Environmental Updates
The Energy Policy Act of 2003
July 18, 2003
In the new few weeks the Senate is expected to resume consideration of
the Energy Policy Act of 2003, its comprehensive energy bill. When it begins
debate again on the measure, the Senate is expected to consider a range of
amendments including ones on fuel economy, climate change and renewable
energy standards.
Every American deserves a safe, clean, and affordable energy future. But
the Energy Policy Act of 2003 takes us backwards--by threatening Utah’s
and America’s wilderness with damaging oil and gas exploration and placing
our communities at risk by building new nuclear power plants. Additionally
the Bush energy bill fails to provide Americans with higher fuel economy
standards, consumer protections, and more renewable energy.
The bill:
· Promotes nuclear proliferation while handing over billions in taxpayer
dollars to the nuclear industry. The bill reverses a decades-old
non-proliferation policy against reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. It also
includes $30 billion in federal loan guarantees to help construct six new
nuclear reactors, while leaving taxpayers on the hook for billions in the
case of a catastrophic nuclear accident.
· Threatens western public lands and clean water. The bill provides massive
new tax incentives to drill for coalbed methane, a process that has scarred
western lands and which causes serious water pollution.
· Gives a taxpayer-funded holiday to big oil, gas and coal companies. The
bill contains an array of tax incentives for polluters, including the
first-ever tax break for coal production. It also suspends or reduces oil
and gas royalty payments, assaulting the treasury while encouraging more
offshore drilling.
· Threatens America’s coastal resources. The bill orders the federal
government to inventory offshore oil and gas reserves, including those
contained in areas protected by moratoriums, using harmful exploration
techniques. And its requirement for a study on “impediments” to offshore
drilling is a thinly veiled assault on drilling moratoriums.
According to the Department of Energy's own numbers, if America produced
20 percent of our electricity from clean, renewable energy sources, like
wind and solar power by 2020, we would reduce natural gas consumption by 11
percent and reduce natural gas prices by 9 percent. Yet the Bush
Administration has opposed repeated efforts to include a Renewable Energy
Standard in the energy bill that would require utilities to produce up to 20
percent of their electricity from renewable energy by 2020.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's policy record on energy
consumption is poor. It has already weakened existing energy efficiency
standards for air conditioners and cut funding for energy efficiency
research and development and other programs. On May 27, Secretary Abraham
announced that efficiency standards for gas-fired residential furnaces,
boilers, and mobile home furnaces have been downgraded from high priority to
low, meaning it is unlikely to be completed by year's end. In addition, the
Bush Administration has proposed a 30 percent cut in EPA's highly-regarded
Energy Star program, which helps consumers identify the most
energy-efficient products available. The Administration's energy bill
provides nearly $10.7 billion in tax breaks to polluters, including a
first-ever tax break for burning coal. In addition, the bill provides tens
of billions of dollars in loan guarantees to build new nuclear plants and
indefinitely exempts the nuclear industry from liability. The bill also
allows the oil and gas industry to stop or reduce royalty payments to the
government and states at a time when they are in a fiscal crisis.
To Take Action:
Call your Senator or write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper.
The Senate should reject this dangerous energy bill and support efforts to
increase corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) standards that will make a
car go further on a gallon of gas and pass a standard that ensures that 20%
of America’s electricity come from renewables by 2020. For more
information see National Sierra Club website.
NO MORE WILD FORESTS?
Flash forward 50 years. Your two grand-children are hiking along a
logging road in the national forest. One says to the other: “My
Grandparents told me that when they were young this was a wild forest with
huge 1000 year old trees and the forest stretched over 100 miles with no
roads and there was clean sparkling steams and rivers stuffed with wild
fish. Wolves, bald eagles, and bears once roamed these woods. But in the
early part of this century there was a President named Bush who was fighting
for large corporations that wanted to make a lot of money. And most of the
people were too busy to notice, or to do anything and so Bush changed all
the rules and they cut down most of the forest and that made the water dirty
and it killed most of the wild animals because the animals needed the wild
roadless forest to stay alive”.
Based on recent Bush Administration actions affecting our national forests--
this story could indeed be our future. This week the US Dept of Agriculture
announced its plan to reopen parts of the wild and pristine 17 million-acre
Alaskan Tongass National Forest so it would be available for logging,
reversing a rule putting virtually all of the forest off-limits to road
construction. Beautiful, lush and remote Tongass is America’s largest
national forest and the largest remaining pristine temperate rainforest on
earth, a remnant of an increasingly rare ecosystem. Bush officials also
recently announced that later this year could seek exemptions from the
"Roadless Rule" for Alaska's Chugach National Forest and allow
state governors generally to seek modifications in the rules covering areas
previously deemed by the government to be left as roadless wilderness.
Several laws are being dismantled by the Bush Administration that have
protected our forests for decades. For example, the president is working
with logging corporations, allowing them to clear cut and thin our forests
under the guise of “forest fire protection”. Yet, the Forest Service
owns research shows that fires are twice as likely to occur in logged area
where large fire resistant trees are taken and left behind with logging
debree, twigs, and needles that act as fuel for fire. Another recent Bush
announcement --- “conserving critical habitat for America's endangered
species has no value and should be avoided”. The Administration has
already reduced the size of critical habitat designations by 51 percent over
the past two years. The Administration is also proposing to change the ways
federal agencies consult with one another by taking fish and wildlife
experts out of public land management and replacing them with bureaucrats
primarily concerned with logging and grazing America's National Forests.
