Skip to main content

In Washington, the environment is under attack. The cost-cutting deal that the House passed yesterday stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of $1.6 billion, which made up 16% of the agency's budget. Funds for clean energy were cut. Republicans put in a provision that would keep the Department of the Interior from putting aside public lands for conservation and one that killed the nascent climate center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

by Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger

In Washington, the environment is under attack. The cost-cutting deal that the House passed yesterday stripped the Environmental Protection Agency of $1.6 billion, which made up 16% of the agency's budget. Funds for clean energy were cut. Republicans put in a provision that would keep the Department of the Interior from putting aside public lands for conservation and one that killed the nascent climate center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
These choices represent a deeper antipathy toward nature and environmental health than the run-of-the-mill climate denialism that's become au courant among congressional Republicans. They show that plenty of leaders in Congress do not care about basic protections that ensure clean air and clean water or that keep even small stretches of the planet safe from mining, drilling and other human interventions.
Greenlining
One idea driving these decisions is that, economically, the country can't afford to protect the environment right now. But as Monica Potts argues at The American Prospect, in a review of two new books that cover the economy and the environment, green policies are good for business. In reviewing Climate Capitalism by L. Hunter Lovins and Boyd Cohen, Potts notes that "$2.8 billion a year is wasted because employees don't turn off their  computers when they leave work; comprehensive clean-energy and climate  legislation could create 1.9 million jobs; improving indoor air quality  could save businesses $200 billion annually in energy costs."
Almost 2 million jobs! The country could use that boost right now. But those jobs depend, of course, on government action. As Potts points out, businesses won't necessarily adopt these solutions on their own. The other book she reviews, Seth Fletcher's Bottled Lightning, explains why electric cars weren't developed sooner.
In short, "oil has stayed so remarkably cheap," Potts writes. And, as she says, "The market doesn't capture all of the costs that fossil fuels and other industrial-era processes impose on society." Environmentally friendly policies might be good for business, but sometimes business doesn't know it. The private sector won't learn that lesson, either, if Washington is willing to sacrifice its administrative infrastructure for handling environmental issues.
New energy, new decisions
The country's going to want its government to have some environmental experts left around for another reason, too. As oil and gas get more expensive, alternative energy sources are going to look more appealing. But while they might have lower carbon emissions, they raise new issues about clean air and water and about their impact on ecosystems. The EPA, for example, is currently studying the water and air impacts of natural gas, which has been widely touted as a fuel source that emits less carbon than coal.
But that may not be accurate, either. In a study obtained this week by The Hill, Robert Howarth, a Cornell University scientist, found that the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions related to natural gas production may actually far outstrip the amount coal produces. Mother Jones'Kate Sheppard explains:

While burning natural gas may emit less carbon dioxide, its extraction  releases quite a bit of methane, a more potent greenhouse gas. Gas from  shale—a fine-grained layer of rock below the earth's surface—is also  responsible for 30 percent more greenhouse gas emissions than  conventional natural gas. The study found that up to 7.9 percent of the  methane escapes directly from the wells, leaks from pipelines, or is  released in venting and flaring. While the leaks may be relatively  small, methane is such a potent greenhouse gas that those leaks have a  major impact, Howarth tells Mother Jones.

Fighting back against fracking
If Howarth's study is correct, that means even worse news for communities in the gas fields that have been fighting against new natural gas drilling, only to be told that it's for the greater good. For instance, in New York this week, Public News Service's Mike Clifford reports that "Dozens of environmental and health groups are asking [Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state lawmakers] to put the  longer-term issues of air and water quality ahead of any short-term gas  profits."
The Sierra Club's Roger Downs tells Clifford, "We've seen in places like Wyoming, where the oil and gas industry has  been booming, children on certain days cannot go out and play; they get  nosebleeds from the air quality. It's serious stuff, and we don't want  that in New York."
Just over in Pennsylvania, natural gas drilling has been going ahead, and Nina Berman reports for AlterNet on its impact on families:
The Spencers' house, once valued at $150,000, is now worth $29,000. They  have a methane monitor in their basement, a methane water filtration  system in a backyard shed. They leave the door open when they take  showers because with no bathroom windows they are afraid the house could  blow up. Their neighbors were forced to evacuate once already because  of high methane levels. In the middle of their yard, a shaft resembling a  shrunken flagpole vents gas from their wellhead.

Right now, the EPA is studying the effects that natural gas drilling have on public health. Their findings could, at the very least, strengthen the case for putting restrictions on drilling companies to prevent pollution. But if anti-environmentalists in Washington keep cutting into the bottom line of environmental programs, families like the Spencers will have an even harder time fighting against the conditions they're facing now.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of   The Media  Consortium.   It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of  articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, andThe   Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network  of leading independent media outlets.
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  a sad day (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DawnN

      I was hoping the deal made wouldn't hurt like this. I'm still hoping that we might get some better stuff on the environment after the election. I'm not that hopeful for the near future. With the environment, the best we get is always delaying actions, and I'm not sure we're going to even get those. The real truth, though, is that there really is no way for our civilization to continue growth without end. We live in a world of limited resources....nothing's going to change that, but no politician is ever going to really admit that we need to stop growing. If they did, they'd be tossed out of office. And yes, I realize that's the same old environment vs. economy meme...but as much as solar and wind have potential, until they up their energy return on energy invested (EROEI), we can't use them to continue growing. Nor should we. I fear the day when the planet is covered in suburban sprawl and concrete. Luckily, I think we'll collapse first.

      "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" --Ed Abbey

      by progreen on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:31:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site