| TRAIL | OZARK CHAPTER | ||
| of | |||
| TEARS | |||
| SIERRA CLUB | GROUP |
LETTERS TO EDITORS PAGE
Page developed and maintained by Alan
Journet
If you have submitted a
Letter-to-the-Editor of your local newspaper arguing an environmental position,
please allow us to print it here also. Please send a copy to me (as
e-mail, Word
2000 attachment, or WordPerfect (Corel Suite 8) attachment.
THE BUSH ASHCROFT / NORTON NOMINATIONS
January 26th 2001
Published Southeast Missourian
but butchered
Editor:
Both during the campaign and following the election we heard much of bi-partisanship, of reconciliation, and of compromise from George W. Bush and his entourage. While George Bush may be, as many reports suggest, a pleasant enough person, his actions suggest we have been witnessing nothing but the charming words of a silver-tongued devil.
Since the partisan activist Supreme Court was persuaded by the Bush lawyers to stop the vote count and anoint their man President, George W. has been acting as though he won by a landslide rather than lost by over half a million votes. The results of the election combined with the manner whereby he gained office should dictate exactly the bipartisanship, reconciliation, and compromise of which he has so often spoken. Instead, in the nominations of John Ashcroft to Attorney General and Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior, we see serious pandering to, and promotion of, the causes of right wing extremism.
The problem with the Ashcroft nomination is not just a track record of anti-environmental and anti-human health politics that is far out of the political mainstream. Since the former Governor of Texas ran on exactly such a political history and platform himself, Ashcroft fits right in. What should negate Ashcroft as the nation's chief law enforcement officer is his history, while holding public office, of using his authority to subvert the nation's laws and promote the causes of environmental destruction, pollution, and polluters as urged by corporations and organizations from which he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. This record suggests that once in office Aschroft would continue to serve those same special corporate interests rather than defend federal laws protecting the average citizen. The specter of John Aschroft as a born-again, law-defending, moderate presented during the Senate hearings is not convincing.
Meanwhile, the problem with the Gale Norton nomination is that she has a long and proud history of promoting the cause of polluting industries. She has also strenuously and consistently opposed everything that the Interior Department has done to serve its charge of protecting and conserving the natural resources of the nation. Indeed, over the years, Gale Norton has argued amongst other strangely extreme positions that: industries have a "right to pollute", that industries with a track record of breaking clean air and clean water laws should be allowed to police themselves in secret and avoid both public scrutiny and the legal consequences of polluting, and that cleaning up carcinogenic asbestos lodged in schools is "goofy." Gale Norton's positions place her far out of the public and professional mainstream in the area of human and environmental health protection and natural resource conservation. No amount of Senate hearing 'conversion' to passionate conservationism is credible.
These Bush nominations suggest that beyond smooth and soothing words, this President has no interest in compromising with American voters who so roundly rejected his anti-environmental policies at the polls. If we add the Ralph Nader Green Party votes to those cast for former Vice-President Al Gore, we see that Bush lost by several million ballots nation-wide – not an outcome that should lead to such Presidential arrogance.
Sincerely,
Alan Journet
Published in The
Southeast Missourian-
February 2001
Editor:
Undermining conservation, President Bush has delayed by two months activation of the proposed National Forest Roadless Area Rule. This seems designed to provide time to reverse the wishes of voters who have frequently indicated support for protecting our national forests.
Secretary Norton also reiterated Bush’s eagerness to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. This, however, is not an environment that can tolerate such development. Had it the best of intentions, the oil industry carries too long a record of causing environmental catastrophe to be permitted to plunder our national treasures.
Bush and Norton pretend that drilling the Arctic Refuge will resolve California's energy problems or lower oil prices, a fraud designed to promote the interests of friends in the oil lobby. But, less than one percent of California's energy comes from burning oil. Furthermore, Arctic oil would not be on line for more than 10 years. This oil, amounting to a tiny drop in the global oil bucket, would do nothing to affect global oil prices.
As the Administration works to plunder our treasures, it seems to forget that the U.S. has less than 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves. If we drilled the entire nation, we still wouldn't meet our current oil demand, or affect oil prices. Energy independence could be better achieved through promoting conservation and alternative energy sources. Achieving greater fuel efficiency in Detroit and elsewhere would be a superior strategy to plundering wildlife refuges and national parks. Federal policy should recognize and reflected this reality rather than serve the oil lobby.
Sincerely,
Alan Journet
Submitted to
Southeast Missourian,
March 12th, Published
Editor
Readers of the Southeast Missourian can be forgiven for lacking information on the Florida vote recounts since results reported here have been rather one-sided.
According to the Palm Beach Post a recount of the stunning Butterfly Ballot revealed 5,330 votes for Gore/Buchanan, 2,908 votes for Gore/McReynolds and only 1,631 votes for Bush/Buchanan. This suggests a profound 6,607-vote edge to Al Gore - more than enough to overcome the slim Bush certified victory of fewer than 1000 votes.
Furthermore, even if 1% of the double punched ballots were intended for the minority candidates, a result that would have given them more votes than their combined Palm Beach totals, Gore would still have collected enough to overcome with ease the certified Bush victory.
Meanwhile, among actual votes cast, an earlier analysis conducted by several news media revealed that if counted completely, Orange County would have given Gore 200 additional votes, Lake County would have given Gore an additional 300 votes, while the undervotes (where no vote for President was recorded) in 15 counties would have netted Gore another 366 votes. The famous Palm Beach 'dimpled chads' would have given Gore another 682 votes. If the re-count had been allowed to continue, instead of being thwarted by a biased Supreme Court, Al Gore would have gained: 1,617 more votes - again enough to overcome the Bush certified victory.
Finally, an earlier Miami Herald analysis of voting patterns throughout Florida suggested that in a clean count of the ballots, Al Gore would have won by 23,000 votes.
As conservative columnist Kevin Phillips suggested, there seems little doubt that we are now experiencing His Fraudulency the Second.
Alan Journet
Submitted
to
Southeast Missourian
March
22nd, 2001
Not Published
Editor:
During 2000, Presidential candidate George W. Bush seemed to heed the abundant reports and scientific evidence regarding both global warming and the contribution of carbon dioxide released from human activities to aggravating this problem. Now, he has been appointed President, W seems to care more for the concerns of his corporate buddies than he does for the future of the planet. President Bush considers that it is acceptable to ignore the compelling evidence and has opted instead for a ‘head-in-the-sand’ approach that supports polluting corporations and propels the planet to ever more serious climatic disruptions.
In 1999, the National Academy of Sciences released a study on health effects that recommended that acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water should be revised downward without delay. The standards that the Bush Administration has just blocked from going into effect are identical to the standards already adopted by the European Union and the World Health Organization. Apparently, while clean water is considered important around the globe, it is no longer important in the U.S.
There can be no doubt remaining among voters that this administration has a commitment to ignoring sound science and continuing the war on human and environmental health that has been waged by the Republican Congress for many years. Those who have been vocal in criticizing the previous administration’s ethical lapses should caste a close eye on how this administration is cozying up to corporations and simultaneously sacrificing our environment for short-term profit.
Sincerely,
Alan R.P. Journet
Southeast
Missourian
March 29th
Editor:
As
the evidence concerning Global Warming mounts, and the global problems
increase, the Bush Administration commits itself to denial and rejection of
a leadership role in addressing this critical global issue
A March Memorandum from EPA
Administrator Christie Todd Whitman to President Bush, regarding Global
Warming notes that “The World Community [is] convinced of the seriousness
of this issue and the need to act now.”
Whitman also argued “I
would strongly recommend that you continue to recognize that global warming
is a real, and serious issues”.
In
the eyes of European and World Governments the only game in town addressing
this issue is the Kyoto Protocol, a plan designed to limit greenhouse gas
emission globally Unfortunately,
the current administration seems committed to serving only the interests of
corporate America and thus setting this nation on a collision course with
both the scientific evidence and the leaders of the industrialized world.
The reversal by President Bush of his campaign promise to curb carbon
dioxide emissions, and the statement to European Ambassadors by National
Security Adviser Rice that “Kyoto is dead” place the current
administration on course to extract the U.S. from this international treaty.
