NEXT PAGE -->
|
November 4, 1997
"Environmental issues and concerns are here to stay--not only in the Christmas tree industry, but for all commodity groups. To believe otherwise is to ignore the realities of an important political and emotional issue." --American Christmas Tree Journal, Oct. 1997
Contents
Take Action: Just Three Shopping Days Left to Kill Fast Track
Inside the Beltway: Extremists Taking over House of Reps.?
Grazing Bill Passes
No Commercial Logging Bill Has "The Power of the People"
Letter to the Editor: A Stronger ESA for a Stronger America
*** Take Action: Just Three Shopping Days Left to Kill Fast Track ***
The House of Representatives votes this Friday, Nov. 7, on "Fast Track" legislation that authorizes the President's trade office to negotiate a host of new, anti-environmental trade agreements -- including expansion of the failed NAFTA.
On Tuesday, the Administration promised to establish an "eminent persons group" at the World Trade Organization to work toward safeguarding health and environmental laws from attack as "trade barriers."
Environmentalists certainly welcome this belated admission that "free trade" rules are often a disguised attack on environmental and health safeguards. But the Administration would have seemed more credible in its hour of political desperation, if it had not already negotiated a new investors' accord, the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, containing egregious anti-environmental provisions without so much as a single consultation with Congress.
The Multilateral Agreement on Investment is bad for the planet. For instance, it would allow foreign corporations to sue taxpayers for compensation if new pollution control laws in any way hurt profits. The Western Governors Associations, no radical hotbed, states in a recent report that environmental progress would grind to a halt if the MAI takes effect and citizens had to pay polluters to stop polluting.
Please send a letter to the editor of your local news paper today. Also, use your letter as the basis of a fax to your representative. And, call up your local talk radio show too, while your at it.
Thanks!!
Extremists Taking over House of Reps.? -- Grazing Bill Passes
As you've read in recent SC-Action's, the House of Representatives appears set on passing as many anti-environmental bills as possible lately, and we must say they've been successful in doing so. Adding to their list of dubious "accomplishments," the House voted 242-182 on 10/30 to pass H.R. 2493, the damaging livestock grazing "reform" bill that will ensure continued taxpayer handouts to industry and further environmental degradation of the 270 million acres of western public lands it effects. Sure enough, the extreme members of Congress have taken over, and Speaker Newt Gingrich appears happy enough to let them wag his dog. Last Congress, this approach backfired on the Republican leadership, and we had hoped that they had learned their lesson. However, they've chosen to learn a different lesson: if they can get enough cover, they can proceed with their dirty work.
Unfortunately, that cover came last week on H.R. 2493 from moderate Republican leader Sherry Boehlert (R-NY). Rep. Boehlert was in large part responsible for holding off the war on the environment last Congress, but he has apparently chosen to moderate his stand against anti-environmental bills to mend a "rift" in the Republican party over environmental issues. In fact, the extreme wing of the party has launched an "anti-Eastern moderate" campaign, according to "The Hill" newspaper: "Some believe his (Boehlert's) willingness to oppose GOP bills - and his ability to corral moderate votes - can only be neutralized by Westerners attacking moderate initiatives." The extreme wing is threatening funding for Amtrak, because as conservative Rep. Wally Herger (R-CA) complained to the paper, moderate Republicans are "going to war with us on every issue of importance to us," (read: subsidies to the timber, mining and livestock industries.)
So you can see, we are up against dirty politics at its worst. But that doesn't mean truth won't win out! As proof, we offer a Nov.1 editorial from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, entitled, Try Again on Grazing Fee:
"The US Senate should ignore the bill passed in the House that pretends to reform this nation's scandalous grazing rules on federal lands. The House needs to scrap the bill and try again." Citing the tiny increase in the grazing fee contained in the bill, the paper says, "So it would continue the taxpayer subsidy to the tune of $25 million to $50 million per year for managing the lands, many of which are being destroyed by grazing. The grazing fee should at least match the going market rate. There is no defensible reason for perpetuating this special-interest government giveaway."
No Commercial Logging Bill Has "The Power of the People"
The National Forest Protection and Restoration Act (NFPRA) by Reps. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and Jim Leach (R-IA) which was introduced last week now has a bill number, H.R. 2789. The bill currently has eight cosponsors, including the two main sponsors.
