Experts say it is possible, in the not-too-distant future, for
the United States to generate nearly all its electrical energy from
sources that do not produce climate-changing greenhouse gases. But
first some political and technical hurdles must be crossed.
In this week’s “Climate Sense,” I share some news articles that
I found noteworthy, as well as an interesting description of five
movies about climate change — including the one in the video player
here. Films can help bring about cultural change, as mentioned in a
review of five films about climate change (Item 6 at the
bottom).
The headline on
Margaret Sullivan’s column captures the urgency of the moment:
“The planet is on a fast path to destruction. The media must cover
this like it’s the only story that matters.”
Margaret writes about media issues for the Washington Post. In
her column, she worries that the public is missing the story of the
century, even as both print and television news outlets dutifully
mention the latest report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
How much coverage the average person is able to see and
understand is another issue. When the IPCC report came out, the
network TV stations dedicated a few minutes to the report but not
as much time as they spent covering Kanye West’s visit to the White
House, according to
Brian Stelter of CNN.
The IPCC’s 33-page “summary for
policymakers” (PDF 1.3 mb) is dry reading. It lays out the
facts but does not use alarming language to stir people to action.
While reading it, I could envision how it might put many people to
sleep. Still, I urge everyone to struggle through the document and
understand the dire consequences that will come from the failure to
act.
Spring Chinook salmon are being
reared at a new hatchery on the North Fork of the Skokomish River.
The hatchery is owned and operated by Tacoma Public Utilities. //
Photo: Tacoma Public Utilities
For the first time in decades, an early run of Chinook salmon
has returned to the Skokomish River in southern Hood Canal.
These bright, torpedo-shaped hatchery fish are the first of what
is expected to become an ongoing run of spring Chinook as part of a
major salmon-restoration effort related to the Cushman Hydro
Project. Eventually, the salmon run could provide fishing
opportunities for humans and orcas.
“it is pretty exciting,” said Dave Herrera, fish and wildlife
policy adviser for the Skokomish Tribe. “Our objective has always
been to restore the salmon populations that were once here.”
Andrew Ollenburg, Cushman fish facilities manager for Tacoma
Public Utilities, reported that 19 spring Chinook — 15 females and
four males — have been captured at the base of the lower Cushman
Dam on the North Fork of the Skokomish River. As of this week,
biologists estimated that 50 or 60 spring Chinook were in the river
farther below the dam — and more are coming.
Not long ago, I was having dinner at a restaurant with some
friends. We were talking about environmental concerns when someone
mentioned climate change.
“There’s nothing to worry about,” said the man seated to my
right. “We are actually going into the next ice age, and the
weather is getting colder.”
Stunned, all I could say was, “I don’t even know how to respond
to that.” I was not in the mood to give a scientific lecture, nor
did it seem like the time to engage in an angry debate — so I
changed the subject.
Ever since, I’ve been wondering what I should have said. I’m
sure I could have discussed whether humans are to blame for the
fact that temperatures are becoming more extreme. For example, the
average annual temperature has exceeded the 138-year average every
year since 1976. (See
NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.) The
evidence of human influence is pretty compelling, but even if you
find fault with the data or want to blame natural causes, the
warming trend is clear.
If oil companies were secretly interested in drilling off the
Washington coast — which is doubtful — then I suspect that state
and tribal officials scared them off yesterday.
It’s one thing for an oil company to sign a lease with the
federal government. It’s quite another thing to go up against other
sovereign governments determined to use every means to make the
venture unprofitable.
Participants in press
conference, left to right: Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Gus
Gates, Surfrider Foundation; Gina James, Quinault Nation; Larry
Thevik, Dungeness Crab Fisherman’s Association; Gov. Jay Inslee;
Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz; Ocean Shores Mayor
Crystal Dingler; and Chad Bowechop, Makah Tribe. (Click to
enlarge)
Photo: Governor’s Office
In a press conference yesterday, Gov. Jay Inslee said the
Legislature could pass laws that establish new taxes or limit the
use of port facilities needed to service oil rigs.
“We could set up our own safety standards, for instance, that
frankly the industry may not be able to meet,” Inslee said. “So,
yes, we have multiple ways. Counties and cities would also have
jurisdiction.
“What I’m saying is that when you have a policy from a president
that is uniformly reviled in the state of Washington both by
Republicans and Democrats, there are so many ways that we have to
stop this — and we’re going to use all of them.”
The entire press conference is shown in the first video
below.
