Posted tagged ‘David Osterberg’

Where have you gone, Henry A. Wallace?

November 25, 2014

A call to leadership on climate change

437px-Henry_A._WallaceRepublican Henry A. Wallace was Secretary of Agriculture in Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt’s cabinet. In a Sunday column in the Cedar Rapids Gazette, Wallace’s grandson makes the case that his grandfather — an Iowan and a crop researcher — would put science ahead of politics to respond to climate change. He would recognize climate change endangers all of us — farmers included.

Solutions are more important than politics, but right now politics is blocking what science is teaching us. With climate change upon us, the oil industry still is able to set — or block — policy that could turn back this frightening attack on our economy and environment.

As an Iowan, a scientist and a political leader, Wallace would point out that Iowa exports include renewable fuels and wind power as well as corn and hogs. Climate science also fits with Iowa economic advantage.

Each new scientific study warns us that a policy of more digging of coal, more fracking for oil will be lead us to more problems. A recent letter signed by 180 researchers and teachers at 36 Iowa colleges and universities make that point that climate change is already adversely affecting the state.

Iowa and national leaders should follow Wallace’s example, and confront climate change just as Wallace and and other leaders of his day overcame the Dust Bowl and Depression of the 1930s. Let’s put science over politics.

Posted by David Osterberg

IPP-osterberg-75Osterberg, co-founder of the nonpartisan Iowa Policy Project, is a professor of occupational and environmental health at the University of Iowa. He is one of 180 scientists and teachers who signed the Iowa Climate statement, available here.

Also see his recent blog: Climate change impacts showing up now

And see the Cedar Rapids Gazette column by Henry Scott Wallace: What would Henry A. Wallace do?

Climate change impacts showing up now

October 30, 2014

This month marks the fourth October in a row that scientists from across Iowa have penned an Iowa Climate Statement, a brief overview of climate change and its impacts to our state. Since I teach at the University of Iowa as well as work here as an environmental researcher, I am one of the 180 signers of the statement. The theme of this year’s statement was public health.

Health effects of climate change include:

  • The consequences of heavy rainfall — increased exposure to toxic chemicals and raw sewage mobilized and spread by flood waters and mold growing in flooded buildings.
  • Warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxide levels cause plants to produce not only more pollen, but also pollen with a higher allergen content.
  • New species of mosquitos and ticks in Iowa capable of transmitting diseases have arrived and blue green algae capable of producing toxins has become a bigger problem.

These and other climate-related health effects are documented in the statement.

A free seminar by several Iowa authors of the statement will take place on Friday, October 31, 2014, from 9:15 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. at the state Hygienic Laboratory in Coralville.

As the Iowa Climate Statement 2014 states, action is required:

“ Adopting strong climate‐change policies will play a vital role in diminishing human suffering and illness now and for generations to come.”

IPP-osterberg-75   Posted by David Osterberg, co-founder of the Iowa Policy Project. Osterberg is a professor of environmental health in the University of Iowa College of Public Health. dosterberg@iowapolicyproject.org

Stop politicizing water quality

August 26, 2014

Water quality in Iowa is so bad that any new initiative to improve our waters is probably a good thing. That said, Iowa farm groups’ new initiative to take action on agricultural pollution of our waters comes with a troubling rollout.

Making the announcement with Governor Branstad not only politicizes water quality, something that should be above politics, but masks the governor’s own decision this year to delay action.

The Governor’s veto of $11 million for water quality — funding passed by a divided legislature — makes an important statement about water quality. In addition, the governor also vetoed $9 million in funding for the REAP program, which is used by counties and cities to acquire and protect natural areas and to preserve Iowa’s environment.

Twenty percent of REAP goes to farmers to improve soil and water practices. If you are promoting a voluntary system to reduce nutrient runoff, shouldn’t you make sure farmers have resources to put sensible measures into practice?

The new group established to improve water quality needs to be taken seriously by the environmental community and by all Iowans. But this rollout does not engender trust.

The Iowa Policy Project recently released a report on water quality in Iowa. [See A Threat Unmet: Why Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy Falls Short Against Water Pollution] We showed that the addition of six new policies to the state’s new Nutrient Reduction Strategy would make it possible for the strategy to succeed.

One of those policies is the kind of effort the new farm group plans to push — bringing attention to the problem. A second policy is more funding, and farm group muscle could improve the chances in the Legislature. However, even if the Legislature acts, as in the 2014 session, legislation still has to get by a governor’s veto.

Maybe the best starting place to build broad support would be to invite an environmental group to the table, rather than a politician in the middle of a heated campaign. We know plenty who could help.

IPP-osterberg-75 Posted by David Osterberg, co-founder of the Iowa Policy Project

What I learned on the Great March for Climate Action

August 13, 2014
photo of Ed Fallon, turbine

Climate March organizer Ed Fallon in wind country.

After a hard day of marching along gravel roads in Iowa, I set up my tent in the city park in Cumberland and walked a few more blocks to see what the small town had to offer.

I met a guy in the town bar with a Siemens logo stitched on his shirt and cap. That company makes wind turbine blades in Fort Madison, Iowa, and also does maintenance on some of the wind farms in the state.

Not only did I find out the size of the turbines in the nearby 193-turbine wind farm (2.3 Megawatts each) and how high they stood from the ground (260 feet up), but also the salary of guys who have to climb nearly 30 stories up inside the steel tubular towers to do maintenance. A technician salary starts at $24.50 per hour, which is very good money in rural Iowa. Crew members work hard and they get pretty well compensated.

Wind energy is helping to mitigate climate disruption. Close to 30 percent of all electricity generated in the state comes from wind power plants like the ones we passed by. The industry also supports a number of families in rural Iowa.

[To learn more about the Great March for Climate Action, click here]

IPP-osterberg-75Posted by David Osterberg, founder of the Iowa Policy Project

 

[See Des Moines Register story, August 8]

osterberg-walk-01

On the Climate March, other lessons

August 7, 2014

140807-DO-walk-222640IPP co-founder David Osterberg this week is on the Great March for Climate Action.

On the March, which is currently proceeding through western Iowa, Osterberg is seeing good examples of another issue he’s passionate about: care for the land, and controlling water pollution. Or not, as in the photos in this post.

140807-walk-195651

Whether it’s a dirty stream, as at left, or crops planted where a stream should be, above, the picture is one of what happens when our public policy expectations are low. We can see examples around us, if we just look.

For more about issues of water pollution caused by ag runoff, and better approaches to reduce it, see several reports on our Iowa Policy Project website.

In particular, see our recent report on Iowa’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy, which relies heavily on voluntary measures instead of enforcement of public standards.

 

What are U.S. workers missing?

June 23, 2014

Visiting other counties can mean drinking coffee in cafes, museums, night life and relaxing next to the sea. The best trips also include conversations with people from these lands.

I just taught a class in Romania and then visited Scandinavia to see friends and relatives. In both places I talked about work and family life. The first issue that always comes up is paid vacation, which America does not require.

What many U.S. workers may not know is that every other developed country has a legal requirement for paid vacation and holidays. All countries in the European Union require at least four weeks of paid vacation. Austria is the most generous, guaranteeing workers a legal minimum of 22 paid vacation days and 13 paid holidays each year.

U.S. workers have to depend on competition for such benefits. Companies must compete for workers. So in the U.S. the average worker gets 16 paid vacation days and holidays. However, that average is brought down by the fact that 1 in 4 U.S. workers does not have a single paid day off. That would not be allowed in Europe, or New Zealand, or Japan or Canada. In Canada, the federal government requires 19 paid days, and some provinces add additional time.

This data, from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) and USA Today, reflects what I heard in conversations during the last few weeks.

I can hear it now: Raising benefits will cost jobs. Wrong. The CEPR data comes from 2012 when Germany with one of the most generous time-off packages had an unemployment rate of just 5.5 percent when ours was 8.1. It becomes part of the overall marketplace.

Maternity leave is another benefit where the U.S. falls behind. According to the International Labour Organization and a study at McGill University in Canada, the U.S. joins Papua New Guinea, Swaziland, Liberia and Lesotho as countries that provide no financial support for working mothers through their job.

Since Bill Clinton pushed through the FMLA (the Family and Medical Leave Act), a mother in the U.S. can take off 12 weeks to give birth but there is no requirement that the time off be paid. Again when I talked to people on my recent trip, I was amazed that a worker in Sweden can get 420 days to take care of a new baby with 80 percent pay. That can be shared between the mother and father.

Most other countries are not so generous but Germany gives 14 weeks and Denmark requires a full year at 100 percent of pay. Japan demands 14 weeks at 67 percent of pay. In New Zealand, 14 weeks are paid at 100 percent and one can ask for another 38 weeks unpaid. Canada requires 52 weeks, with 17 weeks paid.

These are countries with successful economies. In some, jobs are harder to get than in the U.S. but in others, like Germany and New Zealand, the unemployment rate is lower than ours.

Travel overseas is a good thing. You get to relax, recharge the batteries and come back ready to do your job better.

You also might learn that what we have come to accept as reasonable family and work life in this country is so out-of-step with the rest of the world.

IPP-osterberg-75  Posted by David Osterberg, Founding Director of the Iowa Policy Project

Free-range concerns with hog confinements

June 19, 2014

A funny thing happened at the public meeting to consider the expansion of a hog operation in eastern Johnson County near West Branch. The operator withdrew his request for a permit.

Residents had been expressing their concerns because of quality-of-life conflicts they see coming if an existing large farm operation is permitted to create a second 2,500-head hog confinement, expanding the operation to nearly 4,900 hogs at that location.

Iowa law has always been most friendly to those who want to locate and operate Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), rather than to the people who live near them. The state has largely limited county authority over the siting of these operations to just comments, and then only if a proposed confinement is large enough and does not meet enough specific standards for protecting soil, water and air cited in what is termed the Master Matrix.

As a 2008 IPP report showed, the current CAFO permitting process allows scant protection from spreading manure near drinking water sources — in a Dallas County case, near an already impaired river. Even worse as pointed out by Johnson County Supervisor Janelle Rettig at the hearing, if this operator chooses to move his second planned building by a thousand feet, he would not be required to even ask for a permit.

The Master Matrix process is in its second decade and its deficiencies have not been corrected. Even operating normally, CAFOs can create significant water-quality and air quality problems — and when there are spills, as is historically the case, fish kills are one of the impacts.

As our 2008 report recommended, Iowa law should include:

  • Stronger minimum requirements for approval of new construction permits and manure management plans;
  • Real local decision-making authority by allowing counties to set rules to protect air and water quality, public health and community well-being; and
  • Requiring construction permits for smaller facilities — for hogs, half of the current requirement of permits for operations with 2,500 hogs or more.

Most in attendance cheered when, at the beginning of the meeting, it was announced that the request for a permit was withdrawn. However, it might still be built if moved less than a quarter mile. The state needs to change the law to allow for real local control over hog operations.

IPP-osterberg-75  Posted by David Osterberg, Founding Director of IPP


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,715 other followers

%d bloggers like this: