With apologies to the Associated Press, below is the AP's list of examples of Michigan pork projects included in the $388 billion spending bill that Congress is expected to approve in a week or so.
One could say, where is the $3 billion to restore the Great Lakes? But that wouldn't be pork, that would be a porkfest.
So instead, where is:
* The $50 million to dredge contaminated sediments from the Detroit River -- and to seek repayment to the taxpayer from polluters?
* The $10 million to launch a Lake Superior International Peace Park demonstrating how an industrial age society can protect the world's most majestic lake?
* The $500,000 to create the Michigan Conservation Trail, a linkage of sites (also preserved on CD) that would enable concerned citizens to learn about the milestones in their environmental past?
***********************
Examples of Michigan projects getting funding in spending bill
November 30, 2004, 6:24 PM
Congress is expected to finish work on a massive spending bill next week. The bill would provide more than $223 million for 200 projects in Michigan.
Spending categories and examples of projects in each category:
Public Transit, $41.9 million
-- $4 million to the Bay City area transit system
Harbor and river operations and maintenance, $39.7 million
-- $2.8 million for dredging in the Saginaw River
-- $1.2 million for dredging in Holland Harbor
Transportation, $30.8 million
-- $3 million for improvements at W.K. Kellogg Airport near Battle Creek
-- $1 million for street construction in Greenville
Sewage and drain projects, $29.6 million
-- $1 million each for sewer improvements in Macomb County and Benton Harbor
Agriculture, $25.4 million
-- $5 million to combat bovine tuberculosis
-- $1.2 million for research into pasteurizing egg shells
Justice, $18.7 million
-- $1.5 million to Oakland County for handheld digital fingerprint and photo devices in patrol cars
Housing and Urban Development, $10.8 million
-- $350,000 for revitalization in Port Huron
-- $312,250 for improvements to Detroit's river walk
Energy and Water, $9.6 million
-- $2.6 million for Soo Lock replacement
Health, $8.5 million
-- $1 million for research at the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit
-- $600,000 to the City of Detroit to improve access to primary care for low-income residents
Education, $8.1 million
-- $500,000 to the Delta Schoolcraft Intermediate School District for information technology programs
-- $400,000 to the Charles H. Wright Museum for African American History in Detroit
Source: Michigan Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow
Text of a letter sent yesterday to government officials charged with protecting our health and environment:
The Honorable Jennifer Granholm
Governor, MI
The Honorable John Cherry
Lieutenant Governor, MI
Dr. Henry Falk, ATSDR
Director Mathur, Region V EPA
Director Steve Chester, DEQ
Dr. David Wade MDCH
November 29th 2004
Attached please find Dow Chemical's most recent Community Update on dioxin. Replete with misinformation, distortions and half truths it may well be the most blatant effort yet on Dow's part to minimize the risks associated with dioxin.
We can only conclude that Dow feels untouchable. Emboldened with no apparent fear of reprisal from the regulatory agencies, Dow shamefully puts children and communities at risk with obvious impunity.
A strong coherent response from state and federal agencies charged with the protection of public health has been long overdue. Citizens and taxpayers are entitled to independent science and information provided by regulatory agencies in a timely manner. Yet all we hear is the corporate polluters' side of this issue. The public and the children of this state deserve better as do the natural resources and waters of this great state.
If you choose to not actively inform and educate the public, who will?
Sincerely,
EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt is convening a "Great Lakes collaborative" in Chicago on December 3. Good idea -- if it isn't window dressing for more environmental rollbacks. The environmental community has sent him the following pointed suggestion.
November 29, 2004
Administrator Michael Leavitt
Environmental Protection Agency
Dear Administrator Leavitt:
As you know, our organizations are dedicated to restoring and protecting the environmental quality and economic viability of the Great Lakes. With that goal in mind, we are writing in advance of the December 3 meeting of the Great Lakes Regional Collaboration to recommend a set of values to guide the future of this process.
We commend you for launching the Great Lakes Regional Collaborative. This is an exciting initiative, and just what the Great Lakes need at this time: a high-level, high-profile, rapid planning process that will bring all the Great Lakes restoration priorities into the same coordinated effort while creating momentum for the national actions that must follow. We appreciate the thoughtful and decisive way you have designed the Collaborative in consultation with the states, mayors and tribes, and we look forward to participating on December 3 and beyond.
The draft Framework for the Collaborative is helpful in laying out that process and describing it to the public. However, it is vague on the larger tasks we face in undertaking Great Lakes restoration – the “values” needed to guide the process. Those values might be described as Participation, Funding, Coordination, and Results. Unless those values are explicitly addressed, their absence might endanger the success of the entire enterprise.
Public Participation: We know that ensuring full participation by the interested public is a priority for you; indeed, we appreciate that you met informally with many of our organizations to get input on the design of this collaborative process. We are pleased to see that the Framework provides for extensive public participation within the Strategy Groups, which will be critical in the development of their recommendations.
The vital piece that is missing is a way for the public – especially the member-driven ENGOs who have been committed to the Great Lakes for decades – to be involved within the existing timeframe of the process. This means:
• having a seat at (or being able to observe) the Members’ Table and Executive Committee;
• better defining the process, after the draft recommendations are released, that will ensure that the public’s reaction is considered and incorporated into final recommendations;
• that the process be transparent, with reports of Strategy Group meetings available (via the internet and other means) to the general public on a timely basis.
Fully engaging the public in this collaboration is critical to its success. Without their buy-in and support, the product of this Collaboration will not have the credibility or political momentum to spark national action.
New Funding: The Collaborative process is one of several important Great Lakes initiatives currently underway. The Collaborative should call for new funding, not a reshuffling of existing resources.
Visible Coordination: The Collaborative needs to ensure that its new policy recommendations coordinate with other, preexisting Great Lakes restoration policy efforts, including the initiatives adopted as part of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement review, the Great Lakes Annex, and the Oceans’ Commission. Without such coordination, we will send mixed (and even conflicting) messages to the national audiences we must persuade to undertake a Great Lakes restoration initiative.
Concrete, Measurable Results: We are pleased that the Collaborative is appropriately designed to produce a product – strategies – within a reasonably short time frame. But those strategies are only the first step. Those strategies need to lead to real results for the Great Lakes. We strongly believe that in designing the strategies, each Strategy Team needs to have the same objectives from the outset: the improvements we all want for the lakes. We suggest that all of the Strategy Teams design their plans with objectives like the following in mind:
• The beaches must be clean enough for swimming.
• The fish must be safe to eat.
• The water must be clean enough to drink.
• The shorelines must be restored and protected so that there is a substantial net gain in coastal wetlands and habitat.
• Populations of valued fish and wildlife must be abundant, diverse, self-sustaining, and healthy.
It is essential that the Collaborative measure its success by these results, not just by the plans it produces.
The Pledge
To that end, we submit for your consideration a second pledge for participants in the Collaborative. We noted that you asked all the participants to sign a pledge when registering for the Collaborative. That pledge focused on the process – providing constructive participation in the Collaborative – and not on the content or result.
Below are the concrete results we will work toward in the Collaborative process. We welcome others to join us by signing this pledge to restore and protect the Great Lakes.
We, participants in the Great Lakes Regional Collaborative, pledge to use the Collaborative recommendations and process to:
• Establish a public engaged in Restoration and empowered to participate;
• Carry out measurable ecological improvements in the short and long term;
• Obtain substantial, additional funding and policies to support those improvements; and
• Ensure that the Great Lakes beaches are safe for swimming, the fish are safe to eat, the water is safe to drink, and the Great Lakes ecosystem is safe for those with no voice.
We look forward to hearing from you about the proposals in this letter, and to seeing you on December 3.
It's time to go back to the drawing board on key parts of Annex 2001, the Great Lakes export limitation agreement. Sometimes Americans can benefit by listening to Canadians, even in a time of empire--
"Steven Shrybman of the Sack Goldblatt Mitchell law firm in Toronto, who represents the Council of Canadians, testified before Canada's Parliamentary Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He said the annex 'puts further at risk the ecological integrity of Great Lakes waters and represents a significant challenge to Canadian sovereignty.'"
Let's do the agreement, but do it right. A false step could doom the five freshwater seas.
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041126/NEWS06/411260393
Anyone who had time in front of a TV with cable this holiday weekend and checked the Weather Channel for driving/flying conditions has heard of the Christmas Tree Ship. It's one of the station's "storm stories" this weekend. The Muskegon Chronicle has a nice long story about it:
"For years after the sinking, sailors reported seeing a ghostly image of the Rouse Simmons in the moonlight -- its sails in tatters, Christmas trees glistening on the deck, as it battled Lake Michigan waves. Although ghost-ship sightings have faded with time, interest in the ship is as strong as ever."
http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-5/110164053093850.xml
Think lead is dead as a pollutant? Jeff Alexander of the same newspaper finds otherwise. Lead is a potent toxin that can disrupt the development of childrens' brain and nervous system -- and can poison adult workers, too.
http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-5/110164053793850.xml
Much of this blog is about the progress, or lack of same, on the proposed "Annex 2001 implementing agreements" that seek to set down Great Lakes state and province rules that would limit water exports. The draft is being torn apart between those who want no limits (short-sighted consuming industries) and those who want even stronger limits, or an outright prohibition (environmental groups, grassroots organizations). Since it's a rule of thumb in politics that it's easier to kill than enact something, this setup means the pact is heading for an early grave, probably to be papered over with some sort of general statement of philosophy.
But there's a way out for the states and provinces most concerned, although it is not uncomplicated. Treat Native American Tribes and First Nations as sovereign nations with an equal stake in the fate of the Lakes -- and invoke the legal protection and leadership they would bring to the table. There are political reasons why this would be difficult, but difficulty is not a sufficient reason to turn back from protection of 18% of the world's surface fresh water.
Here's more on the current status of Native American and First Nations participation. So far, the Council of Great Lakes Governors is off the mark.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/metro/0411/27/metro-17163.htm
In Michigan, here are the general fund appropriation figures for the Department of Environmental Quality in recent years:
2001 budget - $101 million
2003 budget - $53 million
2004 budget - $25 million
The total general fund budget of the state is now over $8 billion. That means about one-third of one percent of the general fund goes to protect our air, water and land from pollution.
In Minnesota since 2001, "the portion of the general fund earmarked for the environment has fallen from 2.25 percent to 1.43 percent, and is expected to drop to 1.35 percent by 2007. It has hovered around 2 percent for the past two decades."
In both states, new and increased fees and gimmicks have made up some of the difference, but not for long. Isn't the environment worth at least two cents on the tax dollar?
Good news is all around. Forty years ago, American rivers caught fire. Since then levels of pollutants like phosphorus, DDT and PCBs are down 70-90%.
A hundred years ago, Michigan had about 35,000 acres of "forest reserves." Michigan has almost 3.9 million acres of state forest land, more than any other state.
Air concentrations of lead, a dangerous neurotoxin, have tumbled more than 90% since the 1960s because of bans on the toxic metal in gasoline and paint.
There's lots to give thanks for -- thanks to the work of millions of citizens, we and the earth have breathing room and a fighting chance.
Don't take it from me: noted outdoor writer Ted Williams says it eloquently in the latest Audubon:
"The war is longer than our lives and our children's lives, but it goes well. We haven't just established a beachhead; we've broken out of the hedgerows. There's fierce fighting ahead, and there won't be time to relax. But there will be time to learn from the past and catch our breath. Enjoy the beginning of the post-industrial revolution, the age of restoration. Be part of it."
http://magazine.audubon.org/perspective/perspective0412.html
Good, make that Great news for the future of the Great Lakes.
"SAULT STE. MARIE - Finding common cause in their exclusion from state and provincial water diversion agreements, an extraordinary gathering of at least 75 tribal chiefs and representatives from both sides of the Great Lakes are meeting today at Kewadin Convention Center to hammer out their joint demand to be heard.
The unusual session of tribal leaders was hastily organized to present a united front to the U.S. states and Canadian provinces contemplating an "annex" to a 1980 agreement dealing with Great Lakes water diversion.
Frank Ettawageshik, chairman of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa, organized the session with the declared purpose of drafting a joint statement on diversion and the proposed "annex" agreement."
http://www.sooeveningnews.com/articles/2004/11/23/news/news911.txt
Lake bottoms, that is. A nice column by a wise owl, Joyce Braithwaite-Brickley.
http://minutemanmedia.org/GLM%20111704.htm
The EPA decision discussed in this Minnesota editorial would have made a great campaign commercial for John Kerry. Too bad he didn't think of it.
"So far this year, poison-control centers have reported about 50,000 cases of children under 6 requiring medical treatment for accidental ingestion of rat poisons, whose effects can include internal bleeding, anemia and coma. That's three times as many as in the first full year of the childproofing requirements."
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5095833.html
Peter Wege's right -- and he's putting his resources behind his words.
"The lakes are our life support system, and we've got to treat them that way," Wege said. "People take it for granted. We have to protect them."
http://www.mlive.com/news/grpress/index.ssf?/base/features-0/11010357855100.xml
Whether it's Minnesota or Michigan or another state, too many of our environmental agencies now routinely overlook the plain language of the Clean Water Act:
"1) it is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants
into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;
2) it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim
goal of water quality which provides for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for
recreation in and on the water be achieved by July 1, 1983;"
Also -- permits issued to polluters are called NPDES, which stands for National Pollution Discharge ELIMINATION System, not National Pollution Tolerance System.
Here's a case in point of a plain misreading of the Act from today's St. Paul Pioneer Press:
"Every day, cities dump hundreds of pounds of a nutrient important to plants, but potentially deadly to fish, into the Minnesota River.
Now, a year before Minnesota launches plans to clean phosphorus from the river, a dispute over how best to do that job has unfolded, with an environmental group contending the state's approach is illegal, too slow and fraught with uncertainty.
Four times this year, for example, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has renewed discharge permits for wastewater treatment plants that exceed recommended phosphorus levels, sometimes by seven-fold. Moreover, the agency said it intends soon to approve other permits that also surpass that target.
"We are saying that is contrary to federal and state law and is not good for the river,'' said Kris Sigford, water quality program director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, which is contesting the renewals in court.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/news/local/10241878.htm
A healthy antidote to some of the fog clouds of PR coming out of Midland, Michigan these days is Jack Doyle's new book on the environmental practices of Dow Chemical Corporation. Here's the blurb on Trespass Against Us: Dow Chemical and the Toxic Century. Jack, by the way, is also author of Taken for a Ride: Detroit’s Big Three & the Politics of Pollution. He's a terrific investigative reporter and I commend his work.
Trespass Against Us is a story of how one company’s chemical products and byproducts have damaged, and continue to damage, public health and the environment. Known in the 1960s for producing the lethal Vietnam War defoliant, Agent Orange, and more recently for acquiring Union Carbide’s still-unresolved Bhopal legacy, Dow Chemical today is a company at the manufacturing headwaters of many of the world’s most problematic chemicals, including pesticides, plastics, and solvents. Dow's organochlorines have unleashed dioxins and dioxin-like compounds, among the most lethal substances on the planet. Dow pollutants and known carcinogens also continue to spew from its factories, waste dumps, and incinerators worldwide.
Trespass Against Us is a story of “invent-first-and-ask-questions-later” chemistry; of toxic and hazardous materials pushed into commerce before being fully tested; and of future generations burdened with toxic chemicals that will persist in the environment for decades. Dow's story is also about corporate power: of a company accustomed to getting its way and not above manipulating science, pushing aside safety, or spending millions in the courts and Congress to achieve its ends. Yet Trespass Against Us is also a hopeful story; an account of everyday moms and dads, Vietnam veterans and villagers, chemical workers and communities fighting back; of people standing up to power and seeking a better way. What they are saying is clear and unequivocal: no trespassing – no more invasive toxic chemicals.
Just Published !
Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine
www.commoncouragepress.com
The Trust for Public Land points out 75% of ballot proposals for land preservation were successful this November 2 (see below) and in a related opinion piece circulating on the Internet, suggests that even if environmental values don't swing elections for office, they do shape the outcome on measures that buy parkland and open space. The idea is that you can live in a blue state or a red state, and yet have a trace of green.
To an extent, this makes sense. But people don't think of buying parks and open space as environmentalism in the same sense that they think of clean air, clean water, recycling and toxic waste cleanup. It's more about beauty and leisure than health; and no industries are harmed when the public spends money to buy land. So it's not a jobs issue.
In Michigan, at least, voters have shown they will go for "tangibles" -- especially parks, sewage treatment and land acquisition bond proposals. More than half a dozen of those have passed by margins of about 2-1 since 1968.
http://sev.prnewswire.com/environmental-services/20041104/SFTH09004112004-1.html
Then there's this George Weeks piece from today's Detroit News about how conservancies are helping save some of the best remnants of unspoiled Michigan. It is a good news story, regardless of the issue of blue, red and green.
http://www.detnews.com/2004/editorial/0411/21/A20-11263.htm
These twin stories about wolves in northern Minnesota and Michigan would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. One of the reasons that wolves are recovering is a massive public education effort by natural resource agencies and allies, trying to debunk old myths about voracious human-eating wolves. (Although the recent Bush TV commercial may have revived a little of this.) Sometimes opening people's minds and hearts is more effective than a statute.
Minnesota:
http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/10220409.htm
The state has about 3,020 wolves, a 23 percent increase from a 1998 survey that showed an estimated 2,450 wolves roaming the state's woodlands. But because of a large variability in the survey's margin of error, wildlife managers don't believe the increase is as great as the survey shows.
Michigan:
GAYLORD - Deep, dense and off the beaten track, northern Lower Michigan's forests provide shelter and sustenance for deer, elk, beaver and birds.
And, it appears, the woods provide equally fine habitat for the gray wolf.
http://www.record-eagle.com/2004/nov/14wolf.htm
If you're seeking that sense of wonder I mentioned earlier this week, click here to see the recent aurora borealis display:
http://www.extremeinstability.com/04-11-8.htm
More intriguing Great Lakes politics --
"Indian tribes from the U.S. and Canada plan to sign a Great Lakes water agreement at a meeting in Sault Ste. Marie next week in which they will insist on participation in plans to protect the waters and demand state governors in the region refuse to sign Annex 2001 to the Great Lakes Charter because of inadequate protections against water diversion."
This from a Michigan newsletter. The tribes could make a huge difference in conserving the Lakes.
