On September 27, 2012, the US Environmental Protection Agency stated that 11 Great Lakes Restoration Projects will receive grants to improve water quality and reduce certain nutrients that directly contribute to harmful blooms of algae in the lakes and surrounding watersheds. 

The grants are listed below:

1. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency will receive $780,745 for the Lucas County Stormwater Demonstration Project.  The project seeks improve stormwater management and install “green infrastructure” at nine different locations. 

2. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality will receive $350,000 for nutrient reduction in the Lake Erie basin and river basin.  The project aims to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus runoff from agricultural by 30 to 50 percent. 

3. The Nature Conservancy will receive $414,765 for nutrient reduction in the south Findlay area and the Upper Blanchard watershed. 

4. The University of Toledo will receive $472,491 for reduction of nutrients, sediments, and bacteria in the Maumee Bay State Park. 

5. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency will receive $527,152 for the Powell Creak Nutrient Reduction Project.  Project will replace bad septic systems, plant over 3,600 acres of crops, install 20 acres of wetlands, and more. 

6. Ohio State University will receive $193,923 for a nutrient management plan in the Blanchard watershed. 

7.  The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development will receive $265,980 to reduce the amount of sediment and nutrients that enter the Western Lake Erie Basin. 

8. The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative will receive $499,741 to reduce the amount of stormwater that flows into the Kids Creek. 

9. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality will receive $995,204 to reduce phosphorus and E. Coli in the Kawkawlin River. 

10. The Muskegon River Watershed Assembly will receive $798,282 for restoration projects in the Riparian areas of the Muskegon River Watershed. 

11. Michigan State University will receive $189,376 for reducing phosphorus from farming runoff. 

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

On September 28, 2012, the US Environmental Protection Agency announced a plan to clean up lead at the Raritan Bay Slag site in Old Bridge and Sayreville, New Jersey.  The EPA states that there are three different sections of the Raritan Bay Slag site that contain lead slag from metal smelting. 

The first lead slag was produced when a seawall and jetty were built on the southern shore in Old Bridge and Sayreville.  The first section is consists of the Laurence Harbor seawall next to the Old Bridge Waterfront Park in the Laurence Harbor.  The second section is in the western jetty in Sayreville and continues form the Cheesequake Creek in Raritan Bay.  The third section is in Margaret’s Creek, and there are areas containing slag and battery casing in this section as well. 

The EPA is proposing to dig and dredge the Laurence Harbor seawall and western jetty areas.  The contaminated soil and waste will be removed and placed in licensed facilities.  The slag and battery casings will be removed from the Margaret’s Creek section.  The excavated areas in all sections will be filled with clean fill.

According to the EPA, lead can lead to the following in children: I.Q. deficiencies, reading and writing problems, lowered attention spans, behavioral problems, and hyperactivity.  Lead can endanger healthy adults as well and even cause reproductive harm. 

The EPA has scheduled a public meeting for October 17, 2012.  The meeting will explain the proposed plan in detail and encourage the public to comment.  The meeting will occur at the George Bush Senior Center located at 1 Old Bridge Plaza, Old Bridge, NJ 08857. 

Judith A.  Enck, the EPA Regional Administrator, states: “The goal of this is to clean up this site so that everyone, especially the children of this community, will be able to safely enjoy the beach.”

Source: Environmental Protection Agency

On November 14, 2012, California became the first state to initiate a cap-and-trade program throughout the state’s entire economy.  The program hopes to significantly reduce the amount of carbon emissions by requiring heavy polluters to purchase and sell carbon emission permits. 

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)—a leading non-profit science organization—putting prices on certain amounts of carbon pollution will, hopefully, inspire new technology for alternative energy and lower global emissions. 

UCS climate economist Jasmin Ansar stated, “If successful, California’s cap-and-trade program will serve as a model for other states, particularly now that federal efforts to address climate change have stalled.  What we have at stake here is much larger than just one state’s efforts to control carbon emissions.” 

The new program, featured in the California Global Warming Solutions Act, allows the state to place a cap on carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases emitted by heavy polluters in the state.  Examples of heavy polluters include oil refineries and cement producers.  The businesses are required to buy allowances to the caps, but companies that reduce emissions can sell or trade their allowances at auctions. 

The auctions allow companies to increase profits by reducing pollution if they can introduce the green policies more efficiently than other companies. 

Ansar noted, “Cap and trade provides financial incentives for polluters to reduce emissions through greater use of energy efficiency, renewable energy and alternative technologies. . . . This program will make it more economically attractive for technology developers to invest in the tools that carbon-intensive industries can use to curb their emissions.” 

California’s initiatives are now the second-largest in the world behind regulations under the European Union.  The state’s goal is to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.  The UCS reports that since California passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act in 2006, more state capital has moved into the green industry than all other 49 states combined. 

