Image: Susanne Miller, USFWS

From Green Right Now Reports

An initiative to put an end to international trophy hunting and commercial trade in polar bear parts was defeated in a vote at the United Nations’ Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Doha, Qatar. The same group also voted down a proposal to ban the export of Atlantic bluefin tuna, a fish used extensively in sushi and sashimi.

The proposal to protect the polar bear was sponsored by the United States and supported by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) among other groups. NRDC lawyers and conservation experts have asserted that the bears suffer unsustainably high harvest levels in the face of trophy hunters and a market for pelts, paws, teeth and other parts.

“While there has been a lot of positive momentum in polar bear conservation recently, this is a real setback,” said Andrew Wetzler, Director of NRDC’s Wildlife Conservation Project. “It keeps some of the most important populations of polar bears squarely in the crosshairs. We will continue work to find a new way to protect polar bears from this unsustainable hunt.”

A 2007 report by the U.S. Geological Survey offered a “conservative” estimate that the total population of polar bears would decline by over 70 percent in the next 45 years as global warming literally melts their habitat. A year later, the U.S. listed the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The proposal before CITES sought to “uplist” the species to the more highly protected class 1 status under international treaty. It was defeated by a vote of 62-48 with 11 abstentions.

Image: NOAA

Meanwhile, only the United States, Norway and Kenya offered outright support for the Atlantic bluefin ban, while the European Union asked that any action be delayed until May 2011 to provide more time to respond to claims of overfishing.

Japan, which imports 80 percent of Atlantic bluefin, conceded that stocks were in trouble but echoed a growing theme that CITES should have no role in regulating tuna and other marine species.

Japan expressed willingness to accept lower quotas for bluefin tuna but wanted those to come from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which currently regulates the trade.

The U.S. EPA announced Wednesday that it is taking several steps to increase the safety of flea and tick treatments for pets, including requiring better labeling and instructions to prevent misuse. The agency also promises to subject new and existing products to stricter testing.

The EPA found that small dogs are more likely to have an adverse reaction to spot-on flea treatments.

The move comes after hundreds of reports of pets falling ill, or even dying, nationwide after being treated with flea and tick treatments available on the consumer market. The agency reported that it logged more than 44,000 reports of bad reactions to topical flea and tick products in 2008, which was up considerably from the 28,000+ reported in 2007. The reactions included skin irritations, gastrointestinal problems that included vomiting and diarrhea and nervous system effects — trembling, seizures, depression.

Pinpointing the products targeted also is tricky, because there are dozens of flea treatments on the market. For now, the EPA’s review will focus on the “spot-on” treatments in which pet owners dab a small amount of a pesticide onto the pet’s fur to help repel fleas and ticks. While these products might fulfill their mission, they do so while leaving a poisonous coating on our furry friends, and expose people to the same chemicals.

That worries environmental advocates. Last year, the Natural Resources Defense Council reviewed the safety of treated tick and flea pet collars, finding that the level of residue on the animal was higher than what the EPA had projected when greenlighting these products.

Today’s acknowledgment by the government agency that flea and tick treatments can cause health effects “serves as a reminder that just because they’re in stores, does not mean they’re safe,” said Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, an NRDC scientist who’s been following this issue.

For more details about some of these ill effects, you can read Rotkin-Ellman’s blog, which includes tips for safer ways of dealing with pet pests. (Wash, wash, wash those dogs vigorously with soap and water; vacuum well and often if fleas are an issue in your area.)

Manufacturers, however, insist that the current line of consumer products are safe, if used correctly.

According to Georgia-based Merial Ltd., the maker of the Frontline tick and flea treatment, the vast majority of negative reactions to these products are “minor.” The Associated Press quoted the company as saying in a statement: “The number of adverse events reported for FRONTLINE has remained consistently low since the product’s introduction in 1996.”

The AP also quoted an official with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who said that most adverse reactions involve skin irritations and upset stomach (on pets, that is).

Expect to hear more on this issue.

In the meantime, the EPA advises pet owners to:

• Read labels carefully and follow all labeling “before exposing your pet to a pesticide.”

• Consult your veterinarian before using any pesticide on “weak, aged, medicated, sick, pregnant or nursing pets, or on pets that have previously shown signs of sensitivity to pesticide products”.

• Be sure not to use dog flea treatment on cats.

