J.C. Moore Online

Current events from a science perspective.

Election season is coming up, and many of our representatives are, or will be, holding town hall meetings. It is important that voters attend as many of these as possible, not only to express their opinions, but to decide if they wish to return the representative to Washington in the elections in 2012.   

Congressman Frank Lucas (R – OK) held one of his town hall meetings at the Hominy City Hall on April 19, 2011. He reported that the war in Iraq is winding down, but that Afghanistan continues to be a quagmire without a definite ending in sight.  There is concern about our role in Libya, but the President does have power to take limited military action without a formal declaration of war. He reported that the Legislature has become even more divided and partisan over the last year, and it is becoming very difficult to carry out the business of government. This year, Congress is mostly going to be about the budget, and little else is likely to get done.

A scientist in the audience explained that Dr. Patrick Michaels, who testified before Congress that there was no consensus among scientist on climate change, had been exposed for taking large payments from power companies to lobby for them. There is a consensus among scientists.  A recent survey showed that 97% of climate scientists active in research agree that global warming is happening and that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause. Every major scientific organization in the world has adopted a statement in agreement. Research has also shown that global warming is the cause of some of our extreme weather events, and that higher CO2 levels and warmer temperatures may damage crop yields. After that long explanation, the question was whether the Congressman, who will chair the Agriculture Committee next year, would be willing to hold hearings to determine if global warming might put our food supply at risk. The Congressman replied he could not make a commitment as yet.  

Note:  Later, on June 16^th, Rep. Lucas voted to prevent the Department of Agriculture from planning for future extreme weather and crop loss that scientists say will be the result of climate change.  Apparently Congressman Lucas does not believe the scientific evidence and does not want the Department of Agriculture examining the issue, though it poses a danger to our food supply.

When asked about Social Security, Congressman Lucas explained that, over the years, the surplus collected has been put in a trust fund in U.S. Treasury bonds. Though the government has borrowed against the surplus, it must be repaid and will be available to make future payments.  After the trust fund is exhausted, Social Security will pay benefits as money is collected, and benefits may be reduced by about 30% unless the system is tweaked by reducing benefits or raising the retirement age. A little research after the meeting showed that the trust fund is expected to be solvent until about 2034 but that the most popular tweak, raising the cap on FICA contributions, will make this trust fund solvent to about 2080.

One lady explained that we had just spent billions of dollars developing Head Start centers and now the money needed to operate them may be cut from the budget. Head Start allows many low income people with children to work as it reduces some of the expense of child care. What sense does it make to extend the tax cuts for wealthy citizens and then cut programs that benefit disadvantaged citizens and may even cost jobs? The Congressman commented that the mood in Congress was to cut taxes and reduce spending.

Another lady asked about the wild horses on ranches west of town. Congressman Lucas explained it was a program, apparently one he questions, that moved the horses to save them from being euthanized. The horses are a non-native species that damage range-land and the program costs $5 billion dollars. The lady from Head Start asked why we could spend $5 billion on horses, but not $5 billion on the Head Start program benefiting children.  

One constituent complemented Congressman Lucas on the Tulsa World article where he defended raising the debt limit so that the U.S. would not have its credit rating lowered, which would be disastrous for the country. He asked about the monetary policy which benefited the stock market, but hurt many retired people by keeping interest rates low. The Congressman pointed out that the policy was set by the Federal Reserve and it benefits those who borrow and hurts those who save. He suggested the policy might change, and suggested it might be wise to be sure any loans you have were at a fixed rate.

When asked about a flat tax, the Congressman explained he favored a “fair tax”, a national sales tax on all purchases. The states would collect the tax and it would end income tax. Putting the IRS out of business sounds good except that a little research shows that the “fair tax” would have to be about 30% on all goods and services. It would shift more of the tax burden to middle and lower income citizens and would hurt seniors, who have paid income tax all their lives and would now be taxed more on their purchases. 

When asked about the wisdom of subsidizing ethanol from corn, the Congressman replied that the subsidy program benefits corn producing states but hurts everyone else. It costs tax money and it raises the cost of animal feed and food. He commented that the corn producing states have a lot of political clout, and the policy might be hard to change. 