One of the biggest disgraces of both Minnesota and Michigan state government is that neither can apparently find the money to publish a full-blown health advisory on contaminants in fish to protect the health of women and children. But the nonprofit sector can help. Here's a "fish calculator" that enables you to calculate a Minnesota fish diet that is not likely to cause harm to you or your offspring. Michigan needs the same. As well as easy-to-follow advice in printed form and several languages for pregnant women and women of child-bearing age of diverse cultures.
http://www.iatp.org/foodandhealth/fishcalculator/index.cfm
And just in case you missed it, here's a website that enables you to type in your zip code and find out where, locally anywhere in the U.S., you can find wholesome (generally, pesticide-free and/or sustainably grown) Thanksgiving staples including turkeys.
A week ago I mentioned a long-departed Michigan legislator who had drafted a bill to introduce whales to the Great Lakes. He thought it would help tourism. I mentioned that he changed his mind when advised whales prefer salt water. And look what turns up on the web! Dr. Science explains all:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2902379
There is a growing chorus of sentiment in the Great Lakes community for a massive federal investment to restore their health. Provided that the states take the lead, working with citizens, in identifying the top priority problems and control the money, that's fine. But we must be careful not overly to "nationalize" the Lakes. That's an invitation, as one environmentalist said, to make them the "national canteen" (or plastic water bottle) when water shortages begin to worsen in the arid South and West.
Here's yesterday's Muskegon Chronicle editorial calling for a federal rescue package:
http://www.mlive.com/news/muchronicle/index.ssf?/base/news-0/11006289047380.xml
Summertime air pollution can kill you if you live in the city, according to this study published in the current Journal of the American Medical Association:
"In one of the largest ozone pollution studies ever conducted, researchers at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and Johns Hopkins report that more people died in urban areas when ground-level ozone was higher during the previous week. The report is published in the November 17, 2004, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)."
http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/04-11-16-02.all.html
It's interesting to reflect on this in several ways. First, I know of a former Michigan environmental agency director who vetoed an ozone health warning in the 90s for the Detroit area, saying it was based on and would cause hysteria. Second, at least in Michigan, the warnings that go out typically urge people not to take care with the health of the kids or elderly -- but instead, not to mow their lawns or fill their gas tanks during the afternoon and early evening. Seems like both messages are important (and cracking down on industrial sources, too).
If you can't resist meat but you want it to be as environmentally friendly as possible, here's a useful guide. Just plug in your zip code. (And watch "The Meatrix" if you haven't seen it already.)
The Minneapolis Star Tribune published a piece over the weekend about the gradual extinguishing of the starry skies over the southern part of the state, thanks to increasing diffusion of urban light heavenward. To some this might seem about as serious as the issue of noise from leaf blowers this time of year (and yes, a local man is proposing an ordinance to regulate that, too).
But something more is at stake than pretty skies -- what Rachel Carson called the sense of wonder. To see what I mean, go to the letter to the editor below the link to the article, by a woman who claims she just saw the Milky Way for the first time (in her fourth decade) by leaving the city. Can kids who grow up without any sense of our place in the cosmos truly develop that sense of wonder?
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1556/5083700.html
Heavenly lights
The Nov. 14 article "Keeping the stars in sight" was very timely for a group of teenagers returning home from a church retreat "up north" near Deerwood, Minn.
The young people were not the only ones fascinated by the night sky over the weekend. But as we drove home, one of the students asked, "How come they have so many more stars up north than we do?" I explained a little bit about light pollution, and let them know that the folks up north don't have more stars than we do in southeastern Minnesota -- they can just see more of them!
Your article will go with me to class. Oh, and the Milky Way? I saw it this weekend -- for the first time in my four decades of life!
Tammy J. Rider, Claremont, Minn.
Note: Mary Beth Doyle, environmental health campaigns director at the Ecology Center in Ann Arbor, passed away Saturday. Her friends are
creating a Memorial Fund in Mary Beth's honor to continue her work.
Contributions can be sent to: The Ecology Center, c/o the Mary Beth Doyle
Memorial Fund, 117 N. Division, Ann Arbor, MI 48104.
UPDATE: Mary Beth's accomplishments fill a page. Her Ann Arbor News obituary is here:
http://www.legacy.com/annarbor/LegacySubPage2.asp?Page=LifeStory&PersonId=2820913
Mary Beth: Advocate and Friend
It’s been more than two days now since the call came saying that Mary Beth had lost her life in a car accident. It will take more than two years to accept that this really happened, that we’ve lost one of Michigan’s most formidable and effective environmental advocates, and what’s more, a dear friend beloved by many.
The word “unruly” has an unfortunately negative connotation in the minds of some, but in the case of Mary Beth, it is an emphatic word of praise. Mary Beth was unruly in the sense that she could not be ruled – not by government indifference, not by corporate propaganda, and most of all not by the answer “no.” She never accepted “no” in her quest for a more just, more humane and environmentally healthy society.
She was unfaltering in her conviction that the individual can make a difference. Her work is proof of her belief. She helped shut down Michigan’s polluting medical waste incinerators. She did some of the most effective initial organizing and educating that led to the enactment of laws limiting out-of-state trash and promoting recycling. She was a key strategist in the effort to protect women of child-bearing age from poisons in fish when the State of Michigan tried to do away with science-based advisories. She was in the midst of a monumental new effort to enlist Michigan pediatricians in the effort to protect our most vulnerable from pollution.
Her empathy was always with the individual citizen, or small group of citizens, fighting against the odds to stop environmental health damage or to promote an environmentally sound alternative. She was the most ethical advocate I’ve ever known.
Each friend of Mary Beth’s will harbor private memories of the gifts she left us. I’ll always remember her quick, hearty laugh; her generosity with time and empathy; and the unfaltering way in which she cultivated and nurtured our friendship.
At the Ecology Center and in Ann Arbor as a whole, she found a family of people with shared commitment and made a warm home. It’s fitting that her work will be carried on in her name there by her closest friends, and by future generations of determined, undaunted, and charismatic advocates like her.
But we will always miss Mary Beth.
To quote:
"It's time for enviros to think in a more careful and calculated way about the way they frame their issues. Progressives are forever wedded to the idea that the unvarnished truth is all we need: Give the people the facts and they'll draw the right conclusions. "That," says UC Berkeley professor and newly minted pundit George Lakoff, "has been a disaster."
Is "framing" just common sense in explaining clean air and water issues to the public, or the ultimate in media age manipulation?
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2004/11/14/221513/10
Interesting....
News Release
Communiqué
Ministry of Natural Resources Ministère des Richesses naturelles
For Immediate Release
November 15, 2004
LEVEL OF PROTECTION IN DRAFT GREAT LAKES CHARTER ANNEX AGREEMENTS
NOT HIGH ENOUGH
Changes Needed Before Ontario Will Sign
TORONTO — The McGuinty government will not sign the current drafts of the Great Lakes Charter Annex agreements unless changes to enhance the level of protection for the waters of the Great Lakes Basin are made, Natural Resources Minister David Ramsay announced today.
“We have listened to feedback from stakeholders, First Nations and the general public,” said Ramsay. “Ontario remains committed to its provincial law that bans diversions. For the purposes of the Annex agreements, Ontarians, and the McGuinty government, clearly want a “no diversions” agreement, or the position of “no net loss” as proposed by the International Joint Commission. In addition, we regard conservation measures as significant for the protection of Great Lakes waters. Ontario is not prepared to ratify the agreement in its current form.”
In 1998, the Harris government issued a permit to an Ontario company for the export of up to 600 million litres of water a year from Lake Superior for sale in Asian markets. Public outrage on both sides of the border led to the signing of the Great Lakes Charter Annex in 2001. Released for public comment in July 2004, the current agreements carry out commitments made in the Charter Annex. The agreements would strengthen the regulation of water uses in many states. However, the agreements are not as strong as Ontario’s laws, which prohibit water transfers out of the province’s three major water basins.
The Ontario government will share the feedback from its 90-day public consultation at a meeting with Quebec and the Great Lakes states in mid-November. Ramsay will also be consulting with his federal colleagues and Ontario’s negotiating partners from Quebec.
“We will be considering our position carefully before resuming negotiations in January,” said Ramsay. “We will continue to seek input on the Charter Annex agreements from stakeholders and First Nations before we consider ratifying any agreement.”
Ramsay also addressed the question of who should lead negotiations on the Charter Annex agreements. He pointed out that if the federal government were to direct the negotiations, it would have to deal directly with the U.S. federal government, which would have to represent the interests of water users across the continental United States, not just the Great Lakes states.
“We believe the U.S. Great Lakes states share with us many common interests on the use and protection of this valued resource,” said Ramsay. “We are concerned that other U.S. states may have an interest in accessing Great Lakes waters that will conflict with our desire to prevent diversions from the basin.”
“This is a complex issue,” said Ramsay. “Above all, the Ontario government is seeking the strongest possible protections for the waters of the Great Lakes Basin to ensure future generations can enjoy the Great Lakes.”
-30-
Contacts:
Media calls only
Ginette Albert
Minister’s Office
(416) 314-2212
Steve Payne
Ministry of Natural Resources
(416) 314-2103
Disponible en français www.mnr.gov.on.ca
This is what you get with a term-limited, venal, dogmatic, senseless, unthinking, pathetic state Legislature. Note from a DEQ staffer:
"I recommend that you get up to speed on Part 13. It went into
effect on 9/10/04. All permitting functions w/the State now have
expedited timeframes, with penalties to the agencies for not complying.
The penalty is that we must refund 15% of the applicant's money, and the
director must explain to the legislature why we exceeded our review
period. All field staff have therefore been advised not to let this
happen. The result will be less enforcement, and more permitting of
certain types of projects without inspections (rock riprap,
boardwalks/decks in wetlands)."
In other words, the Legislature refuses to provide adequate funds to the DEQ for staff, and then passes a law that penalizes DEQ for having too few staff to do an adequate review of proposed permits, and enforcement. Is anyone raising hell about this? Has any reporter thought to do a story on the boneheads who wrote this law?
Here's "Part 13":
There is nothing more to say than what the article says, except: the people who benefited from knowing Mary Beth will always remember her with love and fondness, and be inspired by her example of courageous living and advocacy.
http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1100430744109820.xml
A friend forwarded an e-mail that in profane and scatalogical terms berated the Southern states of the U.S. for their population's hypocritical morality, militarism and reliance on the federal dole as evidence of their unfitness to be part of the U.S. This faraway friend remarked, "The U.S. feels more and more like it's on the edge of a civil war." In figurative but not literal terms, I tend to agree.
The results of the Presidential election suggest that our nationhood is tenuous in some ways; that different world views characterize North and South, urban and rural. And that when a President who engages in wars on truth and the environment, as well as actual wars, claims to be righteous and convinces a little over one half of the nation, concentrated in one sprawling region, that he is righteous, he inspires a revulsion elsewhere that presages further division.
The one apt word that George W. Bush has ever uttered in pursuit or occupancy of the Presidency is "humble." That was a long time ago, in a 2000 debate, when he talked about the need for a humble foreign policy. Ever since it's been all about hubris. I think this is at the heart of what divides us, even more than geography.
This week-old op-ed column in the Minneapolis Star Tribune kind of conveys the feeling of regional division:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5071409.html
"But think about it. If the South were its own country, then all those people who so desire it could have a Christian theocracy. They could have a country where the Bible is read in schools; where Creationism is taught in science class and evolution is not; where homosexuality would be against the law; where the Internet and Hollywood movies and rap music could be banned by law.
There would be trade relations between the Union of the United States and the Confederacy, and travel arrangements.
Also, evangelical Christians from the U. of the U.S. who desired to live in a Christian theocracy could emigrate to the Confederacy. Likewise, progressive-minded citizens from the South, as well as gays and others who would be persecuted, could immigrate here.
And then, maybe in the 2004 U. of U.S. election, these moral values would have prevailed: tolerance and respect for others; peace and justice; care for our needy citizens; scientific research to advance humankind; and care for the beautiful planet that God gave us."
Back at home, a lesser but bitter conflict between a few hunting zealots and lovers of wildlife continues (at least according to the alert below). If true, it suggests that the lame-duck session of the Legislature could prove to live up to its name in a sick way. After the stress and anger over the newly-established dove hunting season in Michigan (and Minnesota), it's time to let things stand as they are. This legislation is not needed. But the Michigan Legislature web site says the bill came out of committee Thursday and can be voted on as early as next session day.
*******************
ACTION ALERT, LAME DUCK THREAT TO DOVE REFERENDUM - November 4, 2004
Here we go again: For the lame duck session, Rep. Susan Tabor [D-71] and
her cronies (see co-sponsors here
http://www.mileg.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2004-HB-6272)
recently introduced House Bill 6272. This bill is immediately scheduled to
go through Tabor's Natural Resources Committee this Thursday, November 11th
at 10:30am. It is then expected to hit the full House for floor vote later
that very same day or around the Thanksgiving Holiday (when you are busy
and distracted).
HB 6272, as introduced, would change the "mission" of the DNR and NRC from
managing wildlife held in trust with input from the public through their
legislators, to arbitrarily mandating and directing the agencies to promote
the re-classification of every protected non-game animal possible to the
game list in order to establish open seasons on them.
Buried within misleading buzz words, such as "preserve and promote the
heritage," is a direct threat to ALL protected non-game species. By design,
this bill will be used to unfairly manipulate the system and "stack the
deck" in the legislature, the courts, and ON BALLOT ISSUES that protect the
peoples' constitutional rights to participate in the decision making
process.
This bill -- including future planned amendments -- is extremely dangerous
in many ways with far reaching repercussions (see additional talking points
below). It would effectively remove both the democratic process and
protections currently afforded the people of the state of Michigan
pertaining to wildlife issues. In short, HB 6272 is a spin-off of the
section [Sec 40110] in HB 5029 that was removed in committee regarding
legislative authority -- this was done as a calculated plan to use
political sleight of hand tricks and dirty politics to undermine the
statewide ballot referendum (that's us) in the lame duck session (see
similar/previous attempts here
http://www.savethedoves.org/archivedactionalerts.html).
Dove shooting proponents have a long list of traditionally protected
animals they want to add to the game list: wild birds, mammals, reptiles
and amphibians that have been protected as non-game species since game laws
were originally established. They don't want to repeat the 25 year battle
they faced with the mourning dove to stop them from their other "wants". .
. so they'll just remove your voice and vote from the process altogether
and in their words, "let you jabber at the NRC in vain."
Sadly, the Sandhill crane is targeted as an immediate "next." Dove and
crane shooting proponents smack their lips as they trivialize this
magnificent species as "big, noisy, tasty birds that fly fast and make
great targets."
WHAT YOU CAN DO -- CALL TODAY:
1) Call your Representative. Find your Rep here
http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp or call 517-373-0135 and ask to be
connected with your Rep.
2) Call your Senator. Find your Senator here
http://www.senate.michigan.gov/SenatorInfo/senfull2003.htm or call
517-373-2400 and ask to be connected with your Senator.
Get your family, friends, and co-workers to call as well...each "vote"
counts separately.
If the Great Lakes states are to make a serious commitment to renewable energy, they'll have to bank in large measure on wind. The vast open spaces of the lakes help accelerate breezes and contribute to a huge renewable resource. But that means the expanded use of Great Lakes shoreline areas for wind turbines. Some see the beauty of a clean technology in those turbines; others see scenic blight. Check these Michigan maps out to see where the wind power potential is:
http://www.michigan.gov/cis/0,1607,7-154-25676_25774-101765--,00.html
UPDATE: A "Michigan native" is shopping around a screenplay on this disaster.
Michigan native Christian Chabot is the screenwriter for "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald," a project that is shopping for investors at the American Film Market in Santa Monica, Calif. Chabot (rhymes with "abbot") was a high school student in White Pine, Mich., in November 1975, when the freighter sank during a Lake Superior storm, killing everyone on board.
"I've been following the story ever since," says Chabot, who completed his screenplay, which recreates that fateful night, in 1994. Since then, the script has made the rounds in Hollywood. Once, when Chabot introduced himself to "Titanic" writer/director James Cameron at an awards dinner, Cameron said, "Yeah. 'Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald' script, right? I want to see some footage."
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/entertainment/10158400.htm
(May have to register)
There have been between 3,000 and 10,000 shipwrecks in the Great Lakes, but the one that resonates in the modern imagination is the Edmund Fitzgerald, which sank 29 years ago yesterday. The power of Lake Superior is not to be underestimated. In mourning the lost, let's remember to respect the lake personally and politically.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/5078381.html
Petoskey News Review editorial from yesterday:
"So along came Annex 2001, which provides for the inevitability of water leaving the Great Lakes. Diversions averaging more than 1 million gallons a day over 120 days would require unanimous approval of the eight states.
Critics say the plan makes a crucial error by conceding that diversions cannot be stopped. We agree and side with the observation of Annex 2001 opponent, Traverse City environmental attorney Jim Olson, who says the agreement underestimates the powers held by the states under the common-law principle that the lakes are a public trust, not an economic commodity bought and sold on some trading floor."
http://www.petoskeynews.com/articles/2004/11/10/news/opinion/opinion01.txt
While reminiscing with a man who heads one of Minnesota's largest environmental groups last night, I remembered the perhaps apocryphal story that a Michigan legislator once requested that legislation be drafted to authorize the "restoration" of whales to the Great Lakes. He decided against introducing the bill when it was pointed out whales tend to prefer salt water. But I pointed out to the friend that due primarily to road salt runoff, chloride levels in the Great Lakes are slowly but steadily increasing. Perhaps in another 100 winters the whales could find a home here.
Last night marked my final bookstore talk regarding "On the Brink." It took place here in St. Paul and gave me a chance to talk about Minnesota's role, responsibility and opportunity to protect the Lakes. I flipped on its side the typical map of the Great Lakes to show that Minnesota is a "headwaters" state for the lakes. Most people here think of MN as headwaters only for the Mississippi. Raising consciousness of the Great Lakes here is a paramount priority.
It's been great promoting the book and audiences have been thoughtful, curious and interested. But I am concluding (big surprise) that serious tomes on environmental topics are not the way to stir the great mass of people who love the Lakes. A friend is working on a thriller novel about the piracy of Great Lakes water and I think that might actually reach many more and open hearts and eyes. Reactions?
Without comment, I am reproducing below a message on the Michigan-wide Enviro-Mich listserve (which you can join by e-mailing ajs@sagady.com) about the President and the Great Lakes.