What can you do? Make your Grandchildren proud by standing up and
fighting for their resources. Get active. Call Sierra Club at 801-467-9297
Sierra Club Press Releases (June 3, 2003)
Bush Administration to Take Attack on American Wilderness to the Supreme
Court
Administration seeks to bar judicial review of its failure to protect
wilderness lands, remove public from public lands decision-making
Washington, D.C. -- The Bush Administration has signaled it is preparing
to ask the US Supreme Court to throw out a lower court ruling which found
the public has a right to enforce wilderness protections on public lands. In
May, the Bush administration filed a 10-page brief with the Supreme Court
outlining why the lower court decision should be thrown out and requested an
extension for filing its request for review until June 18, 2003 - but
stopped short of asking the Court to take the case. Now, the administration
has two weeks to file.
The case, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) v. Gale Norton,
centers on whether the federal government should be held accountable for
impairment that has occurred in Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) due to
uncontrolled off-road vehicle (ORV) use. Designated Wilderness areas and
WSAs prohibit ORVs, mining, logging, road-building, and other development.
Both must be managed in a way so that their wilderness values are not
impaired.
"In the past month, not only has the Bush administration signaled
its unwillingness to protect the last of our wilderness heritage, it has
also inked a secret settlement with Utah that will undercut protection for
another 6 million acres of redrock canyons, and another closed-door
agreement that would allow Utah to disqualify lands for wilderness
protection by claiming that stream beds and jeep tracks are roads,"
said Heidi McIntosh, conservation director of SUWA, which first filed suit
against the Interior Department.
If the Supreme Court takes the case, and ultimately decides in favor of
the Bush administration, it would have a profound impact on public land
management across the West. The courts have been the last refuge for
citizens seeking to enforce environmental laws, and now the Bush
administration is attempting to take that away from the public, too.
"If the Court sides with the Bush administration, it gives them the
green light to hand over our last wild places to big business for their
destructive activities," said Mike Matz, executive director of the
Campaign for America's Wilderness. "And failing to protect this
wilderness as currently required under the law ruins the land while robbing
our children of a natural heritage legacy. If the public gets shut out,
there truly will be no one guarding the hen house. If the Bush
administration gets its way, there will be no proverbial hen house to
protect."
In August 2002, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of
conservation groups which sought to protect scenic WSAs from ORVs after
federal officials allowed the abuse. As this case demonstrates -- and which
the federal government admits -- uncontrolled ORV use in the Utah WSAs has
"seriously impaired the WSAs at issue." Despite this, the BLM and
the federal government maintain that the public had no legal standing to
bring such a suit, and -- after admitting impairment had occurred -- argued
the public cannot hold BLM accountable for such a violation or promises to
prevent such harm in Resource Management Plans.
"With this argument in tow, the Bush administration is allowing
off-road vehicles to carve new roads all over wilderness study areas,"
said The Wilderness Society's Pam Eaton. "And the public will be able
to do nothing about it in the courts. With this legal principle in hand,
there is no reason the Department of the Interior and the BLM could not
allow wilderness areas themselves to be degraded since they would not have
to fear the courts looking over their shoulder at the request of
citizens."
The state of Utah and several counties also intervened in the suit,
asking the judge not to close any area to ORV use -- no matter how damaged
-- claiming the trails in question rightfully belong to the state or
counties under an outdated statute known as Revised Statute (R.S.) 2477.
Ultimately, the 10th Circuit ruling found the federal government had
violated the Federal Land Management Policy Act (FLPMA) and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it failed to protect WSAs from damage.
"Thousands of Americans have logged countless hours inventorying
these special places so that one day their children and grandchildren can
enjoy a wilderness legacy," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club executive
director. "The Bush administration is willing to go all the way to the
Supreme Court to deny that legacy."
This latest move by the administration comes in a series of recent
actions taken to wipe out public land protections in favor of development
interests, in spite of overwhelming public support for more wilderness
protection. In April, the administration gutted protection for all WSAs
identified since 1993 and banned the consideration of any new ones by this
administration and all future administrations. In January, the
administration issued a rule to allow states and governments to exploit R.S.
2477 -- a 137-year-old loophole -- and stake claim to millions of miles of
public lands in order to construct highways. Earthjustice is representing a
number of conservation organizations in a legal challenge to these actions.
"Public involvement in decisions over public lands use is the one
problem standing in the way of developers, loggers, miners and off road
vehicle users. Now the Bush administration is doing a full court press on
behalf of the far right wing to get the public out of the way," said
Earthjustice attorney Jim Angell.
Contact: Heidi McIntosh, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 801-486-3161,
ext. 15 Jim Angell, Earthjustice, 303-623-9466 Kathryn Seck, Campaign for
America's Wilderness, 202-266-0436 David Slater, The Wilderness Society,
202-429-8441 Annie Strickler, Sierra Club, 202-675-2384
Snowmobiles take Over Wasatch-Cache Forest (May 18
- 25, 2003)
The Bear River range of Northern Utah was once a cross-country and back
country skier's paradise. These isolated mountains offered a combination of
skiiable terrain and snow conditions that are unsurpassed - anywhere.
Over time, however, this skier's paradise has become a paradise lost.
Increasing numbers of snowmobiler's combined with the evolution of ever more
powerful machines capable of going anywhere and in all snow conditions, has
resulted in skiers being forced out of areas they once heavily utilized.
During the 1980's the Temple Peak race that started in the Sinks and ran to
the Utah State University Forestry Camp traditionally saw more than 300
skiers vying for the honor of fastest man (or woman) on the mountain. Today,
on a typical winter Saturday at the Sinks, nary a skier can be seen through
the blue cloud of air pollution or amid the din of 2-cycle engines. What was
once a thriving destination Yurt business serving clients from all over Utah
and across the country has fallen on hard times: and little wonder, who
would want to spend long hours packing into a backcountry Yurt, expecting
the peace and tranquility of wilderness, only to find yourself in the middle
of a play-ground for high-powered snowmobiles.
The Forest Service, recognizing the loss of what was once a thriving
community of foot-powered winter travelers, has recently set aside a small
portion of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest for winter non-motorized
recreation. The designated non-motorized winter recreation area, which
includes the two yurts, contains premier terrain that offers a wide variety
of opportunities for beginning skiers and families, as well as the more
experienced backcountry traveler. Even this relatively small piece of the
Forest (approximately 7,500 acres or 0.8% as compared to the 540,700 acres
that are open to snowmobiles) has outraged the snowmobile community. In the
words of the president of the Top of Utah Snowmobile Association, "
This is not acceptable by any means."
The Forest Service can be expected to face serious pressure from the
snowmobile industry and their lobbyists, like the International Snowmobile
Manufacturers Association (ISMA), that successfully sabotaged the Park
Service ban of snowmobiles from Yellowstone National Park. Let Forest
Supervisor Tom Tidwell know that you support the Revised Forest Plan for the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest, and the designation of some areas for
non-motorized recreation. Help the Forest Service stand up to the bullying
tactics of a powerful industry and their supporters that want the entire
Forest open for their special, and limited use. Do it not only for the
skiers, snow-shoers, hikers, or dog-mushers; but also for the wildlife, who
also deserve a break from these loud, polluting, and intimidating machines.
Mr. Tidwell can be reached at
Thomas L. Tidwell, Forest Supervisor
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
8236 Federal Building
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84138
(801) 542-3900
Mercury and Electricity (May 11-16, 2003)
Mercury is an unseen poison that is known to be very toxic to human
health. It's occurrence in our environment has tripled in the last 25 years
and is rising.
By far the largest source of mercury in the atmosphere is from the
burning of coal for electricity generation. Electricity is big business and
cleaning up mercury cuts profits.
Politics, big business, and greed surrounding mercury pollution are
affecting our ability to protect our health. Case in point-The EPA produced
a report on mercury toxicity 9 months ago but did not release it to the
media until only recently. After a delay of 9 months certain members of
congress insisted it be released. The report, adds to the other detailed
information we already have on mercurys harm to human life by detailing the
level of threat to vulnerable populations, such as fetuses and pregnant and
nursing women. The scientific report found that many American women with
high levels of mercury in their blood have a high risk of having children
with adverse health effects such as mental retardation, neural impairment,
and developmental delays.
Why was the report held up for 9 months? According to a recent article in
the Utah Sierran by air quality expert Nina Dougherty, "the Bush
Administration recently moved to relax the timetable for reducing mercury
pollution, (so) it's understandable (why) they didn't want this worrisome
news about mercury to reach a wide audience". Bush's plan for mercury
allows 520 percent MORE mercury pollution than would have been allowed by
the current law.
And soon, thanks to the Utah legislature the mercury pollution in Utah
will be rising. The 2003 legislature passed a bill that will allow big
expansions of the IPP Utah coal fired power plant by allowing electricity to
be sold to out of state customers. In the mean time the backward minded
legislature ended up doing nothing at all promote alternative energy sources
such as wind power, solar, or biomass.
For more information please call the Sierra Club at 801-467-9297
Clean Water Act Weakened (April 2003)
In January 2003, the Bush administration announced that it would no
longer use the Clean Water Act to protect many of America's waters from
pollution discharges, dredging, filling, and other assaults.
The administration's new policy removes Clean Water Act protections from
many of the nation's so-called "isolated" waters-small streams,
ponds, and wetlands. The administration considers the waters
"isolated" because they do not have any visible connection to
other waters. However, many scientists doubt that any waters can be
considered truly isolated. Harm done to a body of water can damage the
larger waters that it is connected to, even if those connections are
intermittent or underground.
According to the EPA, 20 percent of the United States' remaining
wetlands, some 20 million acres, plus many small streams and ponds, may now
be excluded from the Clean Water Act. Developers will now be able to fill
many wetlands and small streams without a permit, and mining companies,
industrial waste discharges, and municipal sewage treatment plants will no
longer need permits to dump wastes into many waters.
For 30 years, the Clean Water Act has provided a safeguard against the
dumping of waste into our waters and the dredging and filling of wetlands.
Today slightly more than half of our waters meet clean water standards.
"The Clean Water Act is one of our most successful environmental
laws," says Robin Mann, chair of the Sierra Club's Wetlands Taskforce.
"The Bush administration should focus on enforcing that law, not
weakening it."
The risks associated with removing Clean Water Act protection from so-called
isolated streams, wetlands, and ponds include:
· Threats to endangered or threatened wildlife species. Forty-three
percent of endangered or threatened wildlife species, including the whooping
crane, rely on wetlands for survival. More than half the ducks in North
America rely on wetlands as their breeding habitat.
· More Pollution. The EPA's most recent data show that the nation's
waters are already getting dirtier and almost half of our rivers, streams,
lakes, and coastal estuaries are not safe for fishing, swimming, or boating.
· Threats to public health. People may come into contact with
bacteria, pathogens, toxics, and other pollutants from waters that are no
longer protected from industrial discharges.
· Increased flooding.
· Depleted drinking water sources. Water sources like the Ogallala
aquifer in Texas that are recharged by playa lakes and other wetland and
stream systems could be depleted.
To Take Action:
1. Contact your senators and representative. Urge them to protect the
waters in your region.
2. Send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. For a sample letter
and more information, visit http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanwater/get_involved.asp.
3. Join with members of your community in a local water monitoring program
to measure the health of a local stream or wetland. To learn more, visit http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/vol.html.
4. Join our e-mail list and keep up to date on campaign developments by
sending an e-mail to clean.water@sierraclub.org .
For more information, visit http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanwater
or contact Ananda Hirsch at ananda.hirsch@sierraclub.org.
Logging the Sequoias (March 12 -19,
2003)
Have you ever seen those great big beautiful Giant Sequoias in
California? The oldest (up to 3000 years) and biggest trees on earth? They
are so big "you could drive a car through them". And that is
exactly what the Bush Administration will allow to happen.
According to California Sierra Club activists, the Bush backed Forest
Service plan for Sequoia has surprised the most hardened activists. The plan
puts logging center stage in Sequoia National Monument. In fact they want to
log 10 million board feet of big trees a year. They even want to log giant
sequoias. To clarify the politics -there is a sawmill on the edge of the
Sequoia forest. And it seems the forest service wants to preserve the
sawmill more than the trees. Kent Duysen, general manager of the mill, a big
Bush fan keeps promoting logging the same way the Bush administration is-by
exaggerating the risk of fire. The Saw Mill managers opinion in local media;
he thinks the forest service is right on target but wonders if they are
going far enough to prevent catastrophic fire. (source: Sierra Club Website)
Although The Bush Forest Plan called "Healthy Forest
Initiative" may fool many it doesn't fool us. This Forest Plan,
approved last month as part of a giant spending bill, allows logging
companies to cut large, commercially valuable trees in national forests in
exchange for clearing smaller, more fire-prone trees and brush. Known as
"stewardship contracting," the approach allows the U.S. Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management to issue 10-year contracts to private
contractors for clearance work with no limits on the size of trees to be cut
or the number of acres cleared. (source: Associated Press, March 8). Critics
say timber companies are unlikely stewards and that the administration is
turning over huge swaths of national forests to an industry that supported
President Bush in 2000. To oversee the plan, for which Congress has approved
some $2.27 billion, the Bush administration has formed a new cabinet-level
Interagency Wildland Fire Leadership Council. The panel is co-chaired by
Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey, who happens to be a former
timber-industry lobbyist. (source: MotherJones.com)
194 millions acres of our national forests are at risk of being destroyed
because Bush is allowing the fox to guard the hen house. Logging companies
are not stewards of the land. According to many forest scientists this plan
may increase fire risk because logging of mature and old growth trees can
actually increase the intensity of fires while destroying valuable wildlife
habitat in the process.
What can you do? You have until March 17th to send your comments on the
Forest Service's proposal to log Giant Sequoia National Monument. Tell them
that logging mature, fire-resistant trees is unacceptable. For more
information see Sierraclub.org or call 801-467-9297.
2003 Anti Environmental Riders
Several anti-environment riders were snuck into the final text of the
3000-page, 397 billion-dollar spending bill passed by Congress on February
13th. Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, criticized his colleagues
for a 3,000 page document that "no one in this body has had time to
thoroughly review, examine, and debate." Anti-environmental, mostly
Republican congressman took this as a opportunity to sandwich riders into
the fine print of the enormous Budget Bill that promote the Timber and Oil
industry but threaten to erode decades of important environmental
protections.
One of the most environmentally damaging is a rider that expands the Bush
administration's controversial forest stewardship program. This program
permits the Forest Service to allow private contractors hired to thin
national forests to take whatever timber they want from the treated area
with no limits to what kind or size of trees that can be removed and sold.
The language inserted into the spending bill expands it into a full blown
program for 10 years and adds the lands managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. Some 450 million acres of public lands could now be subject to
this program, which has never been evaluated for cost or for environmental
impact.
Other riders would undermine protection for our nation's air and
wetlands, decrease endangered species protections in the Missouri River,
fund a project to drain 200,000 acres of wetlands, cut funding for land
conservation, weaken the national organic labeling standard, and strive to
impair states' ability to establish stronger environmental
protections.
Just a few years ago 600 public meetings were held nationwide and more
than 2 million public comments were in favor of the roadless rule which bans
roadbuilding in undeveloped national forests. Despite the fact that the
overwhelming majority of US public favors protection of our National Forests
another rider slid by via Republican Senator Ted Stevens and fellow
Congressman, Alaskan Don Young that exempts the entire state of Alaska from
the roadless rule and opens the Tongass National Forest, and the Chugach
National Forest, to further logging. Still another rider authorizes
pre-leasing activities for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. This rider made it despite the fact that the majority of Americans
want no drilling in the Arctic and last year the U.S. Senate rejected
proposals to drill there 54-46.
"The American people have already spoken in favor of protecting
these special places, and sneaky maneuvering by a few in Congress should not
forever change that," said Debbie Sease Sierra Club legislative
director. "These proposals weaken important environmental protections,
undermine democratic principles and contradict the will of the American
public. This continues a long, ugly pattern by the Bush Administration,
Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) and others in Congress who will stop at nothing
to promote the interests of the timber and oil companies."
SB 21 To Expand Power Plant in Delta, Utah (Feb 9 -
17, 2003)
A new bill, introduced to the Utah Legislature by Senator Leonard
Blackham of Moroni, was drafted to make investing in a new coal-fired power
plant unit at IPP in Delta more attractive and profitable to out-of-state
investors. Although not explicitly stated, the likely buyer of the
electricity would be the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
This bill, SB 21, by carefully altering definitions and terms, would
allow out-of-state consumers to purchase an undefined portion of output from
the proposed new unit at Intermountain Power Plant, getting around the
apparent requirement that the majority of electricity go to Utah.
This legislation would leave Utah with the air pollution, depleted water
supplies and scars from coal mining, while giving out-of-state consumers the
benefits of power without the resulting pollution. The additional generating
unit at IPP would likely increase dangerous smog and particulate pollutants
in Utah by up to 14% and carbon dioxide—the primary cause of global
warming—by 17%. So what do you think of the bargain, Los Angeles gets the
electricity, and as a consequence of global warming, we lose one of our
biggest non-polluting industries—skiing? Try this one on for size: Utah—The
Greatest Rain on Earth.
SB 21 offers Utah consumers no way to retrieve the energy that is sold
out of state when we need this power during summer peaks in use. In the
past, Utah had some insulation from the expensive purchases on the spot
market during peak use periods by calling back power as we did during the
2001 electricity crisis. SB 21 presents the appearance of preserving this
protection, but the added definitions create a loophole that voids that
protection. With only the spot market to turn to in times of crisis, we
could face the same kind of devastating power shortages and rate increases
that California saw during the summer of 2001.
In just a minute, I’ll give you a web site address from which you can
send a message protesting this bill. SB 21 slid quickly through the senate.
Please contact your representatives and ask them to vote against SB 21. The
general telephone number to leave a message for any member of the Utah House
of Representatives is (801) 538-1029. The web site address is http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/utahsb21.
Written by Mark Clemens, Utah Chapter Coordinator
State of the Union (Feb 2 -8, 2003)
If you listened to President Bush’s State of the Union address last
week in which he talked about his plans for the environment you may have
falsely felt encouraged. In reality, according to major environmental
groups, all the president paid to the environment was lip service.
In his address President Bush said his clear skies legislation will
mandate a 70 percent cut in air pollution from power plants over the next 15
years. But according to the prestigious Natural Resources Defense Council:
The air pollution plan touted by the President in the State of the Union
address is in fact a significant reversal of existing Clean Air Act
safeguards, favoring large utility companies and other corporate polluters
over the health of the American public.
Bush also said his healthy forest initiative will help prevent the
catastrophic fires that devastate communities, kill wildlife, and burn
millions of acres of forests. William Meadows, president of The Wilderness
Society said "Unfortunately, the president's statements about energy
and forests did nothing to allay our deep concerns about the
Administration's environmental agenda."
Perhaps the most controversial of President Bush’s statements was his
proposed $1.2 billion in research funding for hydrogen-powered automobiles,
saying that bringing these cars to market will make the United States less
dependent on foreign sources of energy.
According to Daniel Becker, Director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming
and Energy Program, President Bush's FreedomCAR program which Bush spoke of
in his State of the Union Address is built on the flawed Partnership for A
New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), which squandered billions of taxpayer
dollars in research and development but did not bring a single hybrid
vehicle to the marketplace. Similarly, the FreedomCAR program funnels
millions to Detroit without requiring that they produce a single fuel cell
vehicle for the public to purchase.
The auto industry is using the promise of future fuel cells as a shield
against using existing technology to dramatically cut our oil dependence,
and pollution, today. This technology is sitting on the shelf while Detroit
dithers. Honda and Toyota are producing hybrid vehicles today, the big three
are not. Meanwhile, FreedomCAR is re-inventing the wheel. Refusing to demand
that the Big Three use modern, gas-saving technology is irresponsible.
The President seems to be comfortable with the auto industry's approach:
'Don't make us do anything today, Twenty years from now, we may develop fuel
cells, America can wait' We cannot wait, and Americans want and deserve
better.
Energy Saving Techniques (Jan 23 - 29, 2003)
What does Utah’s warm January weather, massive extinction of plants and
animals, hotter summers, forest fires, sickening air pollution, increased
asthma rates in American children, extreme weather, floods and droughts have
in common? Fossil fuels. Oil, coal generated electricity, gas.
The rapid buildup of greenhouse gases from burning ever-increasing
quantities of coal, oil and gas is choking our planet in a cloud of
pollution. Scientists say that unless we begin to act now to curb fossil
fuel use our children will live in a world where the climate will be far
less hospitable than it is today.
So what can you do?
Start by conserving energy however you can. Here are a few examples:
1. Compact fluorescent light bulbs use only about a third as much
electricity as standard incandescents. And though the bulbs are slightly
more expensive to buy, a compact-fluorescent will easily pay for itself by
lasting up to ten times longer than regular bulbs. According to some
experts, if you substitute compact fluorescent bulbs for a quarter of the
incandescents used in high-use areas, you can cut the amount of electricity
you use on lighting by half -- saving money and our environment.
2. Though changing light bulbs is easy, heating cold water is often the most
energy intensive process in your home. Many hot water heaters are set too
high. To save energy reduce the temperature to 120 degrees F. Reduce the
quantity of hot water you use by washing clothes in cold water, installing
water saving shower heads and taking shorter showers.
3. Refrigerators and freezers are big fossil fuel users, to cut down on
energy use set your refrigerator thermostat to between 36 and 38 degrees F,
and the freezer to between 0 and 5 degrees F. Clean the coils at the back or
bottom of the unit. Test the seal on the refrigerator and freezer door
gaskets by closing the door on a dollar bill. If it pulls out easily, you
may need a new gasket. If your refrigerator is more than ten years old,
consider replacing it with a newer, more energy-efficient model.
4. If your house is more than 15 years old, check the insulation in the
attic and floor. Even if the insulation met requirements when it was
installed 15 years ago, it may have settled significantly over time. You can
cut heating costs by up to 25 percent simply by installing proper ceiling
insulation to at least R-30 standards. Insulate walls, floors, and heating
ducts, too.
5. Connect your PC, monitor, fax machine, and computer peripherals to a
single power strip that can be turned off when they're not in use. This will
end "leakage" from devices that drain power even when they aren't
turned on. This technique can also be used for your home entertainment
components.
Hope for Environment depends on Activism (Jan 16 -
22, 2003)
Although at times it seems the environment is a hopeless effort—there
ARE positive reasons to believe the future is bright. Yes, the Bush
administration seems to attack another environmental law almost every week.
Yes, they want to weaken the Clean Air Act, the National Forest Protection
Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act. But a recent article
in the Sierra Club Planet Magazine asserts "The sky is not falling.
Support for environmental protections remains strong".