The discussion was lively and it was good that voters could ask questions and express our concerns to Congressman Lucas. The third district covers a large area, the Western two thirds of the state, and it should be appreciated that he conducted town hall meetings at many towns in his district. Elections are coming up and Oklahoma voters need to weigh carefully what he says, and how he votes, in order to decide if we should return Congressman Lucas to Washington.

The EPA has been charged with reducing the pollutants released into the environment, but they are meeting opposition from power companies, politicians, and people who want cheap energy, though other people’s health and the environment may suffer the consequences . The EPA is accepting comments on the issue through May 23, 2011.  (1)

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking a 95 percent reduction in emissions at three of Oklahoma’s coal-fired power plants owned by OG&E and AEP. (2) This has brought howls from the utility companies and from Oklahoma’s politicians. Utility companies claim that installing scrubbers or converting to natural gas will cost them billions of dollars and drive the rates for electricity up by 10 to 12%. The utility companies have defined the costs for the plant conversions or upgrades in the worst possible terms, without considering the long-term savings of conversion to natural gas or the impact on people’s health.

EPA.  Stopping the EPA has been put forth as a Conservative and a Republican cause, but it really is neither. President Richard Nixon created the EPA to protect the environment as the United States developed industrially. The Clean Air Act was passed not only to reduce smog in our cities, but to ensure that the air was kept pure and clean in our national parks and wilderness areas. Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has the right to limit sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, organic compounds, and particulates to ensure the quality of the air in our region. Limiting regional haze would have the added benefit of improving the health of people, wildlife, and plants in the region. Sulfur and nitrogen oxides are known to damage plants and those, along with small particulates, cause respiratory problems in people. Also, the particulates emitted contain mercury, arsenic, lead, cadmium, chromium, dioxins, and radioactive isotopes, which are all health hazards.

Regional problem. The emissions from Oklahoma plants do not remain in Oklahoma, and some of the haze in Oklahoma likely comes from surrounding states, particularly Texas, which has a large number of unregulated power plants. Emissions from a source may remain in the air for many weeks and travel for hundreds of miles. Although each state in the region might wish to address its own air pollution problems, it is a regional problem and must be addressed as such. Some of the states in the region are regulatory averse, and may lack the political will to act in the matter. For instance, a fly ash disposal plant at Bokoshe Oklahoma was allowed to operate for seven years while it violated Oklahoma statutes and apparently caused health problems and possibly deaths among Bokoshe residents.

Cost. The main objection to limiting emissions at the power plants is the cost. However, the power plants have operated for years without paying the true cost of energy production, which should include the cost of limiting their air pollution. It also appears that the companies have overstated the costs by as much as two or three times over the EPA estimates.  AEP reported $1.2 billion in profit last year and OG&E $292 million, so they can apparently afford to address the problem without passing all the costs to  customers.

Timetable. Three years would be a reasonable time for the power plants to come into compliance. It has been known for several decades that the emissions are damaging to the environment and health, yet the companies did not act. Also, the EPA had previously informed the companies that they were out of compliance, yet they have failed to come up with a satisfactory plan. They should have made a move toward compliance long ago, and further stalling should not be allowed.

Alternate plan. The alternate plan of converting the power plants to natural gas is certainly an acceptable plan. Methane produces about 2 1/2 times as much energy per unit of carbon dioxide as coal. And, switching to methane would also alleviate the problem of properly disposing of fly ash, bottom ash, and scrubber sludge. Those, and carbon emissions will necessarily be regulated in the future. Addressing the haze, the solid and liquid waste, and the carbon emissions piecemeal will certainly be less effective and more costly in the long run. If the companies should choose to convert the plants to methane, the added benefits would justify an increase in the timetable of up to five years.

(1) Comments may be submitted to r6air_okhaze@epa.gov or at http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/oklahoma_coal_pollution/?r=7901&id=21282-3213732-Kunk_Zx

(2) http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/03/17/the-problem-with-coal-and-politicians/

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

V   Share This:

Sen. James Inhofe (R –OK) is famous for his statement, “Global warming is a hoax”. The local Tulsa newspaper often carries letters giving the opposing viewpoint. For example, Corey Cohen, recently wrote, “Sen. Inhofe, please cease your effort to stop EPA’s ability to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The science of global warming and climate change is obvious and known. For example, excessive CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs heat reflected from the ground and traps that heat in the atmosphere, melting glaciers and ice and snow packs all around the planet. A given molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere has a life of approximately 100 years. The implications are fairly obvious: rising sea levels, loss of fresh water for humans and unpredictable growing seasons for Oklahoma farmers and their winter wheat crops due to atmospheric heating.” (1)

Mr. Jack Williams replied (2) by “pointing out a few facts”  to defend Senator Inhofe’s position:

“1. More than 31,000 scientists signed a petition opposing the concept of man-made global warming.