The EPA noted in its announcement that it has found that exposing cats to flea treatments intended for dogs is “a concern” and also that small dogs tend to be disproportionately negatively affected by these products. Regulators hope to find out more such useful information by improving “market surveillance” of flea treatments. The agency also will be requiring more reporting of post-sale adverse effects (presumably from veterinarians or manufacturers) so it can better evaluate the incidence of negative health effects.

You can read more on the EPA’s study of flea and tick treatments at the agency’s website.

As passionate as his father was about civil rights, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is equally so about the environment.

Robert Kennedy Jr.

In a lecture in Fort Worth on Wednesday, the 56-year-old son of the late Senator, advocated for moving the nation to green energy, which he doesn’t see as encompassing nuclear power.

Coal is not the only power-producing industry that needs scrubbing, said the longtime environmentalist, nuclear energy is simply not safe. “Nuclear energy is the most catastrophic form of energy. No bank will finance it…[and] no insurance company will insure it,” he said.

“It’s not just a bunch of hippies saying it’s unsafe. There are spills all the time into the Hudson,” says Kennedy, who serves as chief prosecuting attorney for Riverkeeper, whose mission is the restoration of the Hudson River. Three Mile Island was not the last accident despite what nuclear advocates say.

He made it clear that lobbyists for fossil fuel and polluting energy industries are powerful and dangerous. The nuclear industry, for example, managed to find a way to get a Congressional exemption that leaves them free from damage. “All homeowners’ policies in the U.S. exclude radiation from the nuclear industry,” he said.

Kennedy believes greed has taken over the utility companies as well. “Utility companies make money by selling more energy – even if the energy is green. We need to change the rules,” he says. “Don’t reward bad behavior.”

He believes it’s a question of loyalty. “Instead of being loyal to their shareholders, company leaders need to be loyal to our nation,” he says.

Along with serving on the boards of green energy companies, Kennedy, a resident of Mount Kisco, N.Y., has led the efforts to protect New York City’s water supply, both through Riverkeeper and as a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. He is the president of Waterkeeper Alliance and a professor and supervising attorney at Pace University School of Law’s Environmental Litigation clinic. (After getting his undergraduate degree from Harvard and law degree from the University of Virginia, he picked up a masters in environmental law from Pace.)

As a partner with Silicon Valley’s VantagePoint Ventures, he is involved firsthand with green energy. VantagePoint funds an array of emerging clean tech and green energy companies., including solar, algae fuel and energy conservation businesses.

During his lecture at Texas Christian University, Kennedy also addressed the coal industry’s claims that coal is clean and cheap. It is neither, he says.

The problem is that once a coal plant is built, there are many hidden costs such as pollution and healthcare.

“More than 60,000 Americans are killed each year due to ozone particulate pollution,” he says. In addition, every fish in the United States is affected by dangerous levels of mercury, thanks to the coal industry. That mercury level also has grown in humans. Babies being born to women with high mercury levels have a higher percentage of illness ranging from autism to mental retardation.

On the other hand, “Once a solar plant is built, the energy is free forever.” There are no pollution and health costs, and no strings attached, he said.

Using coal to produce electricity is a destructive business from the beginning of the process, says Kennedy, who opposes the mountain-top removal mining in Appalachia in which ancient mountains are sheared off to get to the coal. The practice destroys forests and the resulting debris pollutes area rivers. (Coal companies say they ameliorate the damage by planting new trees, but environmentalists say these saplings cannot replace the mature forests; that erosion, runoff and river pollution are not abated.)

Kennedy recalled his father being against what was then known as strip-mining. “He told me, [the coal industry] is not just destroying the environment, but permanently impoverishing the surrounding communities. They’re doing this so they can break the unions.”

It’s particularly a shame because Appalachia, Kennedy points out, “is the oldest ecosystem on the continent.”

“Today,” he says, “ninety-nine percent of coal in West Virginia is owned by Wall Street bankers such as JP Morgan and Chase.” The reason? Many of the homeowners were tricked into selling their mineral rights because they didn’t know any better. “The coal industry has liquidated the people of West Virginia of their cash,” he says.

Kennedy says he’s not just fighting for ecosystems and halting the destruction of the environment. “It’s about the subversion of American democracy, the public process and transparency in government.

“Government is supposed to protect us,” but because of the influence polluting companies and lobbyists wield in Washington, that’s not happening.

