03/09/02 -- Protest the Oil Oligarchy’s Energy and Ecology Policies

ACTION ALERT

***********************************************

FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY

Protest the Oil Oligarchy’s Energy and Ecology Policies

***********************************************

Forest Networking a Project of Forests.org, Inc.

http://forests.org/ -- Forest Conservation Portal

http://forests.org/web/ -- Discuss Forest Conservation

TAKE ACTION

Dear President Bush: End the War on the Environment

http://forests.org/emailaction/bush.htm

03/09/02

OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Forests.org

The Bush Presidency is an ecological disgrace. His rule is likely to

be remembered as the wasted years - the era when the last chance for

environmental sustainability was frittered away in an orgy of

affluenza. Clean air, water, oceans and land are a prerequisite for

human and all life. There can be no economy without healthy

ecological systems. President Bush and the Oil Oligarchy's

environmental policies threaten global security and the well-being of

the global family. Their War on the Environment must end.

Please protest President Bush's ecocidal environmental policies by

visiting http://forests.org/emailaction/bush.htm, demanding that his

administration immediately:

1) commit the U.S. to mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions

under the Kyoto Protocol;

2) strengthen not dismantle the Clean Air Act;

3) commit resources on the scale of the Manhattan project to

developing renewable energy;

4) enforce, not weaken, recently introduced protections for roadless

wilderness areas and other land conservation measures;

5) and in general, end their regressive attacks upon the World's

environmental sustainability.

6) And do not forget to change the text and add your own environmental

issues!

Let the Toxic Texan know that he risks letting lack of an

environmental ethic define his Presidency.

g.b.

*******************************

RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:

ITEM #1

Title: Rivals hit Bush on energy, ecology

Date: March 8, 2002

Byline: Robert Schlesinger, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats continued to pressure the Bush

administration on a variety of environmental fronts yesterday,

focusing on a topic on which they enjoy their most significant

advantage in popular opinion over President Bush.

Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, announced a deal on

fuel-efficiency standards for motor vehicles with a group of

Republican legislators, including three from New England and the

president's former rival, Senator John McCain of Arizona. McCain not

only increases GOP support for the measure, but adds appeal among

independent voters.

Meanwhile, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat who

is chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, heard

testimony from Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christie

Whitman in the first of two hearings he has scheduled on the

administration's environmental policies.

Though the president continues to enjoy overwhelming general support,

environmental issues remain his greatest weakness in the polls, making

it a field in which Democrats want to play. Both Kerry and Lieberman

are potential Democratic presidential candidates.

''This administration is not following a balanced environmental

policy,'' Lieberman said. ''It is listening and responding to the

views of those who are the source of pollution, without giving the

views, the voices, and values of others the weight they deserve. This

hearing is intended as a direct challenge to the Bush administration

to defend its environmental record and hopefully improve it before it

gets worse.''

Kerry's agreement with McCain and the other Republicans calls for cars

and light trucks to reach an average fuel economy of 36 miles per

gallon by 2015. Kerry's original proposal pegged fuel economy at 35

miles per gallon by 2013. Average fuel economy is currently 25 miles

per gallon.

Four Republican senators - Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine,

Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Gordon Smith of Oregon - joined

McCain in agreeing to the deal.

''It's important; it's five votes we didn't have,'' said Kerry, who

has acknowledged that he is fighting an uphill battle on the issue. He

said that he could not estimate where support stood until he had

explained the compromise to others.

At the first of his hearings on Bush's environmental policies,

Lieberman had harsh words for the Bush administration, but was

sympathetic to Whitman, whom he characterized as a lone environmental

voice waging a ''fierce battle'' within an anti-environmental

administration.

Whitman declined to accept the compliment. ''I wouldn't characterize

anything as a fierce battle, but as a vibrant discussion,'' she said.

Lieberman pressed Whitman on a variety of issues, including global

warming policy, environmental enforcement, and Clinton-era rules that

the Bush administration reviewed upon taking office.

One issue that drew particular attention was a provision of the Clean

Air Act known as new source review. The law exempted an older class of

pollution sources, predominately coal-fired power plants, but mandated

that when these sources are substantially upgraded, operators must

retrofit them with the best available pollution-controlling

technology.

The provision went largely unenforced until the latter half of the

Clinton administration, when the federal government brought suits

against dozens of power plants. The industry responded by saying that

the administration had created a new policy without proper

notification.

The environment and energy ''are the two issues that president Bush is

the most vulnerable on with voters,'' said Scott Stoermer, spokesman

for the League of Conservation Voters.

Stuart Rothenberg, who publishes an eponymous political newsletter,

said the environment is an advantageous issue for Democrats, but he

questioned how much impact it will have.

''The numbers are good for Democrats,'' he said. ''The administration

has some areas of weakness or certainly vulnerabilities, and yet the

issue is not grabbing voters' attention.''

ITEM #2

Title: Natural Places Threatened by Bush Energy Plan

Date: March 7, 2002

WASHINGTON, DC, March 7, 2002 (ENS) - The Bush administration's plans

to increase energy exploration on public lands threatens to

permanently damage many of America's natural places, charges a new

report released today by The Wilderness Society. The Senate is now

debating a bill which would implement parts of that energy plan.