2. More than 100 top climate scientists have expressed their opposition.

3. A dozen recognized scientists from nine countries who initially were global-warming proponents have changed their opinion and now oppose it in light of recently published information.

4. Earth has undergone many cooling and warming periods during its history.

5. Carbon dioxide constitutes less than 0.1 percent of the atmosphere while water vapor, at least as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2, ranges from about 20 to 100 times its concentration, and is quite variable.

6. There has been no measurable increase in global temperatures during the past decade.

7. The polar bear population dramatically increased during the past decade, as has ice thickness on Antarctica.”

It’s always nice to get alleged facts in a numbered list, where it is possible to check them one by one.

Endorsements: Facts one, two and three, fall into  the category of endorsements, and as with many endorsement, it is not always clear how well qualified those who endorse the position are, or whether the numbers listed are significant. There are about 23 million graduates with degrees in science and engineering. If 31,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition, that is about 0.13% of those – hardly significant. Even then, the petition appears to be a hoax. In 1989, the Petition was mailed to thousands of Bachelor of Science students. It was formatted to appear as if it came from the National Academy of Science, but the organization quickly responded that the information was misleading and “the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”  The mailing collected 17,000 signatures and 14,000 have been added since. Most anyone could sign it, many who signed were misled, and many were not scientists at all, as it is possible to get BS degrees in fields such as journalism, sociology, education, philosophy… (3)

Endorsements that matter: All the major scientific organizations in the world have endorsed a statement such as that of the American Chemical Society,  ”Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles. There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.” (4) A recent CNN poll found that 97% of scientists who are actively engaged in research in climate science agree that global warming is caused by man. (5) There is clearly a consensus among scientists on the matter and those making policy would be wise to heed it.

Warming and Cooling: Point four is a fact, but it is not relevant to what is happening today. The Earth has in the past had many natural warming and cooling periods but the current warming trend is not part of those. In the  past, ice ages and warmer interglacial periods have occurred in roughly 100,000-year cycles. These are attributed to the Milankovitch cycles. These cycles are small variations in the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth’s orbit that cause the amount of sunlight the Earth receives to increase and decrease in predictable cycles The cycles predict that a slow cooling trend, which began some 6,000 years ago, will continue for the next 23,000 years. The current warming trend is too rapid and in the wrong direction for the Milankovitch Cycles to be the cause. (6)

Greenhouse gases: Point five is also a fact, but it incorrectly downplays the role of  CO2  in determining the Earth’s temperature. In 1956, G.N. Plass calculated (7) that doubling the concentration of CO2 in the air would cause a 3 to 4 C increase in the Earth’s temperature. Many dismissed his work, as it seemed impossible that CO2, which made up only 0.03% of the air, could have such a large effect on temperature.   However, in 1997, J.T. Kiehl found (8) that, under clear sky conditions, CO2 accounted for 26% of the greenhouse effect – with water vapor accounting for most of the rest. More recent research (9) has confirmed their work, and CO2 has been labeled the “Control Knob” for the Earth’s temperature.  Recent research in the Journal of Climate, covering the last five ice ages, has experimentally confirmed Plass’ work. The Earth is warming because of the greenhouse gases we emit, and research finds the increase in CO2 is the main cause.

Temperature record: Fact six is based on the idea that 1998 was so hot, it couldn’t have been hotter since. However, NASA’s temperature record shows that 2005 and 2010 are tied for the warmest year on record and the last decade has been the hottest in recorded history – and the trend is yet upward (10). There have been attempts to discredit NASA’s temperature data by challenging the accuracy of the temperature recording stations, but a study of that issue by the American Geophysical Union found that claim to be false. (11) NASA has put men on the Moon and brought them home safely, and they certainly should be able to measure temperatures on the Earth correctly.