Interestingly enough, he says, “every nation that has attempted ‘de-carbonization’, has prospered afterward. In Iceland, they became scared of global warming and within 15 years, went from being the poorest nation in Europe to the fourth richest. Sweden is another example. After Sweden de-carbonized and closed their nuclear facilities, they prospered. Tons of entrepreneurs came in as clean energy was introduced.”

He named Brazil and Costa Rica as having robust economies after they de-carbonized as well.

Robert Kennedy Jr. speaks at TCU.

Kennedy would like to see an increase in geothermal power, which he uses at his home in New York. “Geothermal,” he says, “is an underutilized resource. It’s been unexploited until now, but it could be a boon, especially in Texas where you already have holes in the ground from gas/oil drilling.” His home also has solar panels and between the two forms of energy, his home generates more power than he can use, which he then sells back to the utility company. “But you can’t do this in all states. This needs to be fixed. We need to reward efficiency; and punish inefficiency. We should be able to turn every home into a power plant.”

Another resource he’d like to see used more is wind. “There’s enough wind in the states of North Dakota, Minnesota and Texas to power the entire country,” he says.

The Obama Administration faces some major obstacles, Kennedy says. “We need to get rid of the subsidies that give breaks to dirty energy. And we have to build an electric grid that can accommodate the entire country.”

Kennedy compares the effort to the interstate highway system that was built during the Eisenhower years. The United States has the technology, Kennedy says. “And we have the resources – wind that blows at night; and sun that shines by day…We can put PVCs on every south-facing roof in the country.” Taking advantage of these green energies should be a no-brainer.

The TCU lecture was part of the Frost Foundation Lectureship for Global Issues, sponsored by the TCU Center for International Studies.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

When the Copenhagen Climate Conference ended in mid-December, it was widely decried by climate activists as embarrassingly inconclusive, at best, and a failure at worst (you can’t get much worse than that).

And yet, there were plenty of voices, including that of President Obama, urging everyone to hold tight and pointing out that alliances had been formed and the world’s major polluters had stepped up, however tentatively. They had issued hard numbers, a percentages by which they would try to rollback greenhouse gas emissions.

And that’s what it’s all about, reeling in those emissions. So despite the chaos, the under-achieving, the low-ball aspirations, the feinting and ducking, the world’s leading nations, including previously absent U.S., stepped up to the plate. You could say they hit a series of ground balls, but at least they took the bat.

These nations were asked to officially record their promises by signing the Copenhagen Accord by the end of January. This follow-up event was anti-climatic and received less media attention.

But the end result was that the emissions targets were documented and recorded for posterity — and hopefully for prosperity. (That’s what everyone seems to forget, that we need to forgo the pollution so we and future generations can live long and prosper, not so we can have higher electric bills.)

NRDC International Climate Policy Director, Jake Schmidt

Anyway. This week, in his blog, Jake Schmidt, director of the NRDC’s International Climate Policy, writes that 60 countries have firmed up their pledges in the final document; including the top 12 carbon-emitting nations.

Schmidt and the NRDC have put together a table of these commitments to emphasize that world leaders are somewhat  (actually literally) on a page.

“These countries are the “big players” which almost single-handedly hold the key to solving global warming.  The steps they take are critical.  So let me repeat: countries representing over 80% of the world’s emissions have just committed to steps to reduce their global warming pollution. As I’ve discussed here, this is a huge shift from where we were just 2 years ago (and even 6 months ago).  That is something to build upon since the key to solving global warming is whether or not key countries are committing to take action.”

But Schmidt knows that “commitments” and “action” can wave at each other over a large chasm. He says environmentalists must just get out there and start proving that reducing GHGs can create jobs and won’t wreck the economy.

Then we’ll see our government follow along.

(Stay tuned for more hopeful musings by another blogger, who says that this leadership by the public is already happening — especially in the business sector.)

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

By Paul McRandle

Q: Quickly, what is TSCA and why does it need to be reformed?

Daniel Rosenberg: TSCA is an environmental law first enacted in 1976 and never updated since, that was intended to regulate the safety of industrial chemicals—that is most chemicals that find their way into the stream of commerce. It is generally regarded to be the greatest failure of all the major environmental laws passed in the early 1970s. This is because there were 62,000 chemicals in use when it was enacted and all of those chemicals were grandfathered in, meaning they didn’t have to be tested or required to meet a safety standard. On top of that, the law makes it extremely difficult for EPA to take action even when they know a chemical is unsafe, like asbestos. The way the law is written, the burden is on the agency to prove a chemical is unsafe rather than the companies who make chemicals having to prove they are safe.

