Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category

Twelve States Sue EPA

Tuesday, August 26th, 2008

 

 

The lawsuit is the latest attack on the EPA for not regulating emissions again. This time it’s emissions from oil refineries. The New York Times article stated that 15% of all CO2 emissions comes from oil refineries. The other states are

 

New York atty. Andrew Cuomo leads the current fight, claiming it’s another example of the Bush Administration’s “do-nothing policy” regarding global warming.

 

Last year the Supreme Court ruled that it was the duty of the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas under the Clean Air Act. The NY Times article said, “Since then, the agency’s director has said it is the job of Congress to regulate them.” Don’t you love it?

 

The EPA is like Teflon. Nothing sticks. They’ve been sued to set standards for power plant emissions and recently by California to regulate emissions from autos.

 

As far as the EPA turning out any standards for any of the above, so far nada.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/us/26epa.html?_r=1&ref=environment&oref=slogin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MI Au Sable River Saved from Oil Drills by Federal Judge

Friday, July 11th, 2008

 

I’ve blogged about our federal courts being very environmental lately against the EPA, against mercury, against incinerators, and now the U.S. Forest Service. A long time ago, I blogged about an energy company that was poised to drill for oil on a tract of land along the Au Sable River. Drilling would inevitably ruin the area. It’s a haven for trout fishing and canoeing.

 

The Mason Tract, if I recall correctly, was donated by the Mason family as a place for people to get away from it all. I believe it was Earthjustice (Sierra Club) that got an injunction to stop the drilling. I want to say that was over 2 years ago. The Mason Tract is on the southern end of the Au Sable River. 

 

The fight between Earthjustice and Savoy Energy must have made the rounds in court because the U.S. Forest Service got involved and ended up approving the drilling, but a Federal Court judge overturned the decision saying Savoy Energy acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” when they made the decision.

 

Yessss! Imagine leaving a particular piece of land to the state for the public to enjoy as a peaceful woodland escape, and after 50 years it means nothing.  All of a sudden it’s OK to drill for oil there. And the U.S. Forest Service that is supposed to be the champion of our forests felt it was OK to allow it.

 

This fight is done for now but probably not over. I’m really glad to see that so far our federal courts are hanging strong for the environment. The Au Sable area is a great spot.  I did an overnight canoe trip there in March way, way back when. Many people have canoed down this river and hopefully helped fight the fight to keep the area the way it is.

 

http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080711/NEWS01/307110008/1002/NEWS01

 

For Our Safety; Creating Legislation to Keep Politics Out of Science

Tuesday, July 1st, 2008

 

I read in the Union of Concerned Scientists newsletter, Volume 10, Number 3, Summer 2008, that the U.S. Senate approved bipartisan legislation in March to improve the effectiveness of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Good idea after last summer’s tainted spinach, tainted lettuce, beef recalls, and toxic toys went unchecked.

 

It seems there has been political interference in the work of CPSC employees like statisticians, psychologists, chemists, and engineers. The legislation is meant to keep science independent of political tactics to ensure consumers remain safe. There are whistle blower protections built in to the legislation that extends to other employees of companies regulated by the CPSC. The agency must also accept anonymous complaints via the Internet.

 

The Union of Concerned Scientists worked with doctor’s and consumer groups to put this Senate Bill together and encouraged scientists to speak up if they have had political interference in the past.

 

There is a House Bill that addresses the same problems but lacks the whistle blower protections. The idea now is to combine the bills to become the strongest legislation possible.

 

I’m certainly glad this is happening, but does it occur to anyone that we are now in the habit of writing legislation to keep the Bush administration’s mitts out of most things scientific, that we’ve had to use the supreme court and federal court judges to get the EPA to act on our behalf relative to the environment, and to get the Dept. of the Interior to move on putting polar bears on the endangered list?

 

If the agencies that are in existence to keep the public, environment, wildlife and habitat, food, and imports safe are being kept from doing their respective jobs by interference from politicians, then instead of doing this round about and creating new legislation, on top of legislation that already exists, wouldn’t it just be easier to get rid of the politicians affecting the problems? Remember to vote for a heck of a lot more than president this November, like voting out of office those that interfere with our safety, the earth’s safety, and wildlife looking to survive in a safe haven. 

 

 

The Chicken Little Crowd is Getting Bigger and With More Clout

Monday, April 28th, 2008

I read Mitch Albom’s column in the Free Press this past Sunday, and although I agree with him, I think it was well, um, a little bit dated. His perception that environmentalists are a league of people still derided as Chicken Littles is a little off. As long as I’ve been writing this blog, I think maybe I’ve been called a Chicken Little twice. I had one opponent that appeared to be a drinker going off into raves eventually calling me a cur so as to not get axed from the website for calling me something worse. But that was long ago. Another opponent eventually came to terms with the fact that on a lot of levels we are simpatico. We agreed that we do indeed create trash and should be cleaning up after ourselves, whether or not it does or does not contribute to global warming. Isn’t this moment of agreement in the environmental argument all that’s needed? Because cleaning up after ourselves is the first step to realizing just how much garbage we actually create, which should logically lead to more conservation efforts regardless of global warming.

In this light, how the pro-environmental argument is presented seems to make a heck of a lot of difference. Finding common ground brings people to agreement faster, and that’s what seems to be happening. Unlike Albom, I’m seeing a huge surge of environmentalism on TV and the Internet lately. My 85-year old mother pointed it out to me about 2 weeks ago. I paid closer attention after that and she’s right. There are all types of commercials on TV that are telling people to buy in bulk, don’t shampoo their hair every day, you know insidious mantra that eventually gets an entire population moving toward conservation without knowing it. Admit it. We’re herded more times than not and industry with the help of the media is like the rancher.

I blogged about industry moving the green market quite a while back. Industry’s push to go “green” is getting increasingly stronger because they can’t afford high energy costs either. GE can hardly keep up with the demand for its industrial wind turbines. Green rooftops are appearing on city buildings everywhere thanks to newly formed environmental organizations like Green Roofs for Healthy Cities. And just look up companies growing in leaps and bounds like Sun Edison, who provides an affordable way for industry to benefit from rooftop solar panels, that is, if they aren’t already planted green. Retail giant Wal-Mart starting moving to go green, and now companies like SC Johnson are looking to supply those big stores with their “totally” green .products. Even Conoco Philips (Big Oil) threw in the towel, and joined Tyson Chicken to create biofuel from chicken fat at no real profit, just because it’s the right thing to do for the environment. And when moguls like Ted Turner make statements that it’s absolute suicide to continue to pollute and consume the way we do, well, try calling terrible Ted a “CL.”

I’ve lost count of all the home improvement shows that tout “green,” as well as, media outlets like PBS, Discovery, Science, and National Geographic channels that consistently show the latest findings and discoveries regarding the environment and man. I’ve even watched Canadian TV like “The Outsider,” or “The Fifth Estate” air documentaries about U.S. government cover ups of scientific reports relative to global warming. I’m seeing more and more green shows coming out of Canada now. And I can’t say enough for organizations listed as links on my blog like EarthJustice, The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, Union of Concerned Scientists, and many others that don’t think twice to take on the U.S. Government or anyone else over the environment and wildlife. While we sleep, or go about our usual day, these guys are out on cold oceans, at the edge of public forests, in congress, and everywhere they need to be to stop bad things from happening to our world and everything in it.

But best of all when I see Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich in a commercial urging citizens to contact congress to push ahead to embrace environmentalism, it’s a clear indication that forces are looking to gather against the old energy lobbyists and the spin machine. This was topped off last week when Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Committee for Oversight and Reform, sent a letter to EPA Administrator Johnson, that he need be prepared to testify regarding the recently released Union of Concerned Scientists Report documenting extensive and widespread political interference with the work of scientists at EPA. Yes!!!

