|
|
| Today's environment news articles environment news | for all environment news articles |
THE GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER
Canadian Institute for Business and the
Environment
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Ph. (514) 369-0230, Fax (514)
369-3282
Email cibe@web.net
Vol.
6, No. 29, November 19, 2002
**************************************************************
PRESIDENT BUSH: "WATCH MY WAR HAND;"
"NOT MY DOMESTIC-POLICY
HAND"
U.S. President George W. Bush has
diverted public attention away from serious mismanagement of United States
domestic policy by focussing public attention on his much popular foreign-war
policy on Iraq. While Bush is right to root out and bring to justice the Al
Queda and the Taliban and those others responsible for terrorism, he seems to
have diverted our attention to Iraq for a number of reasons. It is as if he is
playing "sleight-of-hand." He is saying: "Watch my War Hand. Join me in
conquering oil-rich Iraq. But don't watch my domestic hand. Don't watch as the
U.S. Government let ENRON, WorldCom and the other malfeasant U.S. corporations
nearly ruin our national economy. Don't watch as the U.S. Republicans drive the
nation deep into debt by borrows billions of dollars to pay for the war and to
pay for a tax rebate it can't afford (see "With Deficits Back in Picture, Bush
Agenda Faces Big Test: Critics Warn of Harm If Costs of War, Tax Cuts, Make
Shortfalls Persistent Issues," by Jackie Calmes and John D. McKinnon, The Wall
Street Journal, November 11, 2002). Don't watch as the Bush Administration
carefully deconstructs the protection of environmental health in America. Don't
watch as America runs out of money for education and social programs." The issue
of this issue of The Gallon Environment Letter analyses, in particular,
the Bush deconstruction of the environment. See the Natural Resources Defense
Council's (NRDC) website on the Bush environment record at
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2002.asp .
*******************************************************************
PRESIDENT BUSH BEGINS TO DECONSTRUCT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN THE UNITED
STATES
The editors of this newsletter have been
contacted by people from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
others who say that the Bush Administration is forcing fundamental changes on
the EPA. The Administration has:
o
appointed businessmen, opposed to strong environmental protection, at the head
of the US EPA and other agencies responsible for environment and
conservation
o instructed
US EPA officials to back-off of certain enforcement levels related to industry
sectors
o
begun to weaken environmental laws and
regulations
o instructed
its officials to ignore and weaken international environmental agreements such
as the Kyoto Protocol
o
ended protection of government timberlands and rangelands and opening them up
for expanded logging, over-grazing, and motor-vehicle access (i.e., snowmobiles,
quad motorbikes, seadoo's, motorcycles,
etc.)
o met
secretly, through Vice President Dick Cheney, with ENRON and the oil industry to
create a flawed and fossil-fuel-skewered National Energy
Policy
You can see the Bush record on the
Environment published by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) based in
Washington, D.C., at the website http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/default.asp
.
**********************************************************
FORMER US EPA OFFICIAL EXPRESSES CONCERN
ABOUT BUSH INTENTIONS TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Sylvia K. Lowrance, a senior US EPA
official for over 24 years, who resigned her position as Acting Head of the EPA
Office of Enforcement and Compliance in July 2002, said that, "the Bush
administration's plans to ease enforcement of industrial air pollution
regulations have halted the government's litigation crackdown on polluters." She
said that, "companies have little incentive to settle cases with the EPA because
they think new rules proposed by the White House will let them off the hook."
Although EPA continues to issue violation notices to polluters, the agency has
initiated only two new settlements with violators since President Bush took
office. Lowrance shared her concerns following a Senate hearing on the EPA's New
Source Review program. In June the administration announced a major relaxation
of these Clean Air Act enforcement rules govern older, coal-fired power plants
and refineries that increase their emissions without adding new pollution
control equipment. "The Bush administration's efforts to weaken clean air laws
not surprisingly has had a chilling effect on enforcement," said John Walke,
Director of the Natural Resource Defense Council NRDC's clean air program. "If
the White House succeeds in rewriting the rules for industry, more and more
Americans will suffer from air pollution." See the full story at
http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/other_enforcement.asp#1151 .
**********************************************************
PRESIDENT BUSH ESTABLISHES TASK FORCE TO
WEAKEN THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (NEPA)
The President's Council for Environmental
Quality (CEQ) has been known for its strong defence of environmental protection.
Now under Bush, the CEQ appears to be serving the opposite role - to weaken
environnmental protection in the United States. The CEQ established a Task Force
May 20, 2002, to streamline (read "weaken") the National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA). The CEQ, with Bush business appointee's, is on the
warpath to get environment out of the way of doing business in the United
States. Horst Greczmiel, CEQ's Associate Director, sent a letter to CEQ
Chairman, James Connaughton, requesting approval of a task force to modernize
NEPA citing, "rapid advances in technology and information security concerns
following the events of September 11, 2001." Connaughton is a former mining and
chemical industry lobbyist. Connaughton was a partner in the Sidley & Austin
law firm's Environmental Practice Group. He has represented and counselled
corporate and trade association clients on environment issues. Connaughton also
represented General Electric and ASARCO in their Superfund fights with EPA.
General Electric is potentially responsible for more toxic Superfund sites than
any other corporation in the nation. GE is also a lead player in trying to
overturn Superfund environmental and public health protections. Another of
Connaughton's clients, ASARCO, has advocated for no change in the 1942 standard
of 50 parts per billion for arsenic in drinking water. In 1993, Connaughton
attacked the environmental movement when he co-authored the report entitled,
"Defending Charges of Environmental Crime——The Growth Industry of the 90s." See
more at the website
http://www.earthjustice.org/policy/profiles/display.html?Department=Council%20On%20Environmental%20Quality
.
*******************************************************************
USING 9/11 TRAGEDY AS EXCUSS TO BRING
SECRECY BACK TO ENVIRONMENTALLY-HARMFUL UNDERTAKINGS
One of the concerns is that Bush, through
the CEQ, is going to use the 9/11 tragedy as an excuse to apply secrecy, and
limit freedom of information on environmentally-harmful projects. The action is
not to protect the United States from terrorists gaining information on
environmental projects. No, it is designed to keep citizens of the U.S. from
really understanding the potential environmental impacts of new industrial
projects. With one stroke of the "9/11 Fear Hand", Bush is ripping out the
centre of model public consultation and information flow that would make for
better decision-making on large, potentially environmentally harmful projects.
John Krist reports that, "environmentalists have criticized the process as
another in a series of Bush Administration attempts to undermine NEPA."
Connaughton, however, says, "our goal is to integrate NEPA practices with newer
concepts of management, such as environmental management systems and advancing
information technologies." Two areas of the CEQ review focus are: a) on the use
of categorical exclusions to the NEPA Act, by which federal agencies can declare
certain types of projects exempt from NEPA and environmental impact assessments
(EIA's). Marty Hayden, Legislative Director of the group, Earth Justice stated
that, "the Bush Administration is saying let's not have the law or the public
get in the way of our objectives." A notice appeared July 9, 2002, in the
Federal Register announcing a 45-day public comment period to suggest changes to
the CEQ's proposed changes to the U.S. National Environmental Protection Act.
The deadline was extended to September 23, 2002. A report is due from the CEQ by
the end of 2002. Source, "Bush to Loosen Environment Law," by John Krist,
Ventura County Star, Ventura, California, November 14, 2002, email
krist@insidevc.com . See the website http://www.earthjustice.org/policy/admin/
.
****************************************************************
BUSH APPOINTS ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL SENATOR
TO CHAIR CONGRESSIONAL ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE
An anti-environment Republican Senator
Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, was appointed by the Bush administration to take over
leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It reviews
almost all major legislation concerning conservation and environmental
enforcement. As the longest serving Republican senator on this committee, he
will succeed Senator Jim Jeffords, the Vermont Independent who was strong on the
environment - and left the Republican party a year ago, amongst other things,
because of their poor environmental record. The League of Conservation Voters, a
nonprofit group which monitors the environmental voting records of all Congress
members, gave Republican Senator Jim Inhofe a 0 percent rating for his lifetime
environmental voting record. They noted his support for oil drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and Inhofe's opposition to increased
vehicle fuel efficiency standards. According to the Environment News Service
(ENS), Inhofe intends to protect the oil and gas industry, as he has stated many
times over the past decade. In these February 24, 1999 comments to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Carol Browner, Inhofe said,
"I hope we can work together and provide some regulatory relief to the oil and
gas industry. I am concerned not about any specific rule, but about all pending
regulations across the entire agency." Inhofe believes that the states, "are in
the best position to enforce the environmental laws and regulations." Inhofe can
be expected to limit the role of federal agencies, particularly the EPA. He said
on June 10, 1997, "The EPA should be limited to an oversight role for
consistency only and for providing advice to the States. They should not be in
the business of second guessing States or playing the big bully on the
block."
In contrast to Inhofe, the former chair
of the committee, Senator Jim Jeffords, scored 76 percent for his votes in the
107th Congress, supporting proposals to require more energy production from
renewable sources and opposing a vote to override objections by Nevada lawmakers
and citizens and send the bulk of the nation's high level nuclear waste to a
repository at Yucca Mountain. Inhofe is considered one of the most conservative
senators, and is a strong supporter of Bush administration proposals to increase
domestic energy production and offer new incentives to the oil industry.
Jeffords used his tenure as committee chair to launch investigations of industry
involvement in administration initiatives like the national energy plan. Source,
"Pro-Industry Senator to Chair Environment Committee," by Cat Lazaroff,
Environment News Service, Washington, D.C., November 14, 2002 (ENS) See the full
story at http://ens-news.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-14-06.asp .
*************************************************************
BUSH APPOINTS ANTI-ENVIRONMENT SENATOR TO
CHAIR ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
Republican Senator Pete Domenici of New
Mexico was appointed by the Bush Administration to Chair the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources has jurisdiction over a sweeping array of issues, including energy
resources and development, including regulation, conservation, strategic
petroleum reserves and appliance standards; nuclear energy; Indian affairs;
public lands and renewable resources; surface mining, federal coal, oil, and
gas, other mineral leasing; territories and insular possessions; and water
resources. Pete Domenici takes over from Democratic Senator Jeff Bingaman, also
from New Mexico. While Bingaman voted in favour of environmental issues 64
percent of the time in the 107th Congress, according to the League of
Conservation Voters (LCV), Domenici voted in favoured just 8 percent of the
time. The LCV found that Domenici holds only a 15 percent environmental voting
record over his five Senate terms. Domenici is expected to support the Bush
administration's controversial national energy plan, which emphasizes fossil
fuels and nuclear power. Source, "Pro-Industry Senator to Chair Environment
Committee," by Cat Lazaroff, Environment News Service, Washington, D.C.,
November 14, 2002 (ENS) See the full story at
http://ens-news.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-14-06.asp .
**********************************************************
BUSH REVERSES BAN ON SNOW MOBILES IN
NATIONAL PARKS
The U.S. Department of the Interior broke
the news very carefully after the election -- that the Bush Administration will
reverse the last administration's decision to ban snowmobiles in Yellowstone and
Grand Teton National Parks. The Dept of Interior has set a cap on the number of
snow mobiles and their trails higher than the average daily use has ever been.
So while Yellowstone Park employees order gas masks and ear protection to defend
themselves against the exhaust and roar of even more snow machines, the industry
rejoices. An industry spokesman summed it up with depressing accuracy: "It will
be business as usual." Snow mobiles are harmful to the environment in several
ways. They:
o contribute to local air pollution at
emission rates greater than cars
o add a high level of noise that disturbs
wildlife habitat
o allows for illegal access and poaching in otherwise
hard-to-reach areas of the national parks
o allows for abuse such as chasing
and running down wolves, elk, and other wildlife
Ironically, federal and state governments
have given snow mobiles and off-road vehicles access to thousands of miles of
trails already on government lands. It is understood that national parks were
created to provide protected areas from just such excessive uses and abuses. If
you want to have a hot fast ride through the parks go to the the website
http://www.motorider.com.au/snomobile.asp . Those concerned about snow mobiles
in national parks see the website
http://www.greateryellowstone.org/winter_use_alert.pdf .
**********************************************************
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION ISSUES
WARNING ON BUSH
The always conservative National Wildlife
Federation (NWF) has, itself, expressed concern about Bush's efforts to weaken
environmental protection. After the U.S. federal election, the NWF warned that,
"the future of key environmental protections, dwindling wildlife populations and
sensitive habitats were placed in doubt Tuesday when election results put
control of both the House and Senate in the hands of one party. Republicans in
both chambers will now be pressured to follow President Bush's political lead,
and up until now that's meant trying to undo environmental protections and hand
over sensitive lands to corporate interests." The NWF stated that, "it will take
the unified voice of America's conservation mainstream and champions in both
parties to fight environmental rollbacks and safeguard our natural legacy for
future generations." For more information see http://www.nwf.org/enviroaction/
.
********************************************************************
BUSH ATTEMPTS TO RESTRICT APPLICATION OF
THE CLEAN WATER ACT
Under Bush, officials from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers told a
congressional panel that the Bush Administration would re-evaluate federal rules
under the Clean Water Act. These new rules would make it easier for developers
and homebuilders to pollute, fill or destroy these smaller, but still
ecologically crucial aquatic habitats. Since these waters are usually connected
to navigable waters, all our nation's waters would be put at risk of increased
pollution. Last year, a Supreme Court decision limited the scope of the Clean
Water Act, leaving as much as a third of the nation's wetlands without
protections. Since then, this loophole has created confusion among state and
federal authorities regarding jurisdiction and enforcement responsibilities.
Under the guise of addressing this confusion, Bush administration officials
recently announced plans to re-evaluate the types of waters protected under the
Clean Water Act. In a move that threatens wildlife in many of the nation's
wetlands, streams and tributaries, the Bush administration has announced plans
to redefine the types of waterways protected under the Clean Water Act. The
Clean Water Act was enacted October 18, 1972 in order to "restore the physical,
chemical and biological integrity of our nation's waters." Unfortunately, the
Bush administration's new rules threaten to do the opposite. The National
Wildlife Federation warns that if Bush is allowed to move forward, these rules
amendments to the Clean Water Act would turn back the 30 years of progress made
under the Act, and it would lead to significantly more flooding, pollution and
accelerated loss of wildlife habitat. Source,
http://ga1.org/campaign/wetlands10162002/explanation .
********************************************************************
BUSH AND CHENEY DECIDE TO REVIVE NUCLEAR
POWER
Nuclear power development in the United
States has been stalled for decades because it is not economically viable.
Expenses were much greater than expected for nuclear repairs, plant
decommissioning, and for storage of highly radioactive nuclear wastes. Massive
government subsidies in the billions of dollars dried up. Exemptions and
protection from multi-billion dollar liabilities from possible nuclear accidents
were no longer given. This was good for the environment since it reduced health
exposures to workers and nearby citizens from radioactive fuels, leaks and waste
spills. And while nuclear power would be a way of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions from coal-fired electricity plants, it would present a whole set of
other environmental problems.
Yet, Last in September 2002, nuclear
industry executives and Bush Administration officials got together in
Washington, D.C. for a conference called "The Nuclear Renaissance"-- a gathering
boosting a comeback of commercial nuclear power in the U.S. "Renaissance" has
replaced "revival" as the word being used by nuclear proponents in the U.S. and
around the world to describe their desired recovery of the nuclear industry.
There has not been an order of a new nuclear power plant in the U.S. since the
1979 Three Mile Island accident shattered public trust in nuclear technology.
The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster damaged confidence in atomic energy
worldwide. In March 2003 there will be a Nuclear Renaissance Forum in Chicago
sponsored by the nuclear plant manufacturers Framatome and Westinghouse. A few
days before last months Washington meeting, the World Nuclear Association Annual
Symposium in London featured a session on "Nuclear Renaissance." At the session,
Dr. Andrei Gagarinski, director of international affairs at Russia's Kurchatov
Institute, said his atomic research facility had teamed with the U.S. Department
of Energy-owned Sandia National Laboratories to put together "a new Atoms for
Peace and Prosperity Program." The program was considered at President George
Bush's summit meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in May 2002,
according to Gagarinski.
British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. has purchased
Westinghouse (the worlds largest reactor manufacturer) and Asia Brown Boveri
ABB/Combustion Engineering (itself the product of an earlier merger of the
Swedish ABB and the U.S. corporation Combustion Engineering). Siemens, the
largest reactor builder in Germany, and Framatome, with a monopoly on
construction of French reactors, announced their intent to merge most aspects of
their nuclear businesses. General Electric (the world's second largest reactor
manufacturer after Westinghouse) joined with Mitsubishi to build new atomic
plants in Japan. Minatom, the giant Russian state-owned nuclear entity, is
moving to build new nuclear plants in Russia and
internationally.
Michael Mariotte, Executive Director of
the Nuclear Information & Resource Service/World Information Service on
Energy-Amsterdam (NIRS-WISE Amsterdam) said that, "the Bush administration's
stance on nuclear power is aggressive and minimizes the dangers of atomic
technology. As Bush's Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill has told The Wall
Street Journal, "If you set aside Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the safety
record of nuclear is really is good." The administration struck a close working
relationship with the nuclear industry well before taking office. The Bush
Energy Transition advisors included Joseph Colvin, president of the Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI), the lead nuclear industry-funded trade group; J. Bennett
Johnston, who as a senator was a leading pro-nuclear power figure in Congress
and now runs a consulting firm that assists the nuclear industry; and, Thomas
Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute and former head of the American
Nuclear Energy Council. Source, "Thought the Nuclear Power Industry was Dead?
Guess again. The Bush Administration is Breathing New Life into Commercial
Nukes," by Karl Grossman, Special to CorpWatch, October 23, 2002. For more
information contact CorpWatch, PO Box 29344, San Francisco, California 94129,
ph. 415-561-6568, fax 415-561-6493, email corpwatch@corpwatch.org . See the full
story at http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=4528
.
************************************************************************
CALIFORNIA MOVING AHEAD OF THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND OTHER INITIATIVES
California under Governor Gray Davis is
moving ahead of the United States on a number of fronts including greenhouse gas
reductions and environmental protection. This is according to an article written
in the Christian Science Monitor, which asked is California just a trendsetter,
or is it a rogue state? It starts by stating, "if the George Bush administration
is serious about bringing rogue states into line, perhaps it should start with
California. At a time when few states are moving in directions radically at odds
with Washington, D.C., California has forged a different, and often combative,
policy line on virtually every issue but national security." The California
legislature has regulation reduction of greenhouse gases and boosted solar and
wind power, and expanded abortion rights - all in opposition to expressed Bush
administration wishes. Not since the 1970s has America's most influential state
been so out of step with the mood in Washington. The Christian Science Monitor
reported that, "when the state Legislature passed a bill to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions from autos this Summer, it was heralded as a clear break from
Washington and a move closer to the ideals of Europe." Steve Erie, a historian
at the University of California, San Diego, said that, "California frequently
acts like a sovereign nation. But it has been 25 years, during the eco-friendly
governorship of Jerry Brown, since its might has been so clearly contrary to
Washington." Source, "California: Trendsetter or Rogue State?", by Mark
Sappenfield, The Christian Science Monitor (as reprinted in The Bakersfield
Californian, San Francisco, California, September 30, 2002. Visit the California
Resources Agency website at http://resources.ca.gov/ . Also see the California
Energy Commission's website on climate change at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/global_climate_change/ .
************************************************************
BUSH OPPOSES CALIFORNIA AUTO
ZERO-EMISSIONS LAW
The Bush administration sided with auto
manufacturers in opposing a California requirement that a percentage of
passenger vehicles sold in the state must achieve zero emissions, meaning
reliance on all-electric cars. The new California standard says that for model
years 2003 through 2008, at least 10 percent of the passenger cars and
light-duty trucks in California must emit no pollution. As well, Massachusetts
plans to copy California and institute a similar state law. However, the federal
Justice Department under Bush maintains that federal law overrides any state
effort to regulate fuel economy for cars and trucks. In a 37-page filing with a
federal appeals court in San Francisco, the federal lawyers argued that
California's zero emission mandate impinges on what is solely a federal
responsibility. They argue that, "the U.S. Energy Policy and Conservation Act
provides that when a federal fuel economy standard is in effect, a state or a
political subdivision of a state may not adopt or enforce a law or regulation
related to fuel economy standards." However, the State of California argues that
there is an exception to the federal Clean Air Act permitting the state to
regulate auto emissions.
General Motors Corp., DaimlerChrysler
Corp., and several California auto dealers won a preliminary injunction that
delayed the implementation of the new California law for two years. The state
argues that the auto companies have various technologies to meet the new
standards, but the federal court which granted the injunction for the
corporations ruled that the California requirements are impractical. Source,
"Bush administration is against California's zero emissions requirement for
cars," by Pete Yost, Associated Press, Washington, D.C., October 10, 2002. See
the full story at http://www.envirolink.org/categories.html?do=shownews . Also
see http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18200/story.htm
.
*************************************************************
AUTO-MAKERS DROP PRODUCTION OF ELECTRIC
VEHICLE
As if smelling blood, the auto industry
is counting on Bush to stop California. They have decided to drop production of
the electric car, which would have been needed in California, if its law had not
been hamstrung by the Bush Administration. The all-electric, charge- and-go,
battery- operated car made by Ford, GM and Honda, will be scrapped. Now, the few
people who have actually tried out the cars are staging protests to press their
claim that these cars aren't the dogs their manufacturers say they are. "There
are waiting lists for this car, and the reason is it's really a great car," said
Marc Geller, 48, a freelance photographer who drives one of the electric
vehicles (EV). Geller added that, "it's maddening, it's absolutely maddening.
Obviously, people want the damn car, and Ford keeps saying people don't want it.
I could sell 5,000 of them myself in this city alone."
Electric car aficionados blame the
electric car's failure not on any inherent problems with the technology or
designs, or on any lack of enthusiasm among potential buyers. They blame it on a
lack of enthusiasm among car makers. Only Toyota still offers an all-electric
car, the RAV4-EV, to U.S. consumers -- and expects to sell only 200 or 300 this
year. All told, no more than about 5,000 electric cars are on the road in
California, according to the California Air Resources Board, despite buyer
incentives. One factor: long-awaited improvements in battery technology, needed
to make the cars go farther and recharge faster, have failed to materialize.
Typically, electric cars will go no more than 60-120 miles, depending on driving
style, speed and terrain, before they need recharging. And although off-peak
overnight charging can cut the cost down to a few pennies per mile, it can take
four to six hours for a full recharge. Source, "Pulling the plug: Carmakers
Scrap Electric Vehicles," by Carl T. Hall, Chronicle Science Writer, The
Chronicle, San Francisco, October 10, 2002. E-mail Carl T. Hall at
chall@sfchronicle.com. See the full story at
http://www.envirolink.org/categories.html?do=shownews .
********************************************************
BUSH RETREATS ON CLEAN AIR: NEW YORK
TIMES
The New York Times reports that, "the
Bush administration has taken another step backward in the fight against air
pollution. Last week, the Bush Aministration joined the automobile industry in a
lawsuit charging that a California program encouraging manufacturers to sell
cleaner, more fuel-efficient "hybrid" vehicles, cars powered by a combination of
gasoline and electricity, usurped federal authority. The suit is a direct
challenge to California's longstanding authority to set emission standards
tougher than the federal government's. More broadly, it is further evidence of
President Bush's unwillingness to offend his political allies by pushing the
industry to develop cleaner cars and thus lessen urban smog and the dangers of
global warming."
At immediate issue is California's right
to set its own emission standards. The Clean Air Act gave California this power
partly because its pollution problems were uniquely severe. Over the years, the
state has used it to drive industry to develop cleaner cars and cleaner fuels,
thus benefiting not only California but the whole country. As part of this
effort, California decreed several years ago that 10 percent of the vehicles
sold in the state between the 2003 and 2008 model years must be "zero emission"
vehicles, meaning electric cars. But since there is no viable commercial market
for electric cars, California said that Detroit could meet part of its quota
with hybrids. The auto industry, which opposes quotas of any kind, resisted even
this overture and went to court claiming that the California plan pre-empted the
federal government's authority to set fuel-economy standards. It's a dubious
argument. Hybrids do get more miles to the gallon than conventional cars, and
for that reason create fewer of the gases that cause smog and climate change.
California's interest, however, lies not in setting nationwide fuel standards,
but simply in getting a cleaner car for California. It is to be hoped that the
United States Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which will decide the case,
appreciates this distinction. At a time when both industry and the federal
government seem content with the status quo, California should be allowed to
pursue its useful role as an advocate for technological change and cleaner air.
Source, "Retreat on Clean Air," New York Times Editorial, New York, October 14,
2002. See the full story at
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/14/opinion/14MON3.html
****************************************************************
WHY IS CHENEY TRYING TO HIDE WHAT WENT ON
BETWEEN HIM AND THE OIL COMPANIES WHEN THEY WROTE THE U.S. NATIONAL ENERGY
STRATEGY?
The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO),
a financial watchdog of the U.S. Government designed to stop corruption and
mismanagement has sued Vice President Dick Cheney because will not turn over
minutes of meetings and other documents preceding the U.S. Government's decision
to adopt a National Energy Policy in favour of oil and coal and leaves out new
and renewable energy. The GAO and Cheney clashed before a federal judge over
which branch's claim is paramount -- the executive power to keep records
confidential or the legislative right to investigate how public money is spent.
For the first time in the 81-year history of the GAO, the comptroller general of
the United States went to Federal court to ask a judge to order a member of the
executive branch to turn over records to Congress. Lawyers for David M. Walker,
the comptroller general and head of the GAO, and for the vice president argued
over whether a federal judge can force Mr. Cheney to reveal the identities of
industry executives who helped the administration develop a national energy
policy last year. The politically charged lawsuit, entitled Walker v. Cheney,
raises important constitutional questions, including whether the vice president
can ignore a request for information from the US General Accounting Office (GAO)
without the President's decision to exercise executive privilege. Carter G.
Phillips, a lawyer for the GAO and a partner in the Washington law firm of
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, argued that if Judge Bates sided with the
administration, the decision would have a "devastating" effect on "the GAO's
ability to do its job. It would have an extraordinarily sweeping effect and
would significantly halt the Congress's use of the General Accounting Office to
conduct nonpartisan investigations," Mr. Phillips told Judge Bates. Source, "GAO
Seeks to End Secrecy Surrounding Cheney's Energy Task Force," by Don Van Natta
Jr., The New York Times, 27 September, 2002. See the full story at "Truthout
2002" website http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.29A.gao.cheney.htm
.
****************************************************
BUSH ELIMINATED CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS
TO THE U.S. SUPERFUND
When it became clear in the 1970's, that
corporations were leaving toxic waste sites scattered across America without
cleaning them, and when it became clear that many corporations just walked away
from expensive-to-clean-up toxic waste sites, the U.S. Government, in 1980,
created the toxic sites Superfund, and ordered companies making toxic chemicals
and wastes, to contribute to the fund so that it could be used to clean up their
current and future messes. The Superfund is managed by the U.S. EPA's Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR). From time to time, the US government
must re-authorize the Superfund funding requirements from corporations. One of
George Bush's first actions upon being made President of the United States, was
to let the corporations off the hook - they no longer had to contribute to the
Superfund. Clean up of toxic waste sites is slowly grinding to a halt in the US,
and potential health exposures to the populace is increasing. Ironically, more
and more of the diminishing superfund clean up is being paid for by the
taxpayers, as government funding has to cover the for the loss of corporate
funding. In other words, Bush is creating greater government involvement, rather
than get government out of the way so that industry can take care of its own
messes. In the middle and late 1990's, Superfund cleaned up an average of 86
sites per year. EPA had estimated it would clean up 75 in 2001 and 65 in 2002.
There are currently 1238 sites on the list for cleanup, and an expected 23 to 49
new sites will be added each year. Yet, this year under Bush, the EPA cleaned up
only 42 toxic waste sites and last year only 47. Visit the US EPA Superfund
website at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/welcome.htm .
********************************************************************
U.S. SUPERFUND UNDER BUSH DROPS FROM $3.6
BILLION IN 1995 TO $28 MILLION IN 2003
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Superfund's original 'polluter pays' funding mechanism expired in 1995,
and Superfund's trust fund has fallen from a high of $3.6 billion in 1995 to a
projected $28 million by the end of 2003. As the fund diminishes to zero,
taxpayers could pay for the entire program. Former Republican Presidents Reagan,
George Bush Sr., and Democrat Bill Clinton all collected and supported
reauthorization of the Superfund by corporations, but the Bush Administration
has expressed its opposition to reinstating the fees. The Bush administration's
dramatic under-funding of the federal Superfund toxic waste cleanup program has
slowed down or halted cleanup at 55 sites, leaving these communities exposed to
dangerous toxic waste and letting polluters off the hook, according to U.S.
PIRG's analysis of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Inspector
General's report released October 2002. A 2001 Congressionally requested report
found that the Superfund program would need $1.4 to $2 billion per year to clean
up toxic waste sites, totalling between $14 and $16 billion in this decade.
Unfortunately, annual appropriations from 2001 to 2003 are more than $1 billion
less than program needs. This past year, EPA under-funded cleanups by $229
million, or 45 percent. Julie Wolk, an Environmental Health Advocate for the
U.S. Public Interest Research Group (US PIRG) reported that the federal
government, which paid only 18 percent of program costs from taxpayer revenues
in 1996, will pay 54 percent or more of program costs from taxpayer revenues in
2003. "Reauthorizing Superfund's polluter pays fees would provide more money for
toxic waste cleanups and shift the burden of paying to run the Superfund program
from taxpayers to polluting industries," said Wolk. "In order to protect
communities across the country from dangerous toxic waste, the Bush
Administration and Congress should re-authorize Superfund's polluter pays fees
as soon as possible." For more information contact Julie Wolk, U.S. PIRG 218 D
St., SE, Washington, D.C. 20003, ph. 202-546-9707, fax 202-546-2461, email
uspirg@pirg.org . See more at US PIRG website http://uspirg.org/uspirgnewsroom.asp.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Copyright (c) 2002
Canadian
Institute for Business and the
Environment, Montreal &
Toronto
All rights
reserved.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