In a
two-page letter to Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke, Inslee
wrote, “I urge you in no uncertain terms to respect our local
voices, our state’s laws, and our hard-working families by removing
Washington’s coasts from any subsequent plan your department may
propose to expand oil and gas leasing in this country.”
As Inslee prepared to take another question at the press
conference, Public Lands Commissioner Hillary Franz, who oversees
the state’s forests and aquatic lands, quickly wedged up to the
microphone. She pointed out that Washington state has the authority
to lease — or not — much of the deep-water areas in Puget Sound and
along the coast, including areas used by local ports. The state
would have a say over almost any infrastructure the industry might
need to develop along the shore, she said.
In addition, the state has ownership over vast shellfish
resources, Franz noted, and so state officials would have a clear
interest to protect against any damage that might result.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson said if the leasing plan goes
through, it would be challenged in court on many grounds. Just one
example of a legal violation, he said, is the off-handed way that
the Trump administration exempted the state of Florida from the
leasing plan.
“It was completely arbitrary,” Ferguson said at the press
conference. “It’s a classic example of how this administration
rolls something out; they haven’t thought it through; and they take
an action that we think will help make our case against it.”
Ferguson laid out his legal, moral and practical arguments
against offshore drilling in a long
five-page letter, which included this comment: “The proposal to
open the Pacific Region Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas
leasing is unlawful, unsafe and harmful to the economy and natural
beauty of Washington’s coastline. As Attorney General, my job is to
enforce the law and protect the people, natural resources and
environment of my state, and I will use every tool at my disposal
to do so.”
Chad Bowechop, policy adviser and member of the Makah Tribe,
explained that tribes have legal rights under the treaties to
protect the environment in their native lands. He noted that the
press conference was being held in the very room where legislation
was signed to dispatch a rescue tug at Neah Bay. The bill was the
result of oil spills that had damaged the natural and cultural
resources of the area.
“We’re very proud of our working relationship with the state of
Washington Department of Ecology Spills Program and with the United
States Coast Guard,” he said. “Our basis of objection to this issue
is based on our cultural and spiritual values. Our spiritual values
hold the environment and the ocean resources in spiritual
reverence.”
Drilling, he continued, would be in conflict with the tribe’s
cultural and spiritual values. As a legal trustee of the ocean’s
natural resources, the tribe “will pledge to work closely with the
other resource trustees,” meaning the state and federal governments
to prevent offshore oil drilling.
Early today, Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell appeared on the
Senate floor to protest the oil-drilling proposal. She talked about
the natural resource jobs that would be threatened by drilling
activities. Check out the second video.
Now that Alaska Gov. Bill Walker has asked the Trump
administration to dial back the offshore drilling proposal in his
state, all the West Coast governors stand in opposition to the
drilling plan. In a
press release, Walker said he supports offshore drilling, but
he wants Zinke to focus on the Chukchi and Beaufort seas along with
Cook Inlet.
“I support removal of potential sales in all other Alaska waters
for the 2019 to 2024 program,” he said, “and I will encourage the
Interior Department to include the longstanding exclusions for the
Kaktovik Whaling Area, Barrow Whaling Area, and the 25-mile coastal
buffer in upcoming official state comments on the program.”
Alaska’s congressional delegation, all Republicans, previously
made the same request in a
letter to Zinke. The members are Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan
Sullivan and Rep. Don Young.
Except for three U.S. representatives, Washington’s and Oregon’s
entire congressional delegations — four senators and 12
representatives — signed a
joint letter to Zinke asking that both states be excluded from
further leasing plans.
“The states of Washington and Oregon have made clear through
local, state, and federal action, as well as extensive public
comment, that oil and gas lease sales off the Pacific Coast are not
in the best interest of our economies or environment,” the letter
says. “The Department of the Interior’s proposal to consider
drilling off the states we represent, absent stakeholder support
and directly contradicting economic and environmental factors of
the region, is a waste of time, government resources, and taxpayer
dollars.”
The only Washington-Oregon lawmakers not signing the letter are
Reps. Dan Newhouse and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, both Republicans
representing nearly all of Eastern Washington, and Rep. Greg
Walden, a Republican representing Eastern Oregon.
News was breaking yesterday as I completed this blog on offshore
oil drilling. I doubt that anyone was surprised by the reaction of
outrage that followed Secretary Ryan Zinke’s apparently offhanded
and arbitrary decision to exempt Florida from an otherwise
all-coast leasing plan.