"In a message dated 11/9/2004 6:00:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, bjmadsen@umich.edu writes:
Perhaps we should also all write to President Bush to hold him to his
promises not to allow diversion of Great Lakes water!
*****
Huh? You know Bush is a Republican that will say any lie to get elected.
(this from a well-known Michigan outdoorsman)
If our lawmakers don't act to protect the Great Lakes, they may in a generation's time look like this:
http://www.visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?26239
UPDATE: If you want to get a full-fledged argument for the legislation discussed below, read this editorial from the Bay City Times:
http://www.mlive.com/news/bctimes/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1099930506249080.xml
The "lame-duck" session of the Michigan Legislature is underway. One is tempted to resort to the old cliche that no one's life, liberty or property are safe until it adjourns, but some good could come of this session. There's always a chance the lack of immediate recrimination from the voters that is possible in the lame-duck session could lead to passage of a water protection law that would actually help, rather than hurt the region's ability to stop Great Lakes water exports. You can urge your state legislator with the following arguments:
* Convince elected officials that the Great Lakes basin needs greater protections --Some representatives of the regulated community think that due to the abundance of water in the basin that there is no need to regulate water use. Of course, it is the same thinking that doomed commercial fishing in the Great Lakes and crippled our timber industry for decades at the turn of the century. Water is too critical to the basin’s future to leave decisions regarding its use unregulated. We need greater protections – and we need them soon.
· Require the efficient use of water -- require the use of conservation practices that minimize our use of water, and thus our impacts on water resources. It is our ability to use water efficiently that will allow the Great Lakes states to fight wasteful diversions to other regions of the country.
· No adverse impacts--It is critical to focus standards evaluating water use on the potential impacts that a withdrawal will have on water resources. Standards that are designed to protect natural resources are more likely to hold up to legal challenges, and focus decision-making on the impacts most likely to affect other local users. It also ensures non-human uses such as fisheries and wildlife protection are taken into consideration.
· Require water users to make lasting improvements to our water resources --Too many laws designed to protect the environment allow some “minimal” impact on natural resources. The Great Lakes Governors and Premiers agreed three years ago that protection of the Great Lakes deserved better – and that all withdrawals should be subject to the improvement standard. Given a population within the basin of 33 million people and growing, they agreed that a law should be designed to require restoration of the Great Lakes by those who were benefiting from its use. By exercising this heightened stewardship, we would be sending a message to other potential users around the country and to future generations – that the Great Lakes is a wonderful and unique resource that deserves our highest level of respect and protection.
· Strictly limit any diversion of water out of its watershed --The common law in Great Lakes states has for hundreds of years recognized the concept of “reasonable use” when it comes to water. Many jurisdictions have also acknowledged that withdrawals that take water out of its basin of origin can be limited as unreasonable due to their obvious potential impacts. Any regulatory scheme should strictly limit the conditions under which water could be shipped out of its watershed of origin for use.
It's worth a try, at least, but don't bet the $9.1 million of your money spent on this will work. A more effective way of stopping invasions from the Illinois River would be to re-separate it from the Chicago River and the Great Lakes system. It's high time that was done.
"Construction of a permanent electric barrier to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes began last week on the Illinois River. Federal officials say the first phase will be complete and operating in February, 2005. A working-but-deteriorating barrier currently is in place."
http://www.mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1099740533249870.xml?grpress?SPOU
Over the weekend, I heard Bush's EPA Administrator, Mike Leavitt, saying that since the election was a mandate for Bush, we could expect more of the same environmental "reform" from the President the next four years.
Really? Since the environment wasn't a factor in anyone's decision on who to support for President, how could the election be a mandate to pollute?
It was no mandate to pollute.
It's enough to make you wish we could order our Presidents a la carte. Let's see...tough on terrorism; tough on polluters; committed to education; genuinely worried about assuring opportunity for the disadvantaged, etc.
Or maybe we should just turn the job of EPA Administrator into a national elective office. Some things are just too important to be left to Presidents.
What are the odds our automakers will get about the business of producing a car that meets the greenhouse gas reduction targets of the climate change treaty, instead of spending their resources to defeat the requirement in Canada?
http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0411/07/c01-327248.htm
The whole world is watching.
A friend sent me the link below to Orion Online, which has environmental advocates of renown thinking through how to proceed in the wake of the re-election of the President most hostile to the environment of our lifetimes. Some good thoughts. My only thought today, after tromping along the Mississippi River in bright November sunshine, is that while Bush can do enormous damage the next four years, the earth will abide.
http://www.oriononline.org/pages/oo/sidebars/Patriotism/Election_DiscourseandDissent.html
"Until he extends his circle of compassion to all living things, man will not himself find peace."
-- Albert Schweitzer
The Michigan Land Use Institute, a source of some of the best reporting on Great Lakes and land use issues in the region, has a "Superior" story on why Michigan politics is thwarting a sensible water conservation policy and endangering the Great Lakes. It says in part:
"Influential lobbying groups such as the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Michigan Farm Bureau, the Michigan Forest Products Council, and the Michigan Manufacturers Association say they support stronger legal protections against bulk diversions of Great Lakes water to thirsty states and nations outside the basin. But these organizations, joined by several smaller business associations, generally view proposals to regulate water withdrawals that stay within the basin as unnecessary and burdensome threats to future investments and growth that will reduce the state’s competitive edge in the global economy. Their active lobbying on the issue has stalled a series of water policy reforms within the state Legislature.
“We’re not in a time when new regulations are readily accepted,” said Ben Kudwa, the executive director of the Michigan Potato Industry Commission...
...According to Ms. Klein, who until recently taught environmental policy at Michigan State University, it is typical for large water users to at first oppose attempts to change traditional water laws. But, Ms. Klein said, industrialists, farmers, and other stakeholders who rely on stable access to water resources typically find that comprehensive water use standards can work to their advantage because they help clarify the rules of the economic development game, guarantee water rights, and secure business investments."
If these special interests don't get their ostrich heads out of the water, Michigan and the Lakes are going to be privatized and sold. And then where will that leave Michigan industry and business?
http://mlui.org/landwater/fullarticle.asp?fileid=16765
Globally important environmental news:
President Vladimir Putin has signed a bill confirming Russia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the Kremlin said Friday, clearing the way for the global climate pact to come into force early next year.
Now, will we see a kinder, gentler approach to climate change from the 2nd Bush Administration? I'm not overly optimistic.
At a recent lecture at the University of Michigan, the distinguished Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, who chaired the 1980s-era UN Commission that coined the phrase "sustainable development," fretted about the US role on this issue:
"There is no true alternative to multilateralism in facing up to our responsibility for future generations and the planet itself. We don’t have much time. A number of developing countries have increasing and rapidly growing emissions. Developing countries may soon represent a bigger part of the total than the industrialized world. The future is one of including all countries in our global solutions, but before that can happen, the rich countries must rise to the occasion, show leadership, and take responsibility."
Her whole speech is well worth reading if you have the time:
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/snre-wege-lecture-2004/wege_lecture_transcript_10-29-04
If Bush won't do it, then the Governors of Michigan, Minnesota and other Great Lakes states have the responsibility to show some leadership on this issue -- which could dramatically upset the Lakes if not addressed.
OK, I know this is not an environmental issue, and I usually confine myself to those. But it is interesting the news story from which the text below comes is published three days after an election. Interesting and cynically manipulative that it didn't come earlier. Let's hope it's a bluff to get the insurgents scared enough to put down their arms without bloodshed.
********************
WITH U.S. FORCES NEAR FALLUJAH, IRAQ - The number of dead and wounded from the expected battle to retake insurgent-controlled Fallujah probably will reach levels not seen since Vietnam, a senior surgeon at the Marine camp outside Fallujah said Thursday.
Navy Cmdr. Lach Noyes said the camp's hospital is preparing to handle 25 severely injured soldiers a day, not counting walking wounded and the dead.
UPDATE: Here's the link if you want to read the whole piece.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2885271
That old rallying cry of the Southern segregationists has a new ring to it, only in a much nobler cause. I'm hearing it a little from Great Lakes region progressives. And I'm starting to believe in it. In the 80s, when the U.S. federal government was not particularly interested in environmental protection, Great Lakes governors (and others) started their own bilateral relations with the Canadian authorities on Great Lakes protection. Maybe they will need to do so again, as Canada's political, if not physical climate is a bit warmer than ours. For Michigan and Minnesota, that also means renewed responsibility for the governors and legislatures to take protective actions for children's health, the Lakes, land use and conservation generally. Expect no help, only stalling and lip service, from the feds.
In less than 24 hours, it's become a cliche of political analysis that "moral values" as represented by opposition to abortion and gay marriage are what put the incumbent selected President over the top. And the reaction among some of my friends is that environmentalists (and other progressives) need to change their language. For example, start talking about the need for good stewardship of God's earth; talk about the immorality of poisoning kids' brains with fire retardants. There is a morality underpinning protection of the earth, and the environmental community has done significant outreach to the faith community over the last 5-10 years. But it's the progressive faith community. Does anyone have thoughts on whether environmental and health protection can be communicated to the allegedly electorally decisive evangelical community as a moral issue? I'm skeptical.
1. Twenty years ago, the conventional wisdom was that the majority of Americans wanted government out of their private lives, but equalizing opportunity economically. The Bush Administration has successfully turned that assumption on its head. What does that say we must do to win support for strong environmental protections?
2. We are two countries, if not more. And it would behoove the Great Lakes states (5 of 8 went for Kerry) to control their own environmental destiny rather than giving more power to Washington. I am today much more inclined to OPPOSE any federal Great Lakes restoration legislation than I was yesterday, and to favor a strong interstate water export pact. Keep the right wing federal government out of the Great Lakes, please.
3. There's no time to feel sorry for ourselves. We must get back to work, tomorrow. For today, regroup, feel and get through the pain, recover determination.
In the wake of this surprising and unfortunate national election, environmental groups, among many others, have to think hard and deeply -- and act quickly. Several conclusions are clear and worrisome:
* The worst environmental Administration in our nation's history did not affect people's choice of issues on which to select a President. In other words, environment is not a priority to most voters. What does that say about the value of clean water and air -- or the ability of environmental interests to articulate that value?
* Non tax-exempt environmental groups clearly aligned themselves with one of the best environmental advocates who has ever run for President, John Kerry. That means the national GOP has absolutely no incentive to work with those groups. Some of our most cherished protections (the ones that remain after the first four years) are at grave risk.
* Combining the first two points yields this: environmentalism must honestly and openly acknowledge its mistakes and come up with a new approach -- very fast. Do not expect the triumphant Administration to hesitate now. But let us hope for a more conciliatory and magnanimous attitude than it displayed the first four years.
Just got back from a couple of hours monitoring election challenges in a St. Paul voting precinct of amazing diversity...Americans of Asian, Arabic, African and Latino descent. And a fair share of Caucausians, including one elderly woman who took more than 5 minutes to walk with her cane from the curb to the polling place entrance. It's inspiring, this year more than ever, to see people so determined to participate in democracy. Let's hope they're rewarded with a clean election and a decisive result.
Oh, brother. Missed it over the weekend; commentary later.
http://www.ewg.org/news/story.php?id=3154
"An Environmental Protection Agency proposal to study young children's exposure to pesticides has sparked a flurry of internal agency protests, with several career officials questioning whether the survey will harm vulnerable infants and toddlers."
UPDATE: I was going to write a commentary on this, but a pediatrician friend of mine says it better. "It sounds too much like Tuskegee and the old hepatitis study of institutionalized infants in New York years ago. This is fundamentally unethical and I [will] protest vehemently. If things don't go well
tomorrow, we will probably see more of these kinds of things in the next
four years."
If a federal judge has now upheld the new Michigan waste import limitations on the grounds that they are health-related and not simply discriminatory, does that mean Michigan could sustain a ban on export of Great Lakes water if it showed a health-related basis for such a restriction? Think about it, policymakers.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/date1e_20041101.htm
Minnesota's recent attempt to shun a researcher who has suggestive evidence of a link between the herbicide atrazine and deformities in wildlife raises huge questions. Michigan, like Minnesota, uses tons of the stuff on corn.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5059868.html
I once wrote a column about declining amphibian populations that asked the question, are we next? A conservative newspaper mocked that. But at least frogs don't intentionally shun the truth.