Bob SparksThis week, a federal judge issued a ruling involving Florida’s approach to clean water. The lawsuit is about whether state or federal standards should govern Florida’s water bodies
Florida argues that federal rules are far too costly and unworkable. Opponents say Florida’s standards are full of loopholes.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that the state can go forward with setting the standards. The environmental community was not happy.
This case points out the fundamental schism between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives want the federal government to stay out of state affairs in most cases, while liberals prefer an active group of feds.
The argument for stricter standards has had the environmental and agriculture community at loggerheads for years. Environmentalists routinely fight for the strictest regulations while the farmers and ranchers argue that the high cost for just a little protection is counterproductive.
It is always amusing to hear the claims during campaign season that conservatives and Republicans “do not want clean water and clean air,” as if they did not have to breathe the air or consume the water.
For the purpose of this exercise, can’t we agree on the basic goal of a healthy environment?
How a body of water body is used is important. A lake or stream designated for fishing or swimming requires levels that ensure health. Barring a successful appeal, Hinkle’s ruling will give the state the chance to prove itself.
Regulating air pollution is equally important. Anyone who has seen photographs from China must understand this. In some places in China, schools are closed for days and “red alert” emergencies are issued to residents. This intense air pollution is called “smogpocalypse.”
There are examples of states handling problems. Those who visited California, especially the Los Angeles area, in the 1980s and 90s will recall that legendary brown blanket that covered the region like a toxic blanket. Thanks to strict regulations, such as the installation of catalytic converters on automobiles, Los Angeles and California saw improvement.
Related to the regulation of air pollution is the constant back-and-forth over global warming, or climate change as it is now called. Air pollution from carbon dioxide, methane and other gases are said to produce layers that cause a “greenhouse effect” on the Earth.
This, say some scientists, traps heat in the upper atmosphere and is causing the planet to warm. They say human activity is to blame.
Let’s take this argument in two steps. First, as a former Navy meteorologist, I respect the science of meteorology and climatology. If climatologists have scientific evidence the Earth is warming over the past several years, then the Earth is warming.
Second, it’s difficult to convince everyone that humans are to blame. I come from Indiana. A few thousand years ago, the site of my hometown rested under a thick glacier. Hoosiers say that means an awful lot of global cooling went on.
At some point, the Earth warmed and melted the glacier. That means an awful lot of global warming went on. Climatological cycles, not man-made emissions, were the cause.
Those who advocate imposing drastic, costly measures on industry to fight global warming face skeptics citing glacier movement. United Nations treaties that bind the U.S., but not China, are not the answer, either. Those who want to tackle problems, like California did with smog, will find more willing partners.
There is common ground to be found. Even if global warming is not man-made, it’s wise to be a conservationist and to promote clean fuel, air and water. It’s good for our planet and our future.