All U.S. senators from New England states, Democrats and
Republicans, signed onto legislation to exempt their states from
the drilling plan, while U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-RI, says he
has unanimous bipartisan support for a similar bill in the House.
Now, if they move to include the rest of the East Coast and the
West Coast in the bill, they might have enough votes to pass it.
(See
statement from Rep. David Cicilline.)
Meanwhile, Washington’s Sen. Maria Cantwell, the ranking member
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, set the stage
yesterday for the inevitable lawsuits that will follow if Zinke
maintains his present course of action. Cantwell said in a
statement that Zinke may have violated the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act. Others have said that he may have violated the
Administrative Procedures Act as well (Washington
Examiner).
—–
The Trump administration’s announcement of an open season on
offshore oil drilling all around the edges of the United States has
put some congressional Republicans on the hot seat during a tough
election year.
Opposition to the proposed oil leases along the East Coast is
reflected in the negative comments from Republican governors Larry
Hogan of Maine, Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, Chris Sununu of New
Hampshire, Henry McMaster of South Carolina and Rick Scott of
Florida. None want to see drilling anywhere off their
shorelines.
Just days after Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced his plan
to issue leases for oil and gas exploration and development nearly
everywhere, he decided to let Florida off the hook — to the relief
of Gov. Scott, who is said to be a close friend of the Trump
administration.
Zinke’s exemption for Florida was announced in a tweet
posted on Twitter, in which he called Scott “a straightforward
leader that can be trusted.”
“President Trump has directed me to rebuild our offshore oil and
gas program in a manner that supports our national energy policy
and also takes into consideration the local and state voice,” Zinke
tweeted. “I support the governor’s position that Florida is unique
and its coasts are heavily reliant on tourism as an economic
driver. As a result of discussion with Governor Scott’s (sic) and
his leadership, I am removing Florida from consideration of any new
oil and gas platforms.”
It appears that Zinke is admitting that oil and gas development
can harm the local tourism industry. Needless to say, the other
Republican governors also would like a piece of that “support” from
Zinke, as reported in a story by Dan Merica of
CNN News.
Meanwhile, on the West Coast, Democratic governors and many
members of Congress also oppose the drilling plan — with the
exception of Alaska, where Gov. Bill Walker supports expanded
drilling anywhere he can get it — even into the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. I discussed the ANWR drilling proposal in
Water Ways on Nov. 16, before approval of the Republican tax
bill.
Democrats in Washington state’s congressional delegation are
unified in their opposition to offshore drilling, and most of them
support legislation that would take the entire matter off the table
for good. They are joined in their opposition by Rep. Dave
Reichert, a Republican from the Eighth District.
“This moves America in the wrong direction and has the potential
to have a negative lasting effect on our oceans as well as the
shorelines of states on these coasts,” Reichert said in a
statement. “Our country is at the forefront of developing
efficient and cost effective alternative energy technologies and we
should continue to support innovation in this area.”
Congressional districts in
Western Washington.
Graphic: govtrack
Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican who represents the Third
District — including coastal areas in Southwest Washington — was a
little more low-key.
“I don’t support offshore oil and gas exploration in states that
don’t want it, and Washington’s citizens have never indicated any
desire to have oil and gas activity off their coast,” she said in a
Facebook
post. “I’m not aware of any active plan to drill off Washington
or Oregon, but I will act to protect our citizens and our coast if
any such effort does arise.”
Other comments on the plan:
Letter
in opposition (PDF 974 kb) from 109 U.S. representatives,
including Washington’s Suzan DelBene, 1st District; Derek Kilmer,
6th District; Pramila Jayapal, 7th District; Dave Reichert, 8th
District; Adam Smith, 9th District; and Denny Heck, 10th
District.
Rep. Derek Kilmer, Sixth District: “For decades, Democrats and
Republicans have agreed that opening our waters up to drilling
would be shortsighted and wrong. Doing so could threaten our
fisheries, shellfish growers, tourism, and jobs in other key
sectors of our economy.”
Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell: “This draft proposal is
an ill-advised effort to circumvent public and scientific input,
and we object to sacrificing public trust, community safety, and
economic security for the interests of the oil industry.”
With substantial opposition from all sides, the looming question
is whether Congress will allow the leasing program to move forward
before expiration of the existing five-year
plan for offshore drilling (PDF 34 mb), which ends in 2022 and
focuses mostly on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
While the California Coast remains a key target for oil
companies, it is unlikely that we will ever see oil rigs off the
Washington Coast, no matter what happens with the leasing program.