Some allowances will be provided to certain industries to encourage them to stay in the state of California—particularly oil refineries.  UCS opposed the decision for the allowances because it estimated that the allowances will give free credits worth $2 billion to the heaviest polluters from 2013 to 2020. 

Ansar paraphrased the UCS’s opposition to the allowances: “California oil refineries produce more carbon emissions per barrel than those in any other part of the country.  If they are exempt from paying for the costs of their pollution, they will have less incentive to reduce the environmental damage associated with their production methods.”

Source: Union of Concerned Scientists

On November 20, 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that airports only allowing smoking in designated areas still have huge levels of air pollution—about five times higher than smoke-free airports.  The air pollution level inside the designated smoking areas was 23 times higher than smoke-free airports. 

The CDC’s study analyzed air quality data outside of designated smoking areas as well as inside designated smoking areas like restaurants, bars, and ventilated smoking rooms.  Only five of the country’s largest airports allow smoking: Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, Washington Dulles International Airport, McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, Denver International Airport, and Salt Lake City International Airport. 

Over 110 million boardings occurred in these airports in 2011 alone—nearly 15 percent of all air travel in the U.S.—potentially exposing millions of people to secondhand smoke. 

Tim McAfee, M.D., M.P.H., the director of CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health, stated: “The findings in today’s report further confirm that ventilated smoking rooms and designated smoking areas are not effective. Prohibiting smoking in all indoor areas is the only effective way to fully eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke.”

Smoking has been banned on all U.S. domestic and international commercial airline flights as federal laws were passed from 1987 to 2000.  For example, § 252.3 of 14 C.F.R. (Smoking Aboard Aircraft) bans smoking on all scheduled flights.  14 C.F.R. § 252.5 bans smoking on all foreign flights entering and exiting the United States. 

Secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults, and even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can induce a heart attack.  Secondhand smoke is especially dangerous for small children because it can cause sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), respiratory problems, ear infections, asthmas attacks, and more.  No amount of secondhand smoke is safe for children or adults either.  A Surgeon General’s Report in 2006 stated there is no level of secondhand smoke that is risk-free.

According to the CDC, cigarettes kill about 443,000 Americans every single year.  It is estimated that secondhand smoke exposure by nonsmokers causes 46,000 deaths from heart disease and 3,400 from lung cancer each year. 

Brian King, Ph.D., the co-author of the report, stated: “Instead of going entirely smoke-free, five airports continue to allow smoking in restaurants, bars or ventilated smoking rooms.  However, research shows that separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air and ventilating buildings cannot fully eliminate secondhand smoke exposure.”

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

On November 19, 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a settlement between its Office and Gila River Power LLC located in California.  It’s the first time a participant in the energy market has ever admitted to violating the anti-manipulation rule imposed by the FERC in energy trading cases. 

Gila River is a subsidiary of Entegra Power Group LLC, and the company admitted to operating “wheeling-through transactions” from July 2009 to October 2010.  The wheeling-through manipulated markets in the California Independent System Operator (CA ISO), and Gila supplied CA ISO with false submissions.  Gila River generated electricity at its 2,200 megawatt plant in Phoenix and sold the power to California ISO markets through the Palo Verde intertie (the line that directs most of the high voltage energy from Arizona to California). 

The Adjustment Wheel Strategy

Gila River imported the majority of its power into the CA ISO in Palo Verde.  If imported energy became congested, the price would lower and reduce the overall amount of power Gila River was allowed to import into the CA ISO. 

During the Adjustment Wheel strategy, the power generating company used Wheeling-Through transactions within the Day Ahead market in order to increase the amount of power imported to the CA ISO and increase the amount paid for the imports.  Gila River was therefore able to import the preferred amount of energy without causing any congestion and receive a higher price for energy imports. 

The Adjustment Wheel was ultimately canceled out because Gila River bought back import and export sections of the Adjustment Wheel.

The Violations

Gila River admitted to violating 18 C.F.R. § 35.41(b) which is similar to CA ISO Tariff § 37.5.  The FERC’s regulations under § 35.41(b) state that a market participant such as Gila River must:

“provide accurate and factual information and not submit false or misleading information, or omit material information, in any communication with. . . .Commission-approved regional transmission organizations, Commission-approved independent system operators, or jurisdictional transmission providers, unless Seller exercises due diligence to prevent such occurrences.” 

Gila River therefore violated the FERC’s Anti-Manipulation Rule, 18 C.F.R. § 1c.2.

Gila River has agreed to pay a $2.5 million fine and forfeit $911,553 of unearned profits.  The unearned profits will lower prices for ratepayers, although the differences may appear small. 

