michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 11, 2006 16:38:48 GMT 4
A CORPORATE CRONY PUT IN CHARGE OF A PUBLIC WATCHDOG INSTITUTION JUMPS SHIP, BUT NOT UNTIL PUBLIC LANDS AND SPECIES POPULATIONS HAVE BEEN DEVASTATED.
Interior Secretary Gale Norton Resigns; Statement of Earthjustice Executive Director Buck Parker
3/10/2006 4:47:00 PM To: National and State Desks, Environment Reporter
Contact: John McManus of Earthjustice, 510-550-6707
WASHINGTON, March 10 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Following is a statement released today of Earthjustice Executive Director Buck Parker on the resignation of Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton:
"Gale Norton has spent the last five years as Secretary of the Interior promoting a policy that threw science out the window in order to give away our public resources to private industry. It's time to change the policy, not just the face.
"During her five-year tenure at the Interior Department, Gale Norton took every opportunity to undermine safeguards for public lands and the environment. Norton oversaw the opening of millions of acres of public lands to new oil and gas drilling, and brokered a deal to allow states to carve thousands of miles of roads across sensitive public lands. She also oversaw the expansion of devastating mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia.
"Gale Norton will be especially remembered for her hostility towards America's endangered species. She consistently rejected all efforts to protect and rebuild endangered species populations across the country, and punished government scientists who told the truth about their plight. News expected out of Seattle today, where the Pacific Fisheries Management Council will likely propose an option of virtually no west coast salmon fishing season this year, is a direct result of her department's gross mismanagement of the Klamath River and can be laid squarely at her feet.
"Thankfully, Gale Norton failed to achieve one of this administration's cornerstone goals: opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Norton's full court press to turn the Refuge into another oil development complex has been repeatedly rejected by the American people who, unlike her, value one of the last great wild places on earth."
"We hope the White House will take this opportunity to replace Gale Norton with an Interior Secretary who will strike a better balance in protecting America's natural resources."
I've seen the effects of mountain removal for corporate plunder; they took away some of my most beautiful spots and ruined the waterways around them.
It took DECADES [since the 1930s] of research by biologists and groups pushing for legislation to pass the Endangered Species Act [1973].
You know, even after the Bush Adminstration is removed, we will have so much work to do cleaning up their messes. God knows how much negative legislation has been passed......Michelle
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 16, 2006 16:37:43 GMT 4
Add to Bush's follies the rape of his own country The despoilment of the Appalachians is typical of the President's bankrupt environmental policies Henry Porter Sunday March 12, 2006 The Observer Eastern Kentucky is a long way from Britain. What do we care if another million acres of the Appalachian mountain range are lost to strip mining? If the habitat of the flying squirrel and the cerulean warbler is blown up and bulldozed? If one of the oldest temperate forests in the world with some 80 species of trees is destroyed by the greed of a few coal companies? Why should it matter to us? I'll tell you why. First, because this story exposes the pathological destructiveness of the Republican political and religious elite. Not content with the ruin it has caused in Iraq, George W Bush's administration lays waste the great American wilderness in a way that tests your faith in the reason of man.
Second, this campaign against nature is being plotted, sanctioned and carried out by men - it is exclusively men - who are on their knees in little, white churches every Sunday praying to a god whom they believe created this earth. The same people who reject Darwin and promote the idea that life on earth is too complex and varied to have been created by evolution, a theory known as intelligent design, are the ones who show such contempt for God's creation.
And let's not forget the last crucial point. With the United States accounting for 30 per cent of the world's CO2 emissions, much of it from heavily polluting, coal-burning power stations, we may all to some extent consider ourselves downwind of what's going on in the coal industry of Kentucky and parts of West Virginia.In Britain, we are not exposed to the horrors of 'mountaintop removal', but owing to a new book by Erik Reece, Lost Mountain: A year in the Vanishing Wilderness, which I happened on in a New York bookshop, I learned that it has nothing to do with coal mining in the traditional sense. Mountaintop removal is just that. You blow up the top of the mountain with a mixture of ammonium nitrate and diesel fuel, the same combination used by Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City bombing, and bulldoze the millions of tons of debris into the valleys and streams below. A slender seam of coal is then exposed, at which point a fearsome machine called a dragline is deployed to strip out the coal. The result is that local water supplies are polluted with mercury and the chemicals used in the mining process; the uninterrupted habitat of many rare creatures and plants is destroyed; and the landscape is ruined forever. The scars that you are now able to see on satellite pictures will be there until the end of time.In the American media, you will find little mention of this shocking state of affairs. Indeed, people generally know more about the burning of Amazon rainforests than they do about the devastation wrought by their own people in their own country. It is true that a grim picture of strip mining did appear as the background of a recent film called North Country, the story of a woman, played by Charlize Theron, fighting for her rights as a mine-worker. To a European eye, this minor heroic tale is all very well, but why didn't it occur to director Niki Caro that the demonic mess created by strip mining was more than incidental? But perhaps that is where America is - individual rights come way ahead of the trashing of nature in the public's concerns. In 1968, Bobby Kennedy visited the mountains of Kentucky and West Virginia with the message that strip mining was a way of putting miners out of work. His son, environmental campaigner Robert F Kennedy Jr, has written an excellent account of the rape of Appalachia in Crimes Against Nature, which reveals that mountaintop removal was encouraged by George W. Bush after the Republicans received $20m from the coal industry. In 2000, a lobbyist named J Steven Griles was appointed to Bush's team and swiftly managed, among other things, to get the 'waste' created by mountaintop removal reclassified as 'fill', thus bypassing the Clean Water Act that was impeding the coal companies. He spent four years in the administration, during which he was paid 'severance' at the rate of $250,000 per annum from his lobbying firm. He then returned to the private sector without having suffered a loss of income.Leaving this shady arrangement aside, it is difficult not to gasp at an administration which clutches the Bible to its chest and mouths those first verses from Genesis: 'And God said, "Let us make man in our image ... and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle, and over all the earth.' That may appeal to a Texan oil man and cattle rancher but the inconsistency between the professed beliefs of the Christian right on 'intelligent design' and the conduct of environmental policy under Bush is staggering. If the flying squirrel, the copperhead snake and cerulean warbler, the sugar maples, the black gum and hickory trees of the forest of the Appalachians were, indeed, all designed by God, why destroy them so wantonly? This is partly explained by a certain cultural entitlement to inconsistency which permits some Americans to complain about secondary smoke while climbing aboard their sports utility vehicles and, as Condoleezza Rice did last week, to list the human-rights violations in Iran while ignoring Guantanano. Yet this is not the whole story. A supreme right accorded by American individualism is to make a profit and, somewhere in the psyche of the quail-shooting conservative, decked out in his impeccable weekend hunting gear, is the idea that to assert dominion over the earth you must destroy. It is all rather depressing, but let me make clear that there are good Americans out there, whose voices are only just being heard above the whir of the Republican money-counting machines - people such as Erik Reece and Robert Kennedy Jr and many unknown environmental campaigners. They deserve our support during this Appalachian spring, however distant. Go to: www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1729154,00.html for the following:Special reportWaste and pollution Net notes11.07.2002: Rubbish 01.08.2002: Rats Useful linksWaste and recycling - Defra 'Are you doing your bit?' recycling campaign Community Recycling and Economic Development programme Community Recycling Network Waste and Resources Action Programme UK Recycled Products Guide
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Mar 16, 2006 23:36:56 GMT 4
Thank you,Michelle,for the superb post. As you know,The Appalachians are not a postcard abstract to me...It's my back yard. It's difficult to convey to others the majesty of this unique region.There is no place on Earth quite like it. I used to think that it would be protected forever by the National Parks Act,and common sense...Until George W.Bush came along.We are coming up on Earth Day,and the 1st anniversery of Bush's Photo-op debacle.Allow me a quick recap for our new readers...In the height of hypocracy and arrogance this pResident,who calls himself"a steward of the environment",was planning on spending a whole hour of Earth Day working on trails and getting his picture taken in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.The event was abruptly cancelled at the last minute.The reason given?Inclement weather(20 minute squall,which cleared out ten minutes after he left).The real reason?It would have been impossible to prevent environmental groups from protesting his visit.Hundreds,maybe thousands of people(your humble moderator included)were going to tell him to get the hell out of our beloved park,lest he see all those trees,and get greedy.He wound up giving his speech under the harsh flourescent lights at an airport hanger. I still have my homemade protest sign (BUSH;THERE'S NO OIL HERE,AND YOU CAN'T HAVE THE LUMBER.F**K OFF!!!) to remind me of our minor victory. ;D Don't believe me?Have a look: www.hoffmania.com/blog/2005/04/index.html(scroll halfway down). I hope he tries it again. We'll be waiting...
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 18, 2006 15:39:16 GMT 4
Here's ANOTHER example of how the Bush Administration has headed public watchdog institutions with those who work for regulated industries. This time, it's the EPA. Thankfully, yesterday, a federal court killed a Bush administration rule that would have sabotaged a key provision of the Clean Air Act. I am a member of GASP, Group against Smog and Pollution, one of the environmental groups in the lawsuit against a loophole the Bush administration adopted for the law's new source review program. GASP is a good group to join because they work not only nationally, but do much at your local levels....Michelle Court Rejects Bush Admin. Plan to Gut Key Clean Air Act Safeguard; Ruling Blocks Thousands of Facilities from Increasing Pollution3/17/2006 3:00:00 PMContact: Howard Fox, 202-841-6656, or Brian Smith, 510-550-6714, both of Earthjustice (additional contacts below) WASHINGTON, March 17 /U.S. Newswire/ -- A federal court today killed a Bush administration rule that would have sabotaged a key provision of the Clean Air Act. Agreeing with a coalition of public health and environmental groups, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that a loophole the Bush administration adopted for the law's new source review program would have allowed thousands of aging power plants and other industrial facilities to emit more air pollution, threatening the health of millions of Americans. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the administration's loophole contradicted the purposes of the Clean Air Act. "Indeed," the court stated, "EPA's interpretation would produce a 'strange,' if not an 'indeterminate,' result: a law intended to limit increases in air pollution would allow sources operating below applicable emission limits to increase significantly the pollution they emit without government review." The court refused to adopt what it called the Environmental Protection Agency's "Humpty Dumpty" upside-down world view. (For a copy of the ruling, go to www.earthjustice.org/news/documents/3-06/ERP-ruling-3-17-06.pdf.)"This is a victory for public health," said Howard Fox, an attorney at Earthjustice, which represented six groups in the case. "It makes no sense to allow huge multi-million-dollar projects that drastically increase air pollution without installing up-to-date pollution controls or even notifying nearby residents." The organizations in the lawsuit included Alabama Environmental Council, American Lung Association, Clean Air Council, Communities for a Better Environment, Delaware Nature Society, Environmental Defense, Group against Smog and Pollution, Michigan Environmental Council, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Ohio Environmental Council, Scenic Hudson, Sierra Club, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and U.S. PIRG. "Irish eyes are surely smiling -- and we all will be breathing easier --with this green court ruling on St. Patrick's Day," said John Walke, director of NRDC's Clean Air Program. "The court recognized the blarney in the administration's plan to gut a key part of the Clean Air Act and rejected it. Now thousands of dirty facilities will not be able to pollute more."The Court of Appeals initially issued a stay in December 2003 blocking the loophole from taking effect. If the court had not issued the stay, the new rules would have gone into effect on December 26, 2003, in at least 17 states and territories, including California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Nevada and Pennsylvania. Industrial facilities in those states would have been able to take advantage of the new air pollution loophole immediately. The remaining states across the country would have been forced to adopt the loophole shortly thereafter. Many of the nation's older power plants have operated long beyond their expected lifespans, polluting at excessively high levels, largely because utilities have rebuilt these grandfathered plants over time. Often they modified these facilities in ways that increased air pollution without complying with Clean Air Act requirements to install modern emissions controls. The Clean Air Act's new source review program was designed to curb air pollution from these and other industrial facilities by requiring them to install up-to-date pollution controls whenever they made physical or operational changes that increased air pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency launched enforcement lawsuits against utility and refinery violators during the latter part of the Clinton administration for pollution increases that had resulted in millions of tons of air pollution. The Bush administration wanted to derail these enforcement suits and eliminate future actions by changing the rules to allow companies to virtually rebuild their facilities and boost pollution levels without having to meet new source review program requirements. The loophole created by the administration's new rule would have allowed more than 20,000 power plants, refineries and other industrial facilities to replace existing equipment with "functionally equivalent" equipment without undergoing the clean air reviews required by the new source review program if the cost of the replacement did not exceed 20 percent of that of the entire "process unit." This exemption would have applied even if a facility's air pollution increased by thousands or tens of thousands of tons as a result of the replacement. "Today's victory means that thousands of Americans will not have their lives cut short because of the pollution that would have blown through this huge loophole," said Janice Nolen at the American Lung Association. "The court could not have told the EPA more clearly that they must follow the Clean Air Act as it is written, not as they wish it were written." Emily Figdor, U.S. PIRG's clean air advocate, agreed. "Today's ruling is a tremendous victory for public health and the environment," she said. "The court slammed the door on the Bush administration's attempt to create a gaping loophole in the Clean Air Act for some of the nation's worst polluters."Media contacts: American Lung Association: Diane Maple, 202-785-3355 Earthjustice: Howard Fox, 202-841-6656, or Brian Smith, 510- 550-6714 Environmental Defense: Janea Scott, 212-616-1267 NRDC: John Walke, 202-289-2406 or Elliott Negin, 202-289-2405 Sierra Club: David Willett, 202-675-6279 U.S. PIRG: Emily Figdor, 202-546-9707
|
|
DT1
Moderator
You know, it's not like I wanted to be right about all of this...
Posts: 428
|
Post by DT1 on Mar 19, 2006 10:23:39 GMT 4
Senate Approves Arctic DrillingPro-drilling supporters eked out a win Thursday night on a budget resolution that was specially crafted to allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But keep your chin up! There are many more rounds of this fight ahead of us and, backed by your continued activism, we are absolutely committed to blocking this newest sneak attack on America's greatest wildlife refuge. The House of Representatives will act next when it decides whether or not to include Arctic drilling in its version of the budget resolution later this month. We will be contacting you to take action in the critical days leading up to that vote. Thanks to thousands of phone calls and email messages from NRDC Earth Activists like you, Thursday night's Senate vote was extremely close: 51 to 49. In fact, your efforts helped sway several Republicans to vote with nearly all the Democrats against this Arctic drilling budget. The Senate will have to cast at least two more votes on the budget bill this year if they hope to open the Arctic Refuge to drilling. So it is absolutely critical that you keep the pressure on them, no matter how they voted Thursday night. To see how your Senators voted, go to www.nrdcactionfund.org/arcticphotos/arcticvote.aspThen, please call your two Senators. If they voted FOR the budget resolution, let them know you disagree strongly with their vote. If they voted AGAINST the budget, express your thanks and urge them to stand firm in defense of the Arctic Refuge on future votes. If you are unable to telephone, then please go to the Senate website [http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm], where you can look up your Senators and send them email messages. This year's fight to defend the Arctic Refuge is shaping up to be a replay of last year's all-out battle. With your support, the NRDC Action Fund will continue working day and night to turn back this latest attack on America's premiere wildlife sanctuary. Sincerely, Frances Beinecke NRDC Action Fund
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 21, 2006 15:56:03 GMT 4
Save The Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act has been a safety net for wildlife, fish and plants on the brink of extinction. It has protected the bald eagle, gray wolf, grizzly bear, Florida panther, and sea otter, among many others. But despite the overwhelming success of the Endangered Species Act, the Senate is preparing to consider major changes to this critical conservation law. Right now, the members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee are considering taking up legislation that could weaken endangered species protection, and we need your help to make sure the Senate keeps the Endangered Species Act strong!Of particular concern is H.R. 3824, a very damaging bill sponsored by Representative Pombo of California that has already passed in the House. Not only does this bill gut the Endangered Species Act, but it: Requires the government to compensate property owners if steps needed to protect species thwart development plans. Allows federal agencies to avoid consultation, resulting in agencies with little to no experience in wildlife issues deciding if projects will harm wildlife. It provides new loop holes to make it easier to use deadly pesticides that will impact not only wildlife but our children, by polluting our lands and waters.Stand up to this attack on the Endangered Species Act and urge your Senator to vote against any legislation that would weaken this important law. Signatures: 16,829 Goal: 20,000 Deadline: 3-21-2006 []See Full Petition []Email this Petition tinyurl.com/mlbgu
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Apr 1, 2006 20:22:41 GMT 4
Some of the latest stories out: The continued use and dumping of toxic chemicals in to our environment is sheer insanity. Do they care that they are killing us off? If you refer to the last article here, it seems to me that if you don't die of poisoning, you could now just as easily die from a waterborne disease.....Michelle Well, I don't live a gated community! Living in an Industrial Wasteland; the USA:The Dangers Of Being Poor And Nonwhite [Rachel's Introduction: The Poor And Communities Of Color Are Exposed To Up To 10 Times As Much Industrial Pollution As Their Wealthier And Whiter Counterparts. In Massachusetts, If You Live In A Community Of Color, You Are Thirty Times As Likely To Live In A Highly Polluted Community, Compared To A White Community.] by Tim Montaguewww.precaution.org/lib/06/prn_unequal_exposure.060323.htmA dumb population can't participate in their government, or work to reform it.Study Links IQ To Pesticide Use [Rachel's Introduction: North Dakota Farm Children Exposed To Pesticides Performed Significantly Lower Than Their Peers On Iq Tests, A New Study Has Found.]by Patrick Springer tinyurl.com/n8lp7Thanks again, EPA Let Them Drink Sewageby Larisa Alexandrovna tinyurl.com/p5wk2
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Apr 21, 2006 13:27:07 GMT 4
Privatization: Turning The Commons Into GoldBy Steve Kelly "By the law of nature these things are common to all mankind, the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea,” proclaimed the Roman Emperor Justinian. Justinian’s code, the original protection of the public trust, or commons, become the law of the land in 528 A.D. Over the centuries that have followed this precept has become widely known as the Public Trust Doctrine. Today, the commons face unprecedented new threats from an American 21st Century Emperor and the expansion of so-called neo-conservatism, or privatization. From a neo-conservative perspective, laissez-faire individualism and free-market (corporate) economics, the conceptual building blocks of a bold return to medieval feudalism, offer efficiency, smaller-sized government, and greater individual choice. Public tradeoffs or costs (public losses) are seldom discussed. Since the institutionalization of greed in the 1980s under the Reagan Administration, the expansion of the domain of property rights has delivered dramatic rewards to the selfish desires of America’s consumer culture elite. In 2004, the Montana Republican Party adopted the following platform resolution: “Be it resolved by the Montana Republican Party that we support privatization in all aspects of government, whenever possible and practical.” If, as President Reagan stated, “the problem is government,” and the solution is privatization, then a wholesale return to servitude seems inevitable for all but a handful of 21st Century lords hunkered down in heavily fortified, gated communities, and on private islands. The privatization of public assets by corporate capitalists, elected and un-elected political operatives (lobbyists), and international institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, has become a global phenomenon influencing public policy in every corner of the globe. Our air, water, privacy, schools, energy, railroads, busses, airports, airwaves, health care, social security, prisons, seeds, forests, calories, silence, knowledge, sunlight, soil, and everything else once publicly owned, is being snatched up to make a quick buck. In the U.S., especially in the arid West, the extreme anti-environmentalist, Wise-Use movement, a regional variant of the privatization movement, is advancing a growing number of proposals to give-away, sell, exchange or otherwise reduce public ownership and/or control over public lands. Recently, an outrageous proposal by Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) authorized the liquidation and development of millions of acres of "mining claims" on public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Department of the Interior/ Bureau of Land Management (BLM) passed the U.S. House by one vote. Pombo’s bill listed some National Parks, which were to be sold, allegedly to balance the budget, and raise relief funds for victims of Hurricane Katrina and future disasters. Democrats have also played leading roles in privatizing the commons. In 1995, House minority leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) sponsored the Presidio Trust legislation, which created the first privatized national park in the United States. Private businesses now control more than 80 percent of the 1,408-acre park in San Francisco. Pelosi's legislation requires that leases, and other real estate development pay the entire cost of managing the park by 2013. Tax-exempt foundations led by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Tides Foundation, and some brand-name groups like Environmental Defense and The Wilderness Society, hopped on Pelosi’s privatization bandwagon. Privatization of The Presidio demonstrates the new way private foundations function like corporate lobbyists and PACs (Political Action Committees) to promote their narrow, short-term political agenda – the greater public interest be damned. When it suits their short-term objectives, some environmental groups will do just about anything to claim victory. In Idaho, Pew, The Wilderness Society and Idaho Conservation League have teamed up with Rep. Simpson (R-ID) to promote his Central Idaho Economic and Recreation Act (HR 3603), or CIEDRA, a classic example of collaborative realpolitik in action. CIEDRA would designate 300,000 acres as wilderness, but would give-away to county governments over 8,000 acres of public land, including some congressionally protected lands in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. In total, CIEDRA would hand over 130,000 public acres to motorized recreation and potential real estate development. Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), ranking member of the House Resources Committee, said at a hearing last fall it was the first time he could remember opposing a wilderness bill. "The focus of this bill is placed on development, with public land giveaways, monetary favors and special legislative provisions for a select few," lamented Rahall.Opposed by over 50 grassroots conservation groups, CIEDRA is a privatization bill, disguised as a Boulder-White Clouds “wilderness bill.” Boulder-White Clouds legislation is only the latest in a series of “wilderness-lite” or “virtual wilderness” bills making their way through Congress that are taking the new “free-market” (quid-pro-quo) approach. One common force driving the privatization agenda appears to be the lavish funding provided by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a Philadelphia-based behemoth controlled by heirs to the Sun Oil fortune, and its national Campaign for American Wilderness. By defusing political dissent through endless meetings, collaboration, and compromise, Pew and its foundation-dependent allies help spread the privatization pandemic, aided by a network of sympathetic and biased “main-stream” journalists.Pew pours huge sums of money into its campaigns independently, and through other foundations, which ultimately finds its way to submissive local groups willing to sacrifice wilderness principles for hollow political victories. Doug Scott, formerly a 17-year veteran with the Sierra Club, now heads up Pew’s Campaign for American Wilderness. Scott works tirelessly to marginalize critics of Pew’s “new way,” insisting that no wilderness bills ever passed without compromises. He cites past efforts like the Frank Church Wilderness, which traded mineral access for wilderness, or the statewide Wyoming Wilderness bill of 1984, which traded oil and gas exploration access, “hard release” and “sufficiency language” for rocks and ice wilderness, and the Gospel Hump Wilderness, which traded access to timber for wilderness. But Scott’s examples are disingenuous. He is well aware that in those instances large tracts of public land weren’t gifted or sold in exchange for wilderness protection, primarily in uncontested areas, the way it is today. The broader implications of the increasing frequency of these new ‘Wise-Use’ variants – massive public land disposals, statutory exemptions for motorized recreation industry, and total elimination of federal reserved water rights in wilderness – have scarcely been debated in public. For example, how many people ever heard about legislation passed by the 108th Congress creating a 768,000-acre wilderness area in Lincoln County, Nevada (north of Las Vegas), which also allowed for utility corridors and the sale of 100,000 acres of federal land for real estate development? First popularized by Gifford Pinchot over 100 years ago, 'Wise-Use' described an exploitive, utilitarian model for natural resources management. In the '80s, right-wingers Alan Gottlieb and Ron Arnold fathered the anti-environmental, 'Wise-Use Movement'. Today, through a process of compromise and collaboration, a growing number of ‘New Way’ conservationists find themselves arguing for solutions bracketed by the ‘Wise-Use’ visions of Gottlieb/Arnold and Pinchot. The ideology of ‘Wise-Use’ collaboration has spawned a number of well-funded new organizations like The Quivira Coalition in New Mexico, the Sonoran Institute in Arizona, and the Red Lodge Clearinghouse in Montana. Dedicated to advancing collaborative processes, these ‘stakeholder’ groups set the bar so low that success is defined by simply getting all the stakeholders to hold meetings. For these group-grope interlopers, process, or ‘process-process,’ provides the means, the lifestyle, the job, and the end product, all rolled into one. Forgotten in all the collaborative process and privatization is the decades-old debate within our movement between the competing visions of John Muir and Gifford Pinchot. Before totally abandoning Muir’s vision there is one last battle worth fighting, one to rekindle the American spirit in support of genuine wilderness. In the Northern Rockies, the Northern Rockies Ecosystem Act best captures that fighting spirit. Wilderness area proposals for Northern California and Washington are scheduled for congressional consideration later this year. Like CIEDRA in Idaho, all are part of larger, multi-designation packages that include giveaways or sales of public lands, non-conforming (wilderness) uses, and/or exceptions to statutory restrictions or important administrative protection measures. The national significance of what is being proposed cannot be overstated. Collaboration based upon privatization, public land disposal, pure political "pork" and wilderness designation establishes a dangerous precedent that could have far-reaching impacts to all future wilderness bills nationwide. The integrity of the very idea of wilderness and the Wilderness Act of 1964 is under attack. As we approach the 100th anniversary of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the landmark tool used by Theodore Roosevelt to protect more than one million public acres by designating 18 National Monuments in 9 states, our intuitive appreciation of the public commons must guide us through the morass toward a brighter future. The illusion of abundance, and the failed notion that the private elements of our private property system can shove all of the public trust attributes into a back corner, must cease. Private claims and public needs are both essential elements of our limited common capital, from which we derive the means to sustain our common survival. The paradox is that what we are experiencing today is simultaneously very new and very old. The reality of the spaceship earth is upon us. Let’s not blow it. Source: lowbagger.org/commons.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 17, 2006 15:56:09 GMT 4
SINCE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION TOOK OVER, THE EPA IS OFFICIALLY IN THE 'NEWSPEAK' DICTIONARY ALONG WITH ALL OTHER PUBLIC WATCHDOG AGENCIESCongress Acts To Protect The Public From The EPAMay 16, 2006 This week Congress is expected to vote on an amendment that would prevent the EPA from making a series of dangerous changes to an important environmental program.The Pallone-Solis Toxic Right-To-Know amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill would prevent the EPA from dismantling the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI program is the only comprehensive resource on the location and disposal of toxic chemicals in the United States. As previously reported by BushGreenwatch, EPA's proposed changes would drastically reduce the toxic chemical information available, leaving communities across America in the dark on dangerous toxic chemicals. Facilities are currently required to report releases and disposals of toxic chemicals every year. EPA's plans would drastically cut the TRI reporting requirements by raising the reporting threshold for most chemicals 10 fold from 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds. If the rule goes into effect, 1 out of 10 communities will lose all numerical data on toxic chemicals in their neighborhoods. EPA is also considering modifying the frequency from annual to bi-annual, leaving an off-year every two years during which companies will not have to report the storage, release, or disposal of any toxic chemicals to TRI.Being introduced by Reps. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Hilda Solis (D-CA), the Toxic Right-to-Know amendment would prevent the EPA from spending money on implementing rules that would change the reporting frequency and increase the reporting threshold beyond 500 pounds. The amendment would essentially shut down EPA's ability to work on the proposed changes, at least until the next budget cycle. TRI is used by stakeholders across the country to monitor the storage, release, transfer and disposal of toxic chemicals. First responders use TRI to plan for emergencies and disasters. Alan Finkelstein, the deputy fire marshal for Cuyahoga County, stated at a TRI Senate briefing in April, "I want as much information about a facility as possible, so the necessary precautions can be taken when entering into a hazardous situation in the event of a chemical release." Public health officials rely on TRI in their research on environmental cancers, Parkinson's disease, respiratory diseases and other ailments associated with chemical exposures. Michael Harbut, M.D. of the Karmanos Cancer Institute in Detroit, MI, stated at a House TRI briefing in April that, "As a physician, as a researcher, and as a parent, I implore [the EPA] to consider before acting the impact of reducing the reporting requirements on the release of poisonous carcinogens into the atmosphere." The TRI program uses the pressures of transparency and accountability to reduce toxic pollution, while providing vital information to avert life-threatening situations. In the last 5 years, annual toxic pollution dropped more than 2.8 billion pounds. The public comment period on the EPA's proposed changes ended this past January. Government officials from 23 states submitted comments opposing the changes, and, in total, over 113,000 comments were submitted, with less than sixty supporting the EPA's changes. Source: www.bushgreenwatch.org/mt_archives/000310.php### Take ActionContact your Representatives today through OMBwatch!www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ombwatch/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=3766Save the Toxic Release Inventory Congress is about to vote on an amendment that would stop the EPA from destroying our nation's premier tool for public notification about toxic pollution. The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) annually provides communities with details about the amount of toxic chemicals released into the air, land, and water. The information enables groups and individuals to press companies to reduce their pollution, resulting in safer, healthier communities. Late last year, EPA proposed three changes to TRI, each of which would leave you in the dark about dangerous pollution in your community. The agency wants to:Cut this successful annual program in half by eliminating every other year of reporting;Allow companies to pollute ten times as much before being required to report the details about how much toxic pollution was produced and where it went;Permit facilities to hide information on low production of persistent bioacculuative toxins (PBTs), which are dangerous even in small quantities because they are toxic, persist in the environment, and build up in people's bodies.The Pallone-Solis Toxic Right-To-Know Amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill (that decides funding levels for the EPA) would prohibit the EPA from spending any money to implement the changes. By using the "power of the purse strings," lawmakers could stop the dangerous cuts. Tell your representative to support the Pallone-Solis Toxic Right-To-Know Amendment and stop the EPA from moving forward with these dangerous proposals. Congress needs to know how much you care about this program. May 17, 2006 Subject: Dear Representative, I am writing to encourage you to support the Pallone-Solis Toxic Right-To-Know amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill, which will prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from rolling back reporting requirements for toxic pollution under the under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The EPA is pursuing plans to drastically cut the TRI reporting requirements including raising the reporting threshold for most chemicals 10 fold from 500 pounds to 5,000 pounds and switching from annual tracking of toxic pollution to every other year. I am sorely disappointed that an agency charged with protecting public health and the environment would choose to gut a program that has successfully encouraged reduction of toxic pollution for 20 years. Under TRI, facilities are required to report releases and disposals of toxic chemicals every year. This information is regularly used by company officers, emergency planners, state and local government officials, the news media and citizens to make communities around the country safer and healthier. The reporting rollbacks planned by EPA make no sense whatsoever. Public health will be placed at risk, companies won’t save any real time or money, first responders won’t be able to fully prepare for emergencies, bad corporate actors will avoid accountability for toxic pollution, and communities won’t know what is in the air and water. Under the EPA’s changes, we all lose. We have all seen the compelling images of the toxic pollution left behind on sidewalks and in homes from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. We need to know more, not less, about what chemicals and wastes are in our communities. TRI was put in place to help protect communities from large releases and small releases alike, from catastrophes and everyday pollution. These proposals must not go forward. I urge congress to intervene and prevent EPA from implementing the proposed rule (TRI-2005-0073). Please protect our community and support the Pallone-Solis amendment to the Interior Appropriations Bill. Even if you plan to vote against the Interior Appropriations Bill, voting for the Pallone-Solis Toxic Right-To-Know amendment is vitally important in case that the Bill is passed. I would also ask that you contact Representatives Pallone and Solis to support stand-alone legislation to protect TRI that these offices are pursuing. Your signature will be added from the information you provide. OMB Watch 1742 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009 202-234-8494 (phone) 202-234-8584 (fax) www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ombwatch/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=3766
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 21, 2006 15:34:56 GMT 4
Clean Water Act ruling illustrates court's shiftBy Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | June 20, 2006 WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that environmental regulators may have gone too far when they applied the Clean Water Act to wetlands, rather than just lakes and rivers, delivering a divided opinion that illustrated the court's rightward shift since President Bush's two recent nominations.The 5-to-4 decision could limit the reach of the Clean Water Act, a landmark 1972 law that gives the Army Corps of Engineers the right to block development that would pollute the nation's waters. Also yesterday, the court announced that it would hear a case next fall involving certain late-term abortion procedures. As in several other important decisions this term, yesterday's environmental case was decided by a bloc of the four most conservative members of the court -- including Bush's nominees, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. -- who were joined by a conservative-leaning centrist, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. ``This is what everybody expected when [Justice Sandra Day] O'Connor left the court," said Harvard law professor Richard Fallon. ``There have been no surprises this term, including no surprises about the way that people thought that Roberts and Alito would push the court to the right, making Kennedy the center justice." The Clean Water Act case -- the most highly anticipated environmental ruling of the year -- is a potential benchmark in the court's rightward tilt. Christopher Kilian , a senior lawyer at the Conservation Law Foundation, a New England environmental advocacy organization, said the court's ruling could open the door for developers to challenge decisions in which provisions of the Clean Water Act were applied to wetlands.``The upshot of the court's decision is that thousands of miles of streams in New England and hundreds of thousands of acres of wetlands throughout the region are now at greater risk of being filled-in, bulldozed, or developed," he said.The Supreme Court was long composed of three solidly conservative justices and four liberals, while O'Connor and Kennedy served as swing votes between the two factions. After Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died last summer and O'Connor retired, they were replaced by Roberts and Alito -- leaving Kennedy, who is more conservative than O'Connor, as the key decision-maker. ``We have a 4-1-4 court, with Justice Kennedy sitting in the middle," said Barry Friedman, a New York University law professor. Even in the current term -- which has been relatively low-key, with no major free speech case, no major religion case, and an abortion case that was sent back to lower courts for further review -- the court's rightward tilt has left its mark in several 5-to-4 decisions advancing conservative issues. Last month, for example, the court held 5 to 4 that the First Amendment does not protect government employees from retaliation if they act as whistleblowers and expose government wrongdoing. Kennedy wrote the opinion, joined by Roberts, Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. And last week, the court held, 5 to 4, that prosecutors in a criminal trial can use evidence obtained when police search a home without first knocking on the door. Kennedy and the conservatives again formed the majority, while the four liberals -- John Paul Stevens , Ruth Bader Ginsburg , David H. Souter , and Stephen G. Breyer -- dissented. Still, although the court is tilting to the right, scholars said, Kennedy has voted with liberals on the death penalty and in some abortion rights cases In yesterday's Clean Water Act cases, while the four solid conservatives sought to sharply restrict the scope of the Clean Water Act, Kennedy wrote a separate opinion that softened the impact of the ruling.The cases involved two Michigan landowners who wanted to develop a shopping mall and a condominium complex on wetlands. One of the sites is connected by ditches to distant waterways. The other site is blocked from flowing into a lake or stream because of a man-made dike. Citing the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers moved to block construction at both sites. The landowners sued, arguing that the Corps had gone beyond the powers in the Clean Water Act because neither site abutted a body of water. A lower court sided with the Corps. Yesterday, a majority of the Supreme Court -- the bloc of solid conservatives, with Kennedy adding a fifth vote -- sent the cases back for new hearings. Scalia, writing for the four conservatives, tried to sharply limit the reach of the Clean Water Act, accusing the Corps of having ``stretched the term `waters of the United States' beyond parody" by applying it to man-made drainage ditches, streambeds that are dry part of the year, and ``wet meadows" that are distant from rivers and lakes. ``The plain language of the statute simply does not authorize this `land is waters' approach to federal jurisdiction," Scalia wrote. Kennedy agreed that the lower courts should take a second look at whether the Clean Water Act covers the Michigan sites, suggesting they may not have a ``significant nexus" to lakes and rivers. But Kennedy also said Scalia and the conservatives were wrong to enact an absolute ban on using the Clean Water Act to preserve wetlands. ``The plurality's overall tone and approach . . . seems unduly dismissive of the interests asserted by [government regulators]," Kennedy wrote. ``Important public interests are served by the Clean Water Act in general and by the protection of wetlands in particular." The fractured and confusing outcome of the case drew cautious comments from activists on both sides of the issue, with each side claiming a partial victory. Mark Moller of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank that filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the property owners, said the case showed that five justices held that the Clean Water Act has strict limits. Otherwise, he said, the Army Corps of Engineers could become ``a big land use zoning board" for the whole country. ``The Army Corps of Engineers said basically that any land on which some water may trickle its way, on the surface or underground, to some navigable water is under federal control," Moller said. ``That could reach the desert or water that drains off your property through a gutter. There was no limit to federal authority under that theory." But David Baron of Earthjustice , an environmentalist group that filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Army Corps, said he was heartened that Kennedy did not endorse Scalia's more restrictive opinion. ``There is a majority rejecting this extreme view that Justice Scalia puts forth, that tries to limit the Clean Water Act only to continuously flowing streams," Baron said. ``That's a concept that has never been around before, and a majority of the justices plainly reject it."Also yesterday, the court voted 6-3 that a police officer does not need a warrant to search a parolee because convicted criminals who have been let out of prison on parole have a lower expectation of privacy than ordinary people. In the abortion matter, the court agreed to hear a second case over whether the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 is unconstitutional because it has no exception for a woman's health. Both cases raise the issue of whether the law is too vague. SOURCE: tinyurl.com/o7kxeNOTE: By limiting the reach of the Clean Water Act, and permitting development on streambeds that are dry part of the year and wet meadows that are distant [how far?] from lakes and rivers developers could seriously screw up natural flood plains/systems. Yeah the streams are dry part of the year, but when the rains hit, they become swollen, moving rain water and runoff to larger bodies of water and wetlands act as the earth's lungs, so to speak. Where's all the water going to go after these natural systems are destroyed, covered with cement?
This case was centered on mall development which adds hundreds of square miles of parking lots. This is the most problematic part of mall development. Huge tracks of land are covered to accommodate 1 car for maybe 1 or 2 people; who have to DRIVE to the mall. Floodplains are often choosen as these sites for malls because they do sit next to major waterways which often roads follow. They are also easy to fill in. The lots cover ground which would absorb much of any floodwater or heavy rain, keeping waterways from overflowing and causing floods. They are also home to many types of wildlife that are specific to wetlands. These parking lots also become a huge source of runoff polluted with automobile oil.
I have personally worked to stop this type of development in my area. Mall developers are using a TFI grant which is actually to be used for redevelopment of "brown fields" or abandoned or deteriorated urban areas; NOT GREEN FIELDS! This money is to help rundown towns and cities bring back business and employment to their localities. It is paid for with your tax dollars.
Where I live we are stuck with a huge mall that does not offer residents meaningful employment, the mall has been open less than a year and is failing, promised businesses have backed out of moving in due to our area's inability to support this structure [high unemployment], the developers are already backing out of their loans. It has permanently destroyed our beautiful land and good hunting ground.
We are also fighting development of another mall 2 miles down the road which will destroy a major flood plain and destroy the last natural trout stream in Western, PA. Again, the TIF grant is being applied here.
There are currently about 6,000 abandoned malls across the United States. The land they cover is smothered with cement and municipalities are stuck with these eyesores and which have done nothing but kill local business while operating. Where's the sense in that? By the way, many of these developers are from Texas, interesting.......Michelle
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 22, 2006 8:51:08 GMT 4
New EPA Rule Gives Refineries, Chemical Plants Free Pass for Toxic Air Pollution Environmental, public health coalition challenges illegal rule in federal courtJune 19, 2006 Washington, D.C. -- Environmentalists and community organizations late this afternoon challenged in federal court an illegal rule adopted by the Environmental Protection Agency that allows refineries, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities to evade pollution control requirements whenever equipment malfunctions, and whenever they start up or shutdown operations. At these times toxic emissions can increase ten times allowable levels, and many companies routinely operate in "malfunction" mode to avoid compliance with pollution limits. "Chemical plants, refineries, and other manufacturers routinely dump thousands of pounds of toxic pollution in the air when equipment breaks down, or when plants are undergoing maintenance," said Eric Schaeffer, director of the Environmental Integrity Project. "EPA should close this loophole, instead of making it harder for the public to know when the Clean Air Act is being violated." In August 2004, EIP issued a report, "Gaming the System: How the Off-the-Books Industrial Upset Emissions Cheat the Public Out of Clear Air," which concluded that loopholes in the law are threatening public health. A copy of the report is available at www.environmentalintegrity.org/pub238.cfm. Last September, three major oil refineries in Wilmington, CA -- Shell, ConocoPhillips and Valero -- belched black and yellow smoke for over eight hours after pollution and safety controls failed during a power outage. Their pollution controls were run with electricity, so when the power went out, so did the controls. This massive toxic release could have been avoided had the refineries been required to prepare an adequate contingency plan that included a backup power source during a blackout. Unfortunately, EPA's rules encourage such reckless lack of planning by exempting plants from toxic emission limits during malfunctions and allowing plant owners to keep their backup plans secret from the public. "The people living near these facilities should be protected from breathing carcinogenic and toxic fumes at all times, not just when it is convenient for plant owners," said Jesse Marquez, executive director for the Coalition for a Safe Environment. "These refineries are responsible for poisoning our air and causing public health problems and they get away with it because it was deemed a malfunction. We should not be forced to breathe this toxic air pollution or be in fear of our lives from a potential fire or explosion simply because there's no plan in place.""Equipment malfunctions, start up or shutdown operations are responsible for much of the twenty million pounds of air toxics emitted annually in our area," said Marylee Orr, executive director of Louisiana Environmental Action Network. "When the big flares at one of the local facilities go off it can cause significant problems in the surrounding communities." EPA's rule not only allows facilities to avoid compliance with pollution limits, it also blocks local residents' ability to see or evaluate a company's measures for preventing malfunctions. "If we knew there was no plan in place to prevent such emissions during a power failure or equipment failure, we could have asked for some mandatory public safety contingency plan to be put in place," Marquez said. "The lack of mandatory public safety precautions, emergency plans and legal consequences for these facilities during malfunctions is an absolute sham." "This rule just removes the public's right to know what will be done to protect them from exposure to harmful, poisonous chemicals," said Jane Williams, a Sierra Club activist and clean air expert. "It's as if EPA is sending the message that protecting public health is secondary to protecting polluters' right to pollute," said Susan Falzon, executive director of Friends of Hudson, a New York-based community environmental organization. "The general public believes that the EPA protects both the environment and public health. Polluting industries benefit unfairly from this public trust when the EPA fails to hold them accountable."Some facilities evade clean air protections by claiming that they are in startup, shutdown, or malfunction mode during much of their operating time. In 2003, for example, one facility in Texas released over 91,000 pounds of benzene and 83,000 pounds of butadiene -- both known carcinogens -- during SSM periods. This rule not only allows more pollution into the air, it also relieves refineries, chemical plants and other industrial facilities from notifying nearby communities, schools, hospitals and neighbors of what will happen should some problem occur."Even with respect to the general duty to minimize emissions, we can't know what the plants intend to do to protect us during a malfunction because they get to keep the plans secret," said Earthjustice attorney Keri Powell. "It's only after we find ourselves breathing their toxic fumes that they tell us what they did to minimize them, and by that time, it's just too late."Earthjustice is representing Friends of Hudson, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, Coalition for a Safe Environment, Sierra Club, and Environmental Integrity Project in the litigation, which was filed in the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Contact:Susan Falzon, Friends of Hudson (NY) [518] 822-0334 Keri Powell, Earthjustice (NY) [845] 265-2445 Eric Schaeffer, Environmental Integrity Project (DC) [202] 296-8800 James Pew, Earthjustice (DC) [202] 667-4500 Jane Williams, Sierra Club (CA) [661] 510-3412 Jesse Marquez, Coalition for a Safe Environment (CA) [301] 704-1265 Gary Miller, Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LA) [225] 767-0991 Source: tinyurl.com/zukcy
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Aug 19, 2006 16:20:02 GMT 4
The Civic Obligation of a Healthy PlanetBy Lesley Adams The national debate over roadless lands centers in Southwest Oregon.When I moved to southwest Oregon in 1998, I had no idea what treasures awaited me in the rugged Siskiyou Mountains. Natural historians, and my own observations, quickly taught me that I was in the presence of something special. I promptly began to climb to the tops of mountains, swim in cold, clear rivers alongside salmon ancestors, and discover the bright world of wildflowers and loquacious birds. As a child of the West Coast, I took for granted the large expenses of wild land that awaited anyone who ventured out of the urban sprawl. It only took a few formative traveling experiences to realize that humans had paved over and developed an incredible amount of land in our short industrial era. It was easy to see that these roaded incursions into every corner of the earth were quickening the exploitation of the land and depleting the earth’s resources for future generations. Not long after moving to the Siskiyous, I got involved in a campaign to protect the remaining roadless public lands in America. I attended hearings, gave testimony, wrote letters and encouraged others to speak up. With the refreshing, albeit naive, optimism of a young activist, I was overjoyed when President Clinton signed the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in January 2001. I had participated in a process that resulted in the protection of millions of acres of public lands. To me, it felt like a victorious omen for the 21st century. I had no idea how quickly things would change for the worse. Cultivating Ethics, then Squashing ThemWhether we ever visit the remaining remote areas of the globe is our personal choice, but the responsibility for protecting and conserving these increasingly rare areas is our inheritance, and our bequest. As the industrial age gathered speed, America was lucky to have had the foresight to create public lands, lest they all be squandered for private profit. At the turn of the 20th century, public lands in the United States were born out of an emerging environmental ethic that arose as a reaction to the rapid plunder of natural resources. President Theodore Roosevelt, considered one of the pioneering conservationists in American history, declared in Chicago in 1912 that, “There can be no greater issue than that of conservation in this country.” During his Presidency, Roosevelt established the US Forest Service, signed the 1906 Antiquities Act and proclaimed 18 national monuments, 5 national parks, 51 wildlife refuges and 150 national forests. I am grateful that Roosevelt acted when he did, and I know that our current government’s lack of commitment to environmental stewardship, our “civic obligation” to future generations, would make Teddy shudder. While we have made great strides in conservation since Roosevelt’s time, we have also seen environmental victories trampled by corporate-controlled politicians, the Roadless Rule being a prime example. The origins of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule go back to the 1970s, when the Forest Service began inventorying America’s remaining roadless public lands of 5,000 acres or greater. Based on these inventories, the Forest Service received millions of comments in favor of conservation, and held hundreds of public meetings before President Clinton protected nearly 60 million acres from logging and road-building in 2001. It’s no surprise to most that the Bush administration has been attempting to undo roadless area protections throughout its two terms. What the Clinton administration likely saw as its lasting legacy was viewed as an impediment to easy, subsidized profits by industrial timber interests and their allies in the Bush administration. Thus, in 2005, the Bush administration repealed the 2001 Roadless Rule, replacing it with a lengthy process that forces governors to petition for roadless protections in their individual states. This act opens up those previously protected 60 million acres to logging, road construction, mining, oil exploration, and other forms of development. The Illusion of State InputUnder the new Bush policy, if governors wish to have roadless areas within their state protected, they must complete a burdensome petition process and file their recommendations with political appointees at the US Department of Agriculture. The petitions are not binding, and the federal government is free to accept, modify or reject them. Elected officials and citizens outside those states will have no say at all about the fate of these shared national treasures. Adding to the mess is the administration’s promise that roadless areas would be protected until each state had an opportunity to petition. Mark Rey, the Bush appointed Under Secretary of Agriculture (and a former timber industry lobbyist) said in The New York Times in September 2005 that, “We are providing interim protection to roadless areas, pending the development of state-specific rules provided for in our 2005 rulemaking.” On this my advice is to not hold your breath. Broken PromisesLast June the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest auctioned off the first roadless area timber sale in the nation since the popular Roadless Area Conservation Rule was approved in 2001. The Mike’s Gulch timber sale, part of the Biscuit Recovery Project, would cut into the largest roadless area in Oregon. The 105,000-acre South Kalmiopsis Roadless Area is part of the largest complex of Wilderness and Roadless lands on the West Coast, stretching from Baja to British Columbia. The Blackberry timber sale, located in the North Kalmiopsis Roadless Area, is scheduled for auction later this summer. Additional roadless area incursions are planned this year in New Hampshire, Wyoming, Minnesota and Colorado.So Much for Promises.Governor Ted Kulongoski has been clear that he wants roadless protections in Oregon. Kulongoski joined several other states in filing a lawsuit challenging the 2005 repeal of the Roadless Rule. When rumors began in early 2006 that the Forest Service planned to log roadless areas in Oregon this summer, the governor wrote a letter to the Forest Service reiterating the obvious: “I again ask the Forest Service to defer logging in the Biscuit roadless areas while I pursue my objective of permanently protecting the 1.9 million acres of roadless areas in Oregon.” Yet the administration ignored the governor and broke its promise to the people by auctioning off Mike’s Gulch before Oregon had a chance to complete its petition by the November 2006 deadline. Mark Rey defended the action by saying there are always exceptions to the rules. Governor Kulongoski disagrees. Hours after the auction, Kulongoski announced he would file a court motion to protect the state’s roadless areas. He says the Mike’s Gulch sale forecloses his ability to protect Oregon’s roadless areas. He intends to petition for roadless protection for all 1.9 millions acres of inventoried roadless lands in Oregon later this summer. Selling Our National Heritage For a SongThe 650-acre Mike’s Gulch roadless forest sold for a pittance: $160 a log truck, which is cheaper than firewood. The winning bidder, Silver Creek Timber, rose to notoriety in 2005 for illegally logging the Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area and clearcutting the protected Babyfoot Lake Botanical Area. John West, owner of Silver Creek, has become a big bidder in recent years. Unknown before the 2002 Biscuit fire, West has been the high bidder on numerous Biscuit logging sales, including the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Biscuit roadless sale, Silver Hawk, which West is currently logging. The unprecedented assault on roadless forests should have first been fought over Silver Hawk rather than Mike’s Gulch. But in contrast to the Forest Service, the BLM never inventoried its roadless areas, so according to them they don’t have any. While West is taking the public heat for logging in such controversial areas, the jobs and the logs are quietly going to larger companies: Portland-based Columbia Helicopters and Roseburg Forest Products. It’s no surprise that West got this roadless forest for such a deal. In January 2006, a report released by scientists, former Forest Service employees and conservation groups indicated that the Forest Service has lost approximately $14 million in sale preparation and administration costs on the Biscuit fire area. Nationally, the Forest Service has been selling below cost timber on public land for years, resulting in a federal timber sale program that loses millions of dollars annually. Drawing a Line in the SandThe auctioning of Mike’s Gulch has caused the ire of citizens across the nation, leading The New York Times to editorialize last June: “The administration broke that promise [interim protections] earlier this month when it took bids on a logging project in Oregon’s Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest,” then suggested that Mark Rey, “would be well advised to reconsider his strategy, beginning with a cancellation of the Oregon sale.” A few days earlier the Oregonian wrote, “The timber sale is a total waste of time, money and public trust in the Forest Service … This sale makes no economic or environmental sense. It is only the Bush administration forcing its way into a roadless Oregon forest, just to prove that it can.” A firestorm of controversy and media coverage rages this summer on the future of roadless lands in America. As this goes to print we await the early August court hearing on the governor’s lawsuit challenging the repeal of the Roadless Rule, and therefore the future of roadless wildlands across the nation. We could see unprecedented roadless logging in southwest Oregon this year, and if that happens, we may even be able to hear those trees fall. As an extension of corporate business, it’s no surprise that our government has been steadily working for years to dismantle, erode and disintegrate decades of environmental protections. As a nation of people concerned about our children’s future, we must translate our environmental ethic into our civic obligation and staunchly protect our natural resources for future generations.
As it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore global climate change and its snowball effects, we will be forced to reassess our relationship with the earth, likely in ways we have yet to imagine. It is our obligation to future generations to hold governments accountable, and push them to act on the progressive concerns of its people. The Roadless Rule debacle is but one in a series of critical environmental issues that has been smothered in political shenanigans. As American author Edward Abbey said, “we must draw a line in the sand and say, ‘Thus far and no further,’” for the future of the planet is being written right now.Lesley Adams is the Outreach Coordinator for the Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center (KS Wild). KS Wild monitors activity on public lands throughout the Rogue and Klamath watersheds of northwest California and southwest Oregon. KS Wild advocates for roadless lands, ancient forests, at-risk species of plants and animals and the cool clear waterways of the wild Klamath-Siskiyou region. For updates on this and other environmental issues in the Klamath-Siskiyou, visit www.kswild.org. Source: www.sentienttimes.com/06/aug_sept_06/healthy_planet.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 20, 2006 9:33:00 GMT 4
Why the Rich Oppose EnvironmentalismBy Michael Parenti, APN Commentary Writer (January 16, 2006) In 1876, Marx's collaborator, Frederich Engels, offered a prophetic caveat, "Let us not... flatter ourselves overmuch on account of our human conquest over nature. For each such conquest takes its revenge on us... At every step we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside of nature--but that we, with flesh, blood, and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst. . . ."With its never-ending emphasis on production and profit, and its indifference to the environment, transnational corporate capitalism is determined to stand outside nature. The driving goal of giant investment firms is to convert natural materials into commodities and commodities into profits, transforming living nature into vast accumulations of dead capital. This capital accumulation process treats the planet's life-sustaining resources (arable land, groundwater, wetlands, forests, fisheries, ocean beds, rivers, air quality) as dispensable ingredients of limitless supply, to be consumed or toxified at will. Consequently, the support systems of the entire ecosphere--the Earth's thin skin of fresh air, water, and top soil--are at risk, threatened by global warming, massive erosion, and ozone depletion. An ever-expanding capitalism and a fragile finite ecology are on a calamitous collision course. It is not true that the ruling politico-economic interests are in a state of denial about this. Far worse than denial, they have shown utter antagonism toward those who think the planet is more important than corporate profits. So they defame environmentalists as "eco-terrorists," "EPA gestapo," "Earth Day alarmists," and "tree huggers." The plutocracy’s position was summed up by that dangerous fool, erstwhile Senator Steve Symms (R-Idaho), who once said if he had to choose between capitalism and ecology, he would choose capitalism. Symms seemed not to grasp that, absent a viable ecology, there will be no capitalism or any other ism. In July 2005, President Bush finally muttered a grudging acknowledgment, "I recognize that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem." However, this belated admission of a "problem" hardly makes up for Bush’s many attacks against the environment. In recent years, Bushite reactionaries within the White House and Congress, fueled by corporate lobbyists, have supported measures to allow unregulated toxic fill into lakes and harbors, eliminate most of the wetland acreage that was to be set aside for a reserve, completely deregulate the production of chlrofluorocarbons (CFCs) that deplete the ozone layer, eviscerate clean water and clean air standards, open the unspoiled Arctic wildlife refuge in Alaska to oil and gas drilling, defund efforts to keep raw sewage out of rivers and away from beaches, privatize and open national parks to commercial development, give the remaining ancient forests over to unrestrained logging, repeal the Endangered Species Act, and allow mountain-top removal in mining that has transformed thousands of miles of streams and vast amounts of natural acreage into toxic wastelands.Why do rich and powerful interests take this seemingly suicidal anti-environmental route? We can understand why they might want to destroy public housing, public education, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They and their children will not thereby be deprived of a thing, having more than sufficient private means to procure whatever services they need for themselves. But the environment is a different story. Do not wealthy reactionaries and their corporate lobbyists inhabit the same polluted planet as everyone else, eat the same chemicalized food, and breathe the same toxified air? In fact, they do not live exactly as everyone else. They experience a different class reality, often residing in places where the air is somewhat better than in low and middle income areas. They have access to food that is organically raised and specially prepared. The nation's toxic dumps and freeways usually are not situated in or near their swanky neighborhoods. The pesticide sprays are not poured over their trees and gardens. Clearcutting does not desolate their ranches, estates, and vacation spots. They haven’t noticed because they are so comfortably insulated from the ecological devastation caused by their very own enterprises. Look out the window at the empty sky and ask where the birds went. If we could see underwater, we would note a similar absence of what was once a teeming aquatic ecosystem. Even when the corporate rich or their children succumb to a dread disease like cancer, they do not link the tragedy to environmental factors---though scientists now believe that present-day cancer epidemics stem largely from human-made causes. The plutocrats deny there is a serious problem because they themselves have created that problem and owe so much of their wealth to it. But how can they deny the threat of an ecological apocalypse brought on by ozone depletion, global warming, disappearing top soil, and dying oceans? Do the corporate plutocrats want to see life on Earth---including their own lives---destroyed? In the long run they indeed will be sealing their own doom, along with everyone else’s. However, they live in the here and now. What is at stake for them is something more immediate than global ecology. It is global capital accumulation. The fate of the biosphere seems a far-off abstraction compared to the fate of one’s immediate investments. Furthermore, pollution pays, while ecology costs. Every dollar a company spends on environmental protections is one less dollar in earnings. Moving away from fossil fuels and toward solar, wind, and tidal energy could help avert ecological disaster, but six of the world's ten top industrial corporations are involved primarily in the production of oil, gasoline, and motor vehicles. Fossil fuel pollution means billions in profits. Ecologically sustainable forms of production directly threaten those profits. Immense and imminent gain for oneself is a far more compelling consideration than a diffuse loss shared by the general public. The social cost of turning a forest into a wasteland weighs little against the personal profit that comes from harvesting the timber. This conflict between immediate personal gain on the one hand and seemingly remote public benefit on the other operates even at the individual consumer level. Thus, it is in one's long term interest not to operate an automobile that contributes more to environmental devastation than any other single consumer item (even if it’s a hybrid). But again, we don’t live in the long run, we live in the here and now, and we have an immediate everyday need for transportation, so most of us have no choice except to own and use automobiles. Mind you, we did not choose this "car culture." Ecologically efficient and less costly mass transit systems and rail systems were deliberately bought out, privatized and torn up, beginning in the 1930s in campaigns waged across the country by the automotive, oil, and tire industries. These industries put "America on wheels," in order to maximize profits for themselves, and to hell with the environment. Sober business heads refuse to get caught up in doomsayer "hysteria" about ecology. Besides, there can always be found a few stray experts who will obligingly argue that the jury is still out, that there is no conclusive proof to support the alarmists. Conclusive proof in this case would come only when the eco-apocalypse is upon us. Ecology is profoundly subversive of capitalism.
It needs planned, environmentally sustainable production rather than the rapacious unregulated free-market kind.
It requires economical consumption rather than an artificially stimulated, ever-expanding, wasteful consumerism.
It calls for natural, relatively clean and low cost energy systems rather than high cost, high profit, polluting ones.
Ecology's implications for capitalism are too challenging for the capitalist to contemplate. The plutocrats are more wedded to their wealth than to the Earth upon which they live, more concerned with the fate of their fortunes than with the fate of humanity. The struggle over environmentalism is part of the class struggle itself, a fact that seems to have escaped many environmentalists. The present ecological crisis has been created by the few at the expense of the many. This time the plutocratic drive to "accumulate, accumulate, accumulate" may take all of us down, once and forever.Michael Parenti's recent books include Superpatriotism (City Lights) and The Assassination of Julius Caesar (New Press), both available in paperback. For more information, visit his website: www.michaelparenti.org. Mr. Parenti’s commentaries will appear regularly on Atlanta Progressive News.Source: www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/views/0004-views.htmlNote from Michelle: Mr. Parenti's essay here suggests that it is the plutocrats which are driving the destruction of our earth; that the struggle over environmentalism is part of the class struggle itself. While it is certainly true that plutocrats do indeed allow corporate plunder through negative legislation, I think many in the united States' upper middle class need to seriously curb their consumption. I often wondered what happened to the Baby Boomers who were so involved during the ecology boom; why did they abandon the convictions of their youth? Well, it's easy to support the downtrodden when you're one of them. When one is young and in college, you don't have much earning power. Then after employment your lifestyle begins to expand with salary increases. Soon you acquire investment portfolios crammed full of companies antagonistic to the environment and labor. So now you're in a position where you have to protect your interests and lifestyle. You begin to support the very same plutocrats you once demonstrated against. To this type of personality I say: You were never about anything significant; you've jumped on whatever bandwagon was popular or interesting to you at different points in your life, you only reflect the flavor of the month and your own selfish interests and concerns. I despise your shallow, thoughtless and, self-absorbed mind and will watch you scramble when your world comes crashing down. The rest of us have become experts at surviving; we've had to because of your choices. What will you do when our monetary system crashes? You can't eat money!........ Michelle
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 23, 2007 16:20:06 GMT 4
What's At Stake? The EPA Closes Its Libraries, Destroys DocumentsThe EPA, ONE TIME PUBLIC WATCHDOG INSTITUTION, now boot licking toadies for the Bush administration and their corporate masters, is in the process of closing their libraries and DESTROYING years of scientific data used for making regulatory decisions and allowing the agency to carry out its original mission of protecting human health and the environment. These are PUBLIC documents which were, in the past, previous to the BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S TAKEOVER OF OUR COUNTRY, used for scientific studies and also available to US citizens. Why would the EPA be destroying this information and/or making it inaccessible? Well, there would be much information available for you to access concerning... say... cancer cluster areas which are notoriously located near industrial facilities. And suppose you wanted to find out the negative environmental impacts of industrial development in your area along with negative health effects on the surrounding population...again, in the past, you could have went to the EPA libraries for information. Members of both the House and Senate have called upon Administrator Johnson to cease and desist with the closures until an investigation is complete and Congress has authorized action. The EPA has refused to respond to Congress. While the EPA has told reporters that the agency is no longer destroying documents, the closed libraries have not reopened and the EPA has not provided a comprehensive plan to make available documents that are currently inaccessible. This is important, people....information is power to the people...withholding it gives power to out of control corporations to do anything they want, regardless of the consequences. After you inform yourself here, call call EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and urge him to immediately halt the dismantling of the library system.....Michelle CITIZENS TAKE ACTION!!! Call EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, YOUR LIFE MAY DEPEND UPON IT!:ucsaction.org/campaign/1_17_07epalibraryclosuresWhat's At Stake? The EPA Closes Its Libraries, Destroys DocumentsThis web page details the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to act upon a proposal to close its scientific libraries. Below, you will find:A general summary of the issue A detailed summary of the EPA’s actions to date The response from Congress and your chance to weigh in with the EPA Myths and Facts: What the EPA is telling scientists and citizens when they call—and why their claims are inaccurate Written responses from EPA Questions that remain Additional resources General SummaryThe EPA has begun closing its nationwide network of scientific libraries, effectively preventing EPA scientists and the public from accessing vast amounts of data and information on issues from toxicology to pollution. Several libraries have already been dismantled, with their contents either destroyed or shipped to repositories where they are uncataloged and inaccessible. Members of Congress have asked the EPA to cease and desist. While the agency claims that it has postponed further destruction of documents, we need you to tell the EPA that scientists and the public need unconstrained access to this critical information to protect our health and environment. UCS is asking concerned scientists and activists to call EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and urge him to keep the library system open until all materials are available online and sufficient research assistance is available.
We've received reports that some EPA receptionists are telling UCS supporters that the EPA is simply restructuring and modernizing the system. See below for evidence of why these arguments don’t hold water.Detailed SummaryThe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains a nationwide network of 27 libraries that provide critical scientific information on human health and environmental protection, not only to EPA scientists, but also to other researchers and the general public. The EPA libraries are located in each of 10 regions of the country, at EPA headquarters in Washington, D.C. and at various EPA laboratories specializing in certain aspects of environmental protection. In order to fulfill its mission to protect human health and the environment, the EPA must rely on accurate, up-to-date scientific information as well as the findings of earlier studies. To make the best scientific determinations, scientists need access to information regarding the health effects of toxic substances, records of environmental change over time, impacts on specific regions or communities and other issues. To this end, the libraries represent a unique and invaluable source of scientific knowledge on issues from hazardous waste to toxicology to pollution control. Additional benefit to scientific researchers is gained from the expertise of a dedicated library staff. In 2005, library staff fielded more than 134,000 database and reference questions and distributed almost 53,000 books, journal articles, and other resources to EPA researchers and the public. In February 2006 under the guise of cutting costs, the Bush Administration proposed cutting $2 million out of the $2.5 million library services budget for fiscal year 2007. Such a drastic cut would ensure the closing of most of the library network, but would hardly register as a cost savings against the $8 billion EPA budget. Despite the fact that Congress has not yet passed the 2007 budget or approved these funding cuts, the EPA has already moved with astonishing speed to close down several of its libraries to both the public and EPA staff. Three regional libraries, the Headquarters Library and a specialized library for research on the effects and properties of chemicals have already been closed, and four additional regional libraries have been subjected to reduced hours and limited access. Some books, reports and other resources formerly housed at these libraries have been sent to three repositories where they remain uncataloged and inaccessible to the scientists and others who depend upon them. Other materials have already been recycled or thrown away. While administration officials claim the changes are prompted by budgetary pressures, the existence of a dedicated library system has been shown to actually save money. A 2004 internal EPA report found that the library network saved over 214,000 hours a year in staff time, amounting to cost-savings of $7.5 million—considerably more than the savings gained from cutting the program. Officials claim the closings are part of a modernization plan, and that all materials will eventually be available online. However, no comprehensive assessment of information needs has been undertaken—making it likely that some unique information will be lost—and no funding exists to carry out the time-consuming and expensive process of making documents available electronically. The end result is that the library resources are already unavailable and the promised electronic access could be years away. The closure of these libraries and the warehousing of their resources represents an additional barrier to the free flow of scientific information. The EPA will not have the best information readily available when it makes regulatory decisions, negatively impacting the agency's ability to carry out its mission of protecting human health and the environment. Scientists and Congress ProtestMany scientists and lawmakers have spoken out in protest of these library closures. Four unions representing 10,000 EPA scientists sent a letter asking Congress to stop the destruction of the library network. A letter from Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA), Bart Gordon (D-TN) and John Dingell (D-MI) has prompted an investigation of the library system by the General Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. And members of both the House and Senate have called upon Administrator Johnson to cease and desist with the closures until the investigation is complete and Congress has authorized action. While the EPA has told reporters that the agency is no longer destroying documents, the closed libraries have not reopened and the EPA has not provided a comprehensive plan to make available documents that are currently inaccessible. UCS is asking concerned scientists and activists to call EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and urge him to immediately halt the dismantling of the library system until Congress approves the EPA budget and all materials are readily available online. Myths and Facts: What the EPA has told callers and why this is not accurateMyth #1: The libraries are not closing. The Facts: On the EPA's own library website, the five libraries that have been closed to date have been removed from the list and had their websites partially or completely shut down: the Headquarters Library, Region 5, Region 6, Region 7, and the Office of Prevention, Pollution, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS). The EPA libraries website links to a plan of action for closing many libraries and dispersing or disposing of materials. We also have first-hand accounts from EPA employees that the libraries have been closed. Also, several newspapers have recently reported or editorialized about the library closures, including: Christian Science Monitor, 11/30/06: "As EPA Libraries go Digital, Public Access Suffers" Boston Globe editorial, 11/20/06: "Save the Earth's Libraries" Arizona Star, 11/05/06: "EPA Libraries Taking Big Hits: They're closed or curtailed to cut costs, agency says; critics skeptical" Kansas City Star, 12/3/06: "EPA Closings Draw Criticism" Myth #2: No materials have been destroyed. The Facts: Ample evidence exists that the EPA has already destroyed documents. The Christian Science Monitor reports that "scientific journals worth hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars were thrown in dumpsters in October." An EPA chemist told the Kansas City Star that one library was told to throw away journals. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility uncovered documents ordering one library to recycle materials—"as many as possible." And the House and Senate letters referenced above also reference the destruction of documents. Myth #3: Calls to Congress are more effective than calls to the EPA administrator. The Facts: For now, it is more effective to call Administrator Johnson. Congress is already aware of this problem and has asked the EPA to cease and desist; the decision to stop the closing of libraries and the destruction of documents lies now with Administrator Johnson. Of course, if you wish to call your senators and members of Congress in addition to Administrator Johnson, you certainly should! Written responses from the EPA Some concerned scientists and citizens who are calling the EPA are receiving a written response in return along the lines of this message: “The Agency's Library budget has been cut by $2 million for [Fiscal Year 2007]. The general trend in recent years has been fewer people physically visiting the EPA libraries, and more use of desktop services. EPA's goal is to achieve greater efficiencies by streamlining EPA's physical library collections and moving toward a new model focused on providing electronic delivery of library services. For the past 15 years, EPA has been digitizing Agency documents and providing those documents in an electronic format. EPA is continuing this process by digitizing all unique documents created by the Agency with priority being given to those documents housed in the libraries that are closing. These documents will be made available to the public free of charge via the National Environmental Publications Information System (NEPIS). NEPIS, which is an online database, currently contains close to 20,000 documents and can be access at: nepis.epa.gov In addition, the general public will still have access to interlibrary loan services, to reference services and to the Online Library System (OLS), the catalog of all the holdings in EPA's libraries at: www.epa.gov/natlibra" Questions that RemainThe response shown above does not adequately address many fundamental problems with the EPA's decision to close libraries and destroy documents. Since the EPA is closing libraries before making materials available online, they must have a comprehensive plan that assures that valuable information is not destroyed or sequestered away indefinitely. 1. Why did EPA proceed so rapidly to shut the libraries, without having digitized all material first? Why is the EPA disposing of journals in dumpters? Who is deciding which journals go and which stay? 2. Why did EPA begin to shut down libraries before its Fiscal Year 2007 budget is approved by Congress and before Congress completes an investigation into the library system? 3. Why has EPA Administrator Johnson failed to respond to letters from leaders in Congress regarding this matter? 4. Has the EPA catalogued all of the documents that have been shipped from closed libraries to repositories? Are these items fully accessible? How long does the average inter-library loan request take to retrieve an item from the repository? Will the increased number of documents in repository increase this time? 5. According to a letter from the EPA employees union, some library contents "are being dispersed without establishing any standard procedures or criteria to ensure that important documents are not lost." What standards are in place to ensure that records slated for storage and scanning are properly reviewed? In particular, who makes the determination of what is a "unique" document, how is this determination made, and what is the timeline for making these decisions? 6. In total, the EPA collections include 504,000 books and reports, 3,500 journals, 25,000 maps and 3.5 million information objects on microfilm. While purportedly almost 20,000 EPA documents are already available online, this represents less than 0.5 percent of the holdings in the EPA collections. 99.5% of EPA holdings are not yet digitized. Digitizing information and making it available online is extremely costly and labor intensive. What additional resources—in terms of both funding and staff time—have been committed to digitizing documents? 7. In particular, documents from before 1990 do not appear to have been digitized, and it is not clear from the 2007 EPA Library Plan that these documents will be digitized. How long will these holdings be inaccessible? What plans exist for digitizing records generated before 1990? 8. According to the EPA, the EPA library collections contain both EPA-generated documents and tens of thousands of documents generated by EPA contractors. What timeline exists for digitization of contractor and other non-EPA generated documents? 9. Public access to printed and microfilm records is critical for scholars. What public access, in addition to the online access for the almost 20,000 EPA generated documents, will be available to the records? Will members of the public be able to examine the microfilm records and printed documents from contractors, as well as EPA-generated reports? 10. How will the EPA address access to documents that may be less useful for current scientific work but are critical for historical work? 11. Documents put on EPA websites must be fully accessible to people with disabilities. Therefore, anything other than text (for example, a graph) must be accompanied by explanatory text which is then read by the software that makes the document accessible. Scanned documents may not meet these requirements. How will the EPA digitize documents while meeting this requirement? 12. How will the public know about and/or gain access to the documents that are not currently online, and may not be available for two years or more? 13. What is the value of the staff time that will be taken to comply with public requests, EPA interlibrary loan requests and information requests about what is available and how to gain access to it? Is this the most cost-effective system? Given that the budget has been cut by $2 million and digitization creates a significant amount of work, is it realistic to assume that the modernization plan will proceed quickly? Additional Resources For more information, see the American Library Association and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Special Libraries Association CEO Janice R. Lachance may have put it best: “With this proposal, EPA's leadership is making it more difficult for the agency's policymakers and the public to leverage the extensive knowledge found in high quality, accurate information to make important decisions on our nation's environment, potentially compromising the public's health.”Please call Administrator Johnson's office today to ask him to immediately halt the closure of libraries and the destruction of documents. Source and many information links: ucsaction.org/campaign/1_17_07epalibraryclosures/explanation
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Mar 30, 2007 13:51:01 GMT 4
Report raps Interior official over leaksFrom a previous post here; all this was sanctioned by one time public watchdog/protective agencies through Bush's political appointees put in charge of these groups:In recent years, Bushite reactionaries within the White House and Congress, fueled by corporate lobbyists, have supported measures to allow unregulated toxic fill into lakes and harbors, eliminate most of the wetland acreage that was to be set aside for a reserve, completely deregulate the production of chlrofluorocarbons (CFCs) that deplete the ozone layer, eviscerate clean water and clean air standards, open the unspoiled Arctic wildlife refuge in Alaska to oil and gas drilling, defund efforts to keep raw sewage out of rivers and away from beaches, privatize and open national parks to commercial development, give the remaining ancient forests over to unrestrained logging, repeal the Endangered Species Act, and allow mountain-top removal in mining that has transformed thousands of miles of streams and vast amounts of natural acreage into toxic wastelands.Looks like the dam has broken as more Department officials are called on the carpet...MichelleReport raps Interior official over leaks By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer Thu Mar 29, 7:13 PM ET WASHINGTON - A government official broke federal rules and should face punishment for leaking information about endangered species to private groups, the Interior Department's watchdog said. The department's deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks acknowledged releasing information that was not supposed to be made public to organizations such as the California Farm Bureau Federation and Pacific Legal Foundation, according to the agency's inspector general. Environmentalists and other critics contend Julie MacDonald undermined federal endangered species protections. In the report by Earl Devaney, Interior Department officials describe MacDonald as a political appointee bent on manipulating science to fit her policy goals, which they said favor developers and industry.The report said MacDonald: _Removed more than 80 percent of almost 300 miles of streams that were to be protected to help bull trout recover in the Northwest's Klamath River basin. _Tried to remove protections for a rare jumping mouse in the Rocky Mountains based on a questionable study. _Pressured the Fish and Wildlife Service to alter findings on the Kootenai River sturgeon in Idaho and Montana so dam operations would not be harmed. Interior Department spokeswoman Tina Kreisher said MacDonald was not immediately available for comment Thursday. Rep. Nick Rahall (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said he would hold a hearing in May about the report and the broader issues it raises. The hearing will provide "a sweeping review on whether politics is infiltrating decisions" and subverting science in the government's handling of endangered species, said Rahall, D-W.Va., who released Devaney's report. The findings were first reported in Thursday's New York Times. Devaney said his office began investigating after an anonymous complaint in April 2006 that MacDonald acted unethically and illegally when she "bullied, insulted and harassed the professional staff" of the Fish and Wildlife Service to alter scientific evidence."A lot of that is true," Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall is quoted as saying in the report, adding that he has been in a "running battle" with MacDonald since he took over the service in October 2005. Devaney said he uncovered no illegal activity by MacDonald. But he said she broke rules that prohibit the disclosure of private agency information and that require public officials to avoid appearing to give anyone preferential treatment. Twice, according to the report, she sent internal Environmental Protection Agency documents to people whose e-mail addresses ended in chevrontexaco.com; ChevronTexaco was the name used after oil companies Chevron Corp. and Texaco Inc. merged in 2001, though it was changed to Chevron in 2005. Devaney referred the matter to Interior Department officials for potential punishment. Kreisher said the report was under review and that officials would have no comment on a personnel issue. MacDonald is a hydraulic engineer with a master's degree in management but no background in natural sciences. She joined the Bush administration in July 2002 as a senior adviser for fish, wildlife and parks. She was promoted to deputy assistant secretary in 2004."It's a travesty that a high-level political appointee with no training in biology is rewriting the conclusions of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists," said Melissa Waage, legislative director for the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy group. ___ On the Net: Interior Department's inspector general: www.doioig.gov/ House Natural Resources: resourcescommittee.house.gov/Source: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070329/ap_on_go_ot/interior_scientists_4
|
|