Polar Bears:  It’s true that the Polar bear population has increased, but not because the Polar ice is increasing. The bears were hunted nearly to extinction, and their population is increasing because restrictions were placed on hunting them from aircraft . Recently, Polar bears have been put on the threatened species list, not because of their numbers, but because their habitat is disappearing.  Satellite measurements of the Arctic sea ice have shown that both the volume and extent of the sea ice has decreased remarkably over the last 30 years. (12) Polar bears are uniquely adapted to live and hunt on the Arctic Sea ice. As it disappears, so will the Polar bears.

Claiming something as “fact” does not make it so. And, even facts can be misleading if the inferences drawn from them are in error.  If Senator Inhofe bases his position on facts such as those listed by Mr. Williams, it is easy to see why he incorrectly thinks global warming is a hoax.

(1)http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=62&articleid=20110313_222_G2_CUTLIN933913

(2)http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?subjectid=62&articleid=20110403_62_G2_InhisM784632

(3) http://jcmooreonline.com/2010/01/29/the-oregon-petition-how-can-31000-scientists-be-wrong/

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#General_science

(5) http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity

(6) http://jcmooreonline.com/2010/12/31/science-global-warming-and-the-ice-age-mystery/

(7) http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#M_25_

(8) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0477%281997%29078%3C0197:EAGMEB%3E2.0.CO;2

(9) http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

(10) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/fig2.gif

(11)http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD013094.shtml

(12) http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/NSIDC-12-10.gif

(c) 2011 J.C. Moore

V   Share This

Privatization. It is usually assumed that private enterprise will find efficient ways to do things and lower costs to the benefit of consumers and taxpayers.  That assumption is probably true when it comes to providing innovation and developing resources. The recent failure of some of our largest private companies have caused an  economic downturn which, along with tax cuts, have left the federal, state, and local governments with financial problems. Privatizing public services and resources is being considered as a way to reduce costs and raise money.

City Services: As a way to save money, many small towns and cities are considering turning their basic services such as water, trash and sewer over to private companies. This has not always worked out well.  As an example, Coatesville, Penn decided to sell off its drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in 2001 and invest the money in a trust fund to be used for city services. But privatization hasn’t been the economic boon the city hoped.  The residents have seen their water and sewer rates jump 85 percent since American Water, the largest water corporation in the country, took the helm. Last year the company proposed a 229 % rate hike for sewer services, forcing the city to cobble together money for legal fees to fight back. (1) Privatization doesn’t always promote efficiency. The trash in Wichita, Kansas is collected by several private trash companies, and customers in any part of town can contract with any of the companies. The result is that several large trash trucks navigate most streets of Wichita each week, resulting in increased noise, wasted energy, more exhaust fumes, and damage to the streets, which of course, the city repairs.  Even though residents of Wichita pay 30 to 50% more than residents of comparable cities with public trash services, a measure to franchise the trash system was defeated amid criticisms of “government control” and “loss of freedom to choose”.

CompSource. The state of Oklahoma gave its wealthiest citizen a nice tax cut in 2004, which, with the economic downturn,  has left the state government strapped for cash. One proposal to raise money was to sell CompSource Oklahoma, which has been providing workman’s comp to state workers for 76 years – apparently successfully. State Rep. Dan Sullivan pushed for privatization of CompSource because: “It’s a fundamental issue of what is the proper function of government . Is it to compete with private enterprise? We think not.”  He also claimed the increased competition would lower rates. That sounds good, except an expert in comp insurance pointed out it would cost more to insure state employees and 40% -70% more to insure workers in high risk categories, such as volunteer firefighters, oil field workers, and farm workers. The plan fell through, for the time being, when it was discovered that the state might not get the proceeds from the sale and that the politicians pushing the matter had ties to the insurance companies who would profit from the sale. (2)

Medicare and Social Security. Privatization of Government services for ideological reasons often fails as a practical way to lower costs. While privatizing Medicare was ostensibly done to reduce costs, the Medicare Advantage Plans created have increased the cost to the government by 14% and decreased the long term stability of the program. Also, to reduce costs, the plans created the infamous “donut hole“ that costs seniors an additional $25 billion annually. (3) The cost created by privatizing is not a mystery, as the VA and Medicare  have a 3-5% overhead while private insurance companies have an overhead of 15% or more. That is something that should be considered when thinking of health care reform.

Social Security is one of the most effective and popular government programs. It provides a safety net so that no matter how fortunate or unfortunate people are in their choices and investments, they will not be destitute when they retire.  The recent attempts to privatize SS would have been a boon to the financial services industry and money poured in for promotion and campaign donations. After the recent economic downturn, we should all be grateful that the plans to privatize Social Security failed. Some private pension accounts lost as much as 40%, while Social Security paid reliably. The idea that SS is going broke, part of the PR created to try to justify privatizing SS, still lingers on. (4)

Public Service: Our public servants, teachers, firefighters, police, military personnel, and the myriad employees that run our country, actually serve us well. Their pay is usually determined by their responsibilities, experience, and education, as in the GS ratings of federal employees that determine their compensation. Public servants seldom receive bonuses and sometimes little appreciation for doing their job well. The government does not make a profit so their services can be provided at lower cost. And, while we have little say about what goes on in the boardroom, our elected representatives are in charge of public employees.  While it may not be the role of government to compete with private industry, it is certainly not the role of government to make policies that favor private companies over the needs of our citizens. Certainly, privatization for purely ideological reasons is a bad idea that should not override practical considerations.

(1) http://www.alternet.org/story/149725/vision:_how_small,_mostly_conservative_towns_have_found_the_trick_to_defeating_corporations

(2) http://jcmooreonline.com/2009/10/01/will-privatizing-compsource-lower-costs/

(3) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2917

(4) http://jcmooreonline.com/2010/08/04/is-social-security-going-broke/

(C) 2011  J.C. Moore

V  Share this

The EPA has been charged with reducing the pollutants released into the environment, but they are meeting opposition from power companies, politicians, and people who want cheap energy, though other people  and the environment may suffer the consequences.

The Environmental Protection Agency is seeking a 95 percent reduction in emissions at three of Oklahoma’s coal-fired power plants. This has brought howls from the utility companies and from Oklahoma’s politicians. Utility companies claim that installing scrubbers or converting to natural gas will cost them billions of dollars and drive the rates for electricity up by 10 to 12%. The utility companies have defined the costs for the plant conversions or upgrades in the worst possible terms, without considering the long-term savings.  Conversion to natural gas would eliminate the problem of  coal combustion products such as acidic gases, mercury vapor, fly ash, and bottom ash. Although coal is cheaper than other fuels, it delivers less energy per unit of CO2 produced. Coal  produces 314 kJ/mole while natural gas produces 890 kJ/mole, almost 3 times that of coal. Considering Oklahoma’s abundant supplies of natural gas, it would make sense for Oklahoma to begin switching power plants to natural gas.

The power companies and the politicians have tried to define the problem as the cost of the  “elimination of haze”, as if there were no other environmental damage done by burning coal. That is because the elimination of haze under the Clean Air Act is all the EPA is presently empowered to do. Coal is 65 to 95 % carbon. What about the rest? Coal contains small amounts of mercury, chromium, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur, particulates, and radioactive isotopes. Man burns 6 billion tons of coal each year, releasing millions of tons of pollutants into the air and leaving several hundred million tons behind in the coal ash. Some pollutants eventually find their way into the water, the food chain, and into us. Oklahoma has adopted limits on fish consumption because of high levels of mercury. For comparison, mercury is 100 times as toxic as cyanide, arsenic is 20 times as toxic, and chromium(VI) is 4 times as toxic. These three are also are carcinogenic and accumulate in tissue. Even exposure below the allowed levels increases the chance of cancer over time. The small town of Bokoshe, Oklahoma is located near an unregulated fly ash disposal site. The incidence of cancer among the residents of the town is extraordinarily high, though the power company claims there is no link between that and their fly ash.

The sulfur and nitrogen oxides released by coal combustion harm plants and produce acid rain. A recent article headlined “Pecan growers say coal-fired plant killing trees” described the plight of orchards downwind from a power plant with inadequate pollution controls. One farmer said his pecan crop dropped over the years from 200,000 to 8,000 pounds. The combustion of coal  also releases 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Because  CO2 in 3water is an acidic, the oceans have become over 20% more acidic in the last century. That has led to the destruction of coral reefs and endangered crustaceans and the phytoplankton that convert CO2 to oxygen. Without phytoplankton, life in the oceans would be impossible. The concentration of CO2 in the air has increased 38% as well.  As a potent greenhouse gas, it is causing the Earth to warm, glaciers and polar ice to melt, and the climate to change in ways we will not always like. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, ordered the EPA to make a determination as to whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The EPA has found, based on the best scientific evidence, that CO2 is an endangerment to public health and has moved forward to regulate it.

Oklahoma’s politicians, such as Sen. Jim Inhofe and  Congressman Dan Boren, are working on a solution- for the power companies benefit. They want to strip the  EPA of  its power to regulate pollution.  They also claim it is a states rights issue, and that the EPA has no business regulating Oklahoma industries. However, the pollution generated by Oklahoma’s power plants does not stay within its borders, nor is all the pollution in Oklahoma from Oklahoma sources. Much of it blows up from Texas, the state with the highest number of power plants out of compliance. Acidic gases released by coal combustion, and even mercury vapor, can travel for thousands of miles before being brought to Earth by precipitation, and much of the CO2 will stay in the air for centuries. Regulation of carbon emissions needs to be done on a national and even international level. It is a bad idea to focus on short term economic costs while ignoring the environmental costs, such as polluting the Earth and letting rural Oklahoma become a dumping ground for the power companies’ waste.

(C) 2011 J.C. Moore

V   Share this.

The quality of the scenic Illinois River in Oklahoma is threatened by pollution from Arkansas’ poultry industry. A lawsuit to stop the pollution seemed certain to win, but it may be derailed by a huge influx of money into the recent Oklahoma elections.

A writer in India, Pabitra Mukhopadhyay, wrote an excellent article (1) explaining how arsenic in some wells in India were poisoning those who drank from them. He asked that I write an article explaining the chemistry of arsenic and how it might get into the groundwater. (2) A comment on that article suggested another possible source that I missed. Roxarsone, which has arsenic as the active ingredient, is often used to treat parasites in poultry and poses a risk to the environment. (3) The arsenic eventually ends up in the chicken droppings and, if disposed of improperly, in water supplies. That is probably not the source of the arsenic in India, but it may have implications for a lawsuit about the water quality of the Illinois River in Oklahoma.

The Illinois River begins in the Ozark Mountains in Northwestern Arkansas and flows through the scenic hills of Northeastern Oklahoma. It is a scenic river because of its sparkling clear water and the steep bluffs, rock formations, and large old trees along its banks. It is a favorite for water sports, fishing, camping, and canoeing and is considered a valuable resource for Northeastern Oklahoma. A dam built across the river forms Tenkiller Lake, one of the clearest and deepest lakes in Oklahoma and the water supply for many Oklahoma towns. Both the river and the lake have beauty and economic value to the state of Oklahoma and great efforts have been taken to ensure that the quality of the water remains high. This has caused contention with the state of Arkansas that has had a profound affect on the politics of Oklahoma.

Lawsuits: As the population of  Northwestern Arkansas has grown, the amount of pollution entering the river has also grown, particularly the nutrients  that causes algae growth and degradation of the river. High levels of nutriets and warm summer temperatures favor the growth of  blue-green algae, a type which is toxic.  In 1977, Oklahoma formed the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission to see that the Rivers in Oklahoma retain their scenic and economic value. The Commission tried negotiating with the cities and businesses in Arkansas to reduce their pollution. Some progress was made but the amount of phosphate and nitrate entering the river continued to grow. Finally, a lawsuit was filed in 1986 to stop upstream sources from polluting the river as it flows into Oklahoma. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. In a landmark ruling in Arkansas v. Oklahoma (1992), the Supreme court upheld Oklahoma’s water quality standards and ruled that the water quality standards of the downstream state must be implemented by the upstream state. (4) This established a very important principle as almost everyone lives downstream from someone.