Oil and gas resources simply aren’t known to be there, according to
all published data.
During the 1960s, 10 exploratory wells were drilled with no
significant finds off the coast of Washington and Oregon, according
to a 1977 report by the U.S.
Geological Survey (PDF 10.2 mb). Some 14 other wells were
drilled without result offshore near Vancouver Island in Canada.
Many more onshore wells have been drilled without major success
throughout the region.
In 2008, I explored the idea of offshore drilling in Washington
state when the George W. Bush administration attempted to lift the
offshore-drilling moratorium.
“We would probably be last, or next to last,” state geologist
Ray Lasmanis told me in a story for the
Kitsap Sun. “The geology is too broken up, and it does not have
the kind of sedimentary basins they have off the coast of
California.”
Officials told me at the time that even if oil companies were
given free rein, they would not line up to drill off our coast.
“It is important to note that, at least here on the West Coast,
that it will take more than lifting the congressional moratorium,”
said Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum
Association. “In addition to state and local constraints, a number
of marine sanctuaries would restrict development.”
Gov. Jay Inslee, who was a U.S. representative at the time, said
offshore drilling was a diversion, because much better alternatives
exist on land. Because of climate change, Inslee was pushing
Congress to encourage renewable energy sources, as he continues to
do today as governor.
“Drilling offshore,” he told me, “is doomed to failure. I’m not
opposed to drilling. We accept massive drilling on federal land.
But the danger is we’ll get wrapped around the minutia of the
drilling issue … and we’re still going to be addicted to oil.”
The latest proposal by the Department of Interior is subject to
public hearings, including one scheduled in Tacoma on Feb. 5. Check
out the full schedule
of 23 hearings.
If the U.S. government fails to take action on climate change, a
majority of Americans would like their states to pick up the ball
and run with it.
Some 66 percent of those participating in a national survey
agreed with the statement: “If the federal government fails to
address the issue of global warming, it is my state’s
responsibility to address the problem.”
Question: “Please
identify your level of agreement with the following statement … If
the federal government fails to address the issue of global
warming, it is my state’s responsibility to address the problem.”
(Click to enlarge)
Graphic: University of Michigan/Muhlenberg
College
Residents of Washington state appear to feel even stronger about
the need for state action, according to a survey by The Nature
Conservancy, which is preparing for a statewide initiative to be
placed on the 2018 general election ballot.
The
national survey, by two University of Michigan researchers,
demonstrates growing support among Americans for action on climate
change, despite very little action by Congress. The last time the
question was asked, in 2013, 48 percent of respondents wanted their
states to take action. The latest results show an 18-percent
increase in the number of people who support state action.
This and several other polls reveal growing concerns among
Americans about the negative effects of climate change on human
civilization as well as the environment.
Interestingly, the national survey was taken between April 17
and May 16 — before President Trump announced that he would
withdraw U.S. support for the Paris climate agreement, which
includes clear targets for greenhouse gas reductions. Respondents
may have been aware of Trump’s executive order in March to
dismantle former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which aims to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.
Americans are still somewhat divided along party lines, with
Democrats more supportive of state action than Republicans. But the
latest national survey reveals that more Republicans may support
state action than not, at least within the survey’s margin of
error. The survey shows that 51 percent of Republicans believe that
states should step up to climate change, compared to 34 percent
four years ago.
Support among Democrats for state action went from 57 percent in
2013 to 77 percent this year.
Another survey taken after Trump was elected showed that nearly
two-thirds (62 percent) of the people who voted for him support
taxing or regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly half (47
percent) agreed that the U.S. should support the Paris climate
agreement. See
“Trump Voters and Global Warming.”
I will return to the national perspective in a moment, but first
some almost-breaking news from Washington state, where The Nature
Conservancy on Monday filed three petitions for possible ballot
measures with the Secretary of State’s Office.
All three petitions deal with possible state actions on climate
change, but none of them are intended to be used for signature
gathering, according to Mo McBroom, government relations director
for TNC. The idea, Mo told me, is to see how the Attorney General’s
Office writes the ballot titles for the three measures, which is
what a voter would read on the ballot.
Polling of Washington state voters after the defeat of a
carbon-tax measure in last fall’s election showed that most voters
knew little about the content of Initiative 732 when they cast
their ballots. Also contributing to the confusion was the ballot
title itself, which mentioned taxes but failed to explain that
increased taxes on fossil fuels would be offset by reduced sales
and business taxes plus a tax rebate for low-income residents.
