaska, Utah join lawsuit challenging federal wetlands rules"

     So reports the Associated Press (as headlined on BigNewsNetwork.com), thus giving Mr. Rapanos and a companion litigant a boost in their high-profile resistance to federal attempts to assert Clean Water Act jurisdiction over lands only remotely conencted to the navigable waters of the United States.  For history and discussion, see 'WETLANDS" under 'CATEGORIES" on the right-hand side of this page.