The Sierra Club's environmental message was not repudiated in the
election, it got trumped. And just barely. According to elections analyst
Charlie Cook, "A swing of 94,000 votes out of 75,723,756 cast
nationally would have resulted in the Democrats capturing control of the
House and retaining a majority in the Senate on November 5. If that had
occurred, obituaries would have been written-inevitably and
prematurely-about the presidency of George W. Bush."
The president is popular, but his environmental policies are not. A New
York Times/CBS News poll (November 29, 2002) found that by a two-to-one
margin, Americans say that protecting the environment is more important than
producing energy. Fifty-five percent say they disapprove of White House
efforts to drill for oil in the Arctic Refuge. When voters had a chance to
support environmental ballot initiatives, they did so, approving 79 of 99
state and local measures to preserve wildlife habitat and open space, and
authorizing $2.6 billion for land acquisition.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which will prevent polluting
industries from dumping unlimited "soft money" into electoral
campaigns, went into effect on November 6th. The law, which passed in March,
is a critical first step toward giving power back to voters.
Says Club President Jennifer Ferenstein "We have to engage and
enrage the American people. Cleaning up 70 percent of the air is not
acceptable. Manufacturing cars that get nine miles to the gallon is not
acceptable. We want more than this. We deserve more than this. But we have
to fight for it."
It will not be an easy fight. The American people may support the Sierra
Club's position on protecting the environment, but unless they stand up for
it, the oil and auto and timber industries and their ilk will continue to
set and dominate the agenda. The Sierra Club's tall order is to mobilize the
citizenry and encourage Americans to demand the environmental protections
they support. We may know how to clean up power plants, but unless we
counter the financial power of the coal and utility industries with people
power, the dirty power plants will keep on polluting.
What Can you Do?
Don’t be apathetic, don’t just sit there and complain--get involved,
become an activist, your help is needed. There is hope for the environment
if EVERY concerned citizen stands up and fights. For more information call
the Sierra Club at 801-467-9297.
What is in store for 2003? (Jan 2 - 8, 2003)
The closing of 2002 is a good time to review significant environmental
stories of this past year and catch a glimpse of the major issues to be
expected in 2003.
This past year, the Bush Administration led a direct assault on the laws
that protect America's water, air, and natural treasures. The record is
astounding: relaxing clean air protections for dirty power plants; reducing
toxic waste clean-up; pursuing oil and gas development in National Parks and
other natural treasures such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; and
attempting to revoke protections on remaining roadless areas on National
Forests. And those are just some of the issues that have been made public.
Offering sober look behind the scenes, Eric Schaeffer, the highly
regarded Enforcement Director at the Environmental Protection Agency,
resigned last February because of the White House's deliberate attempts to
undermine EPA lawsuits against 9 power companies who were flagrantly
violating the Clean Air Act. The Administration's efforts to roll back basic
environmental safeguards will inevitably continue in 2003, with a Congress
that has empowered notorious, anti-environmental legislators to key
leadership positions.
According to an article published in the Salt Lake Tribune in late
December, "when Republicans regain control of the Senate in January,
conservation groups and their mostly Democratic allies will lose their power
to stop many of the energy and environmental initiatives pushed by President
Bush and House GOP leaders. Environmentalists' only major victory in 2002 --
the defeat of a plan to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil
and gas drilling -- could be reversed as pro-drilling senators become
leaders. But most of the challenges to environmental protection laws are
expected to come directly from the Bush administration, which is looking at
major changes in the landmark Clean Air and Clean Water acts and supports
increased logging in national forests and oil and gas exploration in the
Rocky Mountain West."
What can you do? Get involved. Now perhaps more than at anytime in
American History your help is needed. Become an environmental activist. For
more information call the Sierra Club office at 801-467-9297.
Kyoto Protocol/Global Warming (Dec 15 - 22, 2002)
The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, the treaty to limit greenhouse gases, has inched closer to becoming
reality (no thanks to the U.S.), as both Canada and New Zealand signed on to
the accords this month.
Following a yea vote in Parliament on December 10th, Canada's Prime
Minister Jean Chretien said he was prepared to formally ratify the Kyoto
Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions by year's end. The Treaty requires
Canada to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 6 percent below 1990 levels by
2012. Kyoto only becomes binding if and when a minimum of 55 countries,
responsible for at least 55 percent of 1990 greenhouse gas emissions, ratify
the measure. With Canada and New Zealand aboard, the tally is now 98
countries and 40.7 percent of emissions.
The United States, responsible for fully one-quarter of the total world
production of greenhouse gases, backed out of the treaty under President
George W. Bush. Without American support, it is left to Russia - which
earlier promised to ratify - to decide whether or not the protocol goes into
effect.
The news comes amid sobering climate news. The year 2002 is now
officially the second warmest year on record after 1998, and NASA reports
that the coverage of Arctic Sea ice reached a record low this summer. A
record-breaking string of warmth in recent years - with last year now going
down as the third warmest year on record and 1998 still holding the all-time
record - has scientists and climate experts concerned that greenhouse gases
are warming the planet more quickly than expected.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts global
temperatures will rise 3 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
This level of warming over 100 years is equivalent or greater than the
warming that occurred from the last glaciation during a period of many
centuries. Scientists predict that the rapid warming of earth will lead to
more severe storms and droughts, the rapid warming scenario will have
immense effects on the natural world, with mass extinction of animals and
plants due to their inability to adapt to rapidly changing climate
conditions.
To help cause a change. Educate yourself and those around you on
the many ways you can personally reduce your consumption of electricity,
gas, and oil. Write letters to the editor of your newspaper, call your
political representatives and become involved.
Revised National Forest Management Act (Nov 28 -
Dec 5, 2002)
This Thanksgiving the timber industry will enjoy a hearty feast of
increased logging courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service. The Bush
administration on Tuesday November 26th announced the revised National
Forest Management Act rules to make forest plans voluntary and eliminate
opportunities for public participation. This is the latest in a string of
decisions to rewrite National Forest management safeguards to benefit
logging companies.
The regulations, first implemented under the National Forest Management
Act early in the Reagan Administration, were revised and updated in 2000
after significant scientific and public input. But after complaints from the
timber industry, the Bush administration put the revised safeguards on the
chopping block. The new forest management act directives would severely
limit public participation in deciding how public lands are used.
These sweeping changes in forest management rules reflect the Bush
Administration's continued efforts to undermine forest protections and
reward timber industry contributors. The Roadless Area Conservation Act (
which enjoyed overwhelming support with Americans but incited anger among
timber companies ) was the first victim of the new Administration's logging
craze. Then, after this summer's forest fires, the administration tried to
sell the public a free rein for the industry under the guise of "fuel
reduction."
The Bush Administration's undersecretary for Natural Resources and
Environment Mark Rey, former lobbyist for the American Forest and Paper
Association, has led the charge. Unremarkably, today's Forest Management Act
changes mirror the timber industry "wish list" from the American
Forest and Paper Association's 2001 congressional testimony. The rewritten
Forest Management Act rules would allow timber sales and other projects even
if they are inconsistent with the forest plan, allow logging anywhere in the
forest (even where it is prohibited by the plan) under the guise of
"salvage logging" or "fuel reduction". · The new rules
would abuse the National Environmental Policy Act by excluded forest plans
from meaningful environmental analysis, eliminate the current requirements
for maintaining native wildlife species on national forests and would
eliminate public appeals of forest plans.
What can you do? For more information or to get involved in Sierra
Club's efforts to preserve our National Forests, log onto the National
Sierra Club web site at www.sierraclub.org and visit the forests section or
call the Utah Sierra Club office at 801-467-9297.
Ozone Standards to be Enforced
(Nov 14 - 20, 2002)
Thanks to a coalition of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club,
and the American Lung Association, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
will begin enforcing long-delayed air pollution standards, increasing smog
protections in scores of cities across the country.
The new standard developed under the Clinton administration in 1997
allows less ozone one of the most harmful air pollutants. The standard was
subsequently challenged by industry and manufacturing groups. Those
challenges reached the Supreme Court, which effectively reaffirmed the plan
but asked the lower courts to review some portions of it. In March, the U.S.
Court of Appeals dismissed any remaining objections.
Environmental groups, however, had to sue to get the EPA to actually
implement the five-year-old rule, which stipulates that ozone levels must
not exceed 0.08 parts per million during any eight-hour period. In a
settlement reached Wednesday November 13th, the agency agreed to name cities
that do not meet the new ozone standard by April 2004. The list could
include some 320 communities in 38 states.
Not to be confused with atmospheric ozone, low-level ozone is a severe
lung irritant that damages lung tissue and compromises functioning of the
lungs, causing symptoms including chest pain, nausea, and pulmonary
congestion. Newer health studies, which show that ozone is more detrimental
to human health at lower levels than previously thought prompted a call for
tightening regulations. Indeed the public health ramifications are enormous.
The Los Angeles Times reports that, according to the EPA's own figures,
better air-quality standards will prevent 15,000 premature deaths, 350,000
cases of asthma and 1 million cases of diminished lung function in children.
Non-attainment would mean that the cities or towns in violation of the
Clean Air Act could lose federal highway improvement funds and also receive
an assessment of penalties aimed at restricting development.
The stricter enforcement of air pollution standards will be important to
citizens on the Wasatch Front because ozone levels now are just barely
meeting older less restrictive standards and at the same time the population
and highway travel is growing rapidly. The principle source of ozone on the
Wasatch Front is cars and other road vehicles.
What can you do? Drive less, drive a fuel-efficient car, and
support efforts to improve public transit.
Organic Food Label (Oct 17 - 23, 2002)
On October 21st American shoppers will see a new food label in
supermarkets across the nation. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has
put in place a set of national standards that food labeled
"organic" must meet whether it is grown in the US or imported from
other countries. After October 21st food labeled "organic" must
meet USDA rules.
Unlike current nutritional and ingredients labels, the new organic label
will allow shoppers to know how their food is grown and processed. This
standard could mark the beginning of a new era in American agriculture in
which organic foods migrate from the fringe to the mainstream.
Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable
resources and conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental
quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy
products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones.
Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides;
petroleum-based fertilizers or sewage-sludge based fertilizers;
bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled
organic, a government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is
grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet
USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before
it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified too.
Recent studies have shown that organic farms harbor many times more
insects, birds, soil organisms, wild plants, and other biological diversity
than their non-organic neighbors, because of the absence of agrochemicals,
because of the greater variety of crops grown, and because of the greater
health of the soil. Organic produce carries substantially lower pesticide
residues than conventional produce. And studies have also indicated that
organic farms can be as productive as conventional farms, and are often more
profitable.
Organic agriculture is clearly better for the environment. So this week
when you go to the supermarket look for the new green USDA organic label.
New Logging Plan (Sept 15 to 21,
2002)
Last week Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) introduced an amendment to the Interior Appropriations
bill that would increase destructive commercial logging,
gut important environmental protections under the guise of forest fire prevention,
and fail to adequately protect communities from fires.
Craig's logging amendment is an extension of President's Bushes new logging plan.
Under the pretext of "forest protection"
(after a summer of precedent setting forest fires)
Bush in August unveiled his so-called "Healthy Forest Initiative".
Craig’s amendment (and Bush’s “Healthy Forest Initiative”) calls
for logging of 10 million acres of federal land considered at
highest risk of catastrophic wildfire. It allows the logging of large trees
in remote backcountry areas, roadless areas, and vital habitat for threatened
and endangered species, prime recreational areas, and municipal watersheds.
While the amendment's supporters claim such logging would reduce
fire risk--in reality the amendment is just a benefit for the timber industry.
The increased logging called for in the plan could actually worsen the problem of forest fires. In fact, President Bush has ignored the Forest Service's own scientists which have found that logging, including "thinning," can actually increase the number and intensity of forest fires.
If this rider makes it though the senate where it is currently being debated
it would be a serious insult to the future of our last remaining pristine forests.
Of utmost importance is that Craig’s rider would set a disastrous precedent
for the democratic process because it proposes a waiver of environmental
laws and judicial review for logging projects in our national forests.
If passed it could eliminate the effectiveness of important environmental laws,
including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that has protected
National Forests for more than three decades. NEPA, which was signed into
law by President Nixon, ensures that citizens have the right to comment on
federal projects that impact the environment.
Providing the American public an opportunity to be included in the management o
f public lands is a basic right that Congress and the Administration should not take away.
What can you do? Call your senators and tell them you oppose the Craig amendment
to the Interior Appropriations Bill and call all your friends around
the country and urge them to do the same.
We are expecting a vote on the Craig amendment to occur on Tuesday, September 17th
so act quickly!
For information on what we can do to stop forest fires and to
protect our communities see www.sierraclub.org
Produced by Teri Underwood
World Summit (Sept. 8-14, 2002)
The 10-day United Nations World
Summit on Sustainable Development, a gathering of the
world’s leaders to combat the earth’s growing
environmental and economic development problems, ended
Wednesday September 4th with official
adoption of the plan of action that was severely
criticized by environmentalists as too weak.
The summit, touted as the largest
gathering of nations ever, produced a 70-page plan to
help the world's poor without damaging the environment
in the development process. Although the document
contains ambitious targets on a wide range of issues,
such as halving the amount of people who lack access to
clean water or proper sanitation by 2015, and phasing
out toxic chemicals by 2005, environmentalists say these
commitments are undermined by the lack of measurable
goals. In addition, the agreement is NOT binding.
Arguably the worst outcome of this
summit pertains to inaction on climate change and
renewable energy. The summit set no target for boosting
renewable energy, like wind and solar power, despite
attempts by European and Latin American states which
called for better technology to help get power to the
poor and to reduce pollution. According to Phillip Clapp
president of National Environmental Trust the Bush
Administration aggressively held out to the end with
OPEC countries to block targets that would have
increased the percentage of energy production from
renewable sources to 15% by 2015.
Despite the Bush administration’s
attempt to keep the climate change issue off the agenda
there were advances made in the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997
treaty aimed at reducing the industrialized world’s
global warming emissions to five percent below 1990
levels. Russia, China, Mexico, Canada, and Great Britain announced
their intention to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate
change. Russian
ratification alone would most likely make the treaty
legally binding. Kyoto rules state that countries
ratifying must account for 55% of the world’s total
carbon dioxide emissions in order for it to go into
effect. The Bush Administration rejects the Kyoto
protocol and has instead proposed voluntary measures
aimed at limiting “carbon emissions intensities”.
International anger toward Bush
policies was expressed by intense jeering at the summit
that interrupted the speech of Secretary of State Collin
Powell to the plenary session of world leaders. Due to
loud booing Powell had to stop his talk several times in
which he defended genetically modified food aid to
starving African countries and insisted the US is
committed to combat global warming.
Produced by Teri Underwood
Animal Factories (Aug 25-31, 2002)
This August, just weeks after the
second-largest beef recall in history, the Sierra Club
released a report exposing hundreds of criminal and
civil violations committed by America's largest animal
factories. The report, "The RapSheet on Animal
Factories," documents results of an extensive
2-year review of state and federal government records of
the meat industry, from the sprawling factories where
the animals are produced to the industry's
slaughterhouses. In examining the records of more than
630 meat factories in 44 states, Sierra Club found:
massive water pollution resulting from millions of
gallons of animal feces and urine flowing into waterways
workplace deaths, injuries and worker safety violations,
134 million pounds of contaminated and
potentially contaminated meat and repeated, gruesome
violations of the federal Humane Slaughter Act.
In the past few decades our nation
has seen the development of giant, corporate-owned
factory animal farms or Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs). These animal factories confine
thousands of animals in one facility, and produce
staggering amounts of animal waste in the process (2.7
trillion pounds per year). Too often, this waste leaks
into our rivers and streams, fouling our air,
contaminating our drinking water and spreading disease.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, hog,
chicken and cattle waste has polluted 35,000 miles of
rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17
states.
While the RapSheet report focuses
on the largest offenders, an online database available
on the Sierra Club website profiles more than 240
industrial meat factories that have violated public
health and environmental protections. Because anyone can
access the online database, it is intended to serve as a
powerful tool for citizens who want to hold corporate
polluters accountable and keep them out of their
communities.
In Utah the RapSheet sites Circle
Four Farms in Beaver and Iron Counties. Circle Four
Farms is owned by Smithfield foods which is the world's
largest pork producer and packer. Circle Four Farms
confine around 55,000 breeding sows which produce more
than one million market hogs annually. It’s hog
operations have a history of chronic environmental
compliance problems, including multiple spills of
liquefied manure from broken or plugged waste pipelines,
leaking lagoons, a lagoon wall collapse, and groundwater
pollution, including a spill of up to 80,000 gallons of
lagoon sewage into a water well connected to the
underground aquifer. To date, the operations have
apparently paid just $11,700 in state pollution
penalties. The facility also has a poor worker safety
record.
What can you do? Purchase
animal products that were raised on traditional family
farms or from farms who do not raise their livestock in
cramped, inhumane conditions. Farmers who raise their
animals on a smaller scale, giving them room to roam
pose fewer health and environmental risks. To get active
and involved in the fight to keep corporate polluters
accountable call Sierra Club at 801-467-9297.
Produced by Teri Underwood
Up to Top
|