The report, "Big Oil's Energy Plan: The Cost to Our Wild Lands and

Waters," highlights 18 wild lands that are at risk from the Bush

administration's friendly relationship with the oil and gas industry.

The report documents that with very little public debate or scrutiny,

the White House has already allowed oil and gas companies to begin

operations in some of the most fragile places in the country.

"The Bush Administration has made clear its intention to open up

millions of acres of national forests and other public lands for oil,

gas and coal companies to feast on. Even the country's National Parks

and coastal waters are threatened," said William Meadows, president of

The Wilderness Society. "These places provide clean drinking water,

outstanding places to hike, hunt or fish, and are home to a stunning

variety of wildlife. Some places ought to be off limits to drilling

because they are simply too special to drill."

In Florida, for example, the administration is considering giving

permission to an oil company to set off thousands of underground

explosions within Big Cypress National Preserve, the National Park

unit adjacent to Everglades. In California, the Bush Administration

pushes to drill coastal waters that have been left alone for years and

that the state wants protected.

In Utah, National Park officials worry that gas exploration near

Arches and Canyonlands National Parks will harm scenic views, destroy

fragile soils, and lead to abuse by off road vehicles.

Already, conservation groups have documented deep gouges left by

massive thumper trucks used to map underground deposits of oil and

gas.

In Colorado, the administration has opened up one of the last

unprotected roadless forests in the San Juan National Forest. In New

Mexico, the administration reversed previous proposals by expediting

a new plan to open thousands of acres of fragile grasslands to oil

and gas development.

In Alaska, the administration continues to fight to open up the Arctic

National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Although the Senate energy

bill would not authorize this move, environmentalists worry that

supporters of Arctic drilling will attempt to add the measure in a

rider.

Earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle of South

Dakota and Energy Committee Chair Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, both

Democrats, introduced legislation that is in stark contrast to the

energy bill passed last year by the House. The Republican leadership

in the House passed a bill (HR 4) that would make it more difficult

for land managers to protect sensitive wild lands from oil and gas

drilling, while providing $34 billion in subsidies to these

corporations.

"As a nation, we must decide whether we want a sound and balanced

energy policy that will sustain us," continued Meadows. "Americans

have a right to energy security and the security of our natural

heritage."

The administration has appealed a judge's ruling upholding

California's right to restrict oil and natural gas drilling in state

coastal waters.

Despite record breaking profits last year, big oil and gas companies

are aggressively lobbying the Senate to pass an energy bill that would

weaken or undermine environmental safeguards that protect special

lands and waters from the damage caused by oil and gas drilling.

In 2001, the Bush Administration issued a record number of drilling

permits for public lands. The vast majority of the public lands

managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Rocky Mountain

states - more than 90 percent - is open to leasing and drilling.

"The oil and gas industry has taken full advantage of this access with

widespread exploration and development activities," said Dave

Alberswerth, director of The Wilderness Society's Bureau of Land

Management program. "There nearly 60,000 producing oil and gas wells

on public lands in this country. There should be some places

protected, some places are too special, and too beautiful to permit

energy corporations to destroy."

A move today by a bipartisan group of Senators to support an

alternative means of increasing U.S. energy security - increasing the

fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks sold in the United States -

lends some hope that the Senate will oppose Arctic drilling and

subsidies to the energy industry. The agreement led by Democrat John

Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican John McCain of Arizona, would

raise corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards to an average of

36 miles per gallon by 2015.

This step could ease U.S. dependence on oil, saving as much as one

million barrels per day by 2016.

"There is a path to securing the nation's energy future without

drilling the nation's wilderness heritage," said Meadows. "The

solution lies in American know how and technology. Rather than

drilling the nation's parks, forests, monuments and coastlines on

behalf of big oil and gas companies, the administration should invest

in renewable, clean energy sources and energy efficient cars and

appliances."

The full report is available at:

http://www.wilderness.org/eyewash/energy/index.htm

ITEM #3

Title: The Center for a New American Dream works toward a less

materialistic society

http://www.emagazine.com/

Date: March 8, 2002

Byline: Brian Howard, E/The Environmental Magazine

Your neighbors are expanding their house, the driveway across the

street is starting to look like a luxury car lot, and your kid's room

is filling up with video game cartridges, $150 sneakers, and bean-

filled toys.

A Time/CNN poll says 80 percent of people think children are more

spoiled today than the kids of 10 or 15 years ago. American CEOs now

make more than 400 times what their average workers make, and "the top

20 percent of American households earns nearly as much as the bottom

80 percent," write John De Graaf, David Wann, and Thomas Naylor in

Affluenza.

To obtain such material affluence, the average employed American is

now working more than 47 hours per week and far more hours per year

than employees in other industrialized nations (including Japan),

according to the Families and Work Institute. "Instead of using some

of that productivity for leisure," said Betsy Taylor, executive

director of the Center for a New American Dream (CNAD), "we shuffle

back to work so we can afford more stuff that we don't really need."

CNAD says the United States' growing obsession with acquisition is

taking a heavy toll on the environment. According to the group, since

the United States consumes more energy, water, paper, steel, and meat

per capita than any other country, at least four additional planets

would be needed to provide the American lifestyle to every person on

Earth. Meanwhile, old-growth forests are being lost at alarming rates,

farmlands and wetlands are being engulfed by development, species are

disappearing, and the atmosphere and our oceans are being polluted.

In 1996, CNAD grew out of the Merck Foundation and a conference on

sustainable economics. Based in Tacoma Park, Md., the Center's 15

employees observe a four-day work week designed to cultivate a

healthy, progressive atmosphere. The 4,500-member organization avoids

mass mailings, and Taylor is "cautiously optimistic" about her group's

budget of $1.7 million.

Alisa Gravitz, executive director of Co-op America, said CNAD's clear,

specific programs are excellent ways for people to establish the links

between consumption and the environment. CNAD's Step by Step program

promotes letter-writing and consumer action campaigns to pressure

businesses and institutions to become more sustainable.

Participants of the Center's new, Web-based Turn the Tide program

follow "nine little actions" to reduce their personal impact on the

environment. CNAD estimates that if 1,000 people pursue the program

for one year, 48.5 million gallons of water, 170 trees, and 12,250

pounds of sea life will be saved and 4 million pounds of carbon

dioxide emissions will be prevented. The actions include eliminating

lawn and garden pesticides, eating one less beef meal a week, not

eating shrimp, and installing efficient light bulbs. "Most people want

to make a few changes in their lives, and they want to know that their

changes matter," said Taylor.

Taylor said one-fifth of America's spending is done by the public

sector, and she hopes her organization can serve as an information

clearinghouse on responsible procurement. Scott Case, CNAD's director

of procurement, said he is helping about 30 state and local

governments with technical assistance and support. "Many government

personnel want to green up their policies, but they have no idea how

to get started," said Taylor. "Other government employees are buying

hybrid vehicles and pushing for biodegradable materials because they

believe in making a difference. We want to help everyone make good

choices."

To counter children's growing lust for too many toys, gifts, and

gadgets, Tracey Fisher is leading the Kids and Commercialism Campaign.

A poll conducted by CNAD found that although two-thirds of parents

claim their children care about the environment, more than 70 percent

of parents say their children don't think buying too much stuff will

degrade the natural world.

The Center's campaign presents action plans for parents, including how

to protect kids from excessive advertising. Americans are now

bombarded by more than 1,500 commercial messages a day, up from 560 a

day during the 1960s, according to CNAD. Considering the $3 billion

spent each year on ads directed at kids, more than 20 times the amount

spent a decade ago, it is not surprising that nearly half of parents

say kids ask for brand names by age 5, writes Time.

CNAD charges that advertising has moved beyond the original purpose of

gaining market share to creating a whole desire for more stuff. Ariane

Herrera, communications manager of the American Association of

Advertising Agencies, took exception. "That is a long debated, purely

philosophical argument," she said. "Companies are just trying to get

their products out there any way they can."

Some scholars are critical of the Center's goals and methods. In an

article for the Capital Research Center (a nonprofit group that

studies philanthropy and charitable organizations), Daniel T. Oliver

describes the "extremist" CNAD as "trying to tap into feelings of

dissatisfaction that we all feel from time to time.... to ban or

severely restrict our consumption of nearly everything." Oliver argues

that CNAD tries to coerce people into needlessly changing their

lifestyles through guilt and self-denial. He says there is no evidence

that Americans are less happy or more stressed than ever, and he

claims that many of CNAD's recommendations (such as for organic food)

are insensitive to poor people. Oliver writes, "When it comes to

Christmas, CNAD thinks like Ebenezer Scrooge and acts like the

Grinch."

But Ian Vasquez, director of the libertarian Cato Institute's Project

on Global Economic Liberty, and Ray Bruce, president of the Consumer

Protection Association of America, said they support CNAD's efforts to

help consumers use their buying power to reflect their own personal

values. Taylor and Gravitz said CNAD's programs are designed for

people who can afford to do them. They believe decreases in

consumption will lead to greater economic equality in the future.

Taylor said her group hopes to "shift consumption away from the most

destructive industries and toward beautiful, satisfying, sustainable

products that create good jobs."

According to Gravitz, the biggest challenge facing CNAD is the

difficulty of change for people. "It will take time for people to

accept that sustainable economics will give everyone better paying

jobs, better satisfaction, more money and more free time," she said.

###RELAYED TEXT ENDS###

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is

distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior

interest in receiving forest conservation informational materials for

educational, personal and non-commercial use only. Recipients should

seek permission from the source to reprint this PHOTOCOPY. All

efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces, though ultimate

responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader.

For additional forest conservation news & information please see the

Forest Conservation Portal at URL= http://forests.org/

Networked by Forests.org, Inc., gbarry@forests.org