Environment Thread

[Tanager]

What the hell, maybe this one will be me talking to myself, but I thought - if we can have boner threads, we can have one for discussion of environmental issues.

[shrugs]

The Bush Record

[Ron Thorne]

Here are a few clues as to why this thread is necessary.

"We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." -- George W. Bush - Trenton, New Jersey, Sep. 23, 2002

FIREFIGHTER ED HALL: "Mr. President, it really is an honor to meet you, but you don't have to drill for oil in the Arctic."

DUBYA: "Yeah, then we'll run out of energy." -- How Dubya reacted to an impassioned message to spare the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil development, a project which is in no way intended to serve as America's sole energy source, and a message made by a firefighter who served in the World Trade Center cleanup operation, Jan. 2002

"There are some monuments where the land is so widespread, they just encompass as much as possible. And the integral part of the - the precious part, so to speak, I guess all land is precious - but the part that the people uniformly would not want to spoil, will not be despoiled. But there are parts of the monument lands where we can explore without affecting the overall environment." -- President Dubya, Mar. 13, 2001

Unfortunately, I'm not making this stuff up, folks!

[Salvador Dali Lama]

the best way to save the environment is to leave it the fuck alone.

[Tanager]

Would that it were so simple, Salvador. That might have worked before we screwed it up, but now...we have a monumental task on our hands just to save what's left, and some of that does require active intervention, sadly enough.

But for these wild lands...I couldn't agree with you more (in general - invasive species removal is one very obvious exception). Just leave 'em wild, don't sanitize them, don't turn them into Disney parks OR oilfields. Leave what's wild as wild as possible.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

yeah, thats what I'm thinking. and no more national parks. it makes my left eye twitch like a mother whenever i see some asshole park ranger type on tv talking about pepper spraying bears to keep them away from camp grounds. heres a thought assholes, pepper spray people to keep them out of the bear's house eh?

i was reading a thing about government controlled wilderness about a year ago in i cant remember what publication, but the point of the article was how poorly the government takes care of the land it owns. no controlled burns so brush grows up to the point where if it DOES catch fire, it will destroy acres and acres of forrest.

this was just one article and i cant even remember where it was from or who wrote it so I'm not taking it to be the gospel, but this wouldnt suprise me at all given the government's overall track record in running things.

if it IS true though, how can you protect whats left (in america that is - not to even mention the shit going on in brazil et al.)???

what can be done?

[BFrank]

A devastating editorial from Sunday's NY Times. The news article in the same edition was scary enough, yet buried on page 16(or something like that).

+++

The End of Wilderness

From the beginning, President Bush has been far more interested in exploiting the public lands for commercial purposes than in protecting their environmental values. On matters ranging from snowmobiles in Yellowstone to roadless areas in the national forests, his administration has tried steadily to chip away at safeguards put in place by the Clinton administration — largely in an effort to help the oil, gas, timber and mining industries, and often in cavalier disregard for environmental reviews mandated by law. Now comes another devastating blow: The revelation that his Department of the Interior is no longer interested in recommending any of the millions of acres under its jurisdiction for permanent wilderness protection.

The new policy has still not caused much of a stir. Like most of the bad environmental news emanating from this administration, it emerged from the shadows late on a Friday evening. There was no formal announcement — just a few letters to interested senators from Gale Norton describing a legal settlement she had reached earlier that day with the state of Utah. But a close reading of that deal showed it to be a blockbuster — a fundamental reinterpretation of environmental law, and a reversal of four decades of federal wilderness policy.

At issue in the settlement were 2.6 million acres of federal land in Utah that were inventoried by former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and designated as de facto wilderness — that is, land deserving of protection from commercial activity until such time as Congress, which has sole power to designate permanent wilderness, can decide whether to add it to the nation's 107 million wilderness acres. Mr. Babbitt's actions infuriated Utah, which had commercial designs on the land. But the state's efforts to stop Mr. Babbitt in court failed.

About six weeks ago, however, Utah quietly filed an amended complaint, to which the administration quickly acceded. Under the settlement, Ms. Norton not only agreed to withdraw the 2.6 million acres from wilderness consideration but renounced the department's authority to conduct wilderness reviews anywhere in the country. In one stroke, Ms. Norton yanked more than 250 million acres off the table. Not all of those acres, of course, are worthy of permanent wilderness protection. But under the new policy settlement, those that are will no longer be placed in the pipeline for Congressional consideration. Ms. Norton's associates rushed to assure critics that they be will mindful of "wilderness" values in the lands they manage. But the days when interior secretaries aggressively pushed Congress to add to the federal domain are clearly over.

Ms. Norton insists that she is right to rescind the Babbitt designation — and that Mr. Babbitt was wrong to make it in the first place — because the government's authority to identify and manage potential wilderness under the 1976 Federal Land Policy and Management Act has long since expired. That is an extraordinarily cramped interpretation of the law. One key part of the act did in fact expire. But other provisions conferring upon the secretary the right to provide interim wilderness protections remain very much alive, and these are the ones Mr. Babbitt properly invoked.