Some 22,000 chemicals have come onto the market since 1976, and for those new chemicals EPA’s ability to regulate them is also very limited. The companies did not supply information on the health or environmental effects of most of these chemicals, because they aren’t required to do so. To get that information, EPA would have to issue a separate rule for each chemical, which is a cumbersome, expensive, and lengthy process.

So, roughly 84,000 chemicals are allowed on the market without evidence that they are safe and for a number of them, we know they are not safe.

Q: Congress has been holding hearings about TSCA reform, but at this point where do things stand?

DR: NRDC is an active member of a broad campaign to reform TSCA called Safer Chemical Healthy Families. It includes a number of environmental groups as well as health-affected, healthcare, community and state groups,environmental justice and labor groups. That campaign released a set of principles for TSCA reform and EPA and several other stakeholders have done so as well, including the American Chemistry Council, the major industry trade association, and a dozen or so states. All these sets of principles were remarkably similar in their scope. While that doesn’t mean that all the interested parties agree on the details, it does suggest there is a clear set of issues everyone has identified that need to be worked out. Legislation is expected to be introduced in Congress by the end of February. When that happens, NRDC will work with our allies to educate members of Congress and their staff, as well as NRDC’s members and the general public about the legislation as it moves through Congress.

Q: Socioeconomic risk factors are also very important, given high asthma rates and incidents of early puberty in African American communities. Is environmental justice an element in TSCA reform?

DR: In our view, TSCA should be a place to address some of the problems for communities that are disproportionately exposed, and therefore vulnerable, to toxic substances. One of the platforms of our campaign is that “effective reform should contribute substantially to reducing the disproportionate burden of toxic chemical exposure placed on people of color, low-income people and indigenous communities.” That’s not a traditional part of existing TSCA but we think that’s an important concept that should exist in any reform.

Of the now 84,000 chemicals, EPA has taken action to partially regulate only five of those chemicals. The only chemical that was ever banned under TSCA are PCBs, which Congress passed as part of the original law. Of course, PCBs are still around, since they are so persistent, polluting rivers and triggering fish consumption advisories. There are dozens of other persistent and bioaccumulative toxic substances that have not been adequately regulated under TSCA (lead and mercury are two that are well known).

There are a number of other chemicals that we know are dangerous and that people are widely exposed to—for example, formaldehyde, asbestos, and solvents likeTCE—and those are commonly found in a lot of disadvantaged communities. So another plank of our platform is that these persistent, bioaccumualtive and toxic substances (PBTs) that people are exposed to should be phased out of use and new ones kept from entering the market. Exposure to other toxic chemicals, like formaldehyde, that have already been extensively studied, should be reduced to the maximum extent feasible.

Q: How can the public support TSCA reform

DR: One of the most important things people can do is pick up their phone or pen or mouse or portable texting device (not while driving) and communicate with their members of congress and state officials that this is an issue that you care about and you want to see reform. The statute has done almost nothing and hasn’t done nearly what the Clean Air and Clean Water acts have done, so most members of congress know very little about this law and how broken it is, although they do understand that there are a lot of people concerned about exposures to toxic substances. Perhaps they have family members or friends who have cancer, or have a learning disability, or have wrestled with infertility or other reproductive problems, all of which have been associated to some degree to exposure to toxic chemicals, which is what the report we released discusses. So they need to hear from their constituents and have a clear sense that those issues resonate with the public and that people want the law to be reformed and the lack of proper regulation of toxic chemicals to be addressed.

Although the law has been on the books for so long—34 years—in many respects this is still a new issue for members of congress. Every member of congress would benefit from hearing more about this issue and the public’s concern.

Q: Although the report doesn’t delve to the level of associating specific compounds with specific diseases, it does point out the general health effects associated with them, such as causing cancer, reproductive problems or harming the brain. The neurotoxicity list is particularly daunting. If we can’t substitute these compounds with healthier versions, what can we do?

DR: For many of these substances, we think safer alternatives do exist. However, part of the way TSCA is broken is that, because all this bad stuff has been allowed to be used forever, there is no federal force really driving innovation and development of safer chemicals So once there’s a law in place that’s going to phase out the use of chemicals that don’t meet a standard of safety, there’s going to be a drive for innovation that’s beneficial for the companies that can create the most effective but safe chemicals or non-chemical alternatives.