The Atlanta-Journal Constitution ran a story on the introduction of H.R. 2789, calling it "the first attempt to ban outright all commercial logging on federal lands." The Associated Press report included statements from the bill's champions. "We know we have the power of the people on our side," said McKinney, as she cited polls that show overwhelming support for banning commercial logging in national forests. Rep. Leach said the bill will draw support from both environmentalists in the House and from those lawmakers who have campaigned against corporate welfare. "The U.S. Government is the only property owner that I know of that pays private parties to deplete its own resources," he said.
At their press conference Friday, Rep. Leach thanked the Sierra Club for "its long-standing interest in these issues" and said that the bill would bring "sincerity" to our nation's forest policy and "good sense" to the taxpayers. "Let me say what I mean by sincerity. This country, and many in it, for a long time, have expressed a great deal of interest in the rainforest in South America - proper interest - but it strikes me as a little bit hollow to express interest for another country's preservation of its forests if we don't preserve our own... And so I would just stress that we as a country have an obligation to be good stewards of our land, but we as members of Congress have an obligation to be fair and reasonable to the taxpayer and that means to do common sense things and it's not common sense to pay others to despoil our own resources."
Interested activists can contact their members of Congress and ask them to cosponsor H.R. 2789, to protect our forests for our families, for our future
Letter to the Editor: A Stronger ESA for a Stronger America
This letter to the Editor was published Nov. 2, 1997 in The Fresno Bee. A letter to the editor of your local paper would be an excellent follow up to Tuesday's National ESA Call-in Day where activists around the country have let their voices be heard. With the Senate poised to consider a bill that would weaken our nation's premier wildlife protection law, activists are letting the halls of Congress ring and urging members of Congress to strengthen, not weaken the Endangered Species Act.
Dear Editor:
Harvard University professor E. O. Wilson and many other noted biologists are predicting that, unless a major effort is made by people and governments around the world to stop the current decline in biological diversity, 25 per cent of all species now living on the earth will become extinct during the next 50 to 100 years. Given the complex web of life, one must ask whether removing so many species from the web will lead to the collapse of many of the earth's ecosystems, and will it be followed by the extinction of most other species? Wilson replies to this question in his widely-read book The Diversity of Life : "The only answer that anyone can give is: possibly. By the time we find out, however, it might be too late. One planet, one experiment".
In the United States, we can choose to protect and foster the recovery of endangered species, and to preserve habitats that will prevent other species from becoming threatened or endangered. Two bills have been introduced in Congress this year that would reauthorize the federal Endangered Species Act. Rep. George Miller (D-CA) introduced H.R. 2351, which would improve upon the current ESA, and would provide measures for the recovery of endangered species. Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) introduced S. 1180, which would weaken protection for endangered species.
The National Audubon Society and a long list of conservation organizations strongly support H.R. 2351, and oppose S. 1180. H.R. 2351 would reaffirm and strengthen the nation's commitment to biological diversity and ecological stability. Rather than weaken protection for endangered plants and animals, Congress should strengthen the ESA so that we can stem the tide of extinction that may lead to a major ecological collapse in the next century.
Michael D. McFarland, Ph.D.
Conservation Chair, Fresno Audubon Society
"That's not leadership, and unless Clinton shows more of a backbone, the whole world may pay a very high price." Editorial describing Clinton's global warming plan, Chico News & Review, 10/30/97
Contents:
IN THE MAIN RING: STOP INTERIOR APPROPRIATIONS BILL RIDERS
GLOBAL WARMING I: CLIMATE DOUBTERS OUT IN THE COLD
GLOBAL WARMING II: PHILLY INQUIRER SAYS CLINTON PLAN WON'T CUT IT
TAKINGS: TAKE YOUR HEALTH?
GOOD NEWS: CHEMICAL SAFETY BOARD SAVED
REG REFORM: ENVIRONMENTAL REPRIEVE
IN THE FIELD: WE CAN ALL PLAY A PART IN CURBING GLOBAL WARMING
TAKE ACTION PLEASE
The Administration is still pondering whether or not to veto the Interior Department funding bill. Well, we've got an answer for the President -- veto, veto, veto! You can help in a couple of ways. First, call your representative and senators and let them know that you are appalled that the Congress can't seem to pass a funding bill without anti-environmental riders. Ask them to contact the White House and ask that the President veto the Interior Appropriations bill until the riders are removed.
