EPA: Three Letters to Be Thankful For

The Environmental Protection Agency celebrates its 40th anniversary next week. But I think it's worth taking a moment this week to be thankful for what the EPA has accomplished during four decades (and that's in spite of eight not-so-great years as part of the Bush administration). These are just some highlights.

For a start, Ohio's Cuyahoga River has stopped catching fire. Time magazine's 1969 cover story on the combustible, polluted river led to the Clean Water Act, the first Earth Day, and the creation of the EPA. Since then, the agency has been on the job to protect all of America's rivers, lakes, streams and, most importantly, drinking water. Factories and corporations don't always require clean drinking water, but wildlife and people do.

We also have the EPA to thank for cleaner air. That hasn't just improved the view from downtown L.A. and Great Smoky Mountains National Park -- it's saved tens of thousands of lives (every single year) and trillions of dollars. As EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said while commemorating the Clean Air Act's 40th anniversary, "For every one dollar we have spent, we get more than $40 of benefits in return." So much for the idea that we must always choose between the environment and the economy.

Acid rain? That hole in the ozone layer? Two big problems that the EPA can take credit for solving by regulating chlorofluorocarbons and sulfur emission respectively. And the lead additives that used to be in gasoline are just one of the carcinogens the EPA has taken out of our daily lives. We'll never know exactly who didn't get cancer during the past four decades as a result, but it certainly could have been you or someone you love.

On a more mundane level, I can't think of another federal agency that's done so much to save millions of ordinary people money every day. Your refrigerator and other appliances cost less to run, thanks to the Energy Star program. You can take a hot shower using less water, which you spent less money to heat up. And you can choose a car with better gas mileage -- the EPA practically invented fuel efficiency.

Although it's called the Environmental Protection Agency, you could just as easily call it the Every-Person Protection Agency. That's because it's the EPA that has our backs when we might otherwise be at the mercy of corporate agendas that don't always make clean air, safe drinking water, or non-carcinogenic consumer products their first priority.

So let's be thankful for all the EPA's done, but let's also make sure we can keep counting on the agency's engineers, scientists, and environmental-protection specialists to be our advocates -- the ones who put people and the environment first. Whether it's regulating greenhouse-gas emissions, stopping the destruction of Appalachian watersheds from mountaintop-removal coal mining, or ensuring that we don't poison our drinking water with fracking chemicals and toxic coal ash, the EPA has some of its biggest fights still ahead of it (along with some powerful opponents).

So, happy birthday, EPA. You might well be the best idea Richard Nixon ever had.

Time to Commit in the Arctic

President Obama needs to finish something that started the year before he was born. That's when President Eisenhower set aside the pristine wilderness in the northeast corner of Alaska that we know today as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's the last truly unspoiled wilderness in the United States, and the only way to be sure it stays that way is to make it a National Monument. 

Although the Refuge was created fifty years ago, that was only on paper. In reality, it has existed for millennia as a haven for caribou, moose, grizzly bears, arctic wolves, lynx, hundreds of migrating bird species, and other wildlife. It would have received National Monument status long ago were it not for three letters: O-I-L.  

Drilling for whatever oil lies under the tundra of the Refuge would have no significant effect on how much we pay for gas. It could, however, make the richest company in the world (ExxonMobil) even richer. 

As for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it would be destroyed before ExxonMobil and the other oil companies got a single drop. Bulldozers and large rigs would roam over the delicate tundra, drilling exploratory and production wells throughout the Refuge. Several dozen oil fields would need to be constructed, plus numerous airstrips, gravel mines, water-reservoir excavations, water withdrawal sites, seawater treatment plants, utility lines, loading docks, dormitories, and garbage dumps. 

So how about it, Mr. President? You once said that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge "would irreversibly damage a protected national wildlife refuge without creating sufficient oil supplies to meaningfully affect the global market price or have a discernible impact on U.S. energy security."

Those were strong words and, after fifty years, I hope you weren't just leading us on. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been saved from Big Oil many times during the past couple of decades. Now it's time to commit and finish the job. Here's your chance to leave a lasting wilderness legacy for the children who'll be born next year and all the years after.  

The Word Obama Forgot to Say

A couple months ago, I was out in Dimock, PA, meeting with community members who've been affected by reckless natural gas drilling in and around their town. I was also there to tape an interview with Leslie Stahl, for an episode of 60 Minutes that will air this Sunday.

Dimock has become an unfortunate poster child of dangerous gas extraction and after spending some time there, it's easy to understand why. Many residents have expressed alarm at how their drinking water has turned brown and made them sick soon after gas drilling started. The water is now too poisonous for most residents near drilling operations to use for drinking or bathing; it will be at least a couple years until a pipeline is built to transfer water from a safe location. Moreover, highly flammable, greenhouse gas-intensive methane that is believed to have been released from gas drilling or hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") caused one Dimock resident's well to spontaneously combust one day. Methane released from a gas drilling site has been observed bubbling up in the Susquehanna River, miles away. And while sitting in the front yard of another Dimock resident, I could hear methane gurgling constantly out of a special vent recently installed in their own well.

Concerns about natural gas extraction have been on the rise not just in Dimock, but in places across the country, from West Virginia to Texas to Wyoming. And yet even given these important issues, natural gas still has a relatively lighter footprint than coal or oil. Gas is not a clean fuel, but it can be cleaner.

So it was with great interest that I heard Obama talking about natural gas last week. In a press conference the day after the election, someone asked if there were issues he might be willing to collaborate on with the new Congress. "We've got, I think, broad agreement that we've got terrific natural gas resources in this country," the president replied. "Are we doing everything we can to develop those?"

Uh oh. Look, I can only imagine the pressures that the president is under on a daily basis. And I can sympathize with the unique challenges the president faces of needing to speak accurately and precisely on a wide variety of topics with the media ready to pounce on any minor nuance or particular slipup. But what did concern me about the president's statement was a single word that I didn't hear. I hope his question about natural gas resources omitted that word unintentionally: "Are we doing everything we can to develop those responsibly?"

Clearly, we are not. Not when fracking is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, parts of the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as our country's hazardous waste and cleanup laws.

It's important to acknowledge that just because natural gas is cleaner than other fossil fuels -- especially coal -- does not mean we should give the industry a free pass. The exploration, production, transportation, and burning of natural gas is an inherently dirty business that disrupts local communities and pollutes the environment. There are thousands of documented cases of air and water pollution violations and human health and safety hazards. If natural gas is to be part of the mix that displaces dirtier energy sources like coal and oil, these have to be addressed.

More Like an Oil Spill Than a Landslide

The 2010 election was the year of The Empire Strikes Back. Big Oil, the coal industry, and corporate polluters are desperate to stop the momentum toward clean energy that's been building for years. You can't stop the construction of 139 coal-fired power plants, implement the first-ever fuel-economy standards for medium and heavy trucks, or put the "protect" back into the Environmental Protection Agency without provoking a reaction.

In this case, the Dirty Energy Empire broke all campaign spending records and used their financial Death Star to target any politician who took a stand on clean energy and global warming. It may not have been a subtle strategy, but it was effective. What it doesn't change, though, is that most Americans still disagree with Big Oil and Big Coal about environmental and energy issues.

Given a clear choice between moving toward a clean-energy future that brings new jobs versus staying stuck in the old, dirty-energy past, Americans will vote for the future.

You don't have to take my word for it -- because that's exactly what happened in California. Voters decisively defeated Proposition 23, which was aimed at rolling back the state's landmark clean energy and climate law. When clean energy and already-existing green jobs went head-to-head on the ballot against economic scare tactics from Big Oil, voters didn't fall for it -- even though the state has the third-highest unemployment numbers in the nation.

Big Oil was defeated because the Sierra Club, along with a broad coalition of other environmental groups, clean tech companies, small businesses, public health advocates, and organized labor, worked hard to make sure that voters both knew the true intention and real consequences of that initiative. But another reason for Prop. 23's defeat is that advocates for the new-energy economy -- from Silicon Valley venture capitalists to Bill Gates himself -- stepped up to counter the more than $10 million in deceptive advertising that was spent by out-of-state oil companies.

In the short term, it's not good that there will be more climate deniers and dirty-energy apologists in Congress and in Statehouses. It's deeply disappointing that so many of the Sierra Club's allies and supporters suffered defeats. But it's not a short-term future we're fighting for. We're fighting for America's future -- and that means continuing to build a clean-energy economy at the local, state, and, yes, federal level.

When we win, it will mean millions of new jobs, freedom from dependence on foreign oil, and a cleaner, healthier environment for all Americans. And on that day, the headline will read "The Empire Struck Out."