After the 1992 ruling, the Scenic River Commission was successful in negotiating with the point sources, mostly upstream businesses and municipalities, to reduce pollution entering the river. However, the amount of pollution in the river continued to grow, mostly from non-point sources related to agricultural use. Northwestern Arkansas has become one of the largest poultry producing areas in United States. The litter from the industry has been disposed of by spreading it on farmland, and nitrates and phosphates from it eventually finds its way into the water and into Illinois River. Oklahoma has not been able to negotiate with the chicken industry to reduce the amount of plant nutrients entering the river as the poultry industry says that the pollution is from many other sources. Finally, Drew Edmondson, the Attorney General  for the state of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against the poultry industry to settle the matter. It appears that the evidence and the case law is on the side of Oklahoma, but the case seems to hinge upon establishing whether the poultry industry can be cited as a major source of the pollution.

Arsenic: This is where the arsenic enters into the story. If Roxarsone were used by the poultry industry in Arkansas, then surely some of the arsenic would end up in the water along with the plant nutrients. If arsenic were found in the river then that would be a clear indication that the source was the poultry industry. I sent a request to the Oklahoma Department of Water Quality asking if the water had been tested for arsenic. Here is the reply:

“You are correct in that arsenic compounds are sometimes added to chicken feeds, and as such, have the potential to show up in streams, rivers, lakes, and groundwater in watersheds where chicken litter has been spread on the land surface.

Unfortunately, the poultry lawsuit that you referred to has not been resolved. It is my understanding that they did sample for arsenic as part of the suit, but that data is not readily available. This data collection was not completed by a state agency, so we don’t really have access to it. However, even if I had the data, I probably wouldn’t be able to share it with you until such a time as the lawsuit has resolved.”

Oklahoma Politics: Drew Edmondson, the Atty. Gen. of Oklahoma who filed the lawsuit, resigned last year to run for governor. He lost in the Democratic primary, partly because the poultry industry contributed heavily to his Democratic opponent and led a campaign to paint him as “anti-business”. The poultry industry then donated generously to the Republican candidates as they considered them to be friendlier toward their interests. The Republican candidates won the races for governor and attorney general.  Scott Pruitt, the new Attorney General, who received $15,000 in donations from the poultry industry, said he planned to review the case. The closing arguments in the poultry lawsuit were made before he took office, but it remains to be seen how actively he will defend the case or if he will find a reason to derail it. The new Governor, Mary Fallin, also plans to review the poultry lawsuit and she has proposed slashing the budget of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission and consolidating it with the Oklahoma Conservation Commission. These, they say, are just budgetary decisions and have nothing to do with the poultry company donations.  It remains to be seen how avidly they will pursue environmental issues in the state.

(1) http://water.thinkaboutit.eu/think5/post/the_water_of_death/

(2) http://jcmooreonline.com/2011/01/31/arsenic-and-the-water-of-death/

(3) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070409115746.htm

(4) http://www.illinoisriver.org/CEDocuments/Downloads_GetFile.aspx?id=121203&fd=0

(C) 2011 J.C. Moore

V  Share This

The U.S. Republican leaders are blocking climate legislation, leaving the EPA in the position of having to regulate carbon emissions. Many Republicans in Congress are unhappy with the EPA and are now claiming the EPA regulation of CO2 is a “power grab”.

Progress has been limited at the climate meetings in Copenhagen and in Cancun because the U.S. has not acted to restrict its carbon emissions. The U.S. is second to China  in emissions but emits six times as much CO2 on a per capita basis. If the U.S. is not willing to reduce its emissions, why should other countries?  The U.S. came very close to passing cap-an-trade but it failed when John McCain (R Az) backed out of the deal because of a challenge from a far right candidate in the last election. Reducing CO2 emissions has been cast as a liberal issue and many conservatives oppose it for that reason. The wins by Republicans in the last election almost insure that action on a responsible policy will be delayed by at least two years. That is a shame as many Republicans in the past have been strong supporters of the environmental issues.

The Republican leadership adopted opposition to environmental regulations as a campaign strategy. They sent out propaganda based on slick reports produced by conservative think tanks, rather than science, and they inflated the cost of environmental legislation by a factor of twenty – while not mentioning any of the benefits. The propaganda has been passed along to voters in town hall meeting and press releases. The EPA has used science as a basis for its decisions and has moved to limit CO2 emissions as an air pollutant under existing regulations in the Clean Air Act. This has infuriated many Republicans anfd they have challenged the EPA’s right to do, calling it a “power grab”.

