The Blog

David Kirby: Is Obama Ready to Take on Factory Farming?

2009-11-11T22:22:00Z

Part Two: White House Realities

(Note: This is the second part of an essay adapted from David Kirby's upcoming book Animal Factory. To read PART ONE, please click here).

In 2008, Barack Obama was swept to victory on a national wave of desire for change -- change that included a coherent program for curbing many of the excesses associated with modern American animal agriculture.

Obama's Plan to Support Rural Communities appeared on the White House website in January, 2009, and read like a manifesto from grassroots groups trying to defend their vision of what a traditional, sustainable agrarian way of life should be.

The main problem, Obama said, was that family farmers were being squeezed out by big industry. "Consolidation has made it harder for mid-size family farmers to get fair prices for their products and compete on the open market," his plan began. "Rural communities are often left behind." To counter that, Obama vowed to take action, including:

Provide a Strong Safety Net for Family Farmers: Target financial support to family farmers, impose a $250,000 payment cap to fight consolidation, and close "loopholes that allow mega farms to get around the limits."

Prevent Anticompetitive Behavior Against Family Farms: Give independent farmers "fair access to markets, control over their production decisions, and transparency in prices," and pass laws that protect "independent producers by banning the ownership of livestock by meat packers," who produce more than 20 percent of the nation's hogs. "When meatpackers own livestock, they bid less aggressively for hogs and cattle produced by independent farmers," the Obama document said.

Regulate CAFOs: - Set tough air and water pollution limits on nitrogen, phosphorus, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and other pollutants, and "strictly monitor and
regulate pollution from large CAFOs, with fines for those who violate tough air and water quality standards."

Encourage Organic and Sustainable Agriculture: Help meet demand "for sustainable, locally grown, grass-finished and heritage foods, which is growing quickly," by supporting niche markets and "the continued growth of sustainable alternative agriculture."

They were heartening words for many reformers, but most of them remain as nothing more than words. True, the president has an extraordinary spoonful of troubles on his plate, and most CAFO activists remain patient and optimistic that their issues will not get buried and forgotten after the "fierce urgency of now" has passed.

The administration refused to answer a few simple questions on agriculture policy, though the White House did email me this statement:

During the campaign the President outlined a vision for rural America that focused on rejuvenating local economies and protecting family farmers. That agenda has not changed. The Administration's priorities are reflected in the President's budget, the allocation of critical Recovery Act funding, and a new culture of leadership at USDA based on developing sustainable rural economies.

But in July, a group called the Socially Responsible Agriculture Project was invited by USDA to present their ideas for reform. They leapt at the chance.

"We hope these suggestions start a new dialogue between USDA and the sustainable farming community," the group wrote to Secretary Tom Vilsack, suggesting how "limited resources could re-establish the kind of agriculture that fed this nation successfully for so long."

Sustainable agriculture had received short shrift in Obama's budget, where SDA programs were still "structured to promote and subsidize the failed model of large, corporate farms and vertically integrated processing and distribution."

Measures to counter that trend included:

■ Put greater focus on farmers beginning or transitioning to socially responsible meat production and provide USDA funding for CAFOs to convert over sustainable models.

■ Fund purchases of local, sustainable food for school lunches, colleges/universities, military bases, prisons, etc, to help local farmers and provide healthy foods.

■ Provide start-up assistance for small, multi-species processing facilities within 30-45 minutes of each other and link them to mobile processing units.

■ Limit animal ownership by meat packers to no more than 14 days before slaughter and require that a daily percentage of meat-packer purchases come from an open-bid market.

■ Publicize and educate the general public on the merits of supporting "local, safe and healthful food systems," and on what it means to local economies and the environment.

To everyone's astonishment, Vilsack sent back a prompt and encouraging letter. He was not only listening, but thinking along at least some of the same lines.

I hope the outcome of current USDA activities will reassure you that we are in sync with many of your views," he wrote, adding three main points:

1) You can expect action from GIPSA (the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration) in the near future responding to USDA's responsibility to promote rules that level the playing field for livestock producers and to better define where unnecessary preferences are being granted to larger producers.

2) We will be announcing a program, "Know your farmer, know your food" that would promote linking local production more closely to local consumption. We intend to use some of the program funding in Rural Development for the development of an enhanced supply chain infrastructure so we can ramp up sales to larger consumers - schools, hospitals - in a community.

