White House Refused to Open Pollutants E-Mail

By FELICITY BARRINGER

Published: June 25, 2008

The White House in December refused to accept the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled, telling agency officials that an e-mail message containing the document would not be opened, senior E.P.A. officials said last week.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.’s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

This week, more than six months later, the E.P.A. is set to respond to that order by releasing a watered-down version of the original proposal that offers no conclusion. Instead, the document reviews the legal and economic issues presented by declaring greenhouse gases a pollutant.

Over the past five days, the officials said, the White House successfully put pressure on the E.P.A. to eliminate large sections of the original analysis that supported regulation, including a finding that tough regulation of motor vehicle emissions could produce $500 billion to $2 trillion in economic benefits over the next 32 years. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., “showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases,” one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. “That’s not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can’t work.”

The Bush administration’s climate-change policies have been evolving over the past two years. It now accepts the work of government scientists studying global warming, such as last week’s review forecasting more drenching rains, parching droughts and intense hurricanes as global temperatures warm (www.climatescience.gov).

But no administration decisions have supported the regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act or other environmental laws.

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, refused to comment on discussions between the White House and the Environmental Protection Agency. Asked about changes in the original report, Mr. Fratto said, “It’s the E.P.A. that determines what analysis it wants to make available” in its documents.

The new document, a road map laying out the issues involved in regulation, is to be signed by Stephen L. Johnson, the agency’s administrator, and published as early as Wednesday.

The derailment of the original E.P.A. report was first made known in March by Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The refusal to open the e-mail has not been made public.

In early December, the E.P.A.’s draft finding that greenhouse gases endanger the environment used Energy Department data from 2007 to conclude that it would be cost effective to require the nation’s motor vehicle fleet to average 37.7 miles per gallon in 2018, according to government officials familiar with the document.

About 10 days after the finding was left unopened by officials at the Office of Management and Budget, Congress passed and President Bush signed a new energy bill mandating an increase in average fuel-economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. The day the law was signed, the E.P.A. administrator rejected the unanimous recommendation of his staff and denied California a waiver needed to regulate vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases in the state, saying the new law’s approach was preferable and climate change required global, not regional, solutions.

California’s regulations would have imposed tougher standards.

The Transportation Department made its own fuel-economy proposals public almost two months ago; they were based on the assumption that gasoline would range from $2.26 per gallon in 2016 to $2.51 per gallon in 2030, and set a maximum average standard of 35 miles per gallon in 2020.

The White House, which did not oppose the Transportation Department proposals, has become more outspoken on the need for a comprehensive approach to greenhouse gases, specifically rejecting possible controls deriving from older environmental laws.

In a speech in April, Mr. Bush called for an end to the growth of greenhouse gases by 2025 — a timetable slower than many scientists say is required. His chairman of the Council of Environmental Quality, James Connaughton, said a “train wreck” would result if regulations to control greenhouse gases were authorized piecemeal under laws like the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.

White House pressure to ignore or edit the E.P.A.’s climate-change findings led to the resignation of one agency official earlier this month: Jason Burnett, the associate deputy administrator. Mr. Burnett, a political appointee with broad authority over climate-change regulations, said in an interview that he had resigned because “no more constructive work could be done” on the agency’s response to the Supreme Court.

He added, “The next administration will have to face what this one did not.”

The House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, led by Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, has been seeking the discarded E.P.A. finding on the dangers of climate change.

After reading it last week, Mr. Markey’s office sent a letter to Mr. Bush saying, “E.P.A. Administrator Stephen Johnson determined that man-made global warming is unequivocal, the evidence is compelling and robust, and the administration must act to prevent harm rather than wait for harm to occur.”

Simultaneously, Mr. Waxman’s committee is weighing its response to the White House’s refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents relating to the E.P.A.’s handling of recent climate-change and air-pollution decisions. The White House, which has turned over other material to the committee, last week asserted a claim of executive privilege over the remaining documents.

In an interview on Sunday, Mr. Fratto, the White House spokesman, said the committee chairmen did not understand the legal precedent underlying executive privilege. “There is a long legal history supporting the principle that the president should have the candid advice of his advisers,” Mr. Fratto said.

Driving Green

Buying green is just the first step in reducing the environmental impacts of automobile use. Your choice of vehicle is most important, but how you drive and how well you maintain your car, van, or light truck will also make a difference.

• Avoid “jack rabbit” starts and aggressive driving. Flooring the gas pedal not only wastes gas, it leads to drastically higher pollution rates. One second of high-powered driving can produce nearly the same volume of carbon monoxide emissions as a half hour of normal driving.
• Think ahead. Try to anticipate stops and let your vehicle coast down as much as possible. Avoid the increased pollution, wasted gas, and wear on your brakes created by accelerating hard and braking hard.
• Follow the speed limit! Driving 75 mph instead of 65 mph will lower your fuel economy by about 10 percent, and can dramatically increase tailpipe pollution in many vehicles.
• When possible, plan your trips to avoid rush hour. Stop-and-go driving burns gas and increases emissions of smog-forming pollutants.
• Combine trips. Warmed-up engines and catalysts generate much less air pollution, so combining several short trips into one can make a big difference.
• Take a load off. Carrying around an extra 100 pounds reduces fuel economy by about 1 percent. Take a few moments to unload your cargo area.
• If your vehicle has it, use overdrive gear at cruising speeds. When driving a manual transmission, shift up as soon as possible. Running in a higher gear decreases the rpm and will decrease fuel use and engine wear.
• Try using the vents and opening windows to cool off before you turn on the air conditioner. Air conditioner use increases fuel consumption, increases NOx emissions in some vehicles, and involves environmentally damaging fluids.
• Unlike many older cars and trucks, modern vehicles don’t need to warm up and they have automatic chokes, so you don’t need to step on the gas pedal before starting the engine.

Maintenance Tips

• Keep your tires properly inflated. Tires should be inflated to the pressure recommended for your vehicle; this information is often printed inside the door frame or in your owner’s manual. For every 3 pounds below recommended pressure, fuel economy goes down by about 1 percent. Tires can lose about 1 pound of pressure in a month, so check the air pressure regularly and always before going on a long trip or carrying heavy loads. Underinflated tires can also detract from handling, safety, and how long the tires will last.
• Buy low-rolling-resistance (LRR) replacement tires. Switching to a typical set of replacement tires lowers a vehicle’s fuel economy as much as 4 percent. LRR tires, on the other hand, are specially designed to improve a vehicle’s fuel economy. Most major tire manufacturers now produce LRR models, so when it comes time to replace your tires, seek out a set of LRRs.
• Check your own fuel economy every few weeks. If you notice it slipping, that could mean you have a minor problem with the engine or your brakes. Using this advance warning, you can fix problems before you have a breakdown on the road.
• Get a tune-up. Whether you do it yourself or go to a mechanic, a tune-up can increase your fuel economy. Follow owner’s manual guidelines. Be sure to check for worn spark plugs, dragging brakes, and low transmission fluid; have your wheels aligned and tires rotated; and replace the air filter if needed. Make sure all used vehicle fluids are recycled or disposed of safely.
• Change the oil. In addition to making your car or truck last longer, replacing the oil and oil filter regularly will also help fuel economy. Check your owner’s manual for specific recommendations about how often to change. Ask the service station if they recycle used oil, or if you do it yourself, take your old oil to someplace that does recycle. Ask for recycled oil as a replacement.
• Have your vehicle’s emission control system checked periodically. Take it in for service if an instrument panel warning light comes on.

Careful Fill-Ups

Americans too often take gasoline for granted, forgetting that it is quite a hazardous substance. Gasoline fumes are toxic and carcinogenic; they cause smog; and spilled gasoline can pollute the water and poison wildlife. And it’s very flammable, too.

• Use regular gasoline unless your owner’s manual says otherwise. Unless your car requires premium, high-octane fuels improve neither fuel economy nor performance and will just waste your money.
• Don’t overfill the gas tank or try to top it off beyond where the automatic nozzle clicks off. Spilled gasoline evaporates to aggravate smog formation and can leak into groundwater.
• Patronize gas stations that have vapor-recovery nozzles (those black, accordion-looking plastic devices attached to the nozzle) whenever you can.

Prudent Parking

• Park in the shade in summer to keep your car cool and minimize evaporation of fuel.
• If you have a garage, use it as much as possible to keep your car warm in winter and cool in summer.
• If you have to park outdoors, windshield shades can cut down on summer heat and help keep the frost off in the winter.

Take Advantage of “Commuter Choice” Programs

Most Americans commute to work, and now there are special programs that provide incentives for both employees and employers to “Get There With Clean Air.” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation are teaming up with businesses and others to set up “Commuter Choice” programs. These employer-sponsored initiatives can make you eligible for cash and other benefits for greener commuting. Examples include:

• One company gives its workers free walking shoes, with the promotion “we’ll even buy your walking shoes if you hoof it to work!”
• Another company offers participating employees monthly drawings for prizes that might include extra time off, mountain bikes, and other goodies.
• A municipality gives its employees an extra hour of time-off for every 5 days they use carpool or vanpool to get to work, plus permission to dress casually at the office.

Companies and communities that make use of Commuter Choice benefits often save money. For example, by cutting down on car commuting, they can avoid the need to build large parking lots that are both expensive and use up green space. These programs take advantage of recent fringe benefits rules, such as offering workers tax-free transit or vanpool benefits of up to $100 per month. Employers can also allow employees to “cash-out” their parking space, receiving additional income of up to $175 per month (taxed like added salary for the employee, but still a deductible business expense for the employer). Employees can use this cash to commute as they wish, including carpooling, telecommuting, bicycling, or walking. Employers benefit through lowered taxes, lowered costs, and new ways to recruit and keep employees.

Commuter Choice cuts pollution, reduces traffic congestion, and conserves energy. Ask your employer if they have a Commuter Choice program. If not, ask them to start one. For more information, check out the Commuter Choice website.

Download Green Driving Tips (PDF)

OK, folks.  This is the Moment we’ve been waiting for. 
 
It looks like all the pieces are in place for a big push on the Solar Investment Tax Credit extensions.  Here’s what’s up:
 
+   You may recall that the Senate passed –by 88 to 8!- an extension bill titled S. 2821 “Clean Energy Tax Stimulus Act of 2008″ 
+   Last Thursday, the House Ways and Means Committee passed H. R. 6049 “Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008″.
 
Both measures extend the tax credits.  The Senate’s bill has already passed.  With passage of HR 6049 in the House, the only remaining barriers will be reconciliation of the two measures.  So, Let’s Get these measures PASSED!
 
Tomorrow, May 20, has been designated as a Day of Action for the solar industry and all its friends and supporters.  This is the time for all those e-mail blasts that you have been preparing.  Time to hit the GO button. 
 
What you say comes from you.  Show your sense of what’s important and why.  This is my version- use it or write your own.  The basics are enough: 
 
“Dear Senator/ Representative [ name ]:  This country has been addicted to oil for too long.  It is time to change course.  If we want a strong economy in this country in the future when oil is more constrained and more expensive than it is today, we simply must invest in the cleanest, most available energy source available - solar technology.
 
The solar energy industry has been growing but that growth is at risk.  The solar investment tax credits are crucial to continuing the current rate of investment by both large and small investors.  Already investors are slowing their plans — new companies and expansion of existing companies, and all the jobs that accompany those expansions, all this is at risk now, as investors see the pending end of the ITC. 
 
I work with an innovative startup company that hopes to be part of the new solar economy.  If the solar investment tax credits are allowed to expire, our company –like many others–will be forced to grow much more slowly.  New jobs will be delayed if not canceled outright.  So will all the energy benefits that could otherwise be captured by solar customers: the benefits of replacing expensive oil and fossil fuel with clean, fixed-price solar energy. 
 
These investments in solar are small compared to the enormous benefits they bring.  Please vote now to pass the extension of the Solar Investment Tax Credits.  Thank you, [   your name  ].  ”
 
 
 When you write is critical.  Please send something tomorrow if you can.  Please circulate this call to action through your lists
 
Here are some resources.  Use what you need, but don’t get buried in detail or reinvent the wheel.  Keep the message simple, short and direct. 
 
+  Call to Action from the three lead groups: SEIA, VoteSolar and Sierra Club.  This resource guide contains sample call scripts and e-mails –  http://www.seia.org/Resource%20Guide_National%20Action%20Day_May20.pdf  Feel free to modify any of these to fit your situation. 
+  List of all the tools and support letters and fact sheets anyone could possibly need — http://www.seia.org/itc.php

Thanks Team

Tim Padden

www.houseofsolar.com

LINK

Dumb as We Wanna Be

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

It is great to see that we finally have some national unity on energy policy. Unfortunately, the unifying idea is so ridiculous, so unworthy of the people aspiring to lead our nation, it takes your breath away. Hillary Clinton has decided to line up with John McCain in pushing to suspend the federal excise tax on gasoline, 18.4 cents a gallon, for this summer’s travel season. This is not an energy policy. This is money laundering: we borrow money from China and ship it to Saudi Arabia and take a little cut for ourselves as it goes through our gas tanks. What a way to build our country.

When the summer is over, we will have increased our debt to China, increased our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia and increased our contribution to global warming for our kids to inherit.

No, no, no, we’ll just get the money by taxing Big Oil, says Mrs. Clinton. Even if you could do that, what a terrible way to spend precious tax dollars — burning it up on the way to the beach rather than on innovation?

The McCain-Clinton gas holiday proposal is a perfect example of what energy expert Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.”

Good for Barack Obama for resisting this shameful pandering.

But here’s what’s scary: our problem is so much worse than you think. We have no energy strategy. If you are going to use tax policy to shape energy strategy then you want to raise taxes on the things you want to discourage — gasoline consumption and gas-guzzling cars — and you want to lower taxes on the things you want to encourage — new, renewable energy technologies. We are doing just the opposite.

Are you sitting down?

Few Americans know it, but for almost a year now, Congress has been bickering over whether and how to renew the investment tax credit to stimulate investment in solar energy and the production tax credit to encourage investment in wind energy. The bickering has been so poisonous that when Congress passed the 2007 energy bill last December, it failed to extend any stimulus for wind and solar energy production. Oil and gas kept all their credits, but those for wind and solar have been left to expire this December. I am not making this up. At a time when we should be throwing everything into clean power innovation, we are squabbling over pennies.

These credits are critical because they ensure that if oil prices slip back down again — which often happens — investments in wind and solar would still be profitable. That’s how you launch a new energy technology and help it achieve scale, so it can compete without subsidies.

The Democrats wanted the wind and solar credits to be paid for by taking away tax credits from the oil industry. President Bush said he would veto that. Neither side would back down, and Mr. Bush — showing not one iota of leadership — refused to get all the adults together in a room and work out a compromise. Stalemate. Meanwhile, Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours, at best, run two years.

“It’s a disaster,” says Michael Polsky, founder of Invenergy, one of the biggest wind-power developers in America. “Wind is a very capital-intensive industry, and financial institutions are not ready to take ‘Congressional risk.’ They say if you don’t get the [production tax credit] we will not lend you the money to buy more turbines and build projects.”

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — “but that’s exactly what is happening.” If the wind and solar credits expire, said Resch, the impact in just 2009 would be more than 100,000 jobs either lost or not created in these industries, and $20 billion worth of investments that won’t be made.

While all the presidential candidates were railing about lost manufacturing jobs in Ohio, no one noticed that America’s premier solar company, First Solar, from Toledo, Ohio, was opening its newest factory in the former East Germany — 540 high-paying engineering jobs — because Germany has created a booming solar market and America has not.

In 1997, said Resch, America was the leader in solar energy technology, with 40 percent of global solar production. “Last year, we were less than 8 percent, and even most of that was manufacturing for overseas markets.”

The McCain-Clinton proposal is a reminder to me that the biggest energy crisis we have in our country today is the energy to be serious — the energy to do big things in a sustained, focused and intelligent way. We are in the midst of a national political brownout.

Erika Morgan brought this to my attention. It is good material outlining what the solar shift looked like in 2007.

Click the photo to open the PDF

Dear Friend,

Recently, President Bush delivered what was billed as a major
speech on global warming.

What a disaster! Rather than staking out a set of ambitious
goals for America to strive for, the President argued that the
United States should do nothing about global warming until 2025.

That’s completely irresponsible — and President Bush needs to
hear it.

Senator Barbara Boxer is going to deliver a petition to the
White House, demanding that President Bush stand up and join the
fight to stop global warming. I hope you’ll join me and add your
name to the petition by clicking on the link below:

http://ga6.org/campaign/bush_gw?rk=v7d3sw1qb7kRW

and feel free to use strong language

-Tim Padden
House of Solar

I thought this was very interesting.

Sometimes I post things and team members comment that my post was not about solar energy. My goal is to share information about the world and how we can create a world we want to live in . I think out current state of living has been caused by lack of consciousness about our actions and our results. I we can become more intentional about our results we can change the world. If we can organize our own closets , we can change the world.

-Tim Padden
House of Solar
“If you want to go quickly , go alone. If you want to go far , go with others.”

ECO-THREAT TO ALES
SOMETHING MUST CHANGE !!!

By DAVID K. LI

April 22, 2008 — High beer prices are on tap, and global warming could be to blame.

The environmental crisis has hit suds-lovers where it hurts most - at the bar and in the wallet - as prices of grains and hops soar, activists said yesterday.

“When we’re trying to deal with young people, you have to define issues that are attractive to them, and this is something that’s caught their attention,” said Matthew Silverstein, president of the Queens County Young Democrats, which was set to host a “Save the Ales” forum last night on the impact of global warming on beer prices.

As global temperatures rise, radical shifts in weather and more parched lands are making it harder to grow grains and hops, activists and beer makers agreed.

Kelly Taylor, brewmaster for Kelso of Brooklyn beers, said his customers have paid between 10 and 15 percent more in the past year. He warned that more hikes are inevitable.

“I think prices are going to be going up every year - steep price increases,” Taylor said. “My malt prices went up by 50 percent in one year.”

Taylor, whose brewery is in Clinton Hill, said hops and grains were in short supply worldwide.

“We saw a drought in Australia, a bad harvest in Europe, flooding in Germany and hailstorms in the Pacific Northwest. Across the board, we saw significant rises in the price of grains and hops,” he said.

The beer man chalked up the wild weather to global warming but said many of his customers don’t take the issue seriously enough.

“Some people are just calling it a bad year,” he said.

Shane Welch, brewmaster at Six Point Craft Ales, in Red Hook, Brooklyn, said even small brewers are locking themselves into costly, long-term deals for hops and grains at hefty annual price boosts.

But even with those deals in hand, Welch said, it doesn’t assure brewers will have the ingredients they need.

“You can sign all the contacts you want to guarantee a price and certain amount of pounds - but who’s to say they’ll even have that product available?” the veteran brewmaster said.

“If there’s none to go around, then what?”

Microbreweries like Six Point and Kelso could be hit especially hard.

“It’s going to have an impact on a slot of small craft breweries, this is going to shake out a lot of people who can’t deal with these price increases,” Welch said.

“It’d be one thing if you’re talking about costs going up 10 to 20 percent over a few years. We’re talking 50, 70, 120, 200 percent on certain strains, the most sought-after hops.”

david.li@nypost.com

Feds Want to Survey, Possibly Clean Up Vast Garbage Pit in Pacific

JUSTIN BERTON / San Francisco Chronicle 30 oct 2007

The so-called Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a stewy body of plastic and marine debris that floats an estimated 1,000 miles west of San Francisco, is a shape-shifting mass far too large, delicate and remote to ever be cleaned up, according to a researcher who recently returned from the area.

But that might not stop the federal government from trying.

Charles Moore, the marine researcher at the Algalita Marina Research Foundation in Long Beach who has been studying and publicizing the patch for the past 10 years, said the debris — which he estimates weighs 3 million tons and covers an area twice the size of Texas — is made up mostly of fine plastic chips and is impossible to skim out of the ocean.

“Any attempt to remove that much plastic from the oceans — it boggles the mind,” Moore said from Hawaii, where his crew is docked. “There’s just too much, and the ocean is just too big.”

The trash collects in one area, known as the North Pacific Gyre, due to a clockwise trade wind that circulates along the Pacific Rim. It accumulates the same way bubbles gather at the center of hot tub, Moore said.

A two-liter plastic bottle that begins its voyage from a storm drain in San Francisco will get pulled into the gyre and take weeks to reach its place among the other debris in the Garbage Patch.

While the bottle floats along, instead of biodegrading, it will “photodegrade,” Moore said — the sun’s UV rays will turn the bottle brittle, much like they would crack the vinyl on a car roof. They will break down the bottle into small pieces and, in some cases, into particles as fine as dust.

The Garbage Patch is not a solid island, as some people believe, Moore said. Instead, it resembles a soupy mass, interspersed with large pieces of junk such as derelict fishing nets and waterlogged tires — “an alphabet soup,” he called it.

Also, it’s undetectable by overhead satellite photos because it’s 80 percent plastic and therefore translucent, Moore added. The plastic moves just beneath the surface, from one inch to depths of 300 feet, according to samples he collected on the most recent trip, he said.

By Moore’s estimation, the “floating landfill” is also simply too far from land to conduct any meaningful cleanup operation. It’s about 1,000 miles west of California and 1,000 miles north of the Hawaiian Islands — a week’s journey by boat from the nearest port. It swirls in a convergence zone located about 30 to 40 degrees north latitude and 135 to 145 west longitude.

There’s no doubt that a stew of marine debris exists in the convergence zone of the gyre, said Holly Bamford, an oceanographer and director of the marine debris program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, but there is some debate as to its size.

Moore has led most of the research and publicity surrounding the Garbage Patch, so Bamford said her federal agency, which oversees ocean conditions, is collecting its own data to assess the area and density.

Bamford said she has noted some “gaps in the research” that suggest the affected area is not as large as Moore estimates. Yet there’s no question that marine debris is gathering in the area and is having a negative impact on marine life, such as fish who mistake the particles for food.

“But before we embark on a huge removal process,” Bamford said, “we need to understand what we’re dealing with.”

Bamford added that the agency had attempted to take satellite photos of the area last year, but the overhead photos were inconclusive. “It’s hard to distinguish a whale reaching the surface versus a piece of plastic,” she said.

Still, Bamford said the agency is considering flying unmanned aircraft that can be launched from boats to skim the ocean’s surface and collect data.

But launching the drones is 18 months away, Bamford said. It could be two years before a federal plan is enacted to remove the plastic — if it’s warranted, Bamford said.

“Once we get to that stage, we’d need to ask, ‘If we can remove it, what would be the best way? And what would we do with it afterward? If we collect it, would we bring it back to shore — and then what, put it in a landfill?’ ”

In the meantime, as the production and the use of plastic continue to grow, so will the Garbage Patch, Moore said. The only way to reduce marine debris, all sides agree, is to cut it off at its source — on land.

The dramatic growth in plastics use over the past two decades is what distresses activists like Moore. The annual production of plastic resin in the United States has roughly doubled in the past 20 years, from nearly 60 billion pounds in 1987 to an estimated 120 billion pounds in 2007, according to a study by the American Chemistry Council, which represents the nation’s largest plastic and chemical manufacturers.

Keith Cristman, a senior director of packaging at the American Chemistry Council, said the plastics industry is aware of its connection to marine debris and said the council is working with federal and state agencies to put more recycling bins on California beaches in an attempt to stop plastic bottles and bags from making their way to the sea.

At the end of November, Cristman said, the council is co-sponsoring its first marine debris workshop with state and federal agencies.

Cristman said he’d rather see more plastic recycled than production slowed.

“Plastic is a valuable resource,” he said. “It shouldn’t be wasted, it should be recycled.”

Asked if the council would assist in any cleanup of the Garbage Patch if the federal government called on it, Cristman said, “We’re always interested in working with NOAA and the EPA.”

Moore said his crew had collected new data that suggested more plastic is entering the gyre, yet he was hesitant to elaborate until he finalized the research.

“The ocean is downhill from everywhere,” Moore said. “It’s like a toilet that never flushes. You can’t take these particles out of the ocean. You can just stop putting them in.”

More on plastic in the oceans

 Map of Plastic

source: 30oct2007