Another element of the platform is to get a minimum set of information – sort of a basic safety profile — about each of the chemicals. Not only will it help us find the chemicals that pose health or environmental risks, it will also help us identify some chemicals that are safe. We may have the safer alternatives already. You’re trying to sort the enormous haystack into two smaller piles, the unsafe and the safe.

Q: Out of the 80,000 chemicals that have been produced, how many have even kept their names trade secret?

DR: This is another area where TSCA hasn’t work well. There is legitimate confidential business information, known as CBI, but in our view the name of the chemical should not be CBI. But the problem is now that many companies submit all the information including the name as CBI since they rarely are called upon by EPA to justify the claim up front. EPA frequently doesn’t challenge CBI claims because it doesn’t have the time or the money. EPA recently announced a shift in how they will deal with that issue to require more scrutiny up front, but there definitely needs to be more reform on the process for determining what information is legitimately CBI and what is not.

Besides EPA not having enough information about these chemicals, the public doesn’t either. People do not know what chemicals are in products and there are not currently requirements for companies to disclose much information about their chemicals. That’s a very important reform.

Q: Is there a way to screen for PBTs before they’ve become persistent in a community?

DR: There are characteristics of a chemical that identify them as persistent or bio-accumulative. Effective TSCA reform would ban use of chemicals that are known to have these characteristics.. A lot more is known about the persistence and bioaccumulation of toxics than when TSCA was written. There’s also so much greater knowledge now about small doses of certain toxic substances affecting people, the hormone disrupting potentials and cumulative exposures, but the way the law is written none of this new science has had any impact on the way things are done.

Q: What can readers do to reduce their exposures? How can they find out what chemicals are in their homes, water & air, workplaces and schools?

DR: The burden shouldn’t be on the consumers to do a huge investigation to find out what’s in it. That should all be known up front, that’s what industry should be disclosing to the public.

Environmentalism is getting an injection of fun, but with a serious aim.

Today, some of the nation’s best-known and critically acclaimed celebrities, Leonardo DiCaprio, Edward Norton, Jason Bateman, Felicity Huffman and Forest Whitaker, along with rising stars Chace Crawford, Emmy Rossum and Justin Long, are leading a campaign to help citizens sound the call for clean energy in Washington.

(Noted professor Cornell West also makes a cameo appearance in the video, impishly declaring “Tweet this!)

The program, launched today by these actors and the Natural Resources Defense Council, is called  This is Our Moment. It’s main thrust: To help people contact their senators, even flood their email boxes, make videos and generally get viral in pushing for an American clean energy bill.

Those who want to register their support for clean energy action can use social networking tools at the website to spread the message. Fans of the movement will be able to embed a video player on their Facebook page or blog, and more. (Tweet this! says West.)

This is Our Moment supports legislation to shift the nation’s energy production from fossil-fuel based power sources to non-polluting, renewable sources such as wind and solar power.

The viral campaign was timed to begin after President Obama’s State of the Union address, in which he called for passage of a clean energy bill. The U.S. House passed such a measure in 2009, but the legislation, called the Clean Energy, Jobs and American Power Act, has been stalled in the Senate.

Advocates say that passage of the bill would create local jobs, free the U.S. from dependence on foreign oil and greatly reduce carbon emissions, which scientists warn are fueling accelerating climate change.

“This is our moment – our moment to fight for a cleaner and more secure future,” said DiCaprio, a longtime environmentalist and an NRDC Trustee, in a news release. “The time is now for people across the country to stand up and have their voices heard. We all must call on the Senate to act on this historic opportunity.”

Those opposed to a clean energy and climate action bill in the Senate have raised questions about the accuracy of the science of climate change. They’ve also called for the nation to pursue all energy sources, an approach opposed by environmentalists who want less of the nation’s energy to come from the burning of fossil fuels. Gasoline engines and coal-fired power plants generate the majority of carbon emissions in the U.S. and in countries around the world.

In his State of the Union address, Obama called on Congress to pass clean energy legislation so that the U.S. can remain a world manufacturing leader.

China, as well as India and most European nations, are adding wind and solar capacity, creating a large world market for clean energy technology expertise and goods.