My Congressman,  Frank Lucas (R-OK), has spoken disparagingly of environmental regulations in his town hall meetings and in opinion pieces he has sent to the states major newspapers. He also writes a column that goes to many small town newspapers called “Frankly Speaking”. In his column, he has  labelled the EPA’s actions to limit carbon emissions as  “the EPA power grab” . That is hardly the case. The Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, found the Environmental Protection Agency could make a determination as to whether carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The EPA has found, based on the best scientific evidence, that CO2 is an endangerment to public health and has moved forward to regulate it.

If Congress had acted to develop a sound energy policy and to curb pollution, the  EPA would not be forced to act in the matter. Regulations passed to limit carbon emissions would fall mainly on the coal industry and would favor a shift in the short term to petroleum and natural gas, both abundant in Oklahoma. Many from the petroleum and gas industries originally supported the cap-and -trade bill. However, all the OK Republican Congressmen sat out the process and let the Democrats from coal producing states load up the cap-and-trade bill with perks for coal producing states. Some of  Oklahoma’s industrial leaders see that limiting carbon emissions could be favorable to the Oklahoma economy, but apparently, the elected representatives have not caught on yet.

And, it is not just about the CO2 or climate change. Along with the 30 billion tons of CO2 we put into the air annually are large amounts of mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and radioactive isotopes of radon. Those end up in the air, the water, and the food chain. We are now finding mercury in fish and some places, even in Oklahoma, have limits on consumption. The oceans are now 20% more acidic and economically important fisheries are threatened. Whether we cap pollution, tax it, or strictly regulate it – something must be done and soon. The EPA regulation is a stop gap meaure and the U.S. Congress needs to stop the politics and pass a sound energy policy and meaningful environmental regulations.

(C) 2010 J.C. Moore

Liberals and conservatives must work together to establish a balance between expanding our liberties and preserving the valuable things from our past.

There should be moderation in all things, except perhaps love and fishing. Moderates have become concerned lately about the divide between “Conservatives” and “Liberals” in today’s politics. Sound decision-making must be based on evidence and reason and not on ideologies. It seems Conservatives and Liberals tend to bash each other across a divide that cannot be bridged by reason. Some use “liberal” to mean “evil and without values” and the other side uses “conservative” to mean “ignorant and selfish”. Calling each other names accomplishes little and tends to cut off any rational discussion.  Ideas and issues must be dealt with as they are without attaching labels that vilify the other side.

Part of the problem is that the meanings of Liberal and Conservative have changed throughout history. Conservatives were at one time those who defended the Divine Rights of clergy and monarchs. Liberals opposed the idea making them seem evil, at least to despots and authoritarians. Today,

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, “of freedom”) is the belief in the importance of liberty and equality.  Liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state.(1)

That doesn’t sound so evil. And,

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, “to preserve”) is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and opposes rapid change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity while others oppose modernism and seek a return to “the way things were.” (1)

As you can see, the words are not opposites. Canada for many years had a Progressive Conservative party and Europe once had a Liberal Conservative party. Many of the things today’s Conservatives wish to preserve such as constitutions, liberty, fair elections, human rights, and capitalism are a part of Liberalism. And, most Conservatives do not oppose change – just rapid change. They seek stability and continuity as we change and that is a good thing. Besides, the words are not mutually exclusive. It is quite possible for a person to be conservative on some issue and liberal on others, such as being socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

However, the Conservatives who oppose all change or who wish to “ return to the past” may have a problem. The world is rapidly changing and some adjustments must be made. Those who wish to return to the simplicity of the time of our Founding Fathers may wish to rethink that.  Conservatives, at that time, were considered Tories and they were not at all popular in the early States.

Ambrose Bierce, to be fair, defines a Conservative as “the statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. “ That’s cynical, but replace “evil” with ‘policies”  and it contains a bit of wisdom.  It expresses the tension between the two sides.  The world needs both liberals and conservatives working together to establish a balance between expanding our liberties and preserving the valuable things from our past. Liberals and Conservatives, rather than polarizing issues, need to work together and it is bad policy for either side to demonize the other.

(1) Wikipedia

(2) The Devil’s Dictionary

(c) 2010 J.C. Moore