There is no doubt that the law gives the secretary of the interior the right to identify potential wilderness areas and manage them accordingly. The only question is whether he or she wants to use that authority. And Ms. Norton, to our great dismay, clearly does not.

[BFrank]

What happened to the environment?

[Tanager]

Well, here in NC, the governor (Mike Easley, a decent guy but not a particulary good/effective governor, I'm afraid) has bought into the NCDOT's idea that any open space needs a road. Preferably a big one. So now they want to turn a two-lane US route into a bigass Interstate through the heart of one of the most important botanical areas in the world. The area around Wilmington, NC, has the greatest diversity of carnivorous plants anywhere - including Venus Flytraps, whose native range is actually limited to a roughly 50-mile radius around Wimington. But this Interstate would plow through the middle of Green Swamp, one of the most important areas of preserved (in relative terms) southeastern pocosin, pine savannah, and swamplands around.

*sigh*

In other news, I think the Nature Conservancy just turned over a big patch of wetlands in NE NC to the State to be managed as gamelands, which is certainly some good news. I just hope they don't plant Japanese Honeysuckle for deer forage anymore up there.

[Dr Dave]

They'll Pry My SUV Keys From My Cold, Dead Fingers.

There's an even better one called "We'll Burn All The Gas We Want" but you have to subscribe to Salon to see all of it.

[frankpop1]

suv's dont suck -- people who drive suv's do.


'the planet is fine' george carlin

[Tanager]

Well, personally, I do think SUVs suck, in general. Which is not to say I think people should not buy/own them. If you live somewhere like Ron, where there's plenty of snow and crap, a 4x4 is probably absolutely necessary. But these days, most SUVs are sold...with TWO wheel drive.

They are high profit-margin machines for the automakers, who have NO incentive to cut fuel efficiency or improve safety, as SUVs are not governed by the same rules on either count as "standard" passenger cars are. Manufacturers make MUCH higher profits on SUVs and are under fewer restrictions when making them...so if SUVs aren't truly evil, the folks who foist them upon us are.

IMHO, of course, and I full well realize that, yes, some people really need them - and that's absolutely fine, I have no objection to that. When I go birding out West, where I'm frequently slogging up some crappy mountainside trail, I rent one then, too.

[RainyDay]

SUVs pollute the air and have terrible gas mileage. But what they are mostly are death traps. Every time I hear some moron extol the virtues of SUVs and how safe and protected their children are in one, I think, "these are the same idiots who elected Bush." I think these people should only be spoken to in short sentences with little words. As much ink as has been spilled over the safety record of SUVs, and they are still selling like hot cakes.

Read my lips, SUVs have almost the highest rollover rate of any motor vehicle (I think pickup trucks are first). They have the highest fatality rate for single vehicle accidents. They are not safe.

A couple weeks ago, I watched a two idiots in SUVs fly around a corner in the rain. They either knew each other or were just playing games. They had been jerking the wheel back forth in both vehciles, maybe in time to music, when the second SUV went into a skid during the turn and started rocking back and forth violently. I just sat at the green light waiting for the thing to flip over. It didn't. These retardos probably don't even know how close to rolling they were. People drive SUVs like they are sports cars and then wonder how they landed upside down in the ditch. That's if they don't die.

[BFrank]

"The Car Guys" from NPR have a pretty good web page about SUV ownership - Live Larger Drive Smaller!. They're pretty much in the same camp as Tanager. I would agree, as well. If you need one, fine. Otherwise, they're REALLY obnoxious.

I live in SF and it's amazing how many of them are on the streets here. We have enough parking problems as it is, and they take up way too much curb space. It's really irritating when they try to squeeze into the "Compact Only" spots in parking lots and garages, as well. Also, they are dangerous in heavy traffic, especially when the idiot driving is also ON THE PHONE (which is not unusual).

[RainyDay]

UC Berkeley conducted a study on SUVs a few months ago that showed them to be dangerous to drive. Maybe someone less tired and more enterprising than I am will find and post the address for the results.

[RainyDay]

I think this is the study I'm referring to. This story came from the LA Times on February 18, 2003.

Study Questions Safety of SUVs

Researchers find that pickups and sport utilities on average are less protective of their drivers than most large or even mid-size cars.

By Myron Levin, Times Staff Writer

Which is safer, a Honda Accord or the nearly one-ton- heavier Ford Expedition? Chances are that the brawny SUV would hold up better in a wreck.

Yet drivers of Accords and Expeditions have about the same risk of suffering a fatal accident, new research shows. And when the risk to other drivers is factored in, the Accord is safer by far.

Or consider the massive Chevrolet Suburban, identified by the research as safest among popular SUVs. But according to the data, drivers of Suburbans and shrimpy Volkswagen Jettas have about the same fatality rates.

The novel study's bottom line: Sport utility vehicles and pickups aren't as protective as many of their owners believe, while they are also uniquely dangerous to everyone else.

