linkage
Looks like good progress is being made.
A steady decline in Superfund funding has alarmed lawmakers," the Washington Post breathlessly reports this morning. This morning's full-page MoveOn.org ad in The New York Times, featuring Al Gore, also complains about declining Superfund spending. But declining Superfund spending is good news! Toxic emissions by U.S. industry have been falling for more than 15 years; the total number of Superfund sites has been falling, owing to completed cleanups. So of course Superfund spending is declining--less is needed because there's less to clean up.
...
Some 2,129 sites were placed on the National Priorities List, the inventory of Superfund sites considered dangerous to public health. As of late last fall, cleanup had been completed at 886 of the NPL sites, a little over 40 percent, while all NPL locations were considered stabilized and no longer threatening to public health. Speed and efficiency of Superfund cleanup improved markedly during the Clinton administration. So even a worst-case analysis would say that 40 percent of the program goals have been accomplished. We might then expect spending to decline--maybe by 40 percent!
Next, the overall scope of the toxic exposure issue has declined dramatically. Since 1988, toxic emissions by U.S. industry have declined by about 55 percent. (See table ES-21.) Equally important, with a few tragic exceptions such as Woburn, Massachusetts, studies have shown little or no relationship between Superfund sites and harm to public health, usually because no one is exposed to the chemicals from the sites
Looks like good progress is being made.