Employees and Gila River participated with the FERC throughout the entire investigation.  The employees provided testimony, and Gila River accepted full responsibility for committing the violations. 

Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

On November 27, 2012, Ken Salazar, the Secretary of the Interior, and Kevin K Washburn, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, announced new regulations that will remove older regulations that slowed residential, commercial, and renewable energy development on American Indian Trust Land.  The new regulations are expected to speed up the leasing process on the Native American land. 

Before the new regulations were passed, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) used a process that made it harder for surface leases to move forward on land the federal government holds in trust for Native Americans.  The Department of the Interior manages about 56 million acres of land for Native Americans around the United States. 

The new rules add to the recent Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible Tribal Homeownership (HEARTH) Act.  The Act was signed by President Obama on July 30, 2012. 

Secretary Salazar stated: “This final step caps the most comprehensive reforms of Indian land leasing regulations in more than 50 years and will have a lasting impact on individuals and families who want to own a home or build a business on Indian land.”  

The older BIA regulations were formed in 1961.  The Department of the Interior states that the old regulations developed no clear deadline for reviews, such as mortgage applications that remained untouched for years as they waited for approval under the federal government. 

The new BIA regulations, which become effective 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register, sets a 30-day limit for the BIA to make decisions or leases, subleases, and mortgages.  The BIA has 60 days to make decisions on leases and subleases for commercial and industrial development.  The timeframe includes leases for renewable energy development. 

Assistant Secretary Washburn stated: “This reform is about supporting self-determination for Indian Nations and was developed in close consultation with tribal leaders.  The streamlined, commonsense rule replaces a process ill-suited for economic development of Indian lands and provides flexibility and certainty to tribal communities and individuals regarding decisions on the use of their land.” 

The “flexibility” that Washburn refers to concerns land valuations.  The BIA is now allowed to choose no a negotiated value for a lease of tribal land instead of going through expensive appraisals.  Additionally, the BIA does not need to approve permits for short-term activities on tribal lands. 

Source: Department of the Interior

On November 19, 2012, the World Health Organization (WHO) denounced claims by recent media articles stating WHO receives funding from the food and beverage industry.  The articles suggested that WHO receives funding from such industries that goes to research for non-communicable diseases like cardiovascular disease, cancer, respiratory diseases, and even diabetes. 

WHO has called these allegations flat out wrong and minconstrued. 

WHO states that it is ordered to go through a strict process when receiving funding in order to thwart influence from certain industries.  WHO admits that it sometimes relies on funds from the private sector to improve research and overall health, but it takes all measures to make sure certain industries have no influence. 

According to WHO, the organization cannot seek or accept private sector funds “from enterprises that have a direct commercial interest in the outcome of the project toward which they would be contributing.”  Additionally, all experts within a WHO advisory group that forms health standards or guidelines must provide their interests in the work of the advisory committee.  If their interests can significantly affect the outcomes of the standards or guidelines, WHO states “the expert is either excluded from the meeting or given a restricted role.” 

Therefore, WHO does not accept funding from manufacturers of food and/or beverages that do not contribute to the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases. 

One of WHO’s Regional Offices, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), contains two legal entities (WHO Regional Office for the Americas  and the health agency for the Organization of the American States) that allow for funding from food and beverage manufacturers in some cases.  Media sources have criticized the PAHO for receiving funding, but the funding still needs to come from manufacturers that want to address non-communicable diseases and have no commercial interest in the results of the research. 

WHO has made research into non-communicable diseases a priority.  Non-communicable diseases result in 36 million deaths around the world every year, accounting for 63% of all deaths.  14 million of victims are under the age of 70, and thus, the deaths are labeled as premature and preventable in most cases. 

During the UN General Assembly of 2011, WHO suggested that the international community take actions against non-communicable diseases.  Some of these actions in the WHO Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health called for the private sector to adopt measures to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases. 

Source: World Health Organization

According to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, the world may become 4 degrees Celsius (7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer by 2100 if current greenhouse gas emissions and future pledges remain the same.  In an effort to spur the development of green technologies in developing countries, the World Bank lent $7.1 billion for mitigating climate change and $4.6 billion for adaptation in 2012. 

Additionally, Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) have pledged $7.2 billion to 48 counties (mostly the least developed), and CIFs have helped leverage $43 billion of investment funds into clean energy sources in low income countries. 

The Dangers of Rising Temperatures

An increase of 4 degrees Celsius would mean devastation and hardship around the world.  Developing countries are the most affected by climate change because they lack resources, lack government policies to regulate emissions, and/or lack funds to construct or install alternative energy projects. 

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics states the following can occur from the rise in temperatures (some of which we’ve already begun to see):

·  more flooding to cities along the coast

·  higher malnutrition rates and damages to crop production

·  dryer areas becoming dryer and wetter areas becoming wetter

·  heat waves, especially in tropical areas

·  widespread water shortages

·  increase in number an intensity of hurricanes and typhoons

·  decreasing biodiversity, including reef systems

How World Bank Investment and CIF Funding are Helping

CIFs have helped Algeria, Jordan, Morocco, and Tunisia begin construction on what will become the largest Concentrated Solar Power plant in the world.  The plant is capable of producing 1 gigawatt of electricity.  Another example includes pilot studies that address flood risks in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and seek to improve agriculture practices and irrigation systems. 

The World Bank has issued more than $3.3 billion in Green Bonds in a total of 17 currencies.  The Green Bonds encourage the development of green projects while providing a substantial return on investment.  Financing toward green energy accounted for 44% ($3.6 billion) of the World Bank Group’s total amount of energy lending in 2012, which was $8.2 billion.

The World Bank President, Jim Yong Kim, stated: “Lack of action on climate change threatens to make the world our children inherit a completely different world than we are living in today.  Climate change is one of the single biggest challenges facing development, and we need to assume the moral responsibility to take action on behalf of future generations, especially the poorest.”

Source: World Bank Group

On November 29, 2012, a group of historic preservation, labor history, and environmental protection organizations decided to file an appeal in order to protect the Blair Mountain Battlefield and restore the historic site with the National Register of Historic Places. 

Blair Mountain was home to one of the most historic labor struggles in United States history.  Thousands of coal miners stood up against the coal industry and fought with law enforcement in 1921 at the site and asked for greater labor rights and the right to unionize. 

Kenny King, a lifelong resident of Blair and member of the Board of Friends of Blair Mountain, stated: “Never before, nor since have so many American workers taken up arms to fight for their constitutional rights.  Blair Mountain, West Virginia stands not only as a reminder of our proud history, but also as a living symbol of hope for all who seek justice.” 

The site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2009 after numerous revisions were made to nominations over the years.  The site was de-listed just nine months later, but the group of petitioners believes the de-listing was unlawful. 

The National Park Service decided to de-list Blair Mountain in December of 2009, and a U.S. District Court ruled on October 2, 2012 that the groups filing for the re-enlistment did not have legal standing because there was a lack of proof concerning threats to the coal mining site’s preservation. 

The groups involved in the appeal argue that the court ignored a large amount of evidence stating coal mining companies still seek permits to mine the battlefield.  They argue the coal mining companies tried to block the listing of Blair Mountain on the National Register as well. 

Regina Hendrix with the West Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, stated: “With the exception of the Civil War, the Blair battle is the largest insurrection in U.S. history.  We cannot let this rich, undisturbed, site be wiped away forever.  The area is a vital part of U.S. labor history.  The archaeological record waiting to be explored will clearly show the places where the battle occurred, as well as the intensity of the battle at different sites.” 

The groups appealing the de-listing of Blair Mountain include the Sierra Club, the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Friends of Blair Mountain, West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, the West Virginia Labor History Association, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.” 

Source: Sierra Club

On October 17, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded $6.5 million to 10 different state and local agencies and non-profit organizations.  The funds will be used to restore water quality in the San Francisco Bay watershed and surrounding wetlands.  

Jared Blumenfeld, the EPA Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest, stated: “San Francisco Bay is a magnificent treasure that supports more than 500 species of wildlife, including 128 threatened or endangered species, and the economies of Bay shoreline communities.  It is critical to safeguard this productive natural resource, and these projects with our state and local partners will make great strides to achieve that goal.”

The agencies and awards are listed below:

The San Francisco Estuary Partnership and the Association of Bay Area Governments receives $1.55 million to redesign flood control channels to help protect wetlands.

The Napa County Flood Control District receives $1.5 million for stream restoration at the Rutherford Reach and reduce sediment into the Napa River.  

The Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy receives $1 million to fix 1,050 feet of creek channel and restore wetlands and natural habitats.  

The Sonoma Land Trust receives $941,000 for restoration of 960 acres of tidal Marsh throughout the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge.  

The California State Coastal Conservancy receives $500,000 to form programs for reducing food containers in the bay area.  

The San Francisco Estuary Partnership and the Association of Bay Area Governments receives $250,000 to address citizens through social media and promote the reduction of pesticide use.  

Audubon California receives $235,000 to improve 300 acres of tidal marsh of the Sonoma Creek.  

The Alameda County Resource Conservation District receives $181,000 to form stream buffers, repair stream channels, and improve rural roads along the Alameda Creek watershed.  

The San Mateo Resource Conservation District receives $75,000 to improve creek channels and open 40 miles of upstream habitat to let steelhead breed in the San Francisquito Creek.  

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency