Posted on 09/25/2002 2:01:23 PM PDT by anymouse
The United States may have no streams left that are free from chemical contamination, and about one-fifth of animal species and one-sixth of plant types are at risk of extinction, says a private report on the nation's ecosystems.
The findings are in an ambitious study commissioned five years ago by former President Clinton and released Tuesday by the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment.
The report tries to document in one place the sort of statistics about natural resources that until now were dispersed among several federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency and Interior Department.
But perhaps more important than any particular findings, administration officials and lawmakers said, is that the report for the first time proposes an objective(?) set of ecological "indicators" about the nation's environmental health.
The study offers 103 indicators but says completed and adequate data is available for only 56 percent of them. For example, the only national data on non-native or invasive species are for birds and freshwater fish.
"This report is, at one level, a road map of what we need to do to gather adequate data," said Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Science Committee. "It's an old adage and a true one that one gets what one measures."
The Heinz Center plans to update its study every five years. William Clark, a Harvard government professor who oversaw the mammoth project, said the purpose was to "help raise the factual basis of the debate" over difficult environmental issues.
"This report is going to mean a great deal for our environment," EPA Administrator Christie Whitman said at a ceremony. "Environmental indicators are clearly the tools that we need to do our job well."
Each year the federal government spends more than $600 million collecting environmental data, but the center's experts say that information still isn't comprehensive. At the same time, those experts say, the government spends billions of dollars on pollution controls and cleanups — $120 billion in 1994, the last year for which such figures are available.
Members of the center's team of 150 experts and others compared the need for indicators to the role that factors such as interest rates, unemployment and inflation play in helping gauge the economy. Environmental, industry, government and academic groups all participated in the report's making.
The study was begun in 1997 at the request of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Last year, Whitman directed EPA to prepare a similar "State of the Environment" report, due to be issued this fall. The White House Council on Environmental Quality is helping coordinate the information-gathering that cuts across federal agencies.
How many trees were used print the results of this report? How many taxpayer dollars were wasted on this?
So in their view rivers are polluted by living things.
They must be by definition. Can you name one river that man has not taken a p___ in?
Well, the EPA does consider sediment (dirt) to be a pollutant... With criteria as broad as that I'm not surprised. Kind of like C02 being a normal natural part of our atmosphere (we exhale C02), but the EPA labeling it as a pollutant.
Of course they are. Many even have fish in them...and you know what fish do in the water. Other streams run through DIRT! Birds bathe in, and pollen and seeds fall into streams throughout most of the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.