Hiding the facts about pollution
The weakening of environmental regulations is often too technical and eye-glazingly bureaucratic for most average folks and reporters to care about. But this kind of lobbying wizardry can mean big bucks to developers and have a huge impact on our natural world.
The most recent example: The Bush administration has been quietly carving looholes in a fairly obscure but important 1970 law called the National Environmental Policy Act, according to the online journal Environmental Science and Technology. The article raises an alarm: "Environmental Magna Carta under siege." The change means corporations and the government have less of an obligation to study the environmental impact of their projects and report their findings to the public.
Meanwhile, another public disclosure law established after the catastrophic chemical leak in Bhopal, India (pictured above), is also being weakened by the Bush administration, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The federal Toxics Release Inventory law for two decades has allowed people to access data about hundreds of chemicals used and released in their communities. Seeking to ease the burden on industry, the EPA last December scaled back disclosure requirements for some small-scale facilities, the LA Times reports. This week, California and 11 other states sued to try to stop the blackout on public health information.
Like the Toxic Release Inventory, the National Environmental Policy Act was created because of an environmental disaster. Congress passed the environmental impact reporting law after Ohio's Cuyahoga River caught on fire, and a 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara, California, according to Environmental Science and Technology.
But with the spotlight elsewhere, companies have been quietly over the years lobbying to weaken these requirements.
"In an attempt to curtail environmental assessments for oil exploration, timber extraction, and grazing on public lands, the Bush Administration is sidestepping one of the nation's first environmental laws," the journal reports. "Environmental assessment in the U.S. was enshrined in law for the first time when President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on January 1, 1970. Since then, however, the U.S. has slowly cast aside its role as a leader in the field of environmental assessments, as successive administrations have chipped away at the scope of NEPA, experts say. The cuts have reached a crescendo with President George W. Bush's administration, and proponents of these assessments worry that pressure to develop natural resources with little oversight of the consequences will lead to an unsustainable future for the U.S."
If anyone out there knows of impacts on the Chesapeake Region from these changes, please let me know at tom.pelton@baltsun.com.
Comments
So as the Sun's environmental reporter, are you taking a stand against "the weakening of environmental regulations"? Just curious.
(And if so, are you against the weakening of all environmental regulations, or just those weakenings that "can mean big bucks to developers"? Or do you figure they all mean big bucks to developers?)
Posted by: J.J. | November 30, 2007 11:14 PM
Thanks for the question, J.J. As The Sun's environment beat reporter, it is my job to tell people when environmental regulations are being weakened. Weaker environmental regulations often (but not always) mean less cost for business, and often more impact on the natural world. Whether that's good or bad depends on the perspective of the reader.
Posted by: Tom Pelton | December 1, 2007 1:32 PM
Hi Tom, Are you aware that the USDA Forest Service has proposed sweeping new policy directives that will encourage rapid development of our nation's National Forests by the wind industry? They are attempting to exempt this federal policy action from NEPA, and don't plan to conduct a programmatic EIS - as was done by the USDOI's BLM for a similar policy action involving wind energy development which they undertook a few years ago. However, there are no National Forests in MD, so this issue may not be of concern to you or the Sun. By the way, I was disappointed that you didn't speak with me before writing your article last week about the Synergics project; it might have helped you provide a more balanced and accurate story.
Posted by: Dan Boone | December 3, 2007 2:10 PM
Mr. Pelton, I would like you to report on how these regulations have impacted specific companies and projects. Often environmental regulations do very little in improving our air or water or wildlife habitat, while adding tremendously to the costs we all must share. In my area developers are required to protect small mosquito-producing wetlands even though they're not really wetlands, just places low enough to catch water for two weeks a year. This is true even if it's a "wetland" created by man, such as a low spot that has been flooded for two weeks when a canal has broken. I'm all for preserving real wetlands where ducks, shorebirds, and the like can thrive, but the current law is ridiculous.
Posted by: Rich | December 4, 2007 12:11 PM
Rich- to suggest that many environmental regulations do very little to protect our air and water quality is quite improper and innacurate. You mention protection of wetlands as being a problem- well as a environmental planner it is my job to oversee development projects and to make sure that they are conforming to the relevant laws. In this job, I have come to learn that these "mosquito producing wetlands" as you call them serve several functions which you may be unaware of. Specifically, these small depressional wetlands that you refer to often act as water filters, storm surge depressants, maintain stream flow levels, and various other functions. If your opposition to wetland protection is due to mosquito related issues such as the dreaded west nile- then I would like to reassure you, because the incidence of west nile in Maryland is quite low. You have a significantly greater chance of dieing from food poisoning today from the fast food that you have for lunch then you do contracting west nile. Lets worry about things that might happen- not that pose a statistically minute chance of happening. Furthermore, wetlands of this nature help to preserve and increase the quality of our waterways and subsequently help our aquatic species thrive. So next time you think about paving over the wetlands, consider how much you pay for a dozen crabs- would you rather that price increase again?
Posted by: Nick | December 5, 2007 9:45 AM