3) Through (stimulus and other funds) USDA is preparing to make the largest investment in rural development in my lifetime.

Tom Vilsack

It wasn't the only promising news for activists. In August, Vilsack and US Attorney General Eric Holder announced joint public workshops "to explore competition issues affecting the agriculture industry in the 21st Century and the appropriate role for antitrust and regulatory enforcement in that industry"

Among the leading issues are vertical integration and "concerns about the application of the antitrust laws to the agricultural industry." Other issues that might get on the agenda include "the impact of agriculture concentration on food costs, packer ownership of livestock before slaughter, market transparency, and increasing retailer concentration."

Finally, on October 15, 2009, EPA released its Clean Water Act Enforcement Action Plan, which targets CAFOs for more federal oversight. EPA will "pursue new strategies to enforce existing rules" on CAFOs, especially in areas "close to imperiled waters."

CAFOs have grown "larger and more densely located, placing more stress on waters in proximity to these locations," and they "result in a large pollution load to the environment." EPA vowed to "make progress in reducing violations and water pollution from these facilities."

Many received the plan with cautious optimism. "Obama has announced stepped up enforcement of the Clean Water Act, with specific reference to CAFOs, and it's making the meat industry quite nervous, of course," Nicolette Hahn-Niman, an environmental attorney who has successfully sued CAFOs, told me. "What I'd like to know is this: Will they now finally be forcing all CAFOs to get CWA permits? If not, they are not going nearly far enough."

And even if Obama takes on issues like water pollution, anti-competitive measures and boosting local food systems, many are still awaiting action on subsidies, a packer ban, antibiotic overuse, animal welfare, and stricter controls on air pollution.

In September, the Humane Society of the United States and several environmental and public health organizations filed a legal petition at EPA to regulate animal factory air pollution.

"Unregulated air pollution from massive factory farms has a devastating impact on human health and the environment," said Jonathan Lovvorn, vice president and chief counsel for Animal Protection Litigation and Research at The HSUS. "The EPA should hold these big agribusiness corporations accountable for the enormous harm they are inflicting on local communities, independent family farmers, and the environment."

Meanwhile, Obama's rhetoric reflects a vast departure in thinking from that of his predecessor. But thoughts and words are meaningless without action. Anti-CAFO activists who worked hard to elect Barack Obama are waiting for their return investment. Their candidate never did deliver on his promised Natonal Rural Summit, it's true, but reformers are finally starting to see some promising signs from Washington.

And, as they will relentlessly remind the President, he and his CAFO pledges are firmly on the record.

Are animal factories here to stay? Whatever the Obama team decides to do -- or not do -- could have a huge impact on the way we raise food animals in America for decades to come.

Adapted from Animal Factory: The Looming Threat of Industrial Hog, Dairy and Poultry Farms to Humans and the Environment, to be released by St. Martin's Press in early 2010.

Bruce Nilles: Rally at Penn State: Students Taking Lead on Clean Energy

2009-11-11T20:58:34Z

This post was co-written by Kim Teplitzky, field coordinator for the Sierra Student Coalition

Today at Penn State University, dozens of students, faculty, and community members rallied in front of university's coal plant, calling on the university to move beyond coal to clean energy solutions.

"Young people have been at the forefront of the greatest social movements in history, including the fledgling environmental movement that brought us Earth Day and put out flaming rivers," said Penn State junior Chris Billman, who spoke at the event. "We're working to continue that legacy of creating a better future and the most important thing we can address right now is our dependence on coal. We can't have a clean energy future without moving beyond coal."

Many find it strange that the Nittany Lions still rely on coal despite the university's other strides toward clean energy. "The biggest surprise to people is how much we rely on coal," said sophomore Rose Monahan, a leader with Penn State Beyond Coal. "They know we use it, but they didn't know that we get 80% of our energy from coal-fired power plants."

And yet Penn State has made some progress. For example, Penn State is a member of the Environmental Protection Agency's Sustainability Partnership Program, which has the school committed to reducing its global warming pollution 17% by 2012.

University clean energy student groups have praised the administration for its commitment to sustainability and for initiatives the school has already undertaken to reduce carbon emissions. According to the College Sustainability Report Card, Penn State purchases 20% of its power from renewable sources.

Students and faculty are now calling on the school to commit to developing a plan and timeline for phasing out the school's 80-year-old on-campus coal plant.

Thankfully, there is some progress on that end at Penn State. University President Graham Spanier has agreed to meet student leaders this semester to discuss the topic.

"This is an enormous opportunity for Penn State," said Monahan. "We're looking forward to working with President Spanier, the rest of the administration, faculty, and students to expand Penn State's reputation for leadership and excellence to the clean energy movement."

Penn State Geography Professor Brent Yarnal, who has spearheaded regional and national greenhouse gas inventories and climate change impact assessments, also spoke at today's rally and praised the students for understanding the urgency of climate change and for wanting their school to lead the movement.

We agree: With some of the world's leading climate scientists on faculty and a history of student activism, Penn State should be a leader for Pennsylvania and all the large, public university systems in the nation.

Monahan echoed that sentiment.

"People are finally really start to talk about (clean energy)," said Monahan. "They realize how big an issue it's going to be. Penn State is worried about carbon emissions, but we could definitely go bigger.
"If there's any school that can step up to address the enormous challenges associated with coal reliance, it's Penn State. As President Spanier says, Penn State thinks big. Coal is too dirty for our school--we're better than that."

Learn more about how coal is Too Dirty For College

Jeff Biggers: Big Coal and Child Victims: Child Labor, Coal Abuse, on Cherry Mine Disaster Anniversary

2009-11-11T20:49:42Z

This Friday, November 13th, marks the 100th anniversary of the Cherry Mine Disaster in Illinois, when an estimated 259 coal miners lost their lives to fire and the buildup of "black damp" or toxic gases. The St. Paul Coal Company Mine in Cherry was hailed by its consulting engineer as the "safest mine in the world."

While we take time to reflect on the heroic sacrifices of coal miners and their families this week, the Cherry Mine Disaster remains a haunting reminder of the secret legacy of child labor in our coal mines--and its unconscionable use today.

Big Coal front groups like to peddle their "Coal is Cool" curriculum in schools--including a bizarre "Mars Invasion" project to help children play with the planning of coal camps on Mars--and disingenuous coal coloring books.

The Kid's "Coal" Site at the Illinois Department Commerce does not mention the Cherry Mine Disaster or child labor in the Illinois coal mines--but it does erroneously tell children that devastating strip mining and reclamation "is returning the land to the way it was or better than before mining" and that burned coal does not affect the environment, because "Technologies were developed to remove these chemicals from coal before, during and after it is burned. These technologies are called clean- coal technologies."

An estimated 27,000 children worked in American coal mines during the "period of disasters" of Cherry, despite child labor laws and age limits. Their horrific experiences as breaker boys have been chronicled by the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Among the Cherry Mine dead were four children, who had been hired illegally. An estimated 470 children became orphans in Cherry. In Trapped: The 1909 Cherry Mine Disaster, author Karen Tintori notes, "the St. Paul Coal Company pled guilty to nine counts of child labor law violations and was fined a total of $630."

That's $70 a child--the worth of a child laborer in the coal mines in 1909.

And today?

According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees, child labor in coal mines continues in Pakistan, Mongolia, Nepal, Indonesia and Colombia, where government agencies estimate that thousands of children are working in illegal mines. Last year, a Chinese blogger exposed the abuse of homeless children as coal haulers in China. In 2007, the BBC reported on child labor in coal mines of southern Kyrgyzstan near uranium dumps.

A British documentary crew recently aired a film, "Hell on Earth," about the deathly conditions for children and families as coal scavengers and miners in northern India:

Child labor in the coal mines is not the only abuse of children from irresponsible coal companies. As the Miami Herald reported last week, legal representatives on behalf of villagers in the Dominican Republic have filed a suit against the Virginia-based AES company for birth defects related to coal ash dumping. Here's the video:

A report in the NY Times last month blew the cover on Clean Water Act violations by coal companies, and chronicled the impact of coal slurry on the health of children in Prenter, West Virginia.

And today, the AP is reporting that the School Board Authority in West Virginia is now hedging on seeking funds for Marsh Fork Elementary School in West Virginia, which infamously sits below a massive coal slurry impoundment, and where kids play near toxic coal dust silos. Here's a clip on retired coal miner Ed Wiley about the Marsh Fork school situation:

May we never forget the coal miners and children at the Cherry Mine Disaster.

Zoe McMahon: Accountability for Minerals in the Eastern DRC

2009-11-11T20:03:16Z

Recently, at the annual BSR conference, I had the opportunity to elaborate on the challenges the overall IT sector faces with regards to traceability through our supply chain and the activities underway at Hewlett Packard.

The topic of traceability is gaining momentum. Industry sectors ranging from food, textiles and many others, are expected to know both the country of origin of their raw materials and the sustainability of the methods used to extract them. During my participation in the conference, I described the challenges of tracing "conflict minerals" in HP's supply chain. These minerals which may be used in electronics have recently appeared on political and civil society agendas, especially in the United States and Western Europe.

As another step toward addressing this concern, on October 20, HP, Dell, Intel, Motorola and Philips co-hosted a multi-industry forum on the topic of metals extraction issues, set to coincide with the BSR conference. More than forty attendees discussed potential industry actions to address the reported role of the mineral trade in financing of armed conflict in the Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

The specific metals under discussion are gold, tin, tantalum and tungsten. To varying degrees, these metals are used in components commonly found in electronic products (Social and Environmental Responsibility in Metals Supply to the Electronic Industry). Tantalum is arguably the most significant metal on the list for the electronics sector. It is used extensively in the production of capacitors for electronic equipment. All four metals are used by many other industries, such as automotive and aerospace. In the case of gold, products from other industries represent the majority of their use. In addition to being used broadly, none of the metals are exclusively mined in the Eastern DRC or even in Africa.

As such, the aim of the forum was to define a multi-industry path to assure that these metals are sourced from mines not associated with the conflict in the DRC. While the meeting was not attended particularly well by sectors outside the electronics industry, the broad representation from the electronics industry as well as NGOs, certification bodies and other stakeholders led to a lively and informative debate about this very topical issue. As a group, we believe that we will not be successful unless significant users of these metals come together to address this issue.

Based on the discussion, it was clear that a dual strategy is warranted. First, we must address the concerns in the Eastern DRC region (and the responsible sourcing of metals in general) by engaging multi-industries and all stakeholders to develop an effective system of mineral certification and supply chain assurance for metals. Second, international and local governments, institutional investors, development agencies, and civil society must continue to ensure that resources are focussed on the elimination of the conflict and its root causes.

Although the electronics industry can't solve this issue alone, we at HP believe that addressing conflict minerals is a natural extension of our existing efforts. Since the launch of HP's Supply Chain Social and Environmental Responsibility (SER) Program in 2000 -- the first of its kind in our industry -- we at HP have made ourselves accountable for our product materials and manufacturing suppliers' SER performance. Fundamentally, we expect suppliers to conduct their worldwide operations in a manner that does not result in labor or human rights violations and that includes operations which contribute to the direct financing of armed conflict. We have built a commitment to SER among our supplier base and begun to tackle the toughest challenges in the supply chain. We are also committed to transparency and in 2007 HP became the first company in our sector to disclose our list of suppliers.

HP has surveyed our suppliers, and they have responded that there is limited traceability to the level of the mine. This is, without a doubt, the biggest challenge ahead for the electronics sector. The Electronics Industry Citizenship Coalition (EICC) and the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GeSI) have working groups and projects aimed at both better understanding, and developing systems of assurance for, metals' supply chain in the electronics sector (especially tantalum). Other efforts exist within specific metal industries like tin, as well as jewelry sector and the mining industry itself. At some point, these efforts will need to unite, helping all of us bring an effective solution for sourcing minerals responsibly.

In keeping with our history of supply chain social and environmental responsibility, HP is working to ensure that our products do not contain metals sourced from mineral trade financing the armed conflict in the DRC. We will take further steps to educate our own supply chain and develop an approach to validate the assurances from our suppliers. We will continue to work with our sector and other industries using minerals from the region to develop an effective, cross-industry solution. In addition, HP will engage with groups with firsthand experience of the situation in the Eastern DRC to gain further insight into the specifics of the challenges ahead. Tremendous power and influence can be exerted when people from many perspectives come together to solve a common problem.

Bill Chameides: Whither Wilderness?

2009-11-11T17:10:16Z

Originally published at www.thegreengrok.com.

Wilderness is a state of mind, argues environmental historian Roderick Nash.

Yesterday the Duke community was treated to a visit by one of the giants of the environmental movement.

A founder of one of the nation's first environmental studies programs at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Roderick Nash is also the author of eight books. These include two classics: Wilderness and the American Mind (Yale University Press, 1967), which tracks the role of wilderness in the American psyche through history, and The Rights of Nature: A History of Environmental Ethics (University of Wisconsin Press, 1989), which argues for widening the notion of ethics to include animals, ecosystems, and even inanimate objects like mountains.

What's in a Name?

Nash, visiting Duke on a Distinguished Lectureship sponsored by the Forest History Society, opened his talk with a fascinating riff on the word wilderness and its meanings. Many consider "wild" to be the root of the word, but Nash argues that the kernel of wilderness can be found in "wil" and its close association with "will" and by extension to "free will" and "freedom." (The Oxford English Dictionary acknowledges "uncertainty as to its primary meaning.") Wilderness can thus be understood as "self-willed land." So, destroying wilderness by domesticating land is to break its will, much like one might break a horse.

To care or protect wilderness requires a guardian as opposed to a gardener. Gardeners prune, weed and harvest. Guardians "let go" and allow the land to follow its own path. For this reason, Nash appears distrustful of practices that remove so-called exotic or invasive species from wilderness lands. To retain true wilderness, he argues, we must allow the Darwinian progression to play out without interference.

Winding Road of Progress

As I mentioned in my opening, for Nash, wilderness is not a specific thing but a concept. We can all agree what a tree or a mountain looks like, but whether either one is part of a wilderness is a subjective judgment.

Nash argues that some 10,000 years ago through the birth of agriculture and animal husbandry humankind created the notion of wilderness. By cordoning off and domesticating tracts of land for our own use, we set boundaries beyond which, we perceived, lay a different sort of land, the wilderness. It's a fascinating idea: without domesticated land, there is no wilderness.

To illustrate Americans' concept of wilderness before the 20th century, Nash showed American Progress, a John Gast painting from 1872 that depicts the westward march of civilization across the United States (on the right) into the dark edges of the wilderness peopled by Native Americans, aka Indians. Leading the journey is a personified America, flying overhead carrying a school book and stringing the telegraph wires that would connect the two coasts. In Nash's words, it was a march of "godly development" into "satanic wilderness."

The turning point in America's view of wilderness occurred, according to Nash, at the end of the 19th century. Before the 1890s, the commonly held perception was that wilderness was something to be feared and tamed -- much like the dark lands in American Progress. But by 1890, with the West Coast civilized and the places in between too small to be considered wilderness, the job of taming the American wilderness was largely completed; in that year the U.S. Census Bureau declared that the American frontier, the boundary between civilization and wilderness, was no more.

It was then, Nash maintains, that American began to recognize what they'd lost and to view the wilderness as something to be treasured and protected. Thus was born the conservation movement, championed by Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir, Sierra Club founder and a driving force behind designating Yosemite a national park.

Less obvious signs of America's growing nostalgia for the wildness of wilderness came in the names of the country's first football teams, such as the Giants, Redskins, and 49ers; the success of books like Call of the Wild from 1903 and Tarzan of the Apes first published in 1912; and the incorporation of the Boy Scouts of America in 1910.

Which of Three Futures

Nash closed with a vision of three possible scenarios for humanity and the planet at the start of the fourth millennium 1,000 years hence.

The Wasteland, in which humanity has essentially used up the planet, leaving nothing behind but desolation. Remaining survivors either exist in spaceships searching for new habitats or toil under conditions more primitive than those of the earliest hunter-gatherers.
The Garden Earth, in which humanity continues to thrive but has totally domesticated the planet. The sole survivors are either humans or organisms grown for human use. There are no wild places.
The Island Civilization, in which humanity has learned to live in harmony with nature and, more importantly, wilderness. All the people, numbering about 1.5 billion, live in islands of civilization. The rest of the planet is wilderness -- no roads, no strip malls, no nothing except the wild. Instead of today's world where wilderness is cordoned off from civilization in ever smaller pockets, civilization in this scenario is barricaded from wilderness, kind of like those early patches of domesticated land 10,000 years ago. People wanting to live in the wilderness can, but they'd be creatures of the wilderness without the benefits of civilization. No calls for help on a cell phone if trouble arises.

Not surprisingly, Nash's choice is the Island Civilization. As attractive as it is, I see some problems in making that third scenario a reality and keeping it alive. The downfall of Aldous Huxley's utopian community in Island readily comes to mind. Nevertheless, utopias are worth thinking about and envisioning, so I will close with this quote from Nash:

"The beauty of Island Civilization is that it permits humans to fulfill their evolutionary potential without compromising or eliminating the opportunity of other species doing the same."

Frances Beinecke: Talking With Ban Ki-Moon About His Hopes for Copenhagen

2009-11-11T16:26:33Z

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is hopeful that the December climate conference in Copenhagen will be elevated to the head-of-state level, assuring that the session will receive top-order attention from the world's leaders.

He told me that on Tuesday when we met in Washington, where Ban is continuing to lend his eloquent voice and diplomatic finesse to the most pressing environmental problem of our time.

Ban has traveled from the Arctic Circle to the deserts of sub-Saharan Africa to get a first-hand look at the ravages of global climate change. He hosted President Barack Obama and more than 100 heads of state in New York this September for a climate change conference. And his tireless efforts to pull together global consensus on how to address this widening scourge has added immeasurably to the momentum building worldwide for change.

Raising Copenhagen to the level of a heads-of-state summit is yet another sign of movement. It's not yet clear whether Obama will go. Much depends on what he feels his presence might add.

What's important, also, is that the Senate demonstrate forward motion on the clean energy and climate legislation pending there now. Few expect to Senate to pass this complex bill in the next several weeks. Principles and progress, though, count.

If key Senate leaders can send a message to Copenhagen that this country is serious about doing something about climate change -- and about helping developing countries deal with the fallout - that would go a long way toward reflecting the urgency and hope Ban is sensing around Copenhagen.

In my own way, I'm trying to help. I presented Ban with a copy of my new book, Clean Energy Common Sense: An American Call to Action on Global Climate Change.

This is part of our effort to reach out and explain how we can put Americans back to work, reduce our reliance on foreign oil and create a healthier future for ourselves and our children, I told him.

"It's a very short book," Ban said, smiling at the small paperback. "It's handy."

Ban slipped it into his suit pocket, as though he might keep it "handy" for his next airplane flight.

"I'd like to thank you and the NRDC for your strong commitment and advocacy, especially now, just a few days from Copenhagen," said Ban. "Receiving this is a good message."

I smiled back, because that's exactly why I wrote the book -- and why I wrote it now.

Addressing climate change is something we need to do for ourselves, as Americans, because will make our economy stronger and our country more secure. There's an added benefit, though, in showing American leadership at a time when it's needed most.

Leadership is something we know something about.

We led in World War II. We led during the Cold War. We have led a democratic and free-market revolution that has changed the world. And we can lead once more in an effort to consolidate the gathering global consensus around the need to address climate change.

This post originally appeared on NRDC’s Switchboard blog.

Patrick McCully: Finally, Good News on Climate! US Carbon Emissions Drop

2009-11-11T16:20:48Z

One rare piece of good news on climate has gone little noticed among all the alarming new science and bizarre weather: US CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels have been on a steep decline. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicts that 2009 emissions will be almost 9% lower than in 2005, their highest year on record.

The largest single reason for the decline is (obviously) the recession, but growing investments in renewables and energy efficiency, and a switch from dirty coal to clean(ish) natural gas generation are also responsible. The price paid by electricity utilities for natural gas has halved over the past year -- while that for coal increased by 7%. New exploration and drilling technologies mean that US natural gas reserves are now far higher than thought a couple of years ago, so the price advantage of coal relative to gas is likely to stay low.

The EIA predicts that structural changes in the US energy economy, boosted by the efficiency and renewable subsidies in Obama’s stimulus package, mean that emissions will not regain their 2005 level until 2024. Prominent climate blogger Joe Romm, a former Department of Energy official, points out that EIA’s models fail to take into account inevitable changes in the energy economy in the coming decades. They do not allow for any new policies on clean energy and climate, and no peak oil, “so the only thing one can say for certain about an EIA forecast is that there is no chance whatsoever it will come true.” Romm believes that believes that US emissions have peaked and will never return to their 2005 level.

The drop in emissions means that we are already more than halfway to the goal of the cap-and-trade bill passed