Major U.S. firms, such as General Electric among others, make components for wind turbines. Several Silicon Valley companies are developing cheaper and more efficient solar tools, both for large industrial and home installations.

Like what you see on YouTube? Here’s the longer version by the “This is Our Moment” celebs:

Said NRDC President Frances Beinecke: “This is one of the most important pieces of legislation of our time – we cannot let our moment pass us by. Our Senators need to hear all of us loud and clear.”

Depending on where you live, it can be a relatively painless process to switch to a greener power company, or virtually impossible.

New York City residents can switch, if they choose, and now a new environmental collaboration is making the process easier than ever.

Consumers can follow the guidance of a new website, launched Monday and created by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Alliance for Clean Energy in New York.

“Three clicks and you can make the switch from fossil fuels to clean energy,” said Brandi Colander, attorney in the Air and Energy Program at NRDC. “This website gives New Yorkers a tool to lead the way in repowering America, starting with their own homes and small businesses.”

The website, GreenPowerNYC, allows residents and small busines owners to select the type of clean power they want to use and their energy provider. After simply filling out a form with their choices, they can make the switch to plans and providers that employ green energy, such as wind and hydro-generation.

The program,  made possible by a donation from the Wolfensohn Family Foundation, can help users lower their carbon footprint and support the economic development of alternative energy sources.

“This new project is exciting for energy providers, environmentalists and New York City residents alike,” said Carol Murphy Executive Director of ACE NY, in a statement.

Echoing that thought was Mel Jones, president and chief executive officer of Sterling Planet, one of the power providers: “With the launch of Green Power NYC, millions more New Yorkers can discover that clean, renewable energy is an easy, affordable option that’s good for the environment, good for the economy, and good for increased energy security and independence.”

Con Edison is also participating.

One of my pet complaints is finally being addressed, at least partly. Living here in the Barnett Shale region of Texas, where drilling for natural gas is making Swiss cheese of the ground beneath, say, my house, I’ve been sensitive to these reports that link fracturing chemicals to groundwater contamination.

To be fair, natural gas advocates point out that the crevices they’re tapping are typically not at the same level as groundwater; they’re much farther below the surface. Still, that means they’re drilling through potential groundwater territory. And it doesn’t explain away the numerous reports around the country of water contaminated with chemicals used in the fracturing process.

Call me suspicious, or call me a reader of Pro Publica which has been cracking open this story, but these matters worry me. (See the latest story from Pro Publica here. It’s about how gas drilling could be the culprit in contaminated Wyoming water wells being investigated by the EPA. The EPA jumped on this problem a few years after residents in the tiny town of Pavillion complained that “their water wells turned sour and reeked of fuel vapors shortly after drilling took place nearby,” according to Pro Publica. Hmmmm. I smell a problem.)

But I digress. What’s happening now is that Congress may soon ask for more disclosure from gas companies, requiring them to reveal the chemicals being used in the hydraulic fracturing process. If passed, the companies would have to itemize what’s in those fluids they’re injecting beneath the earth to split the rock (which releases gas stores).

The Natural Resources Defense Council supports this potential repeal of the “Halliburton Loophole,” as it’s known because this 2005 exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act allowed Halliburton to keep its fracturing formula secret.

The NRDC is asking supporters of disclosure to contact their lawmakers about these pending bills:
House of Representatives’ Bill 2766 and Senate Bill 1215.

For more info on areas where natural gas drilling has contaminated water and threatened property see the NRDC blog by Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the group.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Fleas happen. So do ticks. With the trees in full leaf and the woods thick with weeds, I know the hounds will soon be targets. Typically, I just shave them (the dogs not the parasites), wash them with something obnoxiously fragrant and hope for the best.

I gave up chemical dog collars awhile back. But knowing that the dogs are miserable with fleas (not to mention how miserable we’d be sharing their fleas) and that they can get Lyme disease if they pick up a tick, I’m aware that we need solutions. I have fed them garlic powder, a home remedy, but with mixed success.

So I’ve been looking into natural alternatives, and today I found some great ones. But first, a relevant story: This week the Natural Resources Defense Council sued pet product manufacturers and retailers (16 of them are named) for failing to warn consumers in California about the toxicity of some of the ingredients in flea collars. The suit was filed in California because that state regulates propoxur, and is considering regulating TCVP (tetrachlorvinphos), two of the compounds at issue.

While the EPA has said that flea collars pose no threat to humans, the lawsuit alleges that chemical residues on pet fur can far exceed safe levels. The suits cites NRDC research showing that after several days, most dogs and cats carried residues levels considered unsafe for toddlers having “average” contact with pets. The San Francisco Chronicle website SFGATE has more on this story.

Now for the practical part, as you consider how to keep the mutts parasite-free this summer season: The NRDC has put together a list that will help you sort out the options. The Green Paws report tells you which flea/tick treatments to avoid, which to use with caution and which are the safest to use. (It undersells the non-toxic products a bit, saying they’re safe to use when “chemical control is needed,” which implies that au naturel is safest for Fifi and Thunderbolt. I’d argue that no control carries risks too — unless you enjoy fleas in the carpet and sick pets.)

Still, we are grateful for this research. Read the list and you’ll understand why — many of these chemicals are believed or known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors and irritants that aggravate asthma. It’s little wonder, they’re pesticides. You know, like the stuff you carefully wash off your fruit.

Anyhow, we’re going to try an essential oil. Green Paws lists oils of cedarwood, lemongrass, peppermint, rosemary and thyme as safer oils to use on pets. Some of the essential oils, like those from lavender and geranium, it does not recommend for pets. Good to know.

It also advises discussing these issues with your veterinarian (kind of like how you’re supposed to discuss Boniva, Celebrex and Viagra with your doctor). But I have to take issue with this advice. Our veterinarian — and I would guess the majority of vets — sells many of those toxic pet collars and treatments. He’s a great guy, but last time I asked him about flea control, he told me to use a neurotoxin.

I did notice on the Green Paws list that there are some “stripe on” products using a chemical called Pyriproxyfen, which is considered safer to use. So not every chemical with a difficult to pronounce name is a problem, necessarily.

Confused? Green Paws also offers a guide to take to the store.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Seeking to show that proposed new U.S. coal plants would exact a high environmental toll even beyond their carbon air pollution,  the Natural Resources Defense Council issued a list today of the states that would bear the greatest burden from coal waste.

Texas, with eight proposed plants, topped the NRDC’s “Filthy 15″ list. It was followed by South Dakota, Florida, Nevada and Montana, Illinois, South Carolina, Ohio, Wyoming, Michigan, Kentucky, Missouri , Wisconsin, Georgia and West Virginia.

Those states have 54 proposed coal plants awaiting permitting. Across the nation, there are 80 proposed plants that would dump an estimated 18 million tons of dangerous coal combustion waste annually into various dump sites, largely unmonitored by the federal government.

That waste would include some 18,000 tons of toxic chemicals and metals, such as lead, mercury and arsenic, that would threaten the environment and people because it could leach into groundwater and streams and lakes, according to the NRDC’s analysis.

Arsenic and heavy metals such as lead and mercury have been linked to increased incidence of cancer, hormone disruption and impaired cognitive abilities among children.

The threat from coal waste is especially acute because states typically have weak regulations, and the federal government has failed for the last three decades to finalize national regulations, NRDC experts said.

This waste “has never been regulated at the national level,” said Peter Lehner, executive director of the NRDC at a news conference. “Currently it’s just dumped into ponds and unregulated landfills and abandoned mines.”

Even outside the “Filthy 15″ no state has successfully controlled the problem, he said.

Lehner applauded the announcement earlier this week by the Obama Administration that the EPA would move forward with regulating coal ash. But he said the agency should act swiftly, adding: “We fully expect the coal industry is going to fight back very, very hard.”

One area of debate has involved the recovery of coal waste for believed beneficial uses, like filling abandoned mines. The practice provides a way to get rid of coal waste and the coal ash is supposed to neutralize acids in the mines and improve water quality in the area; but NRDC research suggests the practice can backfire with toxins leaking into the water supply.

In addition, the EPA has found that coal waste dumps have contaminated water (groundwater and at the surface) at 24 sites in 13 states, according to the NRDC report Dangerous Disposals: Keeping Coal Combustion Waste Out of Our Water Supply.

Aside from ongoing (and difficult to track) potential poisoning of soil and water, coal plants pose a danger from calamitous accidents such as the one in Harriman, Tenn., where a Tennessee Valley Authority waste pond spilled more than a billion gallons of coal sludge.

“Coal waste is one more nail that should be driven into the coffin of coal,” said Tom (Smitty) Smith, director of the Texas Office of the Public Citizen, who appeared at the conference.

