http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/TODAY/Sections/aNEWS/2010/07-July%2010/ScientistsConsensusStatement.pdf

July 16, 2010

We oppose the use of chemical dispersants in the Gulf, and demand an immediate halt to their application. We believe that Corexit dispersants, particularly in combination with crude oil, pose grave health risks to marine life and human health, and threaten to deplete critical niches in the ocean food web.

We urge federal and state agencies to fund independent research NOW to produce transparent, timely information that will protect the health of Gulf response workers, residents, and wildlife.

Background
Since the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform exploded in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, BP has applied almost two million gallons of dispersants, both on the surface and beneath Gulf waters. Government officials acknowledge that the quantity and manner in which dispersants have been applied in the Gulf are unprecedented. The application of dispersant at the source of the discharge, 5,000 feet under the surface of the water, is also unprecedented.

By enhancing the amount of oil that physically mixes into the water column, dispersants reduce the amount of oil that reaches shoreline habitats. Although called for in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 as a tool for minimizing the impact of oil spills, chemical dispersants are controversial (NRC, 2005) because of the toxicity of dispersed mixtures and their potential negative impacts on ocean life. Another point of controversy is that once oil is dispersed in deep water, it cannot be recovered. Oil, when combined with dispersants in the water column is more toxic to marine species than either oil or dispersant alone.

At a Senate hearing on June 15, 2010, EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson stated, ―In the use of dispersants we are faced with environmental tradeoffs.‖ In fact, the use of dispersants does not represent a science-based, quantifiable ―tradeoff‖ but rather amounts to a large-scale experiment on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem that runs contrary to a precautionary approach, an experiment where the costs may ultimately outweigh the benefits.

Moreover, this ―trade-off‖ has been confounded by the lack of a vigorous, technologically adequate effort to collect crude oil from the surface. Berms and booms quickly proved to be ineffective in this deepwater system. As a result, crude oil has penetrated 30 miles into the coastal wetlands of Louisiana and has reached the shores of other Gulf states.

Dispersants applied by BP have resulted in widely disseminated undersea plumes of oil, confirmed by NOAA on June 8. (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/06/government-confirms-undersea-oil-in-gulf-of-mexico.html). Samples were collected by scientists from University of South Florida on the MV Weatherbird II and tested by NOAA’s lab. Subsequently, the plumes have migrated outward from the discharge source and over time are likely to travel with prevailing currents to the Florida Keys, Cuba, Mexico, and the eastern seaboard of the US. The vast quantities of dispersed oil in these plumes can enter the marine food chain and bioaccumulate in animal tissue, potentially impacting marine ecosystems over many years and over a broad geographical area.
2
Corexit Dispersants Used in the Gulf
Two dispersants, Corexit 9500 and 9527A, produced by Nalco of Naperville, Illinois, have been used in the Gulf (http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/). Although listed among EPA-approved dispersants, Corexits are oil industry-insider products, and are ranked by the EPA as more toxic and less effective than other approved dispersants, which has raised questions about their use in the Gulf (Scarlett et al 2005). A comprehensive report on the health hazards of crude oil and the known ingredients of Corexits is available at: http://www.sciencecorps.org/crudeoilhazards.htm.
Corexit 9527A contains 2-BTE (2-butoxyethanol), a toxic solvent that ruptures red blood cells, causing hemolysis (bleeding) and liver and kidney damage (Johanson and Bowman, 1991, Nalco, 2010). Both Corexit dispersants contain petroleum solvents that mix with the crude oil mass and move through it, thus increasing the uptake of oil by organisms (NRC, 2005, Nalco, 2010).

The properties that facilitate the movement of dispersants through oil also make it easier for them to move through cell walls, skin barriers, and membranes that protect vital organs, underlying layers of skin, the surfaces of eyes, mouths, and other structures.

Crude Oil & Corexit Combined Are More Toxic Than Either Alone
The combination of Corexit and crude oil can be more toxic than either alone, since they contain many ingredients that target the same organs in the body. In addition, Corexit dispersants facilitate the entry of oil into the body, into cells, which can result in damage to every organ system (Burns and Harbut, 2010).

Exposure to chemicals in crude oil and dispersants can occur through skin contact, inhalation of contaminated air or soil/sand, and ingestion of contaminated water or food. These can occur simultaneously.

Chemicals in crude oil and dispersants can cause a wide range of health effects in people and wildlife. Crude oil has many highly toxic chemical ingredients, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), that can damage every system in the body. These include:
respiratory system nervous system, including the brain
liver reproductive/urogenital system
kidneys endocrine system
circulatory system gastrointestinal system
immune system sensory systems
musculoskeletal system hematopoietic system (blood forming)
skin and integumentary system disruption of normal metabolism

Damage to these systems can cause a wide range of diseases and conditions. Some may be immediately evident, and others can appear months or years later. The chemicals can impair normal growth and development through a variety of mechanisms, including endocrine disruption and direct fetal damage. Some of the chemicals, such as the PAHs, cause mutations that may lead to cancer and multi-generational birth defects (Burns and Harbut, 2010). Of note, benzene, a human carcinogen, is a VOC that is released by crude oil (CDC, 1999). It is not known what additional VOCs (if any) are added to the crude oil mix by dispersants, due to a lack of disclosure about dispersant ingredients.

