| 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 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 Guest Opinion SMRLO March 12th
Submitted 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted 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 | 11/17/02 03:57 PM |
Colin
Powell At South African Sustainability Summit
Published SMRLO September 10th 2002
As the Bush representative to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in South Africa, Colin Powell defended an Administration that has been a constant roadblock to international progress.
Candidate George Bush filled with fear humans concerned about their own and environmental health. Since assuming office, his Administration has justified this fear by promoting the interests of a corporate system that is all too often morally bankrupt, and by seeking to undo health and environmental protections that have been developed over the last three decades to clean our air and water, and sustain our natural resources.
Not only is this White House populated by energy industry executives, their lobbyists and lawyers, but also both Bush and the Republican Party were recipients of multi-million dollar campaign contributions from oil, timber, and mining companies. Little wonder therefore that Bush policies are driven by what is best for these industries, not what is best for this nation or our planet. President George Bush has systematically tried to undermine human and environmental health on both national and global scales whenever health conflicted with the short term profits of natural resource extraction industries in oil, coal, timber, and minerals.
Regrettably, the international audience seems more attuned to the Bush record than are many U.S. citizens. Global residents who think it prudent to manage natural resources sustainably such that they remain available to benefit future generations as they benefit us now, are as critical of the Bush Administration as were the conference participants in South Africa.