I should point out that a fair number of environmental groups
voiced opposition to the measure, in part because it failed to
provide money for clean-energy initiatives. And some worried that
the measure would add to state budget problems. More than anything,
the mixed messages probably killed the measure.
Now, all the environmental groups as well as business and
government supporters are hoping to come together around a single
initiative with a high likelihood of success, Mo told me. The
specifics of the real initiative are still under review, she said,
and one should glean nothing from the
three different proposals submitted this week. Once the details
are worked out, a final petition will be submitted next
January.
“The most important thing is that we are looking to build the
broadest base of support for solutions to climate change.,” Mo told
me. “Whether it is a carbon tax or fee or a regulatory structure,
it is about how we, as a society, make the investments that the
public wants.” For further discussion, read Mo’s blog entry posted
yesterday in Washington Nature
Field Notes.
Personally, I will be watching for the transportation aspects of
the coming initiative, since more than half of the greenhouse gas
emissions in Washington state involve the transportation sector —
and Mo acknowledged that incentives to encourage cleaner fuels will
be essential.
“We want to create an approach that is technology neutral,” she
said. “we’re not picking winners and losers. We are creating
innovate solutions.”
The Legislature has been struggling for months with Gov. Jay
Inslee’s
carbon tax proposal (PDF 801 kb). If something good comes out
of that process, Mo said, the initiative may not be needed.
Reporter Phuong Le reported on this issue for the
Associated Press.
According to
polling last fall (PDF 596 kb), 81 percent of Washington voters
believe climate change is happening; 62 percent believe it is
caused by human activities; and 69 percent support state action to
reduce carbon pollution. Support may be even higher today. The
survey was conducted by FM3 Research and Moore Information for The
Nature Conservancy and Vulcan.
The national survey by University of Michigan researchers this
spring showed that 70 percent of Americans across the country
believe that global warming is happening. Barry Rabe, one of the
researchers, told me that public opinion has ebbed and flowed
somewhat on this issue since these surveys were started in 2008.
See the graphic below, or check out the details on the
Brookings blog.
Question: From what
you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average
temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past four
decades?
Graphic: University of Michigan/Muhlenberg
College
During the early years of former President Obama’s
administration beginning around 2009, “there was a very aggressive
effort by opposition groups that argued that climate change is a
hoax,” Rabe said. “That probably had an impact (on people’s
opinions).”
Now people seem to be returning to a stronger belief in climate
change and tending to support the understanding that humans are
responsible. Democrats and Republicans alike seem to feeling more
urgency to take action.
“This may be a case where political figures are at variance with
their base,” Rabe said, noting that most Republicans in Congress
are showing no inclination to address the issue. But even in some
conservative states, such as Texas and Kansas, state lawmakers are
doing more than ever to address climate change, in part because of
parallel economic interests involving renewable energy.
“Energy politics breaks down very differently depending on the
state you are in,” Rabe said.
From a national perspective, all eyes will be on Washington
state over the next year or two, as people throughout the country
watch to see how people here address climate change, Rabe said. A
lot of folks wondered about the rejection of the climate-change
initiative in what many view as a pro-environment state, he added.
People nationwide did not grasp the nuances of last fall’s vote,
but they are interested in what comes next.
Gov. Jay Inslee joined with the governors of California and New
York in signing onto a new U.S. Climate Alliance to help meet the
goals of the Paris agreement in light of Trump’s efforts to
withdraw from the pact. See Timothy Cama’s piece in
The Hill.
California and New York have already passed
climate-change-emissions legislation, Rave said, so people across
the country are wondering how Washington plans to meet its
commitment.
Mo McBroom of The Nature Conservancy said officials involved in
the climate-change issue in Washington state embrace the leadership
role that this state can play.
“How do you convince a climate-change skeptic?” That’s the
question posed to high-school film producers in a contest sponsored
by the University of Washington’s School of Environmental and
Forest Sciences.
I find it interesting that the challenge to create a two-minute
video does not include a reason that climate-change skeptics might
need convincing. No doubt this was intentional, giving young
filmmakers more leeway to be creative. It may result from a
recognition that so-called skeptics are not all of one mind when it
comes to talking about climate change.
In fact, I’ve observed varying points of view among people who
disagree with widely held findings among climate scientists.
