Methyl Bromide and International Treaty Obligations

Methyl Bromide Controversy Reveals the Politics of Pesticides

On the one side, farmers and related businesses -- and, no doubt, we consumers -- want "abundant, pest-free and affordable produce."

On the other side, exposure to this chemical can cause convulsions, coma, and in some cases, death, and little is known about the long-term effects of low levels of exposure. Methyl bromide also depletes the ozone layer.

Which means,

On the other other side, the United States signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, committing to phasing out use of this chemical by 2005. This phaseout is not complete, although use has dropped since 1991. This year's total tons exempted, however, is higher than last year's amount.

• USDA's MeBr Alternatives Page
• The Phaseout of Methyl Bromide EPA's Ozone Depletion Rules and Regulations. (Includes last week's notice of proposed rulemaking, and a fact sheet regarding the "critical use" exemption from the phaseout.)
• JORGE FERNANDEZ et al VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION et al From the SF Superior Court. Not much to look at, but some.

So, here's a couple of ponderables:

1. What price -- physical, in the breadth of consumer choice available, or financial -- are we willing to pay, for our strawberries and tomatoes?

2. If in the right area, could the use of this methyl bromide in some way run afoul of the Endangered Species Act? Two farmworkers in the article above *did* describe animal deaths due to apparent exposure.

Forestry, resource defense, and Black-back Gulls

The NRDC published in their "Nature's Voice" this month that a federal appeals court blocked logging in the Tongass Rainforest in Alaska (wait - rainforest in Alaska?!). The decision struck down a plan from the Bush Administration that would have allowed logging and roadbuilding over 2.4 million acres in the Tongrass National Forest that spans more than 500 miles of the Alaskan coast. For now.

In related New England news, Earthwatch had a team in Maine at the Shoals Marine Laboratory on Appledore Island to study the effect of black-back gulls and their impact on the food chain. The article referenced the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that gave these gulls federal protection. Needless to say, their near-extinction in the 1900s was averted thanks to the treaty and to the chagrin of beach-goers and picnickers everywhere.

I also read recently an editorial opinion by Dina Brick, "Growing Forests One Village at a Time". The much-needed income available from timber in developing countries was pertinent to her research. She wrote that: "[w]hen push comes to shove, it's a luxury to protect forestland..." and that "[i]t's time to bridge the ideological divide between forest protection and forest production...".

On the same token, environmental law often addresses resource defense - whether it's conservation or depletion of our resources. Is there a happy medium? A balance than can be struck between the idealism of "no-use" conservation and the sustainability factor?

No Arctic drilling in the budget!

No Arctic drilling in the budget! Here is what John Adams at the NRDC Action Fund said:

"After months of intense pressure from millions of pro-environment activists like you, the House leadership dropped its plan to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of the budget bill.

In the end, they were forced to retreat after some 22 courageous Republican Congressmen stood their ground and promised to vote against their own party's budget if it sacrificed America's greatest wildlife refuge. With every single Democrat also opposing the budget, the leadership blinked.

Senate and House negotiators could still revive the Arctic drilling provision when they hammer out a final budget measure next month (the Senate version of the budget includes Arctic drilling).

But last night's development is a stunning setback for President Bush, for Congressional leaders, and for the oil lobby -- all of whom vowed that 2005 would be the year they finally pried the Arctic Refuge out of the clenched hands of the American people.

Although this battle may not be over, yesterday was a red letter day for the Arctic Refuge -- the greatest day since it was first protected by Congress 25 years ago -- but it is much more than that, too. It is a triumph for America. November 9, 2005 was the day that nature prevailed over corporate greed, that beauty triumphed over a dead-end energy plan. It was the day we reminded Washington that preserving wilderness is a core American value -- and that we intend to keep it that way. "

News and Events

News
As of November 3rd, the Senate passed a bill for budget reconciliation (S. 1932) that opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, 52-47. Kennedy and Kerry both voted against...

Events
The Environmental Business Council of New England is having their 7th Annual Winter Garden Party on December 7th, 2005 in Boston. Check out their site for more information: www.ebc-ne.org.