The auto industry maintains that SUVs have contributed to a decline in the rate of highway deaths because heavier vehicles are safer for their drivers. "SUVs have an excellent safety record, and they're as safe as cars," said Eron Shosteck of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a leading industry group.

But Marc Ross of the University of Michigan, co-author of the study with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientist Thomas Wenzel, contends that a hard look at the data indicates otherwise.

Indeed, the study takes a contrarian jab at an iron maxim of highway safety: that heavy is good and heavier is better.

"We need to ... move away from the idea that bigger and heavier vehicles are automatically safer," said Ross, a physicist. "Quality is a bigger predictor of safety than weight."

Ross and Wenzel's research is believed to be the first to assess fatalities among both drivers of various vehicles and the people they collide with. It comes amid a growing backlash against SUVs and other light trucks, among the most popular yet polarizing of consumer products.

Flying off dealers' lots, light trucks now account for more than half of vehicle sales and are responsible for a steady decline in fuel economy and growing dependence on foreign oil. Many consumers consider the gas-slurping vehicles to be safer than cars. That, in turn, has relieved pressure on automakers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Riding high behind the wheel of her silver Expedition, Angie Garcia of Sylmar said the SUV looks great and provides a sense of security she would not have in a car. "I definitely feel it's safer ... no questions about it," Garcia said.

Feeling outgunned in a vehicular version of the arms race, other drivers have simply resigned themselves to SUVs.

"I was getting mowed down by the larger SUVs and trucks," said Jennifer Mulcahy of Simi Valley, who dumped her small car in favor of a Nissan Xterra. "It just felt intimidating.... It was survival of the fittest."

Despite such sentiments, Wenzel and Ross say, SUVs and pickups on average provide less protection for their drivers than most large or even mid-size cars.

A primary reason: Unlike cars, which tend to slide sideways when they go out of control, SUVs and pickups, with their high center of gravity, are more likely to flip over. That's important because rollovers are the most lethal accident type, accounting for only about 3% of wrecks but 30% of deaths to vehicle occupants.

Originally published last March, Wenzel and Ross' little-noticed study assigned a "combined risk" number to each vehicle -- defined as the fatality rate for drivers of the model plus the death rate for drivers they crash into. The study used the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a federal database, to compute death rates for drivers of 1995 through 1999 model-year vehicles. Their research was funded by the Energy Foundation, which includes the Pew Charitable Trusts, the MacArthur Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

At the request of The Times, Wenzel and Ross updated the analysis for model years 1997 to 2001.

Although they did not dispute the numbers, other experts said they may not tell the whole story.

In "all the studies we have done ... weight has a very substantial protective effect," said Priya Prasad, a senior technical fellow for safety at Ford Motor Co. "Heavier is better, especially when you get into two-way accidents."

Wenzel and Ross acknowledged that driver-related factors could account for some differences in risks of various models. For example, if a certain vehicle attracts drivers who tend to wear seat belts, obey speed limits and get into fewer accidents, that car or truck could appear to be safer than it really is.

But they said driver characteristics couldn't account for their most important finding -- that light trucks' reputation for safety is overblown and that their combined risks are greater than those of most cars.

Specifically, their data show that:

* Despite giving up considerable size and weight, most mid-size and large cars are as good as or better than the average SUV at protecting their own drivers, and much more protective of their drivers than the average pickup.

* Particularly dangerous to other motorists in two-vehicle wrecks, SUVs have higher combined risks than mid-size and large cars. Their combined risks are similar to those for compacts and subcompacts.

* The safest compacts and subcompacts -- the Volkswagen Jetta, the Mazda 626, the Subaru Legacy and the Nissan Altima -- have driver death rates as low as or lower than that of the average SUV. Still, compacts and subcompacts have higher driver death rates than SUVs overall. The reason: The most unsafe small cars have extremely high driver fatality rates, two to three times worse than the best cars in the group.

* Minivans, and luxury import cars with their advanced safety features, have lower driver death rates than all other vehicle types. Minivans, like SUVs and pickups, are considered light trucks but are not as top-heavy and therefore are less susceptible to deadly rollovers. Along with design differences, minivans often are used to transport children, perhaps leading people to drive more conservatively.

* Driver death rates for pickups are higher than for all other vehicle types, except for sports cars. The risks are markedly higher than for large and mid-size cars, minivans and SUVs; somewhat higher than for compacts; and similar to those for subcompact cars. Below-average use of seat belts by pickup drivers may be a contributing factor.

* Pickups also are more lethal to other drivers than are SUVs, minivans or any class of cars. Their combined risk is about twice that of large and mid-size cars and about 50% higher than that of SUVs, compacts and subcompacts.

* In all classes of cars, Japanese and European models did better on average than their American counterparts, especially in protecting their own drivers. This was particularly striking among compacts and subcompacts. The six safest models (the Jetta, the Altima, the Legacy, the 626, the Honda Civic and the Toyota Corolla) bear Japanese or European nameplates. By contrast, American cars (the Pontiac Sunfire, the Dodge Neon, the Chevrolet Cavalier, the Pontiac Grand Am) had the highest driver death rates in those categories.

