NEXT PAGE -->
|
March 4, 1999
"I keep wondering when Ford or General Motors will come out with a modified version of the U.S. Army's M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle as the newest entry in the booming sport utility vehicle market. Sooner or later, it's going to come to that, you know, because there is no other way to continue along the SUV highway than bigger, badder and more bruising." ---Stephanie Salter, San Francisco Examiner Columnist
TAKE ACTION: Carcinogenic Dangers in the Air
GLOBAL WARMING: AGU Adds More Data to Global Warming
HEADWATERS: Victory! Some Thank-You Notes Are Due
TAKE ACTION!
CARCINOGENIC DANGERS OF BREATHING? MORE REASONS TO ACT ON TIER II
According to a ground-breaking congressional study released yesterday, Los Angeles Basin residents are breathing unusually dangerous levels of cancer-causing pollutants. Experts say the study is the first of its kind to determine cancer risks in the air that people actually breathe. The report found toxins in high enough levels that the risk of cancer was 426 times higher than health standards established by the 1990 federal Clean Air Act.
The three pollutants posing the greatest dangers -- 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde and benzene -- are produced by cars, trucks and other vehicles.
LOW SULFUR GASOLINE -- PART OF THE ANSWER
Since 1996, California has mandated cleaner-burning, low-sulfur gasoline -- a move the South Coast Air Quality Management District estimates has reduced benzene levels by 40 percent in the Burbank area.
Today, the average level of sulfur in gasoline in the rest of the United States is 300 parts-per-million (ppm), a level that fouls the pollution- control systems in our cars and leads to more soot and toxins in the air we breathe.
The good news is that new regulations for auto pollution and clean gasoline (called Tier II) are currently under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget. These new standards could make low- sulfur gasoline a reality -- not just in California, but all across the nation. Big Oil cringes at the thought. Why? Because less sulfur in your gasoline will, at least initially, cost them some cash.
If we make ourselves heard, we can ensure that the new regulations protect the environment and our children's health, not the industry's bottom line. With strong public support the low sulfur standard that the EPA has proposed will remain in the proposed regulations and become the law of the land.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Help get the word out about clean air. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper about the need to get the sulfur out of our fuel!
1998 WARMEST YEAR OF MILLENIUM, CLIMATE RESEARCHERS REPORT
According to a press release from the American Geophysical Union, researchers at the Universities of Massachusetts and Arizona who study global warming have released a report strongly suggesting that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the millennium, with 1998 the warmest year so far. Researchers have also found that the warming in the 20th century counters a 1,000-year-long cooling trend. The study appears in the March 15 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.
The study involved a close examination of natural archives, such as tree rings and ice cores, which record climate variations each year. Using information gathered by scientists around the world during the past few decades, the team used sophisticated computer analysis and statistics to reconstruct yearly temperatures and their statistical uncertainties, going back to the year AD 1000.
The year 1998 was earlier found to be the warmest year on record in separate reports released by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The reports were issued in January 1999, reviewing climatic conditions for the previous year, but the studies examined records only going back 120 years.The new study puts the conclusions from NASA and NOAA in a much longer perspective.
According to the researchers, the 1,000-year reconstruction reveals that temperatures dropped an average of 0.02 degrees Celsius per century prior to the 20th century.
"If temperatures change slowly, society and the environment have time to adjust," said researcher Michael Mann. "The slow, moderate, long-term cooling trend that we found makes the abrupt warming of the late 20th century even more dramatic. The cooling trend of over 900 years was dramatically reversed in less than a century. The abruptness of the recent warming is key, and it is a potential cause for concern."
HEADWATERS VICTORY: PLEASE THANK GOV. DAVIS AND SEN. SHER
Newspapers across the country have announced the 11th-hour signing of the Headwaters Forest agreement this week. The federal and California state governments will purchase about 10,000 acres of unprotected ancient redwood forests for the price of $430 million. Also, logging will be banned for 50 years on 12 other groves.
The agreement ensures that on Pacific Lumber Company lands not included in the purchase there will be buffer zones around both permanent and intermittent streams where no logging can occur, helping to protect salmon and other species. Pacific Lumber will be prohibited from logging during winter months when erosion danger is the highest. In addition, trees cut in violation of the agreement will result in hefty fines. In the past, fines have been so small that the company could still make money while paying these fines. Under the new state agreement, penalties will be more than twice the full value of a tree. The company must post a multi-million-dollar bond to cover potential fines and penalties.
"This is the most significant prpotection of lands in California since the Desert Protection Act," said Club Executive Director Carl Pope.
California Gov. Gray Davis and state Sen. Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto) stood firm in their support of this agreement. Please take a moment and drop them a note thanking them for their work to protect Headwaters.
Address letters to:
Gov. Gray Davis State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814
Sen. Byron Sher State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814
(Senator Sher can also be e-mailed at senator.sher@sen.ca.gov)
"In our brave new world of soccer-mom truckers and stock brokers imitating ranchers in their four-wheel-drive vehicles, it's about time some governmental agency finally declares that the pleasure for SUV owners of riding high in the saddle frequently has come at the expense of the rest of us."
-----from Chicago Sun Times, "A reign of terror in SUV era" by Mark Krupnick applauding EPA's proposed Tier II Clean Car standards (see below).
TAKE ACTION: LAST CHANCE TO STRENGTHEN ADMINISTRATION' CAFO PLAN
IN THE AIR: CLEAN AIR REQUIRES CLEAN CARS
TAKE ACTION!
LAST CHANCE TO STRENGTHEN ADMINISTRATION STRATEGY ON ANIMAL FACTORY POLLUTION - ASK YOUR REPRESENTATIVE TO SIGN ON TO EVANS LETTER
Rep. Lane Evans (D-IL-17) is circulating a letter to his House colleagues in a last-minute attempt to persuade EPA and USDA to issue a strong strategy to control pollution from industrial-style animal factories. With the Administration set to release its strategy soon, we urgently need to help Evans recruit members of Congress to co-sign this letter, which will be sent to EPA Administrator Carol Browner and Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman.
The Evans letter is in response to a letter 36 members of the House Agriculture Committee sent to Administrator Browner on February 11. That letter challenges EPA's legal authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate huge quantities of animal manure that are polluting rivers, killing fish, contaminating drinking water, and poisoning the air. It concludes by threatening to haul EPA officials before the Committee for a hostile hearing.
The Evans letter (below) can help give the Administration the courage it needs to release a stronger plan to control the largest animal factories. Its general wording is designed to make it easy for members to sign on. We particularly need Republicans and members from agricultural states.
The deadline for signing is Wednesday, March 10. Please call your member of Congress today and ask him or her to sign on to this letter.
For more information, contact Ed Hopkins or Mike Newman at 202-547-1141.
March 3, 1999
Dear Secretary Glickman and Administrator Browner:
We commend your efforts in creating the USDA/EPA Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. Your cooperative approach recognizes the importance of livestock, pork, dairy and poultry production to our nation's economy while signifying the need to ensure that agricultural production is done in harmony with the environment and public health.
While we believe that the draft strategy is a step in the right direction, it is clear that more must be done to quickly address the social and environmental problems resulting from the concentration of the animal feeding industry. We are pleased that the draft strategy includes requirements for large-scale confinement operations to adopt proper manure handling, storage, and land application methods to reduce agricultural runoff. We also support your efforts to update and expand the number of operations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits within the Clean Water Act. However, as you finalize the strategy we urge you to consider the following:
Promote sustainable agriculture: Although we support the Administration's request to increase funds for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the primary source of USDA assistance for animal feeding operation owners and operators, we are disappointed the draft strategy does little to promote sustainable agriculture programs as pollution prevention tools. We urge that the final strategy give priority attention to directing financial, research, and technical assistance to promote sustainable practices. Economically viable, environmentally sound, and socially responsible, sustainable practices has helped many farmers and ranchers be better stewards of their land through such methods as better soil erosion and nutrient management.
Strengthen measures that allow for public involvement. While we understand that USDA, EPA, and their state partners have limited financial and personnel resources, protecting our nation's water resources and public health should not be compromised. Therefore, we recommend that EPA require individual, rather than general permits, which not only allow for site-specific, tailored requirements but also allows citizens to be notified before a large or expanding animal feeding operation has been established in their community. Individual permits also provide citizens the opportunity to comment on permit and permit-related information before and after they are approved, such as the requirements outlined in a facility's comprehensive nutrient management plan.
Focus first on CAFO's. Because of the increased threat to water and air quality posed by the largest animal feeding operations, we urge that efforts be focused first on permitting CAFO's before considering smaller operations.
Fully evaluate the impacts on all resources. For better accountability and to ensure compliance, permittees should be required to monitor the ground and surface water quality surrounding their operations and periodically report the results to permit authorities. We also urge the strategy to focus beyond water quality impacts to air, soil and wildlife concerns.
We understand the importance of state and federal programs that provide voluntary incentives for animal feeding operations to meet environmental and health safety standards. However, inconsistent state regulations have made it too easy for large operations to relocate to states with weaker regulations. Now is the time for the federal government to not only provide conservation guidance but to also strongly and fully implement the Clean Water Act to minimize fish kills, well water contamination, public health and air quality problems affecting communities across the nation.
Once again, we commend your leadership on this crucial issue. We look forward to working with you on finding common-sense solutions and to timely implement the Unified Animal Feeding Operations Strategy.
Sincerely,
CLEAN AIR WIN TIER II IN THE NEWS! Thanks to lots of hard work by activists, the word is spreading that to clean up our air, we need strong EPA "Tier II" standards! Newspapers across the country are running editorials, articles and letters to the editor proclaiming the need for strong, new Tier II air pollution and clean gasoline regulations.
Here are some samples of the great coverage...
The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY.) 2/24/99 "Those Dirty SUVs" "The Environmental Protection Agency's new two-pronged initiative against auto pollution is not only good news; it's overdue news...The EPA's approach is sensible, realistic and necessary, and smog-sufferers everywhere should hope it prevails."
Chicago Sun-Times 2/26/99 "A Reign of Terror in SUV Era" "It's good news that the Environmental Protection Agency soon will be requiring a major reduction in pollution from sport-utility vehicles...Light trucks, a category that includes pickups and minivans as well as SUVs, have been producing up to three times as much pollution as standard cars... In our brave new world of soccer-mom truckers and stock brokers imitating ranchers in their four-wheel-drive vehicles, it's about time some governmental agency finally declares that the pleasure for SUV owners of riding high in the saddle frequently has come at the expense of the rest of us."
Roanoke Times & World News 2/28/99
TIGHTEN EPA'S RULES TO CLEAR THE AIR "Tougher air-pollution standards both for motor vehicles and for the gasoline that fuels them are essential in an America choking on its own affluence...Strict emission controls are one component of a sound clean-air strategy."
Letter to the Editor from the Associated Press Wire Oakland Tribune 2/24/99 "Trucks Sould Meet Cean Air Sandards
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency put the finishing touches on a proposal that would cut the allowable pollution from cars by 50 percent by 2004. And light trucks - which include sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and minivans - would have to comply with those standards by 2009. Some light trucks will have to cut their emissions by as much as 90 percent.
It's an idea that's long past due, and we hope the White House takes the EPA's proposal seriously when coming up with new regulations in the next few months.
Predictably, automakers have whined that meeting the new standards will be just too expensive, perhaps adding up to $ 7,000 to the price of some larger SUVs. But the Air Resources Board put that price at about $107.
California has already realized that light truck manufacturers have gotten a free ride for too long. It's time the rest of the country follows our lead and puts an end to it.
Public support for the proposed regulations, which are under review at the Office of Management and Budget, is now more vital than ever. "
By sending letters to the editor of YOUR local paper, you can help make sure the Tier 2 word keeps spreading!
If your local paper runs an editorial or letter to the editor on Tier 2, please let us know! e-mail: michelle.artz@sierraclub.org
"This thing is going to weigh 6,000 or 7,000 pounds. It's going to have the aerodynamics of a--your average ranch house or something along those lines. So you're going to get pretty lousy gas mileage "
-- Dan Schroeder, Car and Driver Magazine, on the Ford Excursion (CNBC "Upfront Tonight, 2/26/99)
TAKE ACTION: SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT THE FORD "VALDEZ"
GLOBAL WARMING I: FORD "VALDEZ" MEDIA EXTRAVAGANZA
GLOBAL WARMING II: EARLY SIGNS OF WARMING?
TAKE ACTION!
HELP SPREAD THE WORD! FORD'S NEW GAS-GUZZLING SUV IS A "ROLLING MONUMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION"
Today, Ford gave automotive reporters a sneak preview of their newest Sport Utility Vehicle, the Excursion, better known in environmental circles as the "Ford Valdez." (have you driven a tanker lately?!) Although reporters attending the preview are embargoed from talking about it until Sunday, Ford's new monster polluter has gotten some press already, and it hasn't all been friendly. For Example...
From the Associated Press (2/25), "Ford Launches Biggest SUV Ever" "The Excursion is conspicuously absent from this year's auto show circuit. Ford executives generally have declined to talk about it publicly. On Friday, Ford plans a low-key unveiling of the truck to journalists at its Dearborn headquarters. "
The criticism from major environmental groups has been stinging.
"It's basically a garbage truck that dumps into the sky," Dan Becker, who directs the Sierra Club's global warming program, said Wednesday. "For Ford to build a massive, gas-guzzling, polluting vehicle like this shows how big a job Bill Ford has to make Ford into a green company."
Ford has been trying hard to be understated about the Excursion. But we want to make sure that it gets all the attention it deserves. We'd like you to help us add fuel to the fire by writing a letter to the editor of your local paper. Help us spread the word that this behemoth is an insult to our planet and all of us that breathe.
Thank You!
GLOBAL WARMING I: FORD "VALDEZ" MEDIA EXTRAVAGANZA
Ford Get's More Than They Bargained For With Monster SUV
If everything had gone as planned, Ford Motor Company would be enjoying a quiet week.
Their new "mega" sport utility vehicle, the Excursion (a.k.a -- the Valdez), would have quietly slipped away from the dock over the weekend at a super-secret press event for friendly automotive reporters. News coverage would have been sparse, with glowing reviews in a few auto industry magazines. The American public's first warning about the 19 foot long, three and a half ton road hog would have come when they saw it belching out pollution as it cruised America's highways.
But things most certainly did not go as planned. Thanks to some savvy news reporters, and clever Sierra Club volunteers, the "Excursion" has landed with a thud that's being heard around the world!
Regular SC-ACTION readers will remember that last year the Sierra Club ran a humorous contest on the global warming web site (www.toowarm.org) which asked activists to submit the most "appropriate" names and slogans for Ford's upcoming mega-SUV. Activists responded with enthusiasm, submitting dozens of hilarious entries. The winner, the "Ford Valdez: Have you driven a tanker... lately?", was submitted to Ford last year with fantastic media coverage.
Well as rumors that Ford would soon send the "Excursion" (their name for the monster truck) out to sea, a few savvy automotive reporters remembered the contest and dusted off their Sierra Club press releases. In the span of just a few short hours last week Ford's plans for a "stealth" release went up in flames, and the "Ford Valdez" grabbed headlines across the country.
The Good News
Time Magazine, Good Morning America, ABC, NBC, and CBS evening news, USA Today, the New York Times, and even the conservative Washington Times all ran stories detailing the environmental menace posed by Ford's irresponsible truck. Over 100 newspaper, radio, and television stories have run at last count -- and more keep coming in!
For Ford, the news has not been good:
"This thing is a rolling advertisement for tightening fuel and emission standards," said Dan Becker of the Sierra Club in the District, which is conducting an anti-SUV campaign. Its slogan for the Excursion: "The Ford Valdez. Have you driven a tanker lately?" (The Washington Times, 2/26/99)
"The new SUV could jeopardize Ford's stated goal of making its vehicles the most environmentally benign in the industry. Safety advocates already attacked the Excursion for the threat they say it poses to small cars." (Orange County Register, 2/26/99)
"The Excursion poses a dilemma for Ford. New Chairman William Clay Ford Jr., who considers himself a "lifelong environmentalist," has promised to make the world's No. 2 automaker the leader in developing clean vehicles." (Buffalo News, 2/26/99)
The Bad News
"...it's so big that it can't be classified as a light-duty truck like other SUVs and pickups, making it exempt from federal fuel- economy standards. Even at an expected 12 miles per gallon, the Excursion won't drive down Ford's fuel-economy average and make it eligible for federal fines." (Palm Beach Post, 2/26/99)
GLOBAL WARMING II: EARLY SIGNS OF WARMING?
New Study Shows Spring Arriving Earlier, Fall Later
As detailed in the 3/2/99 edition of the New York Times, several new scientific studies have found growing evidence of global warming in the arrival of the seasons.
In the past scientists have documented that as earth's atmosphere warms, spring warmth is arriving earlier and autumn coolness is coming later in the Northern Hemisphere. But these studies relied on indirect evidence. The new study cited in the Times goes much further.
"...now a direct examination of the actual behavior of plants across Europe appears to confirm the earlier findings." (NYT, 3/2/99)
The new evidence comes from a network of 77 research sites called the International Phenological Gardens. Each spring from 1959 to 1993, observers at the sites have recorded the dates when buds first appeared, leaves unfolded and plants flowered. Likewise, the observers noted the dates when leaves turned color and fell from trees.
"Analyzing the resulting mass of data, two researchers at the University of Munich in Germany have found that over the three decades, the advent of botanical spring advanced an average of six days, while autumn was delayed an average of about five days."
This 11-day lengthening of the growing season was caused by warmer temperatures, concluded the researchers. Their report appears in the current issue of Nature.
NEXT PAGE -->
|