Potential human health effects include burning skin, difficulty breathing, headaches, heart palpitations, dizziness, confusion, and nausea — which have already been reported by some workers — as well as chemical pneumonia and internal bleeding (Burns and Harbut, 2010, US EPA 2010). These are more often noticed than more serious effects that don’t have obvious signs and symptoms – lung, liver and kidney
3
damage, infertility, immune system suppression, disruption of hormone levels, blood disorders, mutations, and cancer. Coastal communities could also experience more extreme health consequences, including long-term neurological effects on children and developing fetuses, and hereditary mutations. As of June 21, the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals reported 143 cases of illness “believed to be related to oil exposure”, including 108 response workers (mostly men) and 35 coastal residents (two-thirds women) (http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/). The most common symptoms were headache, nausea, throat irritation, vomiting, cough and difficulty breathing.

Corexit Dispersant Ingredients Have Not Been Fully Disclosed
On June 8th, US EPA provided a list of chemicals they stated were in the two Corexit products used to date. Companies are not required to list all ingredients in their products, or to provide detailed information on those that they do list. They can claim ingredients are “proprietary” to avoid disclosure. Ingredients in a product may be listed as a group rather than a single chemical.

For example, the group “petroleum distillates, hydrotreated light” is listed on the MSDS for Corexit 9500. There are hundreds of chemicals within this group. Similarly, “organic sulfonic acid salts” are listed as an ingredient, but these may include many potential organic components. Without specific information, it isn’t possible to fully assess short or long-term human health hazards or ecological effects.

Toxic Impacts on Marine Life
Oil spill impacts can occur by 1) physical contact (oiling), 2) toxicity, and 3) loss of food web niches. Some of the effects of this spill are visible – 1866 dead oiled birds, 463 sea turtles, 59 dolphins, one sperm whale (DH Response Report July 14). Many scientists suspect that the worst of the impacts on the Gulf are yet to come and will not be apparent without deliberate tracking and scientific assessment.

Since the 1970s, it has been known that application of dispersants to oil spills increases toxicity by increasing oil and hydrocarbon exposure to water column species. A review of the literature by Dye et al (1980) reported that “virtually every author who has investigated the toxicity of oil-dispersant mixtures reports dramatic increases in mortality compared to oil or dispersant alone, indicating the existence of supra-additive synergy.” Today, many scientists are concerned about the likelihood of severe, acute impacts on a wide range of Gulf species that are now being exposed to Corexit and oil in the water column. For vulnerable species such as seagrass, corals, plankton, shrimp, crabs, and small fish, acute effects can be lethal, particularly during the spring spawning season (Ibemesim et al, 2008, Barron et al, 2003, Rhoton et al, 1998, Bhattacharyya et al 2003, Chapman et al 2007, Anderson et al, 2009, Couillard et al, 2005, Ramachandran et al, 2004, Fisher et al, 1993, Gulec et al, 1997). Coral larvae are extremely sensitive to the combined effects, with 0% fertilization rates in the presence of dispersant and dispersed oil, compared with 98% fertilization in the presence of oil alone (Negri and Heyward, 2000, Shafir et al, 2007, Epstein et al 2000).

As plumes of dispersed oil form in the water column, globules of oil and dispersant envelop and kill floating plankton, fish eggs and larvae – and everything else at sensitive life stages. Planktivorous species like herring and whale sharks indiscriminately feed on these globules and may break the oil down to more toxic by-products. Already, vast numbers of bottom-feeders and filter-feeders have been decimated in heavily oiled areas such as Louisiana’s Barataria Bay (Shaw, CNN 2010). Depletion of these critical niches in the food web can set the stage for “trophic cascades,” causing the collapse of higher organisms (Peterson et al. 2003).

At the top of the food web, large fish (amberjacks, tuna, grouper) and marine mammals are exposed to oil and dispersant through feeding on contaminated fish. Air-breathing animals like dolphins and sperm whales are exposed to volatile petroleum fumes every time they surface for air – and taking oil into the blowhole can cause chemical pneumonia and liver and kidney damage. Skin contact with Corexit and oil can cause ulcers
4
and burns to membranes of the eyes and mouth. Corexit 9527, which was used in the Gulf until supplies ran out in May, contains the toxic solvent, 2-butoxyethanol, that ruptures red blood cells, causing animals to undergo hemolysis (internal bleeding) (Burns and Harbut, 2010, Nalco 2010). Fishermen in the Gulf have reported that dolphins spouting oil from the blowhole have approached their boats (Shaw, TEDXOilSpill, 2010). These dolphins are likely suffocating from petrochemical solvent-related burning of lung membranes (―chemical pneumonia‖) and thus are dying before our eyes. As scientists, the question is, how will we know?

Finally, dispersing oil at depth means that a significant volume of oil is not able to be recovered at the surface. This dispersed oil can enter the marine food chain at many points and bioaccumulate in animal tissue, potentially impacting marine ecosystems over many years and over a broad geographical area.

Scientists Express Concerns
On July 10, 2010 the journal Nature reported concerns expressed by scientists about the implications of the use of dispersants (Nature News, July 10, 2010). David Valentine, a geomicrobiologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, described BP’s use of dispersants as ―an experiment that’s never been performed before – to dump that much of an industrial chemical into the ocean.‖

Susan Shaw, a marine toxicologist and director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute, responded to the EPA’s announcement on 30 June that its initial round of toxicity testing on eight dispersants, including Corexit 9500 found no “biologically significant” endocrine-disrupting effects on the small estuarine fish and mysid shrimp tested. “We already know that dispersants are less toxic than oil if you compare the two,” says Shaw. “But because Corexit contains a petroleum solvent, we’re actually putting petroleum solvent on top of a petroleum spill. So it’s increasing the hydrocarbons in the water column.” Furthermore, says Shaw, the dispersant can increase the toxicity of the oil for those marine organisms that encounter it. “It’s like a delivery system,” says Shaw. “The [dispersed] oil enters the body more readily and it goes into the organs faster.”

Dispersion is thought to speed up oil degradation because tiny droplets can be more readily metabolized by oil-eating microbes. Samantha Joye, a biogeochemist at the University of Georgia in Athens disagrees: “It assumes that the dispersant doesn’t impact the microbial community, and we have no idea if that’s true or not. There’s just as good a chance that this dispersant is killing off a critical portion of the microbial community as it is that it’s stimulating the breakdown of oil.”

Federal Agencies Need to Fully Disclose Test Results
Although EPA has listed extensive sampling and analysis plans on the federal spill website, they have not provided most of the results that they have. They do not describe the chemicals that people are inhaling, nor do they warn people that many volatile organic chemicals from crude oil can have serious long term health consequences, including cancer.

Similarly, NOAA has been accused of ―hoarding‖ its Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA) data on the extent and effect of undersea oil plumes. Despite early urgent warnings from independent scientists that oil suspended in the water column is likely killing wide swaths of sea life, NOAA was slow to send out research vessels to probe the extent of the problem. To date, very little of the NRDA data has been released to researchers, presumably because of pending litigation. However, the raw data is being immediately turned over to the Joint Incident Command, and thus to the lead defendant, BP.

The Need to Know
Beyond the 11 men who were killed in the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion, the human toll of the Gulf oil spill is unknown. In past disasters, inadequate public information and protections have caused serious health problems among responders and local communities that were poorly informed about hazards.
5
To mitigate past and future damage to human and wildlife populations as well as the ocean ecosystem, it is critical that the federal government and state agencies provide the results of their air, water, seafood, and other testing to the public as soon as the information becomes available.

Withholding information, however well-intentioned, is dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. Testing results must be made available as quickly as possible to enable Gulf officials, response workers, and individual citizens to make informed decisions regarding potential health risks and the best courses of action.

We urge federal agencies to provide the following to ensure the best possible health for people and wildlife in the Gulf Region:
1. An immediate halt to the use of chemical dispersants in the Gulf of Mexico, particularly the application of dispersants at depth.
2. Full disclosure of all the chemical ingredients in the Corexit formulations and full toxicity data on these chemicals in combination with oil – this information should be posted on a website and should include studies submitted by the manufacturers to EPA, not meaningless summaries.
3. A federal site that provides adverse effects information from the previous uses of Corexit dispersants. This should cover environmental media, wildlife, and human populations. This information was collected after Corexit 9527 was used in the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska.
4. Access to the extensive monitoring data that EPA and NOAA have collected documenting what chemicals are in the air and water and their observed adverse impacts. Only limited summary data have been provided to the public.
5. Funding for independent research on short-term and long-term impacts; money that is available to qualified researchers NOW, not months later (as in the Exxon Valdez spill) when exposure has lessened and impacts will be difficult, if not impossible, to document.

References
Anderson, B.S., Arenella-Parkerson, D., Phillips, B.M., Tjeerdema, R.S., Crane, D., 2009. Preliminary investigation of the effects of dispersed Prudhoe Bay Crude Oil on developing topsmelt embryos, Atherinops affinis. Environmental Pollution 157, 1058-1061.
Barron, M.G., Carls, M.G., Short, J.W., Rice, S.D., 2003. Photoenhanced toxicity of aqueous phase and chemically dispersed weathered Alaska North Slope crude oil to Pacific herring eggs and larvae. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 22, 650-660.
Bhattacharyya, S., Klerks, P.L., Nyman, J.A., 2003. Toxicity to freshwater organisms from oils and oil spill chemical treatments in laboratory microcosms. Environmental Pollution 122, , 205-215.
Burns, K. and Harbut, M.R., 2010. Gulf Oil Spill Hazards, Sciencecorps, Lexington, MA, June 14, 2010. Available at http://www.sciencecorps.org/crudeoilhazards.htm
Chapman, H., Purnell, K., Law, R.J., Kirby, M.F., 2007. The use of chemical dispersants to combat oil spills at sea: A review of practice and research needs in Europe. Marine Pollution Bulletin 54, 827-838.
Couillard, C.M., Lee, K., Légaré, B., King, T.L., 2005. Effect of dispersant on the composition of the water-accommodated fraction of crude oil and its toxicity to larval marine fish. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 24, 1496-1504.
Deepwater Horizon Response Consolidated Fish & Wildlife Report July 14, 2010. Available at: http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/site/2931/.
Dye, C.W., Frydenborg, R.B., 1980. Oil dispersants and the environmental consequences of their usage: A literature review.
Technical Series. State of Florida – Department of Environmental Regulation.
Epstein, N., R. P. M. Bak, et al. 2000. Toxicity of third generation dispersants and dispersed Egyptian crude oil on Red Sea coral larvae. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40(6), 497-503.
Fisher, W.S., Foss, S.S., 1993. A simple test for toxicity of Number 2 fuel oil and oil dispersants to embryos of grass shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. Marine Pollution Bulletin 26, 385-391.
Gulec, I., Holdway, D.A., 1997. Toxicity of dispersant, oil, and dispersed oil to two marine organisms. 1997 International Oil Spill Conference, pp. 1010-1011. 6
Ibemesim, R.I., Bamidele, J.F., 2008. Comparative toxicity of two oil types and two dispersants on the growth of a seashore grass, Paspalum vaginatum (swartz). International Oil Spill Conference – IOSC 2008, Proceedings, pp. 875-880.
Johanson, G., Boman, A., 1991. Percutaneous absorption of 2-butoxyethanol vapour in human subjects. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 48, 788-792.
Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Office of Public Health, 2010. Oil Spill Health Effect Summary: MS Canyon 252
Oil Spill Surveillance Report Week 24 06/13/2010 to 06/19/2010. Available at http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/.
NALCO 2010. Material Safety Data Sheet Corexit EC9500A. http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Corexit_EC9500A_MSDS.539287.pdf NALCO 2010. Material Safety Data Sheet Corexit EC9527A. http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Corexit_EC9527A_MSDS.539295.pdf
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 2005. Oil Spill Dispersants: Efficacy and Effects. Available at: http://www.hap.edu/catalog/11283.html
Negri, A.P., Heyward, A.J., 2000. Inhibition of fertilization and larval metamorphosis of the coral Acropora millepora (Ehrenberg, 1834) by petroleum products. Marine Pollution Bulletin 41, 420-427.
Peterson, C.H., Rice, S.D., Short, J.W., Esler, D., Bodkin, J.L., Ballachey, B.E., Irons, D.B., 2003. Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Science 302, 2082-2986.
Ramachandran, S. D., Hodson, P.V. Khan, C.W. Lee, K. 2004. Oil dispersant increases PAH uptake by fish exposed to crude oil. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 59(3), 300-308.
Rhoton, S.L., Perkins, R.A., Richter, Z.D., Behr-Andres, C., Lindstrom, J.E., Braddock, J.F., 1998?. Toxicity of dispersants and dispersed oil to an Alaskan marine organism. International Oil Spill Conference, pp. 8485-8488
Scarlett, A., Galloway, T.S., Canty, M., Smith, E.L., Nilsson, J., Rowland, S.J., 2005. Comparative toxicity of two oil dispersants, Superdispersant-25 and Corexit 9527, to a range of coastal species. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 24, 1219- 1227
Shafir, S., Van Rijn, J., Rinkevich, B., 2007. Short and long term toxicity of crude oil and oil dispersants to two representative coral species. Environmental Science and Technology 41, 5571-5574.
Shaw, S.D. 2010. Imperiled Gulf: A Marine Toxicologist’s Perspective. TEDXOIlSpill, Washington, DC, June 28. http://www.tedxoilspill.com/
Shaw, S.D. 2010. CNN Live Rick’s List, New Orleans, July 9
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 1999 Toxicological profile for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH). Atlanda GA. Available at:
U.S Environmental Protection Agency 2010. Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (EGBE) (CAS No. 111-76- 2) Washington DC Available at
Signatories
1. Sylvia A. Earle, PhD, Oceanographer, Ocean Explorer-in-Residence, National Geographic Society, Washington DC.
2. David E. Guggenheim, PhD, Marine Biologist/Conservationist, President, 1planet1ocean – a project of The Ocean Foundation, Washington DC
3. Susan D. Shaw, DrPH, Marine Toxicologist, Founder, Marine Environmental Research Institute, Blue Hill, ME
4. David Gallo, PhD, Oceanographer, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA
Many others to be added during the next few days….

Let’s hope it makes it intact through the Senate. DV

July 30, 2010

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-oil-spill-bill-20100731,0,1548806.story

The bill, passed 209 to 193, would impose new safeguards for offshore drilling, remove a liability cap for spill damages, and hit energy producers with a new tax to fund conservation measures.
By Richard Simon, Reporting from Washington
July 31, 2010

In its most sweeping response to the gulf oil spill, the House on Friday approved legislation that would impose new environmental safeguards for offshore drilling, remove a liability cap for spill damages, and slap industry with a new tax to fund conservation projects nationwide.

The Democratic-drafted legislation passed on a largely party-line 209-193 vote but faces trouble in the deeply divided Senate.

“The Deepwater Horizon explosion and the subsequent damage that has occurred over the past 102 days is indeed a game-changer,” said Nick J. Rahall II (D-W.Va.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee.

The measure, which follows dozens of Capitol Hill hearings into the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, would remove a $75-million liability cap on oil firms for economic damages caused by spills. It would also hit energy producers with a new $2 per barrel tax to fund land purchases for national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.

The House bill would set new standards for blowout preventers, the safety device that apparently failed on BP’s blown-out well in the Gulf of Mexico. And it would repeal an 1851 law that rig owner Transocean has sought to use to limit its liability for the disaster.

The bill, which has become entangled in election-year politics, was backed by Democrats who said it would help prevent another oil spill disaster and hold oil companies more accountable for spills. It was opposed by Republicans who argued it would raise the cost of domestic energy production and increase U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

“Let’s vote to ensure that a spill of this kind never happens again,” said Rep. Lois Capps, a Democrat whose Santa Barbara district was the scene of a devastating oil spill in 1969.

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), who heads the House GOP campaign committee, urged Republican colleagues heading home Friday for summer recess to tell voters that Democrats were “sticking it to the consumer again at the gas pump.”

“If you want to apologize for Big Oil, go ahead,” responded Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). “The American people are not on your side on this one.”

Gulf Coast lawmakers were among the bill’s sharpest critics.

“This isn’t the answer to help the gulf,” said Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), contending that the bill would increase the cost of domestic energy production. “It only helps OPEC.”

The oil industry accused lawmakers of acting in haste without waiting for the results of multiple investigations into the April 20 Deepwater Horizon explosion.

“Congress has not taken the steps to understand not only the causes of the oil spill, but also the full impact of this legislation on the economic and national security of our nation,” said Barry Russell, president and chief executive of the Independent Petroleum Assn. of America.

Rahall dismissed industry criticism as “sheer hyperventilation” and urged critics of the legislation to “take a look at the spill in the gulf to see how an overly permissive attitude can turn into a real horror story.”

The bill would repeal a provision of the 2005 energy law that exempted projects, including the Deepwater Horizon drilling, from detailed environmental analysis. It would bar companies with poor safety and environmental records from receiving new offshore drilling leases. And it would require offshore drilling rigs to operate under the U.S. flag, requiring tougher safety rules than those in effect for the Deepwater Horizon, which was registered in the Marshall Islands.

The measure would prohibit oil companies from bidding on new offshore leases unless they renegotiate royalty-free offshore oil leases that were approved in the 1990s. It would establish new ethics rules for drilling regulators; increase fines to $10 million, from $100,000, for willful violations of drilling rules; and establish new procedures for use of oil dispersants.

A separate measure to provide whistleblower protections to offshore drilling workers was approved.

The House approved an amendment that would lift the Obama administration’s deepwater drilling moratorium for companies that meet new safety rules. Gulf Coast lawmakers have said the moratorium is damaging their region’s economy.

What effect the provision would have is uncertain since a final bill is unlikely to go the White House until September at the earliest. The moratorium is due to expire Nov. 30, but Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has said it could end earlier if drilling can proceed safely.

Senators could take up their version of the legislation before they leave town at the end of next week. The Senate Democrats’ bill, like the House bill, would remove the liability cap. Republicans object to this provision, however, saying that removing the cap would drive smaller companies out of the gulf.

Even though Democrats hold a majority in the Senate, they lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican-led filibuster. Also, energy politics can sometimes divide lawmakers by region, instead of party affiliation. Democrats from energy-producing states like Alaska and Louisiana may be reluctant to support any measure they believe will hurt an industry that is important to their state’s economy.

One common feature of the House bill and the Senate Democrats’ proposal would provide $900 million a year for land purchases for national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.

That would provide a level of funding reached only once since President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 signed the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. Environmentalists already are drawing wish lists of projects.

A funding increase would provide “the catalyst to complete our land acquisition plan” for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, said Woody Smeck, acting deputy regional director of the National Park Service’s Pacific West Region. “We have 22,500 acres still to acquire from willing sellers.”

The legislation also would write into law the Obama administration’s revamping of the scandal-plagued federal agency that oversees offshore drilling, in order to reduce potential conflicts of interest.

richard.simon@latimes.com

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Just 31% of Garden State residents are in favor of drilling for oil or gas off the New Jersey coast while 63% are opposed
also:
“When asked to choose between two priorities for U.S. energy policy, more New Jerseyans would emphasize protecting the environment (55%) over keeping energy prices low (28%). Democrats (66%)

and independents (56%) are more likely than Republicans (37%) to place a higher priority on environmental protection over lower energy prices.”
Richard Charter

Opinion marks about-face from two years ago

Two years ago, most New Jerseyans supported off-shore drilling near the state’s coast. Today, not so much. The latest Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Press Media Poll also finds some concern that the Gulf of Mexico oil spill could eventually wash up on Jersey beaches.

Just 31% of Garden State residents are in favor of drilling for oil or gas off the New Jersey coast, while 63% are opposed. This marks a turnaround from two years ago, when a majority of 56% favored this energy option compared to only 36% who opposed it.

By comparison, support for both wind and nuclear energy remains basically unchanged. Fully 8-in-10 residents support the placement of energy-generating windmills off the New Jersey coast (80% today, compared to 82% in 2008) and just under 4-in-10 support building another nuclear power plant in the state (37% today, compared to 41% in 2008).

Interestingly, support levels for any of these energy options – drilling, wind, nuclear – are no different among those living in the state’s six coastal counties (i.e. Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, Salem) than they are for those living further inland.

“New Jersey has historically been concerned with environmental issues and the specter of
anything washing up on our beaches may heighten anxiety over off-shore drilling. The fact that concern is the same for coastal and inland residents may speak to how much all New Jerseyans value our shore as a state asset,” said Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute.

The three month old oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has captured the attention of Garden State residents, with 85% saying they have read or heard a lot about this incident. More than half of New Jerseyans think that remnants of the oil spill washing up on our state’s shores is a possibility. This includes 17% who consider it very likely to happen and 36% who say it is somewhat likely. Another 22% say the chances of this happening are not too likely and 20% rule it out entirely. [Note: the poll was conducted just prior to the tentative capping of the well on July 15.]

Only 25% of New Jerseyans approve of the U.S. government’s handling of the spill. Another 68% disapprove, including 83% of Republicans, 75% of independents, and 55% of Democrats.

Nearly 6-in-10 residents (59%) believe the accident indicates there are significant safety problems with off-shore drilling. Only 36% view this as an isolated incident that does not suggest there are fundamental problems with such drilling activity. Republicans (53%) are more likely than independents (37%) and Democrats (27%) to believe that the accident was unusual rather than indicative of systematic problems with off-shore drilling.

When asked to choose between two priorities for U.S. energy policy, more New Jerseyans would emphasize protecting the environment (55%) over keeping energy prices low (28%). Democrats (66%) and independents (56%) are more likely than Republicans (37%) to place a higher priority on environmental protection over lower energy prices.

The Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Press Media Poll was conducted by telephone with 801 New Jersey adults from July 7 to 11, 2010. This sample has a margin of error of + 3.5 percent.

The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute and originally published by the New Jersey Press Media newspaper group (Asbury Park Press, Courier-Post, Courier News, Daily Journal, Daily Record, and Home News Tribune).

Please attribute this information to:

Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey

Press Media Poll

For more information:

Monmouth University Polling Institute

West Long Branch, NJ 07764

www.monmouth.edu/polling

Monmouth University Polling Institute 7/21/10

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?p=1037

I hope this translates into support for renewable energy legislation. DV

Support For Policies To Counter Global Warming Holds Steady

SAN FRANCISCO, July 28, 2010- Three months after a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Californians’ support for more drilling off their coast has plunged, according to a survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC). A solid majority of the state’s residents now oppose more offshore drilling (59% oppose, 36% favor)-a 16-point increase in opposition from last year (43% oppose, 51% favor). The PPIC survey was conducted with support from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and is the 10th in a series about Californians and the environment.

In contrast to the shift in opinion on drilling, Californians’ views on another contentious environmental policy issue have held steady since last year. Two-thirds (67% today, 66% in 2009) favor the state law (AB 32) that requires California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

AB 32 is the focus of renewed debate because Proposition 23 on the November ballot asks whether the law should be suspended until unemployment drops to 5.5% or below for a minimum of one year. Because the ballot language has not been finalized, we posed a more general question about timing: Should the government take action to reduce emissions right away or wait until the state economy and job situation improve? A slim majority (53%) say California should act right away, while 42 percent say the state should wait.

“Two crises-a major oil spill and a major recession-have affected Californians’ views on environmental policy in very different ways,” says Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. “After consistently opposing more offshore oil drilling, residents began to waver as gas prices increased. But events in the gulf appear to have renewed opposition to more drilling here. In contrast, the lingering effect of the recession and a continuing state budget crisis haven’t changed Californians’ overall view of AB 32. While support has declined somewhat since 2007, a solid majority still favors the law.”

Little Confidence in Federal Spill Response
Partisan divisions are stark in many of the environmental survey findings. On the question of allowing more drilling, Democrats (72%) and independents (64%) oppose it, while Republicans (64%) favor it.

Californians are more united in their low levels of confidence in the federal government’s handling of the oil spill. Just 21 percent have either a great deal (8%) or good amount (13%) of confidence in the government to make the right decisions in dealing with the spill. Fewer than one in five residents across political, regional, and demographic groups express a great deal of confidence. Residents also lack confidence in the federal government’s ability to prevent future spills. About three in 10 are very (7%) or fairly (21%) confident; 32 percent are not very confident and 37 percent are not confident at all.

Build More Nuclear Plants? Californians Divided
The question about oil drilling is one of four that PPIC asked about U.S. energy policies. On another issue-nuclear power-Californians are divided (49% oppose, 44% favor) about building more nuclear power plants at this time to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources. On this question, too, partisan differences emerge: 57 percent of Democrats are opposed, while 67 percent of Republicans and half of independents (51%) favor building more plants now.
There is considerably more consensus on the two other policies. To address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, overwhelming majorities favor increasing federal funding to develop wind, solar, and hydrogen technology (83%), and favor requiring automakers to significantly improve the fuel efficiency of cars sold in this country (83%). Strong majorities across parties, regions, and demographic groups hold these views.

(This year we asked these energy policy questions in two ways. Half of our sample was asked the questions as we have in the past, with the introductory phrase, “Thinking about the country as a whole, to address the country’s energy needs and reduce dependence on foreign oil sources, do you favor or oppose the following proposals?” Half of the sample was asked the policy questions without this introductory phrase, to test whether or not the framing of the question influenced responses. Results for the four questions asked with the introductory phrase and without it are similar. Details on page 31.)

Will Action To Curb Warming Lead To Lost Jobs? Most Say No
Most Californians (54%) say global warming is already having an impact but are somewhat less likely to hold this view than they were last July (61%). Today 28 percent say global warming’s effects will be felt sometime in the future-up 6 points since last year-while just 16 percent say they will never happen. Nearly three-fourths say global warming is a very serious (44%) or somewhat serious (29%) threat to California’s future economy and quality of life. These findings are similar to last year but have declined since July 2007 (54% very serious, 28% somewhat serious).
Against a backdrop of state and national debates over climate change policies, Californians (76%) support government regulation of emissions from sources like power plants, cars, and factories, with 85 percent of Democrats, 81 percent of independents, and 51 percent of Republicans holding this view. Although a majority (67%) support the idea of AB 32, party divisions are strong: 80 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents are in favor, but only 39 percent of Republicans share this view.

Proposition 23 would suspend AB 32 until unemployment in the state is 5.5 percent or lower for four consecutive quarters. We asked Californians how the state’s actions to reduce global warming would affect employment. Forty-five percent say the result would be more jobs, 23 percent say fewer jobs, and 24 percent say the number of jobs wouldn’t be affected. Most Democrats (57%) and half of independents (50%) foresee more jobs in California as a result of action on global warming. Forty-three percent of Republicans foresee fewer jobs; half of Republicans say there would be more jobs (24%) or no effect on jobs (25%).

About half of Californians say the state (48%) and federal (52%) governments are not doing enough to address global warming. When it comes to ideas about state and federal actions to address global warming, strong majorities of Californians think the government should require: increased use of renewable energy sources by utilities (85%); industrial plants, oil refineries, and commercial facilities to reduce emissions (81%); all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars (79%); and an increase in energy efficiency for residential and commercial buildings and appliances (75%). They also favor encouraging local governments to change land use and transportation planning so that people can drive less (77%). Support for all of these policies is similar to last year.

Most Californians (54%) have not heard of one policy being discussed, the cap and trade system of setting limits on carbon dioxide emissions. After being read a brief description of the idea, 50 percent would support a cap and trade system and 40 percent would oppose it. They are much more likely to support a carbon tax (60% favor, 33% oppose).

Close Races For California Govern.or And U.S. Senate Seat
With the November election approaching, an overwhelming majority (79%) of likely voters say the gubernatorial candidates’ positions on the environment are at least somewhat important. Likely voters are closely divided between Democrat Jerry Brown (37%) and Republican Meg Whitman (34%), with 23 percent undecided. Of those saying that a candidate’s environmental positions are very important in determining their vote, 50 percent would vote for Brown and 16 percent would vote for Whitman. Among those who say a candidate’s environmental positions are somewhat important, Whitman is favored (42% to 33%). Preferences follow party lines, with independents split (30% Brown, 28% Whitman, 30% undecided). (The survey questionnaire lists results for all six candidates listed on the November ballot.)

Most likely voters (79%) also view the U.S. Senate candidates’ positions on the environment as at least somewhat important. Thirty-nine percent of likely voters support Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer, 34 percent support Republican Carly Fiorina, and 22 percent are undecided. Those who view candidates’ positions on the environment as very important are three times as likely to support Boxer (54%) as Fiorina (18%). Among those who say candidates’ views on the environment are somewhat important, support is evenly divided (37% to 37%). Each candidate has the support of her party’s likely voters. Among independents, 35 percent support Boxer, 29 percent support Fiorina, and 25 percent are undecided.

President Barack Obama’s approval rating has dropped 9 points since last July and 16 points since his record high (72%) in May 2009. Approval of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s handling of environmental issues (34%) is higher than his overall rating (25%). The state legislature’s approval rating is 15 percent.

Most Support Tougher Pollution Standards For New Vehicles
When asked the open-ended question of what is the most important environmental issue facing Californians, air pollution is most often mentioned, as it has been since 2000. But it has declined in importance to residents from 33 percent in 2000 to 23 percent today. Other frequently named issues this year are water supply (12%), energy and oil drilling (11%), and water pollution (6%).

Similar to last year (23%), one in four Californians consider air pollution in their region a big problem (25%). Majorities of residents in Los Angeles (63%), the Inland Empire (57%), and the Central Valley (54%) consider air pollution a very serious or somewhat serious health threat, and 43 percent of Californians say they or an immediate family member has asthma or other respiratory problems.

When it comes to air quality policies, a strong majority (70%) would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on new passenger vehicles. But there is much less agreement across party lines: 86 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents are willing to see stricter standards, compared to 45 percent of Republicans.

The California Air Resources Board is poised to consider easing or delaying implementation of diesel pollution rules because of their economic impact on truck owners and businesses. Asked about tougher air pollution standards on diesel engine vehicles, an overwhelming majority (75%) of Californians are willing to see stricter standards, a view held by solid majorities across political, regional, and demographic groups. Similarly, 75 percent would be willing to see tougher air pollution standards on commercial and industrial activities. A smaller majority (58%) would be willing to see tougher standards on agriculture and farm activities.

ABOUT THE SURVEY
The PPIC Statewide Survey has provided policymakers, the media, and the general public with objective, advocacy-free information on the perceptions, opinions, and public policy preferences of California residents since 1998. This is the 10th survey on the environment since 2000 and is part of an annual series conducted with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. It is intended to inform policymakers and encourage discussion about environmental issues. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 2,502 California adult residents reached by landline and cell phones throughout the state. Interviews took place from July 6-20, 2010, and were conducted in English, Spanish, Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese), Vietnamese, and Korean. The sampling error is ±2 percent for all adults, ±2.2 percent for the 1,971 registered voters, and ±2.7 percent for the 1,321 likely voters. For more information on methodology, see pages 25-26.

Mark Baldassare is president and CEO of PPIC, where he holds the Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Public Policy. He is founder of the PPIC Statewide Survey, which he has directed since 1998.

PPIC is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. As a private operating foundation, PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter

The Obama administration today formally cancelled two lease sales that were once part of President Obama’s plan for “the largest expansion of our nation’s available offshore oil and gas supplies in three decades.”

But in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the administration filed notices for the Federal Register that state the Interior Department needs time to do environmental reviews, scientific analysis and gather public input.

“Cancellation,” the notices say, “will allow time to develop and implement measures to improve the safety of oil and gas development in Federal waters, provide greater environmental protection, and substantially reduce the risk of catastrophic events.”

One of the lease sales was off Virginia and the other was in the western Gulf in waters as deep as 10,975 feet.

Obama had announced the decision on May 27 when he suspended the 33 deepwater exploratory wells then being drilled in the Gulf of Mexico. Publication in the Federal Register will make it official. The notices will be published tomorrow, over the signature of Michael Bromwich, the head of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, the agency formerly known as the Minerals Management Service.

The filing drew praise from one of the environmental groups most critical of the Obama administration’s handling of the Deepwater Horizon spill.

“Obama’s decision to cancel these lease sales recognizes that risky offshore drilling needs reform,” said Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “Halting controversial lease sales is among the most proactive steps that Obama has taken toward the Gulf disaster.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter