Switchboard, from NRDC

Weekly Web Roundup: Energy Star, FutureGen, jellyfish

2009-07-03T14:30:00Z

The House passes the energy and climate bill.
The EPA grants a landmark California emissions waiver.
Researchers and activists say water should be a basic human right.
More than 800 animal and plant species have gone extinct in the past five centuries.
Japan fears massive jellyfish invasion.
ExxonMobil continues to fund climate skeptic groups.
Two major power companies are pulling out of FutureGen.
Sears Tower gets a $350 million green makeover.
The U.N. is using social media for climate treaty inspiration; it launched the Twitter-like site, Hopenhagen.
Great Lakes wolves are back on the endangered species list.
Study warns that Louisiana's coastline could be underwater by 2100.
The EPA's Energy Star 5.0 specification went into effect this week.
Judge overturns Bush administration change to a rule designed to protect the northern spotted owl from logging in northern forests.
A rough term in the Supreme Court for environmentalists draws to a close.

Think I missed anything really great? Feel free to share it in the comments section. Want news updates every day? Check out my colleague Ben Jervey's blog on Greenlight.

President Obama: Go See the Mountains, Then Save Them

2009-07-03T14:00:00Z

(Photo by J. Henry Fair)

It is a national shame that mining companies are allowed to blast America's oldest mountains to smithereens -- all for the sake of dirty coal. Indeed, it is unfathomable that here in America, where the Adirondacks are adored and the Rockies are revered, that the Appalachian Mountains -- older than the Himalayas and so integral to our nation's heritage -- are steadily being reduced to lifeless moonscapes. Make no mistake about it: mountaintop removal coal mining is the worst ongoing environmental tragedy our country has ever endured. The question is whether the Obama administration will finally put a stop to it.

In the Washington Post today, NRDC attorney Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. urged President Obama to end the Appalachian apocalypse, saying: "[G]overnment claims of doing everything possible to halt the holocaust are simply not true. George Bush gutted Clean Water Act protections. Obama must restore them."

Indeed, for too long our elected leaders have allowed mining companies to get away with using dynamite to literally blow the peaks right off of our mountains to get at thin cake layer-like seams of coal underneath, and then fill the valleys and streams below with the mining waste. The scars of this destructive practice can be seen up and down Appalachia, where 500 mountains, covering roughly a million acres, have already been flattened -- eviscerating breathtaking landscapes, wiping out lush forests along with wildlife habitat, burying pristine valley streams under tons of rubble, polluting the air with coal ash and poisoning drinking water with toxic contaminates, and ravaging the lives of residents throughout the region.

Adding insult to injury, mountains that took hundreds of millions of years to form can be flattened in months through this highly mechanized process, which enables coal companies to employ fewer workers for far less time than other types of mining. Despite the coal industry's claims, the vast majority of desolate wasteland resulting from the mining can never be reclaimed to natural standards, nor has much of the open space spurred economic development.

Recently, senior administration officials weighed into the fray over mountaintop removal with a policy announcement that fell short of the only sensible solution -- an immediate end to the world's most destructive mining. More of a promise than a policy, federal officials from several regulatory agencies announced "unprecedented steps" aimed at reducing the environmental impacts of mountaintop removal in the six Appalachian states of Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Perhaps this tepid course of action actually will make it harder for mining companies to evade "streamlined" environmental review when seeking permits to blow up mountains. For the most part, however, the new policy fits the administration's preferred approach to this controversial mining: mixing strong words with weak action. Hardly unprecedented, these modest bureaucratic measures are quite frankly inadequate. Citizens living in the coalfields of Appalachia deserve justice, not vague assurances about tighter permit reviews that ultimately will allow this abhorrent mining practice to proceed largely unchecked.

The science is clear: mountaintop removal devastates ecosystems, harms communities, and undermines long-term economic prospects for the entire region. Searching for environmentally acceptable mountaintop removal, which the Obama administration has not ruled out, is futile. This administration promised a science-based environmental policy and that is impossible to square with mountaintop removal. Nor does this extreme strip mining fit within the framework of clean energy solutions to the climate crisis.

With the stroke of a pen, President Obama can stop the devastation by undoing the so-called "fill" rule adopted by the Bush administration in 2002 that gives the Army Corps of Engineers the authority to permit coal companies to use streams as waste dumps. Despite the suggestions by Obama officials that the federal government cannot prevent mountaintop removal mining under current law, the fact is that the administration could decide by regulation not to treat coal mine waste as "fill material" -- thus preventing the Corps of Engineers from permitting the discharge of mountaintop removal wastes into valley streams. Moreover, the president could lend his support for bi-partisan bills in Congress right now -- the Clean Water Protection Act in the House and the Appalachia Restoration Act in the Senate -- that would help halt mountaintop removal.

As dirty and dangerous as it is, coal may be part of our foreseeable energy future, but that doesn't mean we should let mining companies get away with leveling the Appalachians, clear-cutting some of the most biologically diverse forests in the world, obliterating streams, and polluting drinking water. Nor should they be allowed to destroy the quality of life for those who make their home in the region.

How many more mountains must fall and how much longer must our fellow Americans suffer before our leaders take bold and decisive action to preserve Appalachian homes, health and heritage? Now is the time for our nation to stop mountaintop removal and invest in clean, renewable energy sources that will safely and efficiently fuel our future. That is the change we need and we cannot afford to wait much longer for it.

Following last week's historic vote on landmark climate legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, President Obama had this to say:

"The American people have made their choice. They expect us to move forward right now at this moment of great challenge, and stake our claim on the future -- a stronger, cleaner, and more prosperous future where we meet our obligations to our citizens, our children, and to God's creation -- and where the United States of America leads once again."

The president is right about all that, and I especially applaud him for invoking the importance of caring for creation. Certainly he would agree then that only God should move mountains -- not man-made mega-sized earth moving machines.

So, Mr. President, we urge you to back your words with real action by dispatching top administration officials to Appalachia to see firsthand what they've pledged to regulate. Better yet, go see the destruction yourself. The region is just a short drive from Washington, D.C. or even a quicker flight. Simply hop in the Marine One helicopter or divert Air Force One to fly over the seemingly endless moonscapes that once were mountains. I know from personal experience that seeing is believing -- afterwards I'm confident that you will say "Yes We Can" end mountaintop removal coal mining. Yes, you will.

WSJ: McMansions aren’t what they used to be

2009-07-03T13:18:05Z

In an article published in The Wall Street Journal on June 29, June Fletcher reports a new survey showing that large houses have fallen out of favor with the American homebuying market:

"A new study out Monday by the American Institute of Architects shows that Americans have fallen out of love with McMansions. The 500 residential architects surveyed said that only 4% of their clients wanted more square footage in their homes this year, compared to 16% last year.

"This desire isn't surprising, given both the recession and the fact that the most recent U.S. Census shows that there are 77 million people in the "empty-nester" phase of life, from ages 45 to 64, and 61 million in the first-time buyer category, from 20 to 34 . . .

"A survey released this month by the National Association of Home Builders shows that the average home started during the first quarter of 2009 was 2,335 square feet, down from 2,629 square feet during the second quarter of 2008. And 59% of builders surveyed in May by the trade association said that they are planning on building smaller homes in the coming year. Only 1% reported that they would be building bigger homes."

NAHB, perhaps unsurprisingly, claims that the downturn in the McMansion market will be temporary, related only to the recession. But longer-term demographic forecasts portend otherwise, as a larger share of US households will be smaller and childless over the next few decades than has been the case in the recent past.

Fletcher notes that denser housing patterns will require zoning changes in much of American suburbia. But she also cites a story in this month's Urban Land to the effect that several big suburban builders, including K. Hovnanian, KB Homes and Toll Brothers, have started divisions for building urban housing, while other companies have started to convert failed suburban shopping malls, office parks, car dealerships and even golf courses into denser mixed-used buildings.

Kaid Benfield writes (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment. For more posts, see his blog's home page.

Chicago River: From open sewer to crown jewel?

2009-07-03T00:05:55Z

This year marks the 100th anniversary of Daniel Burnham’s iconic Plan of Chicago. The Plan re-imagined the American industrial city, identifying and prioritizing open space, cultivation of natural areas, and public access to water resources as keystones for the City’s health and quality of life. We are all the richer for this vision of how to integrate the natural and built environments into a rich urban ecosystem. From the Plan comes the parks, tree lined boulevards, and, most notably, Chicago’s glorious Lake Michigan shoreline.

And while the “open, free and clear” Chicago Lake front is a central part of our inheritance from the Burnham Plan, the vision for the City’s second shoreline---that of the Chicago River---has yet to be fully realized. The Chicago River is an essential part of Chicago’s identity, and but for the River, it is unlikely that the City would have risen to be a major metropolis. (See, e.g., William Cronon, Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West, p. 23).

The front page of Sunday’s Chicago Tribune featured a look at the waterway, in which architecture critic Blair Kamin notes:

Chicago was born by the river and named for the wild onion plants that once thrived on its banks. But in the boom years of the 19th Century, businessmen turned the river into an artery of commerce and a sewer for dumping industrial waste. The river became a forbidding trench, an "On the Waterfront" landscape of piers, bulkheads and bollards for tying up ships. Buildings turned their backs to it.

Today, our view of the river has changed, and the opportunity to recover it as an environmental amenity, incorporating nature, culture and commerce in accord with the vision of the Burnham Plan is within our reach. But several things need to be done.

Kamin’s excellent feature looked at the $22 million dollar riverwalk extension project which is the culmination of a long-term, multigenerational commitment to turn the river into another beautiful amenity for Chicagoans. Just as the lakefront provides gorgeous open parkland along the eastern edge of the City, the river has always offered visionaries from Burnham’s generation a way to extend that greenery into the heart of the City and its neighborhoods.

You need only look at the stretch of river where NRDC’s new Chicago office sits to see how this evolution of thinking has played out. Two buildings built in 1929 face each other, but deal with the river in completely opposite ways. On the east side of the river stands the Civic Opera House, which was built with its back to the river (as much of the river front building had resolutely done up to that time). NRDC’s office is on the west bank of the river in the old Chicago Daily News Building (now called 2 N. Riverside Plaza), a building that took a different view of the river---the modern view of the river as an amenity, and stepping back to create a broad, open plaza, facing directly onto the river and embracing its shores with a public space and built-in water taxi stands.

Over the years, the embrace of the river has gained support. Development along the river in both the central business district and in the neighborhoods has increased dramatically, and in recent decades use of the river itself for something other than an open sewer for industrial and other waste has seen dramatic increases. From my window on the river, there never seems to be a point where the waters are not being plied by a water taxi, pleasure boat, or even the occasional rowing team. Canoes and kayaks are a common sight on the north and south branches of the river---and even the central branch which runs through the heart of the Loop is a boating destination.

But while the City and residents have embraced the river, the governmental agency responsible for the waterway continues to turn its back to the river and consider it an open sewer. I am talking about the interestingly named Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD). It is an independent government authority, with taxing authority, an elected board, and the responsibility of overseeing waste water issues in Cook County, Illinois. It is clearly the biggest roadblock to fulfilling the vision of the City of Chicago to transform this once blighted river into a highly valued part of the urban environment, contributing to the quality of life of the City and its region.

You see, the MWRD is polluting the river with human waste. And putting all those on its waters in harms way.

The MWRD owns and operate sewage treatment facilities along the Chicago River that dump undisinfected sewage into the river waters. Both the City of Chicago and State of Illinois have urgently called upon the District to stop dumping of this polluted sewage into the river and the state has proposed regulations prohibiting it. Civic advocates, including NRDC, have pressed hard for adoption of the regulations by the Illinois Pollution Control Board. Yet the MWRD continues to release harmful viruses and bacteria associated with un-disinfected sewage into the river that flows past homes, parks, businesses, boats and swimmers. Instead of complying with the regulations proposed by the Illinois EPA, MWRD is pouring millions of taxpayer dollars into fighting them.

Certainly, disinfecting billions of gallons of effluent will come with costs. But they are significantly less than one would expect---dwarfed, in fact, by the continued real estate investment and recreation time being spent along the waterway.

The Trib puts the investment into proper perspective, returning to that vision of the River as an extension of Chicago’s lakefront:

One might have reacted with cynicism in 1909 when, in the Plan of Chicago, Daniel Burnham urged Chicago's leaders to turn their chopped-up assortment of lakefront parks into a sparkling and continuous public space. Yet for the last 100 years, completing that vision has been Chicago's grand civic project. For the next 100 years, in the downtown and beyond, the city has its work cut out for it: turning the riverfront into an equally great public space.

Absolutely correct, Mr. Kamin!

The city’s embrace of Lake Michigan is world-renown. And the Chicago River could extend that grand vision INTO the city itself. But MWRD’s dumping will prevent this vision from coming to fruition (even as the City and State push them to act otherwise). Until the District modernizes its management of the River, and adopts disinfection practices standard in civilized communities, the people and environment of Chicago will suffer, and their taxes used to defend a wholly out-of-date approach to public health and resist modernization.

Perhaps the saddest result of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District’s small-thinking is not that the citizens of Chicago will be prevented from fully enjoying the fruits of investments already made on the riverfront---but that a broader City-changing vision of the riverfront could be prevented from ever coming into existence.

Under the Michigan Avenue Bridge 2 image by jmogs via Flickr

LIVE COVERAGE of July 7th Senate testimony on clean energy and climate legislation

2009-07-02T16:56:50Z

NRDC's David Hawkins is among the experts -- along with Energy Secretary Steven Chu, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and Agriculture Department Secretary Tom Vilsack -- scheduled to testify on Tuesday, July 7 before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

The committee, chaired by Barbara Boxer of California, will begin considering the issue of clean energy and climate legislation following last month's historic passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act by the U.S. House of Representatives. NRDC supported the bill, which would cap global warming pollution and create clean energy jobs, and has urged the Senate to strengthen and pass similar legislation.

Follow live coverage of the Senate testimony here on Switchboard.

&lt;a href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php?option=com_mobile&amp;task=viewaltcast&amp;altcast_code=e87951c2c9" mce_href="http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php?option=com_mobile&amp;amp;task=viewaltcast&amp;amp;altcast_code=e87951c2c9" &gt;NRDC's David Hawkins Testifies to Senate Committee on Clean Energy and Climate Legislation&lt;/a&gt;

The HydroAisen Mega Dam Project is Completely Unnecessary...and You Know What? So Are the Other Non-Renewable Energy Projects in Chile

2009-07-02T15:57:25Z

I am thrilled to announce the findings of a groundbreaking energy study that shows the HydroAisen mega-dam project is completely unnecessary! Today in Santiago, the Patagonia Defense Council, of which NRDC is a member, will launch an energy study, Are Dams Necessary in Patagonia? An Analysis of Chile's Energy Future, which will help further the debate about Chile's energy future. The timing could not be better as the Presidential candidates continue to vie for popularity among a growing majority of Chileans who disapprove of HydroAisen.

This study is a momentous achievement as we have been collaborating with Chilean partner organizations to protect Patagonia and promote sustainable energy policies in Chile for the past few years. When we first got involved in 2006, the HydroAisen project- five massive hydroelectric dams generating 2,750 MW of power and 18,430 GWh/year of electricity on two of Chile's wildest rivers in the Patagonia region- was framed as Chile's only opportunity to ensure that Chile economy would continue to grow and that there would be enough energy to supply Chile's growing demands. However, we never believed that destroying Patagonia would be the only way to satiate Chile's energy requirements. I am glad that we trusted our instinct and looked at the proposal with a critical eye as we were correct.

Last August a study was launched that took a hard look at Chile's energy matrix. This study found that renewable energy and energy efficiency should be considered a viable and important resource to supplying Chile's energy. Since this study's publication, the Environmental Review Assessment for the HydroAisen proposal was highly criticized and sent back for revisions; and, the Patagonia Defense Council recognized that in fact it could be proven that building destructive, massive hydroelectric dams are unnecessary considering Chile's other feasible and economically competitive opportunities.

Today, this new technical analysis, Are Dams Necessary in Patagonia? An Analysis of Chile's Energy Future, carried out by Chilean and Canadian energy experts definitively articulates that HydroAisen is completely uncalled for and superfluous. The study provides a thorough investigation of Chile's emerging portfolio of energy projects through 2025- Chile's existing energy profile, future projects that are already approved, and future supply and demand trends. Here are the study's key findings:

1. Even using conservative "Business as Usual" models, HydroAisen's output will be unneeded. By 2025, there will be more than enough energy generated between the projects currently under construction and already approved for development to supply all of Chile's demands without HydroAisen, and without taking any extra energy efficiency or renewable energy measures.

By the year 2025, Chile will require 22,736 MW and 105,560 GWh/year according to a business-as-usual scenario.
Considering only those projects currently approved by Chile's National Environmental Commission, there will be 23,143 MW and 124,626 GWh/year.
According to a more updated scenario, Chile will only require 18,452 MW
In either the "business-as-usual" scenario or the more updated one, integrating energy efficiency measures and renewable energy sources into the model results in a 23% supply surplus over the projected demand.

2. Chile's predicted energy demand growth published in April 2008 has decreased significantly due to the global economic recession. Before 2008, when the country experienced a robust economy, energy demand was estimated to grow at rates of 5.5% to 6.5% annually until 2025. Since the onset of the recession, many of Chile's key industries, such as mining and construction, have suffered, negatively affecting these rates. Chile's National Energy Commission has even readjusted its prediction for 2009 to a 2.1% growth from 4.7%. The result in the adjusted forecast is a reduction in the need for installed power by 4,000 MW.

3. The global recession provides a three-year window of opportunity during which Chile can reorient its entire national energy portfolio, enhancing its energy security, technological capital, and economic efficiency and environmental responsibility. Based on an energy study published in July 2008,* Chile possesses great potential in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. This 2009 analysis also finds that Chile's geography is particularly well-suited for solar and geothermal exploration. The results show that if measures are enacted soon to increase energy efficiency, 40% of the approved coal projects can be eliminated from Chile's future energy matrix. It also illustrates that if Chile invests in energy efficiency and renewable technologies now, the energy demand forecast for 2025 decreases to just 18,452 MW.

There are 2,719 MW and 12,799 GWh/year associated with renewable energy projects, mainly geothermal, biomass, wind, concentrated solar and photovoltaic energy
There are 3,041 MW and 19,817 GWh/year of identified opportunities in energy efficiency that are economically viable.

4. The successful implementation of efficiency and renewable technologies will depend on government policies and programs. The report highlights several specific measures that the government can take to increase their competitiveness in the market, including the need to increase the Renewable Energy Standard via Public Law 20.257 from 10% to 25% in 2025. It also encourages developing and implementing minimum energy efficiency standards, a framework for integrated planning and resource development, and a plan to modernize the electric grid.

5. The costs of investing in HydroAisen are far greater than investing in a diverse portfolio of efficiency and renewable energy projects. In a life cycle analysis of the total costs, energy efficiency and renewable energy are more competitive than the dams and other conventional forms of energy. Moreover, the assertion that the only plausible choices are the HydroAisen project and coal fired plants, which are both environmentally harmful, is false. The better solution is to diversify Chile's energy matrix with economically viable energy efficient practices and renewable energy projects.

Therefore, there is no need for the HydroAisen dam project to satiate Chile's energy demands.

The Are Dams Necessary in Patagonia? An Analysis of Chile's Energy Future study was carried out by Stephen Hall, an energy consultant from Canada with extensive experience in Chile, and Professor Roberto Roman of the University of Chile, a leading expert on renewable energy, and his team. The study was overseen and financially supported by the Patagonia Defense Council. NRDC and the Patagonia Foundation also provided funding for the study.

Stephen Colbert Slams Supreme Court for Terrible Toxic 'Fill' Ruling

2009-07-02T13:40:13Z

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court made a dreadful decision to allow the dumping of toxic gold mine waste into a pristine Alaskan lake. The court deemed this pollution allowable as "fill material" under the Clean Water Act.

Well, last night on The Colbert Report, the hilarious host pilloried the Supremes for its ridiculous ruling in his segment "Judge, Jury and Executioner."

Watch the clip (the piece starts at the 1:51 minute mark):

Unless the Obama administration fixes the fraudulant 'fill rule' imposed by the Bush administration back in 2002, we might as well start calling the nation's premier environmental protection law the Clean Watered Down Act.

They are stardust. They are golden. But are they right about “shrinking cities”?

2009-07-02T13:32:50Z

Warning: this is a long one.

Readers of a certain age will remember Joni's Mitchell's iconic anthem "Woodstock," celebrating the famous 1969 music festival (which, incidentally, she did not attend, but I digress). The song became a monster hit for Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young (who did attend) in 1970. Its chorus, propelled by the group's trademark high harmonies, called us to get "back to the garden":

We are stardust

We are golden

And we've got to get ourselves back to the gar-ar-arrrr-ar-arr-ar-dennn . . .

It was, and is, a fantastic song. But it is not, I repeat not, a reliable environmental solution to urban problems. Unfortunately, it does fairly characterize where a lot of the environmental movement's sentiment and energy was in the 1970s when we, pretty much like everyone else, vilified cities and romanticized the countryside. I remember that, when NRDC founded its urban program in the mid-1980s, it was actually an unusual thing for an environmental group to do.

What we didn't realize then, but now do (a lot of us, anyway), is that auto-dependent sprawl with solar panels and compost is still, well, auto-dependent sprawl. And that compact, walkable cities, suburbs, and towns are not the problem but the solution.

The push to reclaim large parts of "shrinking cities" for nature

Which brings me to something that is becoming all the rage with a certain stardust-tinged segment of the planning world: re-vegetating older, industrial "shrinking cities" with green space where vacant properties and isolated occupied homes now stand. Let's clear the debris of vacant houses and lots, the argument goes, and turn their spaces into gardens and natural areas, since the economies of Detroit, Buffalo, Baltimore and the like can't support repopulation. In other words, just as some of us had finally convinced the environmental movement of the terrific value of cities in reducing per-capita environmental impacts, along comes a movement to de-urbanize cities.

I noted my concern with this strategy last month in a post about Detroit, which has been presented with a plan by an architects' study group to do exactly that. (See image: everything outside the designated "centers" would be proposed for greenways or reserved as "opportunity areas" for potential agriculture.)

My post led to a thoughtful rebuttal from Jason King (who had been part of the study group) on his own blog, Landscape+Urbanism. (Blog vs. blog - am I 21st century or what?) I should add that I am a regular reader of King's commentary and always find it provocative and beautifully illustrated if sometimes not quite as urbanist as I might like. His point here is that it is only realistic to consider "shrinking cities" for what they are, and find an approach that responds to their new paradigm. King, who is a landscape architect, seems quite enamored of the "shrinking cities" idea, having blogged about it four times in the last three weeks.

At least King says he isn't the source of the report in the Detroit Free Press (quoted here) that "the committee suggests that Detroit could recreate itself as a 21st-Century version of the English countryside." (Apparently that comes from another thoughtful and nice guy on the team, Alan Mallach, with whom I have had the pleasure of serving on a now-defunct AIA committee. But really.)

It's gaining traction but, fortunately, some neighborhoods will escape

The idea is definitely catching on, reportedly even in the Obama administration. An article by Tom Leonard in the London-based Telegraph, headlined "US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive," puts it this way:

"Dozens of US cities may have entire neighbourhoods bulldozed as part of drastic 'shrink to survive' proposals being considered by the Obama administration to tackle economic decline.

"The government is looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint (MI), one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature . . .

"The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint.

"Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

"Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes . . ."

I should note here that Jennifer Leonard of the National Vacant Properties Campaign, who has been working with Dan Kildee, says that he was mispresented by this article and actually wants to do something more limited than the article suggests. I hope so, and I'll get to that toward the end of this post. Looking at ways to "shrink" neighborhoods in fifty cities? Yikes.

Look, maybe there's a happy medium somewhere. Appropriately-sized neighborhood green space can be great for cities and their residents. But I for one am really, really glad this idea didn't have traction a decade or two ago, when it easily could have led to the demolition of vacant houses and properties in such wonderful, now-recovering neighborhoods as Old North Saint Louis (photo of new farmer's market above), Boston's Dudley Street, or even Cincinnati's Over-the-Rhine, now poised to become a national model of revitalization done well. Every one of those terrific neighborhoods could have been subjected to the same logic, since they all suffered serious decline and depopulation in weak-market regions before things began to turn around in recent years.

We won't solve the problem without addressing the cause

I also wish the turning-cities-back-to-nature crowd would give at least some mention to a major reason why these places now have vacant properties: the flight of investment and population to the metro fringe. Everyone is saying or implying that it is all the decline of the industrial economy, but it's not that simple. Most of these regions are not, in fact, declining in population much or at all: The metro areas of Detroit, Baltimore and Boston all grew from 1990 to 2003. Metro Baltimore and Boston continued to grow in the 2000s; metro Detroit did decline between 2000 and 2008, but only by six-tenths of one percent. Areas like Rochester and Syracuse, frequently put in the "shrinking city" column, also basically have been holding steady in the 2000s. There are indeed regions that are shrinking, some in the Rust Belt, but almost none by more than five percent (Pine Bluff, Arkansas is one of the exceptions).

So, yes, some central cities have depopulated badly (though even within the central city limits the rate of loss generally appears to be slowing), but most of their regions have continued to sprawl. I haven't reviewed the most recent statistics but, in the 1980s and 1990s, Pittsburgh grew in developed land six times faster than in population; Boston five times faster; Chicago and Cleveland four times faster; Baltimore 2.5 times faster; and so on. Greater Buffalo grew by 50 percent in developed land between 1982 and 1996, even while experiencing no growth at all in population; the metro regions of Detroit and Rochester grew in developed land by 20 percent and 16 percent, respectively, even while shrinking slightly in population during that period.

Viewed from this perspective, the problem is not one of much if any real metro area depopulation but mainly the changed geographic distribution of that population as regions have failed to address sprawl. That is a problem that needs fixing. Converting large amounts of currently urban land "back to the garden" without also addressing sprawl will only ensure that any further population shifts or recovery will occur in favor of the fringe, where the per-capita environmental damage is the greatest.

Regional problems need regional solutions

Put another way, if you're a doctor with a patient suffering from trauma and blood loss, first you stop the bleeding. Then you proceed to surgery, if necessary. But so far no one is suggesting anything of the sort. So many well-minded people remain trapped in the artificial jurisdictional straitjacket that looks only within the central municipality's borders, ignoring the reality that the larger region is where the deeper solutions lie.

The president himself has acknowledged that 21st-century challenges are more regional than municipal, in a 2008 campaign address on "the new metropolitan reality":

"It's not just our cities that are hotbeds of innovation anymore, it's those growing metro areas. It's not just Durham or Raleigh - it's the entire Research Triangle. It's not just Palo Alto, it's cities up and down Silicon Valley . . .

"To seize the possibility of this moment, we need to promote strong cities as the backbone of regional growth. And yet, Washington remains trapped in an earlier era, wedded to an outdated 'urban' agenda that focuses exclusively on the problems in our cities, and ignores our growing metro areas; an agenda that confuses anti-poverty policy with a metropolitan strategy, and ends up hurting both . . .

"Yes, we need to strengthen our cities. But we also need to stop seeing our cities as the problem and start seeing them as the solution. Because strong cities are the building blocks of strong regions, and strong regions are essential for a strong America. That is the new metropolitan reality and we need a new strategy that reflects it . . ."

Moreover, some of these "shrinking" central cities are just now beginning to show a few signs of potential. While central cities in weak-market areas are still claiming an unfortunately small share of overall metro growth, it is worth noting that their share of that growth has been increasing from the 1990s to the 2000s. Cities where this has occurred include Baltimore, Milwaukee, Providence, Rochester, Saint Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and even Detroit, among others. This is not the time to surrender their potential to the suburbs.

A happy medium?

Now, I'm OK with converting smaller tracts of vacant and derelict land into urban green space, which could turn out to be a net plus for all concerned, and maybe that's where the happy medium comes in. Appropriately scaled parks for walkable neighborhoods are great for a lot of reasons, not least because they can support future investment and development.

And I'm definitely OK with targeting public urban investment to nodes within a city that have the most potential to recover, as suggested some time back by Joe Schilling of Virginia Tech and the National Vacant Properties Campaign. It makes some sense to engage those neighborhoods first and then, if there are results, move to additional areas. The article in which Joe's thoughts are cited points to a very successful program in Richmond (example, photo left) that has demonstrated the viability of targeting.

But going ambitiously after 50 inner cities to address supposed depopulation issues with land conversion while most of them are in regions that are relatively stable or growing? And doing nothing about the sprawl that is a major source of the problem? Good heavens.

I'm not alone

Having done a little research, I am relieved to learn at least that I am not the only one who thinks we should proceed very cautiously with re-purposing these neighborhoods and direct our attention to the entire region, not just the central city. Richard Layman is another writer that I read regularly, in his blog Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space:

"Because I think that the dynamics of urban decline and the possibilities for revitalization are more nuanced . . . the 'solution' offered by Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County north of Detroit, as recounted in the story, 'US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive,' [linked above] is too harsh and can't be applied categorically . . .

"Cities that have relied on manufacturing will have to shrink somehow. But the real issue is continued outmigration and expansion and greater utilization of land per capita in metropolitan areas. In short, metropolitan regions continue to expand significantly, at rates greater than that generated by population growth."

Mathieu Helie, writing on the blog Emergent Urbanism, is another skeptic who believes the proposed solutions need to be better considered:

"If we embrace complexity, then the randomly sized pockets of open land are an exceptional opportunity to renew the city of Detroit. They form a fractal solution set to new construction that many different people can participate in and contribute to. It can accommodate small, medium-size and eventually large-size businesses in close proximity with diverse housing and convenient transportation structures . . ."

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Gregory Rodriguez's views come close to my own:

"The plan makes sense on some level, but it's disturbing on another. Anyone who's driven by miles of empty lots in Detroit knows that urban demolition does more than destroy blight. It also erases history and what a city was. Traces of the past have always been jumping-off places for the next chapter (think rehabbed Victorians or sleek post-industrial lofts). And, of course, the back-to-nature plan -- which could be used in cities such as Memphis, Baltimore, Philadelphia and others -- is fundamentally an admission and may be an assurance that these cities will never rise again."

More hopeful models

There are other, more hopeful models. Roberta Brandes Gratz, author of Cities Back from the Edge and The Living City, points on Citiwire to Wilkinsburg, a one-time streetcar suburb of Pittsburgh that has suffered major abandonment of both residential and commercial properties. The city is now benefiting from an innovative public-private-nonprofit partnership that is renovating vacant historic properties, resulting in the first home sales in the area in years.

In Buffalo, the West Side community, much like Boston's Dudley Street before it, is taking control of its own destiny, going directly to problem property owners or instituting legal proceedings to buy vacant properties cheaply and resell them at bargain prices to local buyers willing to repair and occupy them. Gratz writes that community volunteers are also painting over graffiti, cleaning out rubble lots, crowding out drug dealers and prostitutes by strategically working with the police, planting trees, fixing sidewalks, mowing lawns and anything else to show their determination and caring. Houses are now selling; new people are moving in; and leaders from other Buffalo neighborhoods are seeking advice on how to develop a similar strategy.

As the National Vacant Properties Campaign says on its website, "this is usable land already connected to urban infrastructure. For metropolitan areas looking to accommodate growth without consuming the surrounding countryside, these properties amount to a large reservoir of land for well-planned development." Most of these areas are still growing in the surrounding countryside.

Before publishing this post, I contacted Jennifer Leonard of the Campaign, who believes land banking is a very useful tool for dealing with vacant structures and tracts. Land banking allows a community to gain control of, consolidate, and hold troubled properties while planning for the community's future and potential recovery; a form of the practice was immensely helpful in assisting the recovery of Dudley Street in Boston.

Dan Kildee has gained a national reputation for his use of the technique in Flint, and Jennifer assures me that land banking, not wholesale conversion of urban parcels back to nature, is Kildee's real aim for "shrinking cities." I hope that turns out to be the case, though I have a fear that, if banked land is used for gardening and green space even "temporarily," communities will never welcome development on those parcels. As a result, we basically risk creating a fragmented countryside with suburban/rural densities (see rendering developed for inner-city Cleveland, above) in the center of a region. We will see.

Meanwhile, Roberta Brandes Gratz makes her central point most eloquently:

"One is hard pressed to find a city or even a neighborhood that was ever regenerated through demolition of vacant buildings. Didn't we learn of the hollow results from the discredited post-World War II urban renewal policies that destroyed - and for decades left bereft - vast tracks of troubled residential structures?"

Let's at least slow down

To all this, I would add only that a major recession is probably the worst possible time to draw conclusions about a neighborhood's - or a city's, or a region's - long-term potential for recovery. At least let's give it a wait before making long-term land use decisions that take developable inner-city land off the table, OK? And let's not use a sledgehammer to perform what probably should be delicate surgery.

Plant a neighborhood garden or create a neighborhood-scaled park? Absolutely. And enjoy it. But turn large tracts of city land "back to the garden" without also curbing sprawl on the edge? I'm not convinced.

You can still enjoy the song, though. This is a relatively recent, jazzy version by Joni:

Kaid Benfield writes (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment. For more posts, see his blog's home page.

Appalachia's Own 'Resource Curse'?

2009-07-01T19:00:32Z

Pollution and poverty caused by the development of oil reserves have deprived tens of million of Nigerians their basic human rights, according to Amnesty International, which calls oil a "resource curse" for the region.

"People living in the Niger Delta have to drink, cook with, and wash in polluted water; they eat fish contaminated with oil and other toxins -- if they are lucky enough to still be able to find fish," Amnesty says in its new report.

Replace "oil development in Nigeria" with "mountaintop removal in Appalachia" and it's easy to see the eerie similarities.

Consider that coal mining costs Appalachians five times more in early deaths as the industry provides to the region in jobs, taxes and other economic benefits. This is according to a new study which finds that coal is more a curse than blessing for the region.

"Coal-mining economies are not strong economies," said West Virginia University researcher Michael Hendryx, who co-authored the study. He added that coalfield communities "are weaker than the rest of the state, weaker than the rest of the region, and weaker than the rest of the nation."

According to the study, the coal industry generates a little more than $8 billion a year in economic benefits for the Appalachian region. However, the conservative estimate of coal's costs -- in terms of the value of premature deaths attributable to the mining industry across the Appalachian coalfields -- comes to $42 billion.

(In estimating economic benefits, the study notes that the number of coal miners in Appalachia declined from 122,102 to 53,509 between 1985 and 2005, largely due to a corresponding increase in mechanized mining practices like mountaintop removal, which requires fewer employees than underground mining per ton mined.)

Bottom line: The human cost of the Appalachian coal mining economy outweighs its economic benefits, according to the study.

Read the full study online at: www.publichealthreports.org. It concludes that:

"The reliance on coal mining in some areas of Appalachia constitutes a de facto economic policy: coal is mined because it is present and because there is a market for it. However, other economic policies could be developed if reliance on this resource was not in the best interest of the local population."

The study identifies these potential alternative employment opportunities: development of renewable energy from wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, or hydropower sources; sustainable timber; small-scale agriculture; outdoor or culturally oriented tourism; technology; and ecosystem restoration.

Hendryx's research builds on his previous work that found excess premature deaths in coal counties compared to other counties in Appalachia. Those other studies, which were also published in peer-reviewed journals, found that residents of coal-producing counties are more likely to suffer from chronic heart, lung and kidney diseases, more likely to be hospitalized for certain health problems that are connected to coal pollution, and more likely to contract lung cancer and generally suffer from excess numbers of premature deaths. The new study, it should be noted, only makes casual link, acknowledging that "[d]espite the significant associations between coal-mining activity and both socio-economic disadvantage and premature mortality, it cannot be stated with certainty that coal-mining causes these problems." Future research by Hendryx will look into other possible explanations, including exposure to coal byproducts such as slurry leaching into water supplies or air pollution effects from mining and coal processing.

In addition to the health and quality of life impacts of mining-related pollution in Appalachia, another new study -- this one in Kentucky -- finds that the state spends more public money to support and subsidize the coal industry than it receives in state revenues from the industry. For 2006, spending exceeded revenues by an estimated $115 million.

This study, by the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED), concluded that the coal industry takes more than it gives economically. The underlying reason is that while industry generates state revenue from the coal taxes and creates employment, the costs associated with the industry are also substantial. For instance, Kentucky spends public money to:

address the industry's impacts on the road system
regulate the environmental and health and safety impacts
provide various tax breaks and subsidies
support coal worker training
conduct research and development for the industry
provide education about coal in the public schools
support the residents directly and indirectly employed by coal.

According to MACED:

"The industry's costs to the state are particularly concerning given its current economic role. While coal was once a major employer in Kentucky, jobs have declined substantially over time and the industry now makes up only 1 percent of state-wide employment. In those counties with the highest share of employment in coal, mining jobs range from 3 to 23 percent of local employment. But those counties struggle with significant long-term unemployment and poverty rates as high as 37 percent."

The study also paints a bleak outlook for the future of Kentucky coal. Not only has the state's coal fared poorly compared to western U. S. coal due to higher production costs, but official sources also project continued decline in production as the easily recoverable coal is depleted. Kentucky coal also will face new challenges in the coming years as aging coal-fired power plants meet retirement and new laws on carbon emissions raise the price of coal relative to cleaner alternatives. Those realities will also lessen Kentucky's historic advantage of low-price electricity.

"Kentucky and the nation face major challenges and important choices in the coming years regarding coal and energy policy," says MACED President Justin Maxson. "We must think carefully about how we will engage with the transition in front of us and make informed choices with a stronger accounting of the costs and benefits of our options."

Streets for seniors: a video look at issues and remedies

2009-07-01T17:04:48Z

Streetfilms has released a great short video about how our streets and traffic patterns pose particular challenges to senior citizens on foot. With the assistance of New York City's Transportation Alternatives, that city's impressive DOT has begun an earnest look at ways to address the problems. You don't have to be a street design geek like me to appreciate these issues, explained by ordinary citizens as well as by the conscientious public servants who are trying to respond:

On a related note, Streetfilms also has interesting short videos that show how London and San Francisco are beginning to give parts of streets previously consumed only by traffic back to people.

Kaid Benfield writes (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment. For more posts, see his blog's home page.

The New DOE Steps Up: New Lamp Standard Will Save More Energy Than Any Previous DOE Standard

2009-07-01T16:40:38Z

On Monday, President Obama and Secretary Chu announced a strengthened final rule on lamps that will save consumers $4 billion annually by 2022.

This standard would cover the tube fluorescent bulbs (general service fluorescent or GSFL) that we are all familiar with and the flat faced bulbs that fit into recessed can fixtures in many homes (incandescent reflector lamps or IRLs). I have blogged on the importance of this standard before and we asked our online activists to tell DOE to improve it. Thanks to the 9,800 of you who took the time to tell DOE to strengthen the proposed standard that left more than $25 billion in energy savings on the table. The final rule is much improved from the previous version.

The total savings from the new final rule are tremendous. In the coming decades we will save,

12.3 Quadrillion BTUs of energy or quads, enough to power all the homes in the country for a year and two months
$71 billion dollars
600 million metric tons of CO2, which could be worth an additional $26 billion in consumer savings
9.3 metric tons of mercury - This is enough mercury that if emitted all at once could contaminate 9 Lake Superiors

Not bad for a program with an annual budget of around $20 million and under court ordered deadlines. This particular standard was more than a decade out of date and subject to the deadlines that resulted from an NRDC lawsuit in 2006.

This is a good result in the first big rulemaking to come from the "new" DOE. We fully expect that when this Administration is able to complete their own analysis from start to finish (rather than picking up mid stream as they did in this rule) that the results will be even better.

As to the substance of the rule, the Department responded to the most significant requests made by NRDC and the efficiency community by strengthening the GSFL standard (moving from level 3 as proposed to level 4) and agreeing to close the "BR" loophole by which low cost products could avoid the requirements of the standard. BRs were a niche product (the same lamp in a slightly different glass case) that grew in sales as a result of their low price and exmeption from federal standards.

The GSFL rule will result in the elimination of older, larger, and less efficient T12s in favor of smaller T8s that fit in the same fixture and provide the same utility. The IRL rule will eliminate traditional incandescent reflector technology to be replaced by more advanced halogen infrared reflector technology. Users of these bulbs will not notice a difference.

Since it is my job to nitpick, there are a few things that could have been improved. For GSFL, the highest level of efficient lamps considered was shown to be cost effective (level 5, level 4 was selected). We think the concerns about level 5 (which would eliminate all but the best T8s) were largely overstated and the savings present at this level outweighed the costs. Even so, the lion's share of the savings were captured. In IRLs, the Department decided to allow "modified spectrum" lamps (those that are labeled as "soft" or "daylight") to be slightly less efficient than the standard lamps. We must be aware of the possibility for this to become a low cost loophole in the standard and monitor sales of these products accordingly.

Overall, a good rule from the Department that fell just short of great. The Department and their consultants did a incredible amount of analysis and they should be commended for that. This rule is extremely important and it was treated as such, and now consumers and the nation will benefit by saving money and energy.

The American Clean Energy Security Act (ACES) Creates More American Jobs and Saves Americans Money

2009-07-01T15:18:18Z

By passing the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), or H.R. 2454, the U.S. House of Representatives set the U.S. on a course to create millions of new clean energy jobs and save consumers money on their electric and transportation bills. I blogged previously on our findings regarding jobs, electricity bills and transportation bills. As the white paper that pulls it all together explains:

Combined with the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), ACES will help spur $150 billion in clean energy investments, which will create 1.7 million good-paying jobs throughout the United States.
Clean energy investments also create 5.5 times as many jobs accessible to workers with few educational credentials and little work experience, compared to fossil-fuel investments - 871,000 such jobs.
The average American household will save $6 per month on electricity bills under ACES. These modest savings are due to the bill's investments in and incentives for energy efficiency improvements, and also to the returning of 30% of allowance value back to consumers via regulated electric local distribution companies (LDCs.)
ACES works with other clean energy policies to cut household transportation bills $14 per month. ACES allocates funding to produce the next generation of clean, fuel-efficient vehicles in the United States, which will complement the clean vehicle performance standards adopted by the Obama Administration. As a result, the American on-road fleet will go about 25% further on a gallon of gas over the next decade, and by 2020 Americans will drive more efficient vehicles and have lower household transportation costs.

By harnessing market forces to create a better energy policy, the American Clean Energy and Security Act will create new jobs and save Americans money on their electric and transportation bills.

Environmentalism and Religion

2009-06-30T19:00:26Z

Jonathan Zasloff, an environmental law professor at UCLA, has an interesting post up at Legal Planet about the role of environmentalism and religion, a topic I’ve touched on here at Switchboard before. Zasloff is taking a course on Jewish theology and environmental consciousness. He writes:

But I’m taking the class because at this stage, I am somewhat skeptical of the general notion that religion can add much to environmental policy debates.

First, it seems to me that many of the crucial issues of modern environmentalism are not amenable to broad-based moral reasoning and intuition that religion can provide. Religious thinking has little to say about, for example, what is the appropriate amount of particulates that should be in the air, or whether climate change should be tackled by cap-and-trade, or a carbon tax, or command-and-control regulation.

So far as it goes, I think this is basically right. The problem is that Zasloff limits his focus on “policy debates.” It’s true, of course, that most religions won’t have much useful to say about “the appropriate amount of particulates in the air.” But that’s true of almost any policy debate. Religious tradition also won’t tell us much about whether providing the uninsured with health care is best tackled through a government managed single-payer system, the inclusion of a “public option” to compete with private health insurance plans, or competition among purely private plans. What religious tradition can contribute, however, is a belief about whether or not society should provide access to health care for all it’s citizens.

This is all pretty new for environmentalism--and pretty important. People steeped in religious tradition generally have well developed views about how their faith calls on them to treat other people. As a result, we may differ over how much government aide should be directed towards social welfare policies, or exactly what form those policies should take, but providing for the poor and destitute--and, I would argue, the general consensus that society has a moral obligation to do so--is deeply rooted in the “broad-based moral reasoning and intuition that religion can provide.”

Not so when it comes to our obligation to the natural world. There are philosophical and ethical values inherent in environmentalism, of course, as well as a rich tradition of environmental thinkers from Thoreau to Leopold, but mainstream religious theology has, until relatively recently, been something of a bit player in its development. That this is now changing in many religious traditions has the potential to fundamentally alter the nature of environmental debates.

A great example is Andrew Sullivan. Just today, when musing about the pro’s and con’s of the Waxman-Markey global warming bill, Sullivan wrote:

In weighing all these issues, I have to say that in the end, the moral question does hang heavy on me. ...We have a responsibility not simply to advance our own material welfare, and weigh costs and benefits, but also to conserve our natural inheritance as much as we can. I reach this from a religious perspective, but it is easy to reach it from other grounds.

In fairness, Zasloff recognizes these points—particularly the role that religion plays in informing our notions of intergenerational justice. My point is that to also expect religious tradition to provide answers to fine grain policy debates is an unnecessary burden. The value that religious thought brings to environmental debates is no more, and no less, what it brings to every other debate that encompasses both morality and policy. What’s novel is that many religions (and thus many of us) are beginning to see environmental questions in this very light.

The Climate Vote: What a Difference a Year Makes

2009-06-30T17:46:50Z

As I savor last Friday's historic House vote to pass clean energy and climate legislation, I can't help but think about last June, when leaders in the Senate tried to pass a groundbreaking climate bill. What has changed since then?

Almost everything.

The single most influential difference is the arrival of President Obama. Last June, the Bush White House had no interest in confronting global warming. Obama came into office with energy and climate in his top tier of priorities. He explicitly backed the bill, and deployed his cabinet and White House staff to the Hill on its behalf. And when the bill passed, he changed the topic of his Saturday radio address from discussing health care reform to singing the praises of the House bill.
We need a new economic engine now more than ever. Last June, we knew the nation was headed toward financial trouble, but we didn't know the scope of it yet. Now lawmakers recognize that shifting to clean energy and confronting global warming would create almost 2 million new jobs, attract private investment, and make America the leader in new technology.
The deadline of the international climate negotiations is looming ever closer. At the meeting in Copenhagen this December, the nations of the world will turn to see whether or not the United States has stepped up on climate. While that may not influence many members of Congress, it is a motivator for the Obama administration. They don't want to arrive in Copenhagen empty handed. Nor do they want to relive the mistakes of Kyoto, when President Clinton never asked the Senate to ratify the agreement because he knew it did not have Congressional support.
The scientific evidence of global warming keeps mounting. The past year has brought an avalanche of climate data, culminating with the administration's own analysis that the effects of warming are already upon us and the MIT study cited by Paul Krugman this week that concludes earlier estimates of temperature increases were too conservative. The scientific consensus may not have persuaded some members of the House, but I can say with certainty that it has mobilized the environmental community and citizen activists, who in turn put the pressure on lawmakers.

The More Things Change

Many things have changed since last June, but one constant remains in the political arena: short term interests often trump long-term gains.

Generally speaking, there were two key groups opposed to the ACES bill. The first included climate deniers who continue--even at this late date--to bury their heads deeply in the sand.

The second group consisted largely of lawmakers concerned about near-term economic impacts in their districts and their vulnerability in the next election cycle.

It is right for elected officials to look out for the financial interests of their constituents, but countless economic analyses have been done, and the data reveal that:

ACES will help spur more than $150 billion in clean energy investment, which will create good-paying jobs throughout the United States.
It also saves consumers money on energy bills. Americans in nearly every state will save on their monthly electricity bills under ACES, thanks to its energy-efficiency and consumer protection provisions.

So if the data says ACES will create economic opportunity, why were some lawmakers shying away from it? Because those opposed to climate action have run a campaign of fear mongering, using hyperbole and misinformation to frighten constituents and intimidate lawmakers.

As the bill moves into the Senate, we will need bold leaders to proclaim that the long-term health of our economy and planet are of greater value than the attack ads of next year's election cycle.

We will need leaders to recognize that visionary efforts to unleash American ingenuity and prosperity will not only create jobs today but will pay off for generations to come.

And we will need leaders to accept that a sea change in American politics has occurred since last June's climate vote.

EPA Report Brings Pollution Dangers Home…Literally

2009-06-30T14:18:22Z

In the demanding push to pass legislation that will deal with CO2 and climate change, it is easy to lose sight of more traditional air pollution problem we have in the Midwest.

I got a very personal reminder of the issue last week in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch's coverage of the US EPA's newest pollution report:

Granite City residents are among the most likely in the nation to contract cancer as a result of breathing toxic air pollution, according to an assessment released Wednesday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

You see, I grew up in Granite City, IL, which is a steel town across the Mississippi River from St. Louis. According to the EPA, neighborhoods in my old home town and Madison County stomping grounds have air so polluted that they have an elevated cancer rate just for breathing it---in fact, only LA's air is worse.

This should not come as a huge surprise for a county so heavily industrialized that three of the five biggest employers are a steel mill, a brass foundry, and an expanding tar sands oil refinery. But the rates are alarming---cancer at an 1100 in 1 million rate (100:1 million is an exceedingly high rate to begin with) according to EPA data.

I have friends and family in St. Louis, so this KWMU Radio clip summarizes my concerns as they relate to him:

The pollution doesn't stop at the Madison county line," says [Kathleen Logan-Smith of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment]. "So if Madison County is 1100 cancers out of 1 million when it should be 36, what is St. Louis? What is Clayton? What is South City? What is Arnold?

And if that is not enough, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch brings it all home...literally:

In Missouri, 404 of 1,320 areas - or 30 percent - exceeded the national average for cancer risk rates to due to toxic air pollution. Of those areas, 280 were in St. Louis and St. Louis County. More than 1,700 areas - 60 percent - in Illinois had risk rates higher than the national average, with more than 75 percent of those falling inside Cook County.

I now live in Cook County with my wife and children, so this is a reminder of exactly why we need to keep up the fight against polluters in the area. Self-interest shouldn't be the driver for these fights---in fact, it is probably a big contributor to the problem---but it can certainly help remind you what's at stake.