The Ross-Wenzel study has emerged at a time of growing concern about the social costs of SUVs, which have long been attacked as harmful to the environment and U.S. energy goals.

Coining the slogan "What would Jesus drive?" a religious group calling itself the Evangelical Environmental Network launched an ad campaign seeking to shame drivers out of their SUVs. The Detroit Project, spearheaded by columnist Arianna Huffington, has run its own ads linking the gas-guzzling vehicles to the funding of terrorists.

More recently, questions have been raised about the safety of SUVs. For instance, an article in the December issue of the Boston University Law Review brands SUVs as "probably the most dangerous products (other than tobacco and alcohol) in widespread use in the United States."

No expert contends that, all other things being equal, heavier vehicles aren't safer for their passengers than are light ones.

"If you put the same technology and the same design concepts into the small vehicle and the large vehicle, the large vehicle is going to protect its occupants better," said Adrian Lund, chief operating officer for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Still, Lund acknowledged, at some point that weight becomes a negative in the total equation -- killing a larger number of other motorists than are saved in the heavier vehicles. According to Lund, this threshold is crossed at roughly 4,000 pounds, a little less than the weight of a Ford Explorer or other small to mid-size SUVs.

With this idea in mind, Wenzel and Ross say, the goal should be to make the biggest models more compatible in size and weight with the rest of the fleet.

Meanwhile, prompting great concern in the auto industry, the chief of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also has taken aim at SUVs, saying they pose unacceptable risks to their own passengers as well as to other drivers.

Addressing a gathering of industry executives in Detroit last month, Jeffrey W. Runge said he had appointed a panel of NHTSA officials to consider new safety regulations for SUVs -- though it's clear that it would take years for such rules to be adopted.

Responding to Runge's blast, General Motors Corp. said that SUVs "have contributed to the dramatic decline in the nation's fatality rate over the last decade."

In fact, there have been modest declines in fatality rates -- as measured by deaths per total vehicles and vehicle miles traveled. But the death toll has been stuck at about 42,000 a year -- despite wider use of seat belts, stricter vehicle safety standards and better automotive designs.

One reason for this, experts say, is that safety advances have been partly negated by a growing mismatch in size between light trucks and cars. When light trucks collide with cars, the high-riding vehicles can override bumpers and door sills and strike occupants in the chest or head.

Faced with Runge's threat of new regulations, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said last week in a joint letter with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that the organizations would work together to make SUVs safer.

Some manufacturers already have begun taking steps to reduce the danger to cars posed by certain light-truck models.

For example, Ford and GM have lowered bumper heights on some models to reduce the risk of override. And in response to safety and fuel efficiency concerns, manufacturers are increasingly pushing "crossover" models -- smaller, more car-like SUVs that inflict less damage in collisions.

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.

[BFrank]

Today was a good day.

Bush did NOT force through an anti-environment policy.

[Tanager]

Originally posted by BFrank
Today was a good day.

Bush did NOT force through an anti-environment policy.

Lowered our standards for a "good" day somewhat, have we?


















[edit] - I agree.

[lynn]

Christie Whitman Resigns As EPA Chief

May 21, 2003 01:17 PM EDT

WASHINGTON - Christie Whitman, sometimes at odds with the Bush White House over environmental issues and a lightning rod for the administration's critics, resigned Wednesday as head of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Whitman said in a letter to President Bush that she was leaving to spend time with family.

"As rewarding as the past two-and-a-half years have been for me professionally, it is time to return to my home and husband in New Jersey, which I love just as you do your home state of Texas," she wrote Bush.

With Whitman's departure as EPA administrator, Bush loses one of the most prominent women in his Cabinet - a moderate former New Jersey governor selected by the president to help soften his image as a political conservative, particularly on environmental issues.

In a statement, Bush called Whitman "a trusted friend and adviser who has worked closely with me to achieve real and meaningful results to improve our environment," and also "a dedicated and tireless fighter for new and innovative policies for cleaner air, purer water and better protected land."

"Christie Todd Whitman has served my administration exceptionally well," he said. "I thank her for her outstanding service to our nation and wish her well as she returns to New Jersey."

Whitman had a history of sometimes clashing with the White House, starting with the president's abrupt decision to withdraw from the Kyoto global warming treaty.

As Bush gears up his re-election campaign, the White House has advised that if senior staff and Cabinet members are thinking of leaving the administration, this is the time to resign; otherwise, they will be expected to remain aboard until after the 2004 election if Bush wins a second term. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer announced Monday that he will resign in July.

Whitman had differences with White House officials early during Bush's presidency when she advised him in a March 6, 2001, memo that global warming "is a credibility issue for the U.S. in the international community" and "we need to appear engaged" in negotiations. The administration later withdrew from the Kyoto, Japan treaty on the issue negotiated by former Vice President Al Gore, Bush's Democratic opponent in the 2000 election.

She also pushed enforcement of a Clean Air Act provision known as "New Source Review," requiring that any increase in production from older factories, power plants and refineries be accompanied by state-of-the-art pollution controls. Those measures were opposed in Bush's energy policy initiative.

"I'm not leaving because of clashes with the administration. In fact, I haven't had any. I report to the president, he has always asked me to give him my best unadulterated advice," Whitman said in an interview with reporters Wednesday.

"I'm leaving now because it's the appropriate time to do it," she said.

Three White House officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, insisted Whitman was not forced out, but rather wanted to return home. They said Bush was nowhere near selecting a new EPA chief.

One name mentioned by administration officials as a possible successor was Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary David Struhs. Another name mentioned was Josephine Cooper, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Bush will be under pressure to replace Whitman with a nominee acceptable to his GOP supporters, as well as swing voters who tend to be wary of Republicans on the environment.

Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt., a frequent administration critic when it comes to environmental issues, praised Whitman for her service. "She brought grace and leadership to the EPA at a trying time and did the best job she could under very challenging circumstances," he said.

Whitman said she informed Bush about her decision Tuesday afternoon, and the two spoke at the White House for about a half-hour. Two weeks earlier, she told White House chief of staff Andrew Card she might resign.

Whitman, in her resignation letter, defended the administration's environmental policies which have been under attack by environmentalists as a series of rollbacks in protecting the nation's air, water and land.

"Our work has been guided by the strong belief that environmental protection and economic prosperity can and must go hand-in-hand," she wrote.

She pointed to initiatives to reduce pollution from off-road diesel engines, a push to cut pollution from school buses and "our aggressive and effective efforts to enforce the nation's environmental laws."

Whitman, 56, joined the administration after seven years as governor of New Jersey, where she made preservation a priority but never managed to convince environmentalists she was one of them.

When the Bush administration took office, Whitman had a brief honeymoon: Within the first three months, she upset industry executives and conservationists, disappointed moderates who like her and angered conservatives who don't.

"Christie Whitman must feel like her own long national nightmare is over," said Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, an advocacy group. "No EPA administrator has ever been so consistently and publicly humiliated by the White House."

---

Eds: Associated Press reporter Scott Lindlaw contributed to this report.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2003 Associated Press.


---------------------------------

I'm almost afraid to hear who might be next in line for this job!

[Ron Thorne]

The following really takes the cake! I'm seriously considering not renewing our membership to the Smithsonian.



Illinois senator says museum bowed to political pressure
ANWR PHOTOS: Exhibit moved, and captions cut.


By LIZ RUSKIN
Anchorage Daily News

(Published: May 21, 2003)

WASHINGTON -- Why is it, asked Sen. Dick Durbin, that the Smithsonian Institution sees nothing wrong with a photo caption decrying the "sinister" devastation caused by strip mining in Tennessee, but decided a description of the buff- breasted sandpiper and its need for habitat was too political?

Is it because one caption is about environmental damage in Tennessee and the other was to be in an exhibit showing the beauty of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?

Durbin, D-Ill., told the director of the Smithsonian that he can't discern a consistent policy.

"The only thing I can tell you is it's hands-off when it comes to Alaska, and I don't think that's fair," Durbin said at a Senate hearing Tuesday.

The hearing was originally intended as a routine oversight session. Instead, it was dominated by the controversy over a photo exhibit that opened this month in the National Museum of Natural History, depicting the Arctic Refuge as a spectacular place, alive with birds and animals.

Photographer Subhankar Banerjee said his exhibit was moved to a lower-level hallway and his captions truncated after Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., held up his book on the Senate floor in March to help make the case against drilling.

Banerjee said a Smithsonian official told him the exhibit had become "politicized."

Durbin has suggested the Smithsonian bowed to political pressure or censored itself because it worried the exhibit would anger drilling advocates.

"I think what's at issue here is the integrity of the Smithsonian," Durbin told the Smithsonian director, Lawrence Small.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, praised the Smithsonian's decision to remove captions that he said went too far. He called Banerjee "an agent of the Wilderness Society."

The president of that environmental group wrote an essay in Banerjee's book of ANWR photos. But the photographer said he got no money from the Wilderness Society. The book project, for which he spent more than a year in the refuge, cost $250,000, he said. Of that amount, the Audubon Society contributed $5,000 and the Natural Resources Defense council gave $3,000. No other environmental groups gave him money, he said.

"Actually, I'm $100,000 in debt," he said.

Nonetheless, Stevens spoke of Banerjee and the environmental groups as acting in consort to block attempts in Congress to open the refuge to oil drilling.

"These people tried to use the Smithsonian," Stevens said.

He suggested the museum staffers who stopped the scheme ought to be promoted.

Stevens also wholeheartedly denied that he or his staff applied any pressure or had any contact with the Smithsonian to prompt the changes.

He didn't dispute that the photographs are beautiful. If it were just an exhibit of beautiful photographs, there would be no controversy, Stevens said. The problem, as Stevens sees it, is that the captions didn't make it clear that only a small part of the refuge -- the coastal plain -- would be open to drilling if Congress approves.

Small, for his part, described the exhibit's preparation as routine.

Initially, lower-level staff worked on the captions with the photographer, he said.

"When our more senior staff, who always participate in the exhibit creation process, finally got a look at how the captions were, they deemed that any number of the captions included statements that could, in their judgment, be viewed as political advocacy," Small said.

Durbin said he could see why they removed a passage by former President Jimmy Carter saying the refuge should be left in its "untrammeled state." But why, he asked, did they eliminate one in which Banerjee described his joy at seeing a polar bear and her cubs emerge from their winter den to play and nuzzle?

Small said the senior staff decided the photos should be displayed as an art exhibit, with simple, short captions. "We don't do political advocacy," he said.

Durbin alleged the Smithsonian has a double standard when it comes to Alaska.

He cited a caption from an unrelated exhibit of botanical paintings at the same museum that says a particular plant might become extinct "unless we act now."

Isn't that advocacy?, Durbin asked.

"That's a statement of fact," Small insisted. The caption didn't say what was endangering the plant or what people should do to preserve it, he said.

Durbin also read a 90-word photo caption from a third exhibit at the museum. Quoting a Kentucky historian, it said mining would leave Appalachia with "dismembered mountains" and said "the corpse of a forest ... will lie buried beneath a wasteland like the world as described in the opening verses of Genesis."

Meanwhile, Durbin said, the Smithsonian concluded that a Banerjee caption about the buff-breasted sandpiper -- saying it travels from Argentina to the Arctic and is vulnerable to habitat disturbances -- had to go.

Durbin suggested the real problem is that the ANWR photographs are so beautiful that they prove the point he and other opponents of drilling are trying to make.

"I think it's painful for the advocates of oil exploration to see these photographs and realize the context of this debate," he said.

Reporter Liz Ruskin can be reached at lruskin@adn.com or 1-202-383-0007.

[Tanager]

Ron, if you ever run into Ted Stevens up there, give him a solid kick in the ass and tell him I said hello.

[Ron Thorne]

Originally posted by Tanager
Ron, if you ever run into Ted Stevens up there, give him a solid kick in the ass and tell him I said hello.

I'd love to, Tanager! He's a pompous ass, but is an utter genius alongside "Mr. Doofus", Don Young. Stevens has so much seniority that it's scary. You don't want to have to listen to him speak, trust me. He stutters and stammers so much that you can barely decipher what he's saying. It's usually some pro-development/anti-conservation crap, though.

It wasn't enough that he's our Senator-For-Life, now our airport has his name affixed. What was Anchorage International Airport is now Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport.

Here's the typical blank look of Congressman Don Young.



I think I'm gonna hurl.

[BFrank]

Originally posted by Tanager
Lowered our standards for a "good" day somewhat, have we?


[edit] - I agree.

Oh, man.......this administration sucks BAD!

I"m already planning to send some additional money to some groups that can hopefully do some good.

[lynn]

Here is an interesting twist on environmental action. I can almost see the REI guys in their face.
----------------------------------

U.S.-Utah Land Accord Incites Unlikely Critics
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY


SALT LAKE CITY, May 22 — Two recent agreements between Utah and the federal government, making the state the latest template for the Bush administration's public lands policy, drew a rapid and predictable response from environmental groups around the country.

They zeroed in on Gov. Michael O. Leavitt, a third-term Republican. They accused him of opening more pristine backcountry to off-road vehicles, economic development and natural resource exploration and of positioning himself for a cabinet-level job after the 2004 elections.

Mr. Leavitt said he had expected all of that. What he did not anticipate was a frontal attack from a trade group with a long history of friendly relations with the state.

The Outdoor Industry Association, a coalition of 1,100 retailers that holds Utah's biggest conventions, pumping $24 million into the state economy each year, has threatened to take its business elsewhere, to a state more sensitive to wilderness protections.

"Our biggest concern is that the outdoor recreation industry has become second-class for policy makers," said Frank Hugelmeyer, president of the association, whose members are part of an $18 billion industry. "We passionately believe that has to change. In Utah, recreation is one of the state's biggest economic drivers, particularly around public lands. But public policy does not recognize that, and it's a bit perplexing, to the point we're annoyed."

The turn of events stems from the fact that within two days last month, a pair of longstanding disputes between Utah and the federal government ended with negotiated settlements.

One agreement, which ended a bitter dispute over who has jurisdiction over historic rural roads, created a process to identify whether the state or federal government actually owns those roads. In effect, the agreement preserves the state's control over roads that were used for more than a century through 1976, a period before proof of ownership was needed for road maintenance and improvement.

The second agreement ended a 1996 lawsuit brought by Utah against the Clinton administration after the president unilaterally identified an additional 2.6 million acres in Utah to be designated as wilderness, putting the land off limits to vehicles and development. At the time Utah already had 3.2 million acres set aside.

The new agreement underscores Utah's legal argument that only Congress and not the executive branch can make such designations. As a result the acres will now be open for wider use.

The two efforts reflect the strong desire of the Bush administration — and of Western Republicans — to place more control of public lands in the hands of states and counties and to make federal lands outside of parks and monuments more accessible for a wider range of uses.

"These are attempts to bring common sense to contentious issues that have languished for far too long," said Eric Ruff, a spokesman for the Interior secretary, Gale A. Norton. Interior Department officials call the deals with Utah models for other states.

But here, the deals have caused Mr. Leavitt a bigger political headache than he expected. He had known he faced a balancing act between those in his party who want the federal government out of Utah and liberal Democrats who would prefer larger areas of the state be declared off limits to development.

But he had not anticipated a struggle with an important business group. Like other states, Utah is fighting the national economic slowdown. Business development has been a hallmark of Mr. Leavitt's administration.

To lose the outdoor retailers, who gather in Salt Lake City twice a year, would be a severe blow, and Mr. Hugelmeyer insisted he needed to see evidence of the governor's willingness to create new wilderness protections or the group would consider moving. Already, Denver is waiting in the wings.

"He's been more active in relaxing protections," Mr. Hugelmeyer said of the governor, emphasizing the importance of wilderness areas to customers of his members. "Our goal is to get him to understand that when it comes to wilderness, you can be negative, passive, a steward or a champion. At the moment, we've only seen negative and passive from Governor Leavitt. We've yet to see him act like a steward."

Mr. Leavitt, currently the nation's longest-serving governor, is to meet with the trade group on June 4. He said in an interview that the agreements with the Bush administration had been misunderstood. He said he had been a strong supporter of wilderness areas and would ask Mr. Hugelmeyer to help him get a bill through Congress to win permanent wilderness status for the 3.2 million acres that are still set aside.

The state's lawsuit was filed, Mr. Leavitt said, because he believed that the Clinton administration, which angered many in Utah by circumventing Congress and declaring the Grand Staircase-Escalante a national monument in 1996, had acted improperly in setting aside more Utah land for wilderness protection.

"We were saying to the federal government, `You can't do that,' " Mr. Leavitt said. "Only Congress can authorize an inventory of lands if they are to be managed as wilderness. So I'm saying now, let's get down to business and start with these 3.2 million acres."

Mr. Leavitt also said the roads agreement was vital for the state to maintain a transportation system that would serve, among others, outbackers eager to get closer to wilderness areas they cherish. And that is what he intends to tell the outdoor group, he said.

It might not be enough. Mr. Hugelmeyer said a recent poll of his members found that 92 percent favored protections for existing areas designated as wilderness and 80 percent favored creating new wilderness areas.

"There's no doubt where our members are on this issue," he said. "Within our industry, this has gone to a national debate."
-------------------

They can have a huge impact by pulling excursion packages to Utah for their customers too.

[BFrank]

Washington, D.C. -- House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today regarding the resignation of EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman:

“It is telling that EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman resigned from the Environmental Protection Agency on the same day that the House of Representatives is debating yet another Bush Administration assault on the environment. The Defense Authorization Bill on the House floor today would roll back protections for endangered species, whales, dolphins, and other marine mammals.
“Despite a complete lack of credible evidence, the Pentagon claims that environmental laws are interfering with military readiness. Testifying before a Senate committee in February, Administrator Whitman said, in a moment of candor, that she did not 'believe that there is a training mission anywhere in the country that is being held up or not taking place because of an environmental protection regulation.' In a typical display of the triumph of ideology over reality in the Bush Administration, Administrator Whitman was quickly muzzled by the White House.

“The Administration’s policies make a mockery of the Environmental Protection Agency and its mission. Instead of protecting our precious natural resources, this Administration is intent on rolling back more than 30 years of bipartisan effort to protect the environment.”

[Tanager]

Originally posted by BFrank
“The Administration’s policies make a mockery of the Environmental Protection Agency and its mission. Instead of protecting our precious natural resources, this Administration is intent on rolling back more than 30 years of bipartisan effort to protect the environment.”

What boggles the mind is how little folks seem to care. In polls, the large majority of people say they support environmental protection, but when it comes to action, this is one of the first concessions almost everyone is willing to make: sacrifice the environment.

Should I drive a smaller car?
Should I carpool?
Should I decrease the size of my lawn and use less fertilizer?
Should I...oh, never mind, it's too depressing.

[lynn]

Money Gone, U.S. Suspends Designations of Habitats
By JENNIFER 8. LEE

WASHINGTON, May 28 — The United States Fish and Wildlife Service says it will temporarily stop designating tracts of land as critical habitats under the Endangered Species Act within a matter of weeks because the program has depleted its money for this fiscal year.

At the same time, the agency said it would negotiate with plaintiffs and the federal courts to move back pending deadlines for designating certain areas as critical habitat.

"We are out of money, or will be in a few days," said Craig Manson, the assistant secretary of the Department of Interior who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Designations as critical habitat, defined as geographic areas that "contain habitat features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species," are required under the 1973 Endangered Species Act to curb development that may threaten those species.

The agency says it is caught between federal law and court decisions. Federal law forbids agencies to spend money beyond what Congress has given them. But the agency must also comply with court-imposed deadlines that have resulted from a growing number of lawsuits by environmental groups seeking to force the agency to designate tracts of land as critical habitats.

While the program's $6 million budget is the same as last year's, the number of court-imposed deadlines has grown, leaving the agency about $2 million short of the money it needs to designate critical habitats for 33 species before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, Mr. Manson said.

Democrats and environmental groups say the administration has willingly walked into this situation. The agency, they note, has not requested more money from Congress to continue financing the program after being told that it could not reapportion money from elsewhere.

"It is outrageous that this administration is shortchanging funding for implementing the Endangered Species Act and not even bothering to request supplemental appropriation from Congress," said Representative Nick J. Rahall II, Democrat of West Virginia, who is on the subcommittee dealing with fish and wildlife.

Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, an organization in Tucson that has brought a number of lawsuits on critical habitat, said, "They've engineered a budget crisis." Mr. Suckling said Congress had given the agency the full program financing it had asked for in this year's budget.

But others say the situation is not entirely a political creation. They say critical habitat concerns stretch back to the Clinton years, when the number of lawsuits by environmental groups first started to rise.

President Bill Clinton's interior secretary, Bruce Babbitt, asked Congress to impose budget restrictions on the critical habitat program to prevent it from cannibalizing all of the money for the Endangered Species Act, saying this was not the best use of those resources. Time-consuming, court-mandated critical habitat analyses were draining resources and scientists from other protections for endangered species, like listing additional species.

"This is a sinking ship if they don't watch it," said Jamie Clark, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Clinton years. "It is a very real problem. They have more court orders than they have money to deal with."

John Sidel, an endangered species scientist for the Forest Service, said: "Designating critical habitat is a long, torturous process. In the past, people avoided it because they wanted to get species listed without getting dragged down by the critical habitat designation process."

But court orders have piled up because the law says critical habitat has to be designated at the time a species is listed as endangered — a fact environmental groups have used to force designations. Of 1,250 species on the list, about 400 have designated critical habitats. Court cases have imposed a number of other species on the agency, which Mr. Manson says has created a backlog of cases that will take it through 2008.

"The system is broken because the decision-making process that should be with the Fish and Wildlife Service has been usurped by litigation," said Tom Sansonetti, assistant attorney general for the Environment and Natural Resources Division.

The administration has taken an unfavorable view of critical habitats. The Fish and Wildlife Service has begun inserting a "disclaimer" into critical habitat designations and news releases. It opens with the statement, "Designation of critical habitat provides little additional protection to species."

But others say that the problems with critical habitat designations lie more in "when," and not "if."

"Critical habitat is better timed as a function of recovery program rather than as a decision made at the time of listing," Ms. Clarke said. But she emphasized that the agency must not stop protecting habitat.

==========================================

It seems to me that 6 million is a pretty low budget for such a critical department, but maybe its a good thing considering the willingness for this administration to take environmentalists to court all the time rather than actually protect something. As long as it's in limbo there won't be a McDonalds going up in your favorite stretch of old growth forest.

[BFrank]

Quite ironic as I saw that article in the NY Times on the same page as "Bush Signs Tax Cut Bill, Dismissing All Criticism", which includes a photo of Karl Rove laughing.

Then at the bottom of the page, a continuation of this article: Tax Law Bars Child Credit for Many Low-Income Families".

[BFrank]

Bill Moyers' NOW had a devastating piece on all the corporate flacks who are now employed by the Dept of the Interior. The apparent worst of whom is J. Steven Griles (Gail Norton's right-hand man). This guy is one big conflict of interest. Watch out for him and the rest of this mob. They're not there to protect our lands, that's for sure.

[Ron Thorne]

Tomorrow evening will be another milestone for me, musically and environmentally, a perfect combination of passions. I've been coaxed "out of retirement" to rehearse with a 5-piece band for the past several months, which we've named Northwest Passage, and it's been great fun. I'm not the leader, just the drummer/percussionist/marketing guy.

Tomorrow evening is our public debut at a fundraiser for a non-profit organization we all feel strongly about, Great Land Trust.

http://www.greatlandtrust.org/

Here's their simple but eloquent creed:

"The Great Land Trust is a local, nonprofit organization dedicated to conserving the special places and signature landscapes of Southcentral Alaska north of the Kenai Peninsula.

The Great Land Trust permanently and directly conserves lands and waterways essential to the quality of life and economic health of our communities."

We'll be playing and singing a wide variety of material from Bonnie Raitt, Sadé and John Mellencamp to Cannonball, Miles and Eddie Harris, all the while raising money to fund very important efforts to protect southcentral Alaska's lands and waterways. This all takes place in the home of our guitarist, Rob Nauheim, who lives on the upper hillside of the Chugach Mountain Range in south Anchorage, a natural venue for this event.

I'm stoked!