Add to that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the EPA should be regulating CO2 emissions from autos as part of the Clean Air Act, and the U.S. Court of Appeals vacating the EPA’s “Clean Air Mercury Rule,” literally throwing out the EPA’s cap and trade system for mercury, and demanding the EPA set new standards for the coal burning industry within two years. Concurrently, it also vacated the EPA’s “Incinerator Rule.” This bodes exceptionally well for the Chicken Little movement.

The timing is uncanny, but unlike Mr. Albom’s perception of environmental efforts, this past Sunday, for the first time in a very long time, I was optimistic about environmentalism, my faith in America restored. After researching the onslaught against our parks, our air, our water, animals, and their habitat for so long by the Bush/Cheney administration, I finally sensed a real, hardy shove back by the other powers that be, which is American industry and ingenuity. They don’t seem to suffer low self-esteem as a “Chicken Little” crowd at all. Had Mitch written about the “CL” complex a year ago I might have wholeheartedly agreed. But now, all I see is the “greening” of America, like it or not. As for “Chicken Little” calling, sticks and stones…

The Clean Water Restoration Act Seeks to Shore Up Weakened Federal Water Pollution Control

Wednesday, April 16th, 2008

Today the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing regarding the Clean Water Restoration Act. The Senate held a meeting about this earlier this week. HR 2421 helps clarify that federal safeguards against water pollution must protect all waters of the United States. It may seem funny to some that this is necessary because the general public is out of touch with what has been happening to many of our established environmental laws.

The Bush administration has systematically attacked many of our longstanding environmental laws including The Clean Water Act. Big corporations and developers who seek to pollute have gone to court over the Clean Water Act. It seems they have found a loophole in the act because in many places it describes the waters protected by this act as navigable for one thing, which means if you can’t place a boat on it, well it just might not be protected—by anyone. So we’ve ended up with ambiguous rulings by the Supreme Courts, and federal agencies have issued confusing guidelines on what is or is not protected by federal law.

This leaves ponds, streams, wetlands, drain areas, and many other seasonal wet spots open to damage and destruction from industrial pollution. I’ve read over HR 2421 and what used to be described as navigable waters is now simply called waters. I also read a review on the Big Bear blogsite that it’s doubtful this bill will pass. Hunters, ranchers, and farmers won’t like it. Well more than 175 House members are co-sponsoring it, and 21 Senators so far are co-sponsoring the companion legislation. I had to comment on that site that of course the huge farming and hunting lobby doesn’t want anyone messing with their new found freedom in states like Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana. They’ve pushed their weight around in those states to get the wolves, and bison killed, and wild horses rounded up. I believe it is to make way for more devastation of our national forests when Bush tries to weaken the Roadless Rule too. Because with these animals out of the way, no one has to protect their habitat, paving the way for more lumbering, mining, and drilling on or near our national forests.

Contact our legislators and let them know that every ounce of water is precious to us, especially with the drought that prevails in many places in our country. If anything as simple as a pond or a seasonal wetland is not covered by an individual state, as it stands right now, federal protection for that area may be challenged because the water in question is not navigable. It might not be navigable but pollute it with toxic material and it’s going to leach, or flow somewhere now isn’t it? That bad water just might end up in your well, backyard, creek, or pond. 

Read HR 2421 at: http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/bills/110/h2421ih.txt.pdf

Conveniently contact your legislators with a petition at: http://action.earthjustice.org/campaign/cwara0408/w5eu6wbrlmetjdd

 

 

Sign Petition to Governor Granholm to Direct DEQ to Regulate CO2/Mercury Emissions

Monday, April 14th, 2008

Ah, how soon we forget. Just a little over a year ago the United States Supreme Court ruled that the EPA could not bypass its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. That ruling caused a rush to court on behalf of other industry polluters, i.e., coal burning facilities. But luck ran out for the coal industry when the of U.S. Court of Appeal’s basically threw the EPA’s cap and trade program out, and told the EPA that they were wrong by taking power plants off the list of hazardous pollution sources with its “Clean Air Mercury Rule.” Now the EPA has two years to develop mercury emissions standards for existing power plants. http://www.blogsmonroe.com/world/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=232

So it seems a little redundant for citizens to have to sign a petition to send a message to our state congress to get Michigan moving. This particular petition calls for Governor Granholm to issue an executive order to immediately direct Michigan’s DEQ (Dept. of Environmental Quality) to regulate CO2 emissions from coal and other power facilities.

The real goal here is to show our state government we are indeed watching what does or does not happen in Michigan as far as legislation to move forward to bring new jobs to boost the economy, while continuing to curb pollution in Michigan. Our two houses and the governor continue to come to a stalemate regarding jobs, the environment, pollution, and our economy. We wouldn’t be as afraid to loose jobs in polluting industries like construction of coalburners, refineries, and even nuke plants, if we had a decent RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) and Energy Efficiency program to entice more green industry into our state, which seems to go hand in hand with the technical industries also.

Job growth in a new sector certainly takes the sting out of job loss and poor working conditions in waning manufacturing sectors. So get on with it Michigan! We’re missing a golden opportunity to transform ourselves quickly from old manufacturing status quo to something new completely that’s being afforded by green industry.

Perhaps signing a petition to nudge our politicians forward is a very good idea to show we want the green—both industry and paycheck green.

Take the time to sign at:   http://progressmichigan.org/page/s/globalwarming.
 

 

 

So Where Do We Stand on the Environment for 2008?

Wednesday, December 26th, 2007

I just got through reading some current worldwide environmental news and have to say, we don’t seem to have a clear-cut view of anything. What we profess, what we say, and what we actually do is all contrary.  First, I saw the Pope give his blessing and speak on behalf of peace and the environment over the Christmas season to over one billion Catholics. And the World Council of Churches that represents 560 million Christians worldwide is calling concerns over global warming a matter of faith. The WCC has had a program about climate change since 1992 and books about ecotheology (I’m interested).  Dr. Samuel Kobia the Secy. General of the WCC stipulates that Christians are well aware that dominion over all living things was given to us. He said that meant, “We were entrusted with the care of the rest of God’s creation.” The emphasis is on the word “CARE” here.


Care doesn’t come under savagely taking a machete to an orangutan trying to defend it’s young, or hooking a live dolphin in the side and sending it to be stripped of skin before it’s even dead, while the resulting meat is basically poison from ingesting too many pollutants, or shooting 6 elephants dead for stepping into a coffee field that is supposed to be their sanctuary. We should actively try to get this stopped, but our demands for things like lumber and coffee encourage it.  Oh and don’t forget about native animals and the latest Internet hunting websites that have yet to be banned in over 20 states.

There was the news about a zoo tiger that got loose and killed one man, and maimed two others before it was shot dead. The media wanted to know and put this question out to the public if it is wise to keep caged and wild animals? 145,000,000 people visit zoos every year without incident. If we didn’t have zoos the likelihood of seeing a live polar bear, tiger, elephant, orangutan, gorilla, condor, panda…etc., would more than likely be nil. I have to wonder about the media here. Do they operate with any type of perspective about things, or just pounce on a bit of fantastic news with so much fervor it gets skewed out of proportion and normalcy? People are maimed in cars every day and no one says: “Gee, should we really be driving?”

 

We’ve heard about individual states taking their own course of action for the environment with many implementing their own environmental laws especially since the Supreme Court decided that the EPA is supposed to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases according to the Clean Air Act but has not done so. So what do I read? The Bush administration: “Thursday announced that it will block efforts by California, Maryland, and 15 other states to cut emissions of global warming gases from cars and trucks.” Now that is an example of talking out of two sides of one’s mouth isn’t it? Aren’t we supposed to be forging ahead with alternative energy anyway?

 

This administration got elected based on a big moral majority. Do we or do we not celebrate animals? I hope we  understand the world is in our care. We simply can’t keep spreading and demanding, taking up room where other things live. We end up killing the very same animals we ooh and ah over at the zoo. We love cartoon movies with animals, little talking pigs, Flipper, the Lion King. We are supposed to teach our children to be kinds to animals. But when animals act out in their normal manner we talk about dispensing with them right away, like the zoo issue. We sacrifice living breathing creatures in our own species chain over things we need for our big houses or our big lifestyle. And we elect our president/vice president based on morality when this latest threat to block states trying to do right by the environment proves the opposite. So where do we stand between what we believe, what we say, and what we actually do about our world and everything in it because I can’t tell?

 

By the way, a current gallop poll has President Bush as the number one pick among the most admired men and women of 2007. Is that not the icing on the cookie for contradictions as far as you’ve read them here?
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2007/2007-12-24-01.asp.

      

  

The Declaration of Independence, Patriotism, and the Environment

Wednesday, July 4th, 2007

Want to be a real patriot on the 4th of July? As independent citizens we celebrate our right to decide the direction of our country through elected representatives. So one of the most patriotic acts any American citizen can perform, outside of being a soldier, is to let our reps know what we think about anything and everything relative to the environment and “going green.” Take the time to e-mail them that we want to proceed with “going green” in Michigan by creating a brand new economy that is bursting-at-the-seams to happen. Our reps need a push, as there are many bills before them in our state’s congress. The number one bill HB 4667 and SB 444 to impose a moratorium on new and expanding animal factories or CAFO’s needs to pass!

I know I repeat, but for a state with the largest freshwater supply, with so many inland lakes that feed into that water, people looking to move up north in Michigan to enjoy the nature and peace, Michiganders cannot afford to let our natural resources take a back seat to pollution. The economy and moving ahead to “going green” go hand in hand. Advance one advance the other. Mother Nature counts and outside of ending the war, preventing terrorism, the environment should be at the top of our list.  A little reminder, as proof nature counts, and to coincide with this 4th of July celebration, 2007, here is  the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, 1776:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

This beginning to a powerful document that is the essence of this country clearly states “the powers of the earth … the Laws of Nature … of Nature’s God.” There is no denying the respect for nature here, and as being one with God. As patriots we need to see that this respect for nature continues and direct our reps to follow our wishes. The beginning paragraph to the Declaration also addresses “the opinions of mankind” and that mankind “should declare the causes which impel them.” Pollution is a cause which should impel all of us to protect and respect nature always.
.
If we can put the flags and banners up, and shoot off fireworks, fireworks, and more fireworks to celebrate what this country is all about, freedom to speak, to affect change, to have a part in the decisions of our country, than we can surely drop our reps a single e-mail. There are all types of issues both federal and state that are important to the environment that are being cut beyond reason. The war funds are coming from somewhere, and all of the loans are not from China so cuts are deep.

The League of Conservation Voters newsletter said that special interests in Washington—Big Coal, Big Auto, Big Oil—have pushed for new provisions to be included in the most recent House Energy legislation that takes back the Supreme Court’s ruling that the EPA has the authority to regulate global warming pollution. It will block 12 states or more from adopting clean car standards. It also lowers the auto mileage standards that Bush proposes. The Supreme Court ruled on this already. It was a victory for the environment.  But already the opposition has plans to repeal it. It looks to me more like the federal government seeks to take power away from the states.

In our state of Michigan there is a partisan stranglehold about policy to make up for the huge deficit. In the course of cutting back spending, “funding for natural resource protection has already been cut to the bone, which means a severe decrease in environmental law enforcement” as the Sierra Club reports. After reading the opening paragraph to our Declaration of Independence and comparing it to what is happening in our own state, makes me wonder what country we’re in?