To many people, prairie dogs are a symbol of the Old West. To others, they’re a nuisance animal that gets in the way of grazing cows. It’s a tough call, but the EPA is giving some indications which side they’re going to come down on.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently considering whether to approve a poison, appropriately named Kaput-D, that would be used to exterminate black-tailed prairie dogs.

Kaput-D is an anticoagulant poison. It causes animals to lose blood through various orifices, including eventually the skin membranes, over a period of weeks. During this time, poisoned prairie dogs may wander around as they become weaker and weaker and vulnerable to predation. As that point, animals that prey on prairie dogs or use prairie dog habitat can themselves be poisoned.

The EPA is in charge of regulating rodenticides like Kaput-D and has the power to reject applications, as well as alter or cancel existing permits (known as registrations). The agency is also required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service anytime a rodenticide may impact an endangered species such as the black-footed ferret. Thus far, however, EPA has refused to do so in regard to not only Kaput-D but also for already existing prairie dog poisons such as Rozol, another anticoagulant.

Not only that, but Kaput-D can spread up through the food, poisoning other prairie animals from black-footed ferrets to owls and bald eagles. yes, prairie dogs can be a nuisance to ranchers, but it’s pretty clear which side the EPA is supposed to be on when it comes to decisions affecting a possibly endangered species.

There’s a classic conservation versus profits controversy erupting over emissions standards for shipping on the Great Lakes.

Now, an Environmental Protection Agency proposal that would compel the vessels to burn cleaner fuel and upgrade their engines has sparked a furious behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign that has come to a head this week, pitting congressional Democrats against a Democratic administration as lawmakers allied with Midwestern and Alaskan shippers pressure the EPA to back down and protect jobs.

The benefits to clean air and water from tighter standards is readily apparent.

Large vessels rank second only to power plants as to the health risk their air pollution poses, and the EPA estimates the proposal will produce more health benefits than those it has applied to off-road vehicles, diesel trucks and other sources.

The shippers and boat owners aren’t too shy about ststung their case, either.

Great Lakes shipping industry officials say the cost of the new fuel and the engine overhauls needed to burn it would undermine their competitive edge and shift commodity transport to rail and truck.

Lake Carriers’ Association President James H.I. Weakley said the rule would cost U.S. and Canadian ships an extra $210 million a year for fuel. Out of a U.S. fleet of 65, he predicted that 13 steamships with 429 mariners would be scrapped and that 13 ships with old diesel engines might face premature retirement.

He’s basically arguing that they can’t compete if the cost of pollution is added on to their bottom line. If rail and truck, whose emissions are regulated, are that much cheaper, let’s ship more by rail and truck, and save the4 wear and tear on the Great Lakes.

In another sign that things have changed a bit at the Environmental protection Agency, a permit to build a coal burning plant in the New Mexico desert is being re-examined.

The contested air permit for the Sithe Global Desert Rock coal-fired power plant on the Navajo Reservation in New Mexico today was sent back to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for additional analysis.

The EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board remanded the air permit back to the agency due to deficiencies in the permit’s environmental and technological analyses.

The original decision to approve the permit had been opposed by Colorado and New Mexico, Navajo tribal members, and local citizen groups. Those voices will now have a chance to be heard again and who knows, the EPA might listen to them instead of the coal industry, this time.

Let’s see, so far we have possible action by the EPA, a bill making its way through Congress, can there be any other way to attack the problem of greenhouse gas emissions? How about the courts?

In a historic ruling, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has sided with states and private land trusts that sued large power companies to make them curb their greenhouse gas emissions.

A federal district court judge had dismissed their claims as being a political, not a judicial, issue.

But Monday, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the power companies can be sued in federal court because their carbon dioxide emissions are a public nuisance that contributes to rising temperatures and other damaging impacts, such as heat waves, smog episodes, droughts and forest fires.

The appellate court held that federal courts are empowered to limit damaging carbon dioxide emissions unless and until the legislative and executive branches regulate that pollution, either under the existing Clean Air Act or the comprehensive new energy and climate legislation now working its way through Congress.

For those keeping score, the Second Court of Appeals is where Justice Sonia Sotomayor sat before moving up to the Supreme Court. She played no part in this decision, it was made by the other two judges on the appeals court.

This decision puts even more pressure on Congress to pass a bill. It’s the big polluters worst nightmare to find themselves ganged up on by a federal agency and the court system at the same time.

Coal-fired power plants are required to have filters and scrubbers that cut down on the air pollution. But those filters and scrubbers are cleaned with water, which then becomes waste water and has, in the past, not been regulated much. That’s about to change.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency plans to revise the existing standards for water discharges from coal-fired power plants to reduce pollution and better protect America’s surface water, the agency said Tuesday.

Wastewater discharged from coal ash ponds, air pollution control equipment, and other equipment at power plants can contaminate drinking water sources, cause fish and other wildlife to die and create other detrimental environmental effects, the EPA says.

The Engineering and Analysis Division of the EPA Office of Water, which conducted the study, concluded that current regulations, which were issued in 1982, have not kept pace with changes that have occurred in the electric power industry over the last three decades.

More evidence that the EPA is once again becoming an institution that regulates polluters, instead of protecting polluters from regulation.

See if you can find the invisible hand of George W. Bush in this report of a recent action by the Environmental Protection Agency.

If your answer was “It’s in the whiny attitude of the coal industry spokesperson” you’re absolutely right. We’ve got plenty of regulations protecting the environment, Bush’s EPA was just run by people who didn’t think the rules should be enforced, and the industries got used to it. If the lobbyists are complaining, take it as a positive sign that someone at the EPA is actually interested in enforcing the laws we already have.

It’s a decision that the Bush Administration fought to prevent the last two years they were in office, and one that many people would prefer be addressed in legislation rather than by a federal regulatory boy, but with Congress taken up by health care legislation before moving on to an energy and climate change bill, the EPA is readying itself to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant dangerous to the public health.

Carbon dioxide will soon be declared a dangerous pollutant - a move that could help propel slow-moving climate-change legislation on Capitol Hill, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Monday.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told reporters that a formal “endangerment finding,” which would trigger federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, probably would “happen in the next months.”

Jackson announced her timeline even as top senators said they were delaying plans to introduce legislation that would set new limits on carbon dioxide emissions. Senators had been scheduled to unveil legislation next Tuesday, but the date has now been pushed back to later in September.

This should shake things up a bit. Look for energy companies to launch an all-out assault on this, they would much rather prefer to deal with Congress, whose members can be persuaded with campaign donations and talk of “bipartisanship”, rather than the EPA, whose decisions are mandated by existing law.

Too bad there isn’t a federal agency that could declare the state of health care in this country a threat to the public health. Maybe then we could get something done on that front as. well

Forget about peer-reviewed articles, years of research, and Nobel Prizes, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has decided that only they know how to arrive at the facts about global warming and climate change.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation, wants to put climate change science on trial.

In an attempt to head off a U.S. EPA finding that climate change endangers public health and welfare in the United States, the Chamber Tuesday petitioned the federal agency for a trial-like hearing of the scientific evidence before an administrative judge or EPA official.

Yes, that’s right, they want a federal judge or administrator to rule on whether or not climate scientists have their facts right. Now, perhaps their motives are pure, and the Chamber of Commerce really wants to make sure the facts are right before we start doing anything that would save the planet at the possible cost of some corporate profits, but more likely this has more to do with keeping the EPA from deciding the issue by regulations, rather than having Congress pass legislation. Now that Obama’s people are in at the EPA, the Chamber no doubt feels it’s easier to influence Congress than it is to control the EPA.

And if you still think the Chamber’s motives are pure, check this out:

The Chamber of Commerce argues in its petition that rather than endangering public health, global warming would benefit Americans because, “the reduction of wintertime deaths from cold weather would be several times larger than the increase in summertime heat stress related deaths.”

The Chamber faults Administrator Jackson for “ignoring analyses” that show that a warming of even 3º Celsius in the next 100 years would, on balance, be beneficial to Americans. Most scientists say warming must be held below 2º Celsius to avoid the worst consequences of climate change.

That’s right, as long as they can convince themselves a few Americans might benefit, to heck with the rest of the world. I suppose as a Minnesotan, I should welcome the prospect of a warmer Winter, but then I think about the prospects of long-term drought caused by climate change, and its effect on the lives of the millions of people living in the American Southwest and southern California. But, by the Chamber’s reasoning, my life might be a little easier in the Winter, so I shouldn’t care about that.

Luckily, not all of us are so selfish and short-sighted. There are even some Republicans who fail to see any wisdom in the Chamber’s petition.

On Tuesday, Republicans for Environmental Protection positioned itself on the scientific side of that divide.

Calling the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s demand for a Scopes monkey trial of climate change science “a crass attempt to exploit religious beliefs in order to stall actions necessary to protect the country from carbon pollution,” the grassroots organization said the business lobby should get behind clean energy technology.

Atrazine is a pesticide that’s been used extensively enough that most Minnesotans probably recognize the name from advertising aimed at farmers. But just because the name is familiar, doesn’t mean you want to find the stuff in your drinking water. From a report issued by the Natural Resources Defense Council:

Banned in the European Union and clearly linked to harm to wildlife and potentially to humans, the pesticide atrazine provides little benefit to offset its risks. In a new report, NRDC brings together for the first time the results of surface water and drinking water monitoring required by the U.S. EPA to create a more comprehensive analysis of atrazine pollution across the Midwestern and Southern United States.

Approximately 75 percent of stream water and about 40 percent of all groundwater samples from agricultural areas tested in an extensive U.S. Geological Survey study contained atrazine. NRDC found that the U.S. EPA’s inadequate monitoring systems and weak regulations have compounded the problem, allowing levels of atrazine in watersheds and drinking water to peak at extremely high concentrations.

In case you’re wondering just what the harm could be:

The toxicity associated with atrazine has been documented extensively. The adverse reproductive effects of atrazine have been seen in amphibians, mammals, and humans-even at low levels of exposure. Concentrations as low as 0.1 ppb have been shown to alter the development of sex characteristics in male frogs. When exposure coincides with the development of the brain and reproductive organs, that timing may be even more critical than the dose. Also of great concern is the potential for atrazine to act synergistically with other pesticides to increase their toxic effects.

That’s right, this stuff doesn’t just potentially make you sick, it gets right down in to the genes. That ought to be scary enough to get people’s attention right there, but it could very well be that it will take apublic fuss to get the EPA to act.

For over a hundred years, mining operations have received preferential treatment as far as use of public lands, and also in their requirements for cleaning up the messes they leave behind. A couple of stories in the news today suggests that such preferential treatment is about to change.

First, the EPA is drawing up new regulations that will require mining operations to pay for the cost of cleaning up after themselves.

Second, the Obama Administration has decided to make reform of the General Mining Act of 1872, which established preferential treatment for mining on public lands, a priority for the Department of the Interior. It’s been tried before and failed, but it just could be that attitudes towards use of public lands and management of the outdoors have changed enough, even among the western legislatures who have traditionally blocked the move, to get legislation passed.