Then, give the key players in the Administration a call yourself. Especially important is the Office of Management and Budget. Please call TJ Glauthier at OMB at 202-395-4561 and ask him to make sure the President vetoes the bill! Tell him that you do *not* accept the premise that if we want our National Parks maintained, we've got to cut down our National Forests!
Background on H.R. 2107, Interior Appropriations:
Among other things, the Interior Appropriations bill sets dangerous precedents and politicizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a popular program which allows the government to use revenue from oil and gas activities on public lands to acquire important habitat and recreational areas. H.R. 2107 adds new layers of red tape to the acquisition process, and allows the money set aside for purchasing special places to be spent instead on routine maintenance of federal facilities.
Other riders include amendments that would overturn a federal court ruling that protects habitat and endangered species from over-grazing on eleven southwestern National Forests, put a moratorium on new forest management plans that could protect forests and prevent fires and floods, increase the taxpayer subsidy to the timber industry for bulldozing new roads in the National Forests, and effectively abolish a ban on the export of American logs overseas.
Last Congress, the President stood firm against stealth attacks on the environment, and the public heartily supported his actions. Once again, it falls to President Clinton to remind the Congress that the American people support environmental protection, and they don't support taxpayer hand-outs to polluting industries. It's up to the President to protect our natural heritage. He should veto the Interior Department Appropriations bill.
THANK YOU!!!!!
GLOBAL WARMING I: CLIMATE DOUBTERS OUT IN THE COLD
Business Week - Is There Still Room For Doubt on Global Warming?
"Sorry, skeptics. Scientists say they have the smoking gun." So said the opening line of a story on global warming in the 11/03/97 edition of Business Week (a magazine not known as a hotbed of environmentalism!) The article lays out the scientific certainties of global warming -- and debunks the claims of many polluting industries.
Exxon Corp. CEO Lee R. Raymond was the first to have his balloon burst. At a conference in China last month Raymond claimed (1) the world isn't warming (2) even if it were, oil and gas wouldn't be the cause and (3) no one can predict the likely future temperature rise. Raymond went on to call for more research and debate before any action is taken.
Raymond's claim that the Earth isn't warming flies in the face of reality. The article quotes the prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and states that "...at the earth's surface, where it matters... [temperatures] have increased from one-half to 1 degree F since the late 19th century. The 20th century has been at least as warm as any other century since 1400 A.D., and recent years have been among the warmest on record."(Business Week, 11/03/97)
Raymond also claimed that man-made CO2 is not much of a problem. "Leaping to cut this tiny sliver of the greenhouse pie...defies common sense." This to, doesn't match with the real world. CO2 levels in our atmosphere are up 30%, and temperatures are rising. "In cautious language generated by extensive discussion, the IPCC produced what scientists say is the smoking gun: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." (Business Week, 11/03/97)
"Last, skeptics say that predictions of future warming are notoriously inaccurate. Raymond agreed, but the IPCC doesn't. Continuing improvement of computer projections "has increased our confidence in their use for projection of future climate change," it said. The IPCC concluded that by 2100, temperatures could rise 2 to 6 degrees F, depending partly upon how fast carbon dioxide levels rise. That could lead to a sea-level rise of 6 to 38 inches and changes in the frequency of drought and flooding." (Business Week, 11/03/97)
Solutions to global warming need not hurt America's economy. In an accompanying box, the article concluded that "Improvements in energy efficiency of 10% to 30% are feasible at little or no cost. Gains of 50% to 60% are possible in some areas. There are many options for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, but some depend on lowering the cost of alternative technologies." (Business Week, 11/03/97)
GLOBAL WARMING II: PHILLY INQUIRER SAYS CLINTON PLAN WON'T CUT IT
Philadelphia Inquirer Concludes Administration Plan Doesn't Do Enough
In the 10/29 edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer a stinging editorial criticized the Clinton Administration's climate change policy as too week to reduce the threat of dangerous impacts, including "severe droughts, health epidemics, incessant rainfall, and permanent coastal flooding." (Phil. Inquirer, 10/29/97)
Time, and foot dragging, is working against future generations. Global warming's "worst scenario won't play out during the lifetimes of most people living today -- it's a stealthy threat to your grandchildren's grandchildren." With the danger seeming so far-off, though, "this is the time that spineless politicians may waste." (Phil. Inquirer, 10/29/97)
President Clinton "crept in the right direction" with his new proposal, the Inquirer said, "but the overall program is too weak. He'd give the world another 10 to 14 years to reduce heat-trapping gases to their 1990 level. A more responsible pace would reduce the gasses slightly below 1990 levels by 2005, as the European Union has proposed."(Phil. Inquirer, 10/29/97)
The editorial endorses the strongest single step America can take to reduce global warming -- "require that, year after year, new cars and light trucks get better gas mileage than the year before." (Phil. Inquirer, 10/29/97)
Clinton and Gore have the intelligence to understand the gravity of the global warming problem, the Inquirer concludes, "but sometime soon, these two leaders must summon the courage to challenge the world's superpower, which is also the world's super-polluter, to lead the way against this global threat."(Phil. Inquirer, 10/29/97)
TAKINGS: TAKE YOUR HEALTH?
Arizona Daily Editorializes on the "War on Local Control"
Through the efforts of Sierra Club's Southwest field office, the Arizona Daily Star published an editorial on October 23 citing the damaging effects of this year's takings bill -- H.R. 1534, passed in the House on October 22. Among those in favor of weakening local governmental authority was Tucson's Rep. Jim Kolbe. The editorial calls on Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl to oppose similar legislation.
The following is an excerpt of the editorial: "...the new takings gambit would preempt that traditional system for resolving land use disputes by giving complainers easier access to federal courts than they have now. ...[T]he new takings offensive recklessly attacks local sovereignty - that proves the most revealing. Here resides stark proof that a majority of the ... House of Representatives - including Kolbe - see `local control' as little more than a pretext for savaging environmental rules."
GOOD NEWS: CHEMICAL SAFETY BOARD SAVED
Investigation Board Will Examine Chemical Accidents
With good news usually in short supply, here's some news to savor. The diligent work of toxics activists has paid off in securing funding for the creation of a Chemical Safety and Health Investigation Board (CSHIB), which would investigate the root causes of chemical accidents. This is a major victory for the environmental, labor, and public health communities. The funding for this independent body through the VA-HUD appropriations bill was slated for a Presidential line-item veto. The board was authorized by the Clean Air Act of 1990 and is modeled after the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates airplane and railway crashes.
REG REFORM: ENVIRONMENTAL REPRIEVE
Delay on Levin-Thompson
The Levin-Thompson regulatory reform bill, S. 981, will not see Senate action this year. Thompson (R-TN) & Levin (D-MI) recently told the Business Roundtable that there will be no bill this year. Fortunately, quick action on S. 981 was interrupted by Senate moderates, the Clinton administration, as well as environmental, public health, and occupational safety advocacy groups. In addition, several members of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (Sens. Akaka, Cleland, Durbin, & Torricelli) called for additional hearings. Kudos to activists for voicing strong opposition to S. 981. However, S. 981 could resurface in early 1998, so we must remain active to prevent passage of this damaging legislation.
IN THE FIELD: WE CAN ALL PLAY A PART IN CURBING GLOBAL WARMING
Florida Activist Works to Educate Public
Florida activist Anna Peterson scored a big hit in efforts to educate members of her community about the dangers of global warming -- and what they can do about it. In the 10/29 edition of the Gainesville Sun, Anna had an outstanding letter to the editor published that drove the message home
Anna was tough on the Administration: "The disappointing news is in. President Clinton has caved in to the pressure of the auto industry and other big polluters who sought weaker restrictions on the emissions of "greenhouse gases"..." She went on to point out the impacts warming temperatures are already causing -- higher sea levels, species extinctions, and disease outbreaks.
Anna urges readers to take personal action to curb global warming. "... we can all contribute by reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. The single most important thing we can do is to drive less and use less gas when we do drive." She concludes by saying "traveling by foot or bike has many health benefits, and these are not limited to the person getting the exercise: the health of our planet and future generations also depends on the choices we make today."
NEXT PAGE -->
|