Consider these types of skeptics:
First, there are some people who do not believe that the
scientific method could ever produce meaningful answers about
climate change.
Others accept the methods of science, but they believe the
evidence actually shows that the climate is not warming and may
even be cooling.
Some accept scientific evidence that the climate is warming,
but they believe that this is a natural phenomenon and that
human-produced greenhouse gases have nothing to do with it.
Some accept scientific evidence that climate is warming and
that humans are having an effect, but they believe that
climatologists have miscalculated the rate of warming.
Finally, there are those in the policy realm who admit that
they don’t know what is causing climate change, but they believe
that the costs of addressing the problem are too great or that
government should not be involved.
So I was interested to see how high school filmmakers would
address the skeptics of climate change. The winner, Tiamo Minard of
Roosevelt High School, simply laid out the facts, as they are best
known by climate scientists.
Second place went to a team from Lynwood High School, whose
approach was highly personal, showing how people’s everyday actions
contribute to climate change. The team included Saron Almaw, Hani
Ghebrehiwet, Brittaney Hong, Kristen Nguyen and Jasmine Pel.
Third-place winner, Hazel Camer of Lynnwood High School, simply
pounded home the fact that climate change is real and that the
consequences for the human race could be severe. One man on the
video pooh-poohed the notion that climate change is a liberal
conspiracy. Then, surprisingly, the next person on the video is
U.S. Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat who is not likely to
convince many skeptics.
I found the winning videos entertaining and at times amusing,
and I can’t argue with their arguments. But I doubt that they will
convince any of the climate-skeptic types that I outlined above.
This was truly a difficult challenge, yet one that seems
worthwhile. Even professional media experts have trouble addressing
this issue, although humor may be helpful. See, for example, the
blog post, “Ontario employs humor in climate discussion,”
Water Ways, May 15, or “‘Don’t fret,’ says new celebrity video
for climate deniers,”
Water Ways, Dec. 14, 2015.
Judging the contest were Laura Jean Cronin, producer/director of
award-winning short films currently involved with B47 studios in
Seattle; Melanie Harrison Okoro, water quality specialist and the
aquatic invasive species coordinator for NOAA Fisheries, West Coast
Region; Cody Permenter, social media manager for Grist, an online
news magazine; and Ethan Steinman, an Emmy-nominated filmmaker who
owns Seattle-based production company Daltonic Films.
A report on last year’s contest can be found on
Water Ways, June 27, 2016. It is great to see the work of local
filmmakers, and I hope the contest continues.
The Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward to protect
people’s health from toxic chemicals, despite an executive order
from President Trump that requires two existing regulations to be
repealed for every new regulation approved.
Photo: André Künzelmann,
Wikimedia commons
On Tuesday, the EPA will hold a public hearing to help develop
rules for controlling the use of 10 chemicals evaluated under the
revised Toxic Substances Control Act. (See
EPA Public Workshop.) As I described in
Water Ways, Dec. 1, these high-hazard chemicals could be banned
or significantly restricted in their use. Seven of the first 10
under review have been found in drinking water at various sites
across the country.
Preliminary information about the chemical risks and the
evaluation process can be found on
EPA’s TSCA website.
The revised Toxic Substances Control Act received overwhelming
bipartisan approval in Congress. Even the chemical industry
supported the law, in part because it would limit what states can
do to ban chemicals on their own. Check out my story in the
Encyclopedia
of Puget Sound.
We have yet to see how Trump’s executive order on controlling
regulations will affect upcoming rules for toxic chemicals, but the
order is already causing some confusion. It has been ridiculed as
“nonsensical” by environmental groups, which filed a lawsuit this
week seeking to overturn the order. More than a few Republicans say
they don’t know how it will work.
In the video “Save Our Snowmen,” frozen creatures are migrating
to cooler regions of the Earth on a mission that could affect their
very survival. This amusing video instills an unusual sympathy for
snowmen while raising a legitimate concern about climate change in
a humorous way.
Various locations, such as Puget Sound, are likely to see some
species displaced while others find a new niche as the climate
undergoes a continuing change. Mass migration is less likely than
population shifts due to predator-prey and disease pressures. I’ve
covered some outstanding reports on this topic from the University
of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group. See
Water Ways, Dec. 1, 2015.
The video also draws attention to the producer of this video,
Cool Effect, which was founded by Dee and Richard
Lawrence on the idea that small actions can mushroom and result
in significant declines in greenhouse gases. The group’s motto:
“Changing the world, one small step at a time.”