“We need to stop permitting coal,” said Smith, ticked off the industry’s other polluting attributes, from shearing off mountaintops to causing acid rain and more carbon pollution than any other single source.
“The toxic toll of coal,” he said, “is too great for the country to bear”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Related links:

• NRDC: Contaminated Coal Waste
• Watch Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars at SnagFilms.com
• Texas Business for Clean Air

1. Texas (8 proposed plants; 4,093,087 tons of coal ash waste)
2. South Dakota (2; 952,630)
3. Florida (3; 911,118)
4. Nevada (3; 888,272)
5. Montana (3; 848,278)
6. Illinois (4; 797,450)
7. South Carolina (2; 731,110)
8. Ohio (3; 711,616)
9. Wyoming (5; 697,850)
10. Michigan (5; 686,897)
11. Kentucky (4; 593,662)
12. Missouri (4; 515,709)
13. Wisconsin (3; 512,632)
14. Georgia (2; 507,952)
15. West Virginia (3; 445,202 )

Related links:

• Watch Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars at SnagFilms.com

Photo: The Redford Center at the Sundance Preserve and Alpheus Media

Narrated by Robert Redford, Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars, followed the story of Texans fighting a high-stakes battle for clean air.

On March 3, Los Angelenos will vote on a solar energy measure that has created controversy in some quarters, and whose progress other U.S. cities may want to watch.

Measure B, also known as the Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles Act, calls for a major increase in the amount of solar power used by the City of Los Angeles (400 megawatts to be created by 2014; enough to power about 240,000 homes). It would create a new training academy for workers; offer tax incentives to L.A. manufacturers who move into solar power technology and installation; and place solar installation, ownership and maintenance in the hands of the municipally owned Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Ultimately, Measure B would put up hundreds of acres of solar voltaics, on rooftops and land.

Involving two basic camps – those who oppose Measure B but not necessarily solar energy; and those who consider Measure B a strong starting point – the dust-up has swirled with anti-B accusations of back-room deal making, local-politics playing, lack of proper public vetting, union steamrolling – and worse.

One opponent, Jack Humphreville, who recently spoke with us about the flare-up, described City Hall’s handling of the measure as “Chicago-style politics” with “a Boss Tweed” (that would be supporter Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa) at the helm, saying voters and businesses were cut from the process when the proposal bypassed conventional steps through City Council and went straight to ballot. He also complains that the measure unnecessarily changes the City Charter.

The “pro” camp has kept its dirt-flinging to a minimum, saying opponents cling to an outdated model of how L.A.’s utilities should, and actually do, function. They believe their adversaries have taken a pro-business/anti-City Hall stance at the expense of the public good.

So as L.A. residents cast their ballots next week, the rest of the country might learn something about emerging municipal and state debates on how to embrace cleaner energy and new, green jobs. Perhaps all the acrimony wrought by L.A.’s Measure B can serve as, if nothing else, an example of what not to do as other cities move toward greener power sources, which will invariably upset the long-held status quo.

Almost all parties in the Measure B battle agree that now is the time; that renewable energy must be embraced more by American cities.

But as always, it seems the devil is in the details.

A non-political observer whose organization supports the measure, David Pettit, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council and director of the NRDC’s Southern California for Air Quality Program, believes the process of getting Measure B on the ballot could have been better handled.

“It seems to me it could’ve been less messy. And to me, the messiness has taken away from the message on the merits of Measure B. But we (NRDC) are an environmental organization – and what really concerns me is what’s going to be good for us as a city. I’m not a political consultant or analyst. I’m here to try to make the air quality better in Los Angeles.”

L.A., by virtue of its geography and population, has some of the worst air pollution suffered by any city in the world. With so many people, cars and industry packed into an air-trapping valley, L.A. has long been known as a smog capital. Last year (among other years), the American Lung Association ranked Los Angeles as top worst polluted city in the U.S. for year-round air particle pollution. (Pittsburgh won first place for worst “short term” pollution.)

Opponents to Measure B aren’t arguing with the need to address the twin problems of bad air and outdated, polluting fossil-fuel energy sources.

“The debate is not about solar energy, okay? We all buy into the solar energy, and this includes people that don’t necessarily agree with the global warming stuff,” and people who just want energy independence, says Humphreville, who represents the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council in opposition to the plan.