While
campaigning, candidate Bush made it clear that he did not consider
environmental or health issues as important as promoting the short term
economic interests of his corporate friends.
Now, even the one small glimmer of sanity has been expunged as he
commits the U.S. to four years of thoughtless environmental destruction and
deterioration in health protection.
Sincerely,
Alan R.P. Journet
JO
ANN EMERSON'S
REJECTION OF KYOTO
Submitted:
April 30th, 2001 SMLRO
Published May 2nd.
May 1 Cashbook Journal
Editor
Congresswoman Emerson recently attacked the Kyoto Treaty on Global Climate Change demanding scientific proof.
When our congresswoman demands proof from science, she simply displays ignorance. When politicians don’t like what the evidence argues we often hear demands for proof even when a problem has been abundantly demonstrated scientifically.
For years we have relied on the scientific endeavor, and have made considerable progress as a result. One element of the process that we must understand, however, is that it does not offer proof. Yet science can offer much to those possessing ears, a willingness to listen, and an ability to comprehend. The process offers both evidence and the evaluation of that evidence by informed scientists.
The scientific literature provides impressive and overwhelming evidence supporting the conclusion that global warming is here. Furthermore, no cause can be identified for this pattern other than the rise in greenhouse gases resulting from human activity. Global disruption most probably will only become more severe without a rapid and effective human response.
The April 13th issue of Science carries two new research reports demonstrating heating oceans, and further substantiating the legitimacy of the climate models.
One wonders exactly how much evidence the skeptics want before they will open their eyes. If rising temperatures and sea levels, melting ice caps and glaciers, increasing catastrophic weather patterns, and abundant seasonal abnormalities are not enough, what would be?
Since there is simply no published scientific evidence supporting the skeptics, continued politically motivated and mindless denial lacks merit.
Sincerely,
Alan R.P. Journet
RESPONSE
TO LEONARD WILLE CRITICISM
Submitted
May 11th, 2001 SMLRO
May 11th, 2001
Editor:
Leonard Wille again criticizes the scientific community for concluding that the evidence argues global warming is happening, and is probably being driven by human activities. Again, also, he demonstrates how dogmatic right wing opinions combine with little knowledge and a lack of understanding to produce absurd (if comforting) conclusions. By further sharing his limited knowledge, he seems to think he is making a significant contribution to the discussion.
Of course, everyone else (including the scientific community) has known for years that the climate was colder during the last ice age and has warmed over the last 20,000 years or so. The issue that Mr. Wille seems not to understand or acknowledge is the question of rate of change. In nearly 20,000 years the planet warmed some 3o Centigrade. At such a rate of change, natural systems have time to respond and adjust. Meanwhile, in just 300 years following the industrial revolution, when human carbon dioxide production accelerated, evidence suggests another 3o Centigrade increase is possible. Such a rate of change is too rapid to allow natural systems to adjust. Serious disruption to agricultural, forestry and natural ecosystems will almost certainly combine with vast species losses if we fail to respond to what the evidence is telling us. This is the only planet we have, yet apparently Mr. Wille and his ilk are prepared to risk destroying it for short-term economic gain.
Sincerely,
Alan R.P. Journet
Submitted
June
30th 2001 SMLRO
Published July 3rd 2001
Editor:
A brief cost-benefit analysis of the proposed local power generation plant raises questions.
Apparently the benefit locally would be a couple of hundred short-term construction jobs, and a couple of dozen long-term plant operation jobs - but how many of these would be local personnel as opposed to imports is unclear. Since the power generated is slated for export to Oklahoma, there s no local power benefit.
Meanwhile, the cost would include annual production of some 500 tons of emissions as oxides of nitrogen and carbon that would presumably be carried to Jackson and Cape Girardeau in the prevailing southwesterly winds. There is already evidence of potential land subsidence risks, and threats to the local water table. Furthermore, the loss of valuable agricultural land to promote the cause of urban sprawl is not only a local, but also a regional and national cost.
We also learn that local State Senator Peter Kinder is attempting to circumvent environmental regulations to allow Kinder-Morgan to proceed with construction untrammeled by standard environmental regulations. The least we should expect from the state Department of Natural Resources is to require an Environmental Assessment of the potential impact of this facility so that a reasoned judgment can be made.
Is the project an attempt to take advantage of potential energy de-regulation (does anyone recall California's plight following de-regulation?) promoted by Senator Kinder, to make money by generating power in Southeast Missouri while exporting the energy out of state? In this scenario, we pay the environmental costs, while Oklahoma and Kinder-Morgan reap the benefits.
Sincerely
Alan R.P. Journet
KINDER-MORGAN
POWER PLANT PROPOSAL
Submitted
SMLRO July 14th, 2001
Published July 28th
Editor:
Kinder-Morgan Attorneys argue that Power Plant opposition results from misunderstanding. County Commissioners, meanwhile, suggest it results from poor public relations by K-M. The K-M permit application itself is instructive.
In terms of air pollution, K-M reports that annually they would emit 700 tons of noxious gases and particulates. While far greater than would be present without the plant, these emissions generally do not exceed applicable air quality standards averaged annually. However, over shorter periods (1-24 hours), several emissions would exceed the standards.
If the plant were to emit as proposed, background air pollution levels could increase enough to preclude development in the area of companies that pollute less and employ more than the 5 individuals K-M promises.. And what, we should ask, would happen to air quality if the other power companies vying for county land start spewing similar volumes of pollutants?
If Development Bonds were issued, the County would own the plant until K-M paid the debt. While the company would have a negligible economic impact, it would threaten regional air quality, local water quality, the local water table, and local land stability. Is this really a wise use of Cape County resident taxpayer funds? I think not. Surely we could entice less offensive economic activities to the area.
Given their approach here, it is small wonder that Kinder Morgan applications have been rejected in both Kansas and Illinois because, just as in Cape County, just as in Cape County, they have declined to incorporate Best Available Control Technology in their design.
Sincerely,
Alan R.P. Journet
Submitted July 26th,
2001
Published SMLRO July 28th
Editor:
If there ever were any doubt, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce now has revealed its true colors. The Chamber has organized a conference for the past nine years which is directed towards environmental regulators, professionals, and businesspeople. This time, the itinerary states clearly the purpose of the conference: to provide 'all the tools you need to stay ahead of the environmental compliance game.' .
Apparently, the Chamber now acknowledges that its goal is to circumvent regulations that have, for thirty years, cleaned up our environment, protected human health, and provided us with cleaner air and water. It is a shame that the Chamber does not invest its resources instead to become educated about environmental issues, and to promote ecologically sustainable business practices that are friendly to both the environment and human health.
Given the Chamber's posture of trying to beat environmental regulations whenever possible, readers should beware their proposals to allow polluting industries the privilege of secretly auditing their own compliance with environmental regulations and then claiming to correct any problems. These proposals also would allow the polluting industry to escape both liability for any damage it may have caused and also escape penalty for evading regulations. It is small wonder that Senator Kinder, who denigrates as 'environmental extremists' those who are concerned about human and environmental health, is an avid supporter of protecting polluting industries from public scrutiny, liability, and responsibility.
Sincerely,
Alan R. P. Journet
THE BUSH CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY
Submitted February 24th,
2002
Published SMLRO February 26th
Editor:
Both the Southeast Missourian and the Bush Administration seem grudgingly though unconvincingly to acknowledge that greenhouse gas emissions are a problem, but neither seems to understand the issue.
Though you sneeringly argue as though it is just ‘environmentalists’ who are concerned about the problem, actually the concern was initially raised by researchers studying climate. Their results then raised the concern of ecological and human health researchers who quickly recognized its potential seriousness, and alerted the public. Among these experts there exists no significant dissent about the serious potential consequences of global climate change.
Only after scientists raised awareness and voiced concerns did the public, the environmentalist, become involved. Given our collective recognition that global climate change is, indeed, occurring, surely we should address the problem not just continue to take profits, rely on volunteerism, and play games.
What has corporate volunteerism brought us? For decades the tobacco industry lied about the health effects of their products, Enron executives just bilked both employees and investors to feather their own nests, and the U.S. auto industry refused to increase fuel efficiency while attempting to suppress fuel efficient technologies. In Missouri, Confined Animal Feedlot Operators have polluted our streams while denying culpability, and Doe Run has turned the community of Herculaneum into a health hazard while amassing one of the worst track records for violating environmental regulations in the nation.
The public has every reason to doubt the effectiveness of a program based on the voluntary efforts of corporate America.
Sincerely,
Alan R.P. Journet
Letter To Cape County Commission on Kinder-Morgan Project
Published
as Op-Ed SMRLO March 12th
March
10th 2002
Presiding Commissioner
Gerald Jones
Administrative Office Bldg.
#1 Barton Square
Jackson, Mo. 63755
Commissioner Jones:
I
have been quite disappointed at the way the County Commission has been
addressing issues regarding the Kinder-Morgan proposed power plant.
My concerns are many:
I. As yet, there
seems to have been no honest evaluation of the potential costs and
benefits to the citizens of Cape County regarding the presence of this
facility, its economic and environmental costs to local residents and
taxpayers, and its potential benefits. All we have received are confusions and riddles.
Indeed, although proponents have claimed there will be some 20
–25 employees, the initial application for a DNR permit stated quite
clearly that the operational plant would provide but 5 permanent
technical and management jobs, and will offer “negligible new
growth” to the local economy. If
K-M cannot even get this straight how can we trust anything that they
print? Furthermore, the
notion that this handful of employees would be locally sought is naïve
at best; undoubtedly the company will import them.
II.
Given the huge financial debacle of last year, the parallel
between K-M and Enron should startle the Commission into caution:
1) K-M and Enron are substantially in the same business.
2) The President of K-M is a recent President of Enron and was undoubtedly at the helm when the culture of financial abuse leading to Enron’s downfall was established. Even though the Commission seems to think that Kinder left long before the Enron misdeeds transpired, Forbes Magazine as long ago as 1993 was warning: ”overlooked in this euphoria are some big risks Lay is taking as he pushes Enron's profits up so fast. Lay and his protege, Enron Gas Services Group Chairman Jeffrey Skilling, have adopted some very aggressive accounting practices.” All these questionable practices were underway while K-M CEO Richard Kinder was Enron President
3)
The apparent Enron mastermind Kenneth Lay is a long time friend
of K-M president Kinder. There
is every reason to suspect that they share ethical business views.
4) If K-M enters bankruptcy, Cape County will be left owning a Power Plant
III.
The attempts on the part of K-M to scatter a few million
dollars here, and a few million there just to buy off the School
District and the Fire Department should be a warning.
Clearly, this company is calculating very carefully just how
much it can throw around in order to save many millions of dollar in
taxes that it should be paying. As
the Southeast Missourian reports it, K-M plans to short the County
some $3 million in taxes. Rather than rushing to sign on the dotted
line to help out the Kinder family, the County Commissioners should be
looking out for the interests of long time Cape County residents and
taxpayers who have been or will be detrimentally impacted by the
plant.
IV The potential
environmental problems have simply not been resolved satisfactorily;
in particular, issues pertaining to air pollution, potential land
subsidence, and heated wastewater releases into state waterways.
In short, the County Commission should be congratulating and
standing alongside the state DNR in demanding that K-M install Best
Available Control Technology and encouraging an evaluation of
wastewater releases.
V As even K-M most
steadfast supporter, the Southeast Missourian, noted this week, recent
secret meetings between K-M officials and Commissioners seem
questionable at best. They
probably contravene the state’s ‘sunshine laws’ regarding
meetings and discussions of public entities.
In the case of conflict of interest, which open meetings are
supposed to resolve, the appearance of impropriety is sufficient to
raise serious doubts about the ethical nature of proceedings.
The impression that the ‘good ole boy network’ of Cape
County buddies getting together to make decisions beneficial to one
another at the cost of the rest of the community is certainly fed by
the way that this project has been thrust upon the community without
any critical evaluation of its merits and with no meaningful public
input whatsoever.
VI K-M brings virtually
nothing to the community except maybe a handful of jobs (probably to
be filled by employees the company brings to the area).
The energy generated would be shipped out of the County, and probably
out of the state so provides no inducement for encouraging
construction. Even the short-term construction jobs they
promise, if past practice is evidence of future actions, will probably
be imported from neighboring areas.
Yet the Commission seems willing to subsidize this venture to
the tune of millions of dollars in tax exemptions.
Given the threats of local costs, and the lack of local benefit, it is
difficult to imagine why the County Commission is so committed to the
project. When most
business people attempt to open a business, they do so with a
significant investment of their own time and resources. It is clear
that K-M is attempting to lure Cape County into allowing it to get fat
without ever investing a dime of its own money. A basic principle of
economic exploitation is OPM – Other People’s Money.
The County Commission seems to have been convinced that the
multi-million dollar company K-M deserves more of a break than the
average business entrepreneur can obtain.
In
a nutshell, even the most positive spin that anyone has so far been
able to conjure up for this project (“negligible new growth”)
leaves many of us wondering why all the excitement. There just seems
no justification for the vast subsidy that the County Commission is
proposing to award K-M to build this facility.
I
urge the Commission to slow down, undertake some good faith
evaluations of costs and benefits, and hold promised public meetings
at which the voices of their constituents can be heard and answers
provided. If Commission members, as was claimed at the last meeting, do
not have answers to the critical questions, they should cease
consideration of the project until they are able to provide answers.
Sincerely,
Alan
R.P. Journet
Conservation Chair,
Trail of Tears Group
Ozark Chapter, Sierra Club.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March
15th 2002
Editor:
On Arctic Refuge
drilling and gas prices, your correspondent Richard Kline seems to have
bought the deceptions of the auto and oil corporations and their elected
representatives hook line and sinker.
The Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge contains maybe 1% of the oil that is currently available in
U.S reserves yet the U.S. consumes some 25% of global oil production. Even
the most optimistic prediction for ANWR oil cannot make a meaningful dent in
this imbalance. Furthermore, it
wouldn’t be available for 10 years even if drilling were approved today,
so it can contribute nothing to current or short-term oil supply, demand, or
prices. We would save more oil
by raising fuel efficiency.
Kline’s comparison
of gas consumption and gasoline prices here and in England is, of course,
ridiculous rhetoric. It
isn't the consumption that leads to the pricing; if the relationship
operates in any direction, it's the price that leads to consumption.
If gasoline prices in the U.S. were what they should be, given the
social and environmental costs of gas consumption, we would be paying
probably more than they pay in England. But that wouldn't necessarily solve
the environmental and health problems associated with consumption - except
by lowering consumption. Unfortunately,
the taxes on gas are not used to redress the costs of its consumption, but
for other programs, rather stupidly, such as building more highways so we
can guzzle more gasoline.
Sincerely,
Alan R. P. Journet
Submitted SMRLO May
13th
Published May 14th
Editor:
Bush Administration officials and
political commentators advocating oil industry profits and energy
inefficiency are circulating lies to support drilling for oil in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
They claim that only 2,000 of the 9 millions acres of the refuge would be
affected. But this estimate
does not include oil pipelines, roads, gravel pits, seismic trails,
exploration wells, and reservoirs. This footprint only includes points
where oil structures actually touch the ground. Obviously the area
impacted by drilling would be far greater than this. In reality, the
proposal promoted by the Administration and many in Congress would expose
1.5 million acres (over 15 percent of ANWR) to oil drilling.
Maximally, it would exempt but 3% of this from the destruction of oil
drilling.
Meanwhile, contrary to claims of a vast oil benefit, in terms of
economically recoverable supply, the American Geological Institute estimated
a 3.2 billion barrel reserve (assuming $20 per barrel), but zero (if crude
oil were $15 per barrel). If extracted now, at current U.S. demand the
former estimate would eliminate oil imports for fewer than 12 months.
At a practical extraction rate, it would barely dent the flow of imports.
Those calling for drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are looking
for quick fixes rather than sustainable solutions. Since oil is a finite
resource anyway, at best drilling ANWR would postpone solving the real
problem. The sensible solution to our dependence on foreign oil is not more
oil; it is a lowered dependence on oil.
Sincerely,
Alan
R. P. Journet
| Page Last Updated | 10/01/02 12:53 PM |