| Dear
EarthTalk: Are we making progress in cleaning
up America’s rivers?
-- Maria B., via e-mail
When
the Cuyahoga River caught fire in downtown Cleveland in
June of 1969, a nation already becoming more aware of environmental
problems took note. Across the country, people were fed
up with bans on swimming and fishing due to growing pollution
levels. And rampant logging was clogging many a remote river
system with soil and debris, making them uninhabitable by
the fish that had evolved there for eons.
In
1972, in response to such concerns, Congress passed the
landmark Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge
of pollution into America’s waterways. This important
law has worked well to curtail pollution and keep development
in check, but it does little to restore already damaged
river ecosystems.
Luckily,
a large array of local governments, nonprofit organizations
and ad hoc citizen groups has risen to the challenge, making
the United States the world’s nexus for river restoration
work. The National River Restoration Science Synthesis Project,
a 2005 survey conducted by leading river scientists, identified
37,000 different river restoration projects either completed
or underway across the U.S.
According
to the survey, American taxpayers and foundations have invested
nearly $15 billion in U.S. river restoration projects—or
about $1 billion yearly—since 1990. Projects include:
reforesting riverbanks to curb erosion; recreating natural
river channels to reduce downstream flooding; removing dams
to allow fish to migrate more freely; and restoring wetlands
to better do their jobs at naturally filtering pollution.
Some
specific high profile examples include Native Americans
and farmers working together to bring wild salmon back to
Oregon’s Umatilla River, and the creation of natural
habitat and buffer zones along Texas’ San Antonio
River. And General Electric finally complied with state
and federal mandates to begin removal of the PCBs they had
dumped in New York’s Hudson River for years.
“It’s
no mystery why river restoration is booming,” says
Andrew Fahlund of the nonprofit American Rivers, a leading
rivers advocacy group. “Rivers in good condition more
readily meet the needs of the surrounding community than
polluted and degraded rivers.”
A
new House budget resolution calls for increased spending
on programs to reduce the amount of raw sewage going into
American streams and to better manage the nation’s
168 designated “wild and scenic” rivers. The
resolution also calls for allocating funds for removing
obsolete dams that could rupture and threaten nearby communities
with potentially catastrophic flash floods.
Despite
the positive trends, not all rivers are doing well. American
Rivers’ annual list of “America’s Most
Endangered Rivers” highlights river ecosystems across
the U.S. that are still in disrepair or under threat. Those
on the 2007 list include New Mexico’s Santa Fe, New
York’s Upper Delaware, Washington’s White Salmon,
Texas’s Neches, Wisconsin’s Kinnickinnic, North
Carolina’s Neuse, Alaska’s Chuitna, Iowa’s
namesake Iowa River, Arkansas and Oklahoma’s Lee Creek,
and California’s San Mateo Creek.
CONTACTS:
The National
River Restoration Science Synthesis Project; American
Rivers.
Dear
EarthTalk: Did Exxon/Mobil really pay scientists
and economists to write articles trying to de-bunk global
warming?
-- Rosemary R., via e-mail
A February 2007
report in the British newspaper, The Guardian, fell like
a ton of bricks on efforts by ExxonMobil, the world’s
largest and most profitable oil company, to repair its damaged
environmental reputation. According to the report, the Exxon-financed
American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative Washington,
D.C. “think tank,” offered scientists and economists
$10,000 each, plus expenses, to write articles undercutting
the dire findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the extent and impacts
of human-caused global warming.
The ties between
ExxonMobil, AEI and the highest levels of government go
way back. AEI has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil
over the years, and more than 20 of its staffers have worked
as consultants for the Bush administration. Former Exxon
head Lee Raymond is still an AEI board member.
A month before
the Guardian report, the Boston-based Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS) released its own report documenting ExxonMobil’s
$16 million in donations since 1998 to 43 organizations
working to discredit the science of human-induced climate
change. UCS joins a growing chorus of voices asking the
company to turn the corner on global warming and start embracing
a transition away from fossil fuels.
“ExxonMobil
has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global
warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused
lung cancer,” says Alden Meyer, UCS’s Director
of Strategy & Policy. “A modest but effective
investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about
global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco
did for over 40 years.”
In September
2006, Britain’s leading scientific academy, the Royal
Society, asked the company to stop supporting groups that
“misrepresented the science of climate change.”
In response, ExxonMobil said that it funded groups that
research “significant policy issues and promote informed
discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company”
but that such groups do not speak for the company.
No doubt feeling
some heat, ExxonMobil issued a statement recently in response
to an IPCC update: “There is increasing evidence that
the Earth’s climate has warmed on average about 0.6
C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially
the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions
have increased during this same time period—and emissions
from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of
these emissions.” The statement also acknowledged
that “the risks to society and ecosystems could prove
to be significant…it is prudent now to develop and
implement strategies that address the risks…”
Whether the company
is really ready to aggressively develop alternative energy
sources—like its competitors Shell and BP—is
yet to be seen. But environmental leaders share a guarded
optimism that the tide is turning in their favor and that
ExxonMobil will back up its words with action—eventually.
CONTACTS:
The
Guardian; Union
of Concerned Scientists Report; ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.
|
