Media misses major story on mercury pollution in South Florida ... by gimleteye

One of the biggest public health and environment stories that somehow never quite finds its way up the Florida news food chain is the growing rise of mercury contamination. Mercury is a major risk to women and fetuses. How prevalent is the bad form of mercury in South Florida?

Last week a Scripps story ran in Martin County. The county is wedged between St. Lucie and Palm Beach. The story is about a free booklet made available by the county health department directing readers to a healthy fish diet while avoiding fish at most risk for mercury accumulation. It buries a shocking detail fourth fifths of the way through: "Women in Martin County have the highest methylmercury contamination nationally, according to data from similar studies: Martin County women were at 25 percent, Duval County at 7 percent, Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties were at 16 percent, while 12 percent was the national average."

Twice the national average and that is not the lead? So let's see: what could be going on in Martin County?

For starters (and not in the Scripps story), much of the pollution from Big Sugar drains through Martin County. Lake Okeechobee is a cesspool and sewer from big agricultural producers: ie. Big Sugar. The Scripps story lists the popular species known to contain higher levels of mercury: including tuna and swordfish.

But wait. Hold the presses. Are the women of Martin County eating ocean-going pelagics at twice the national average and significantly more than surrounding counties? More likely there is something in local "fresh" water inlets, canals draining from sugar polluters, and the St. Lucie, that is getting into women at higher than predicted or normal values. At any rate, next month the Society of Environmental Journalists will be holding its annual meeting in Miami. Journalists from all over the world will be visiting and it will be interesting to see how the story on mercury pollution bubbles up, during the conference or, even, if anyone notices.

Arguing for protecting the environment in an age of disbelief ... by gimleteye

In a recent interview, former Maine Senator George Mitchell "called upon President Barack Obama — and everyone else who backs stiff environmental protection laws and the science behind climate change — to be bold and persistent in the face of opponents." In a keynote address to the Natural Resources Council of Maine, Mitchell said, "“We’ve all seen environmental protection used as a scapegoat for whatever society’s problems are, but it will not last... I believe this anti-science movement will fade away over time. Remember, it took a long time for people to realize the world is not flat."

Judging from the recent Republican presidential "debates", Miami and South Florida may be under water before the flat earthers give up their grasp of the conservative right.

So if you are an environmentalist -- say, a leader of one of the most visible, national environmental groups-- what kind of message do you use in these times? On the one hand, Obama is a president inclined to evidence, data and science. On the other hand he may be persuaded that embracing environmental protection will doom his re-election. That was, by the way, exactly how Bill Clinton reacted to the 1994 Republican landslide in Congress, led by Newt Gingrich.

What environmental leaders are focusing on is the importance of environmental protection to jobs, and the sense of deja vu is profound. Today, all public pronouncements on the value of Everglades restoration highlight the contribution of shovel-ready projects that employ Floridians, the value of tourism and fisheries and the cost to coastal real estate from rampant pollution. However well-meaning and expertly crafted, the Republican-led state legislature is utterly tone-deaf to the environmentalists' entreaties. Instead, the economic crisis is being used a stake to drive through the heart of environmentalism, taking Florida back-- not twenty years-- but thirty or forty years.

The rebuttal by state GOP leaders against environmental protection is that we can only afford to protect the environment through a healthy economy. (This, by the way, is the Jeb Bush Hierarchy of Needs.) When you hear Republican presidential candidates arguing against the federal budget and federal services of agencies like the EPA, that is the chorus line.

Listening to environmentalists recalls the late 1980's and the genesis of the Wise Use Movement, born in the western reaches of timber, oil, and ranching states. The Wise Use Movement was fueled by the threat of scarcity, even though it germinated during an era of great abundance. It is the same dynamic, catalyzed by right-wing Christian conservatives, and further fueled by fear as the promise of abundance and prosperity for future generations fades. Without a doubt, this organization of powerful, monied interests has been the most successful political movement in modern US history.

As a result, disbelief in science has a powerful grip on the United States. But environmentalists ought to recognize where they are. It is a well traveled road -- arguing the economic benefits of environmental protection--, and it turns out to be a loop road leading straight back to the large corporate influences on campaigns and elections. Environmentalists need to appeal for clear eyes, strong hearts to reject the flat earthers. Their best chance is from within the conservative right itself and leaders who articulate how the destruction of God's creation is a crime against Christian values of love and compassion. It is not about jobs. It is about countering a misguided populism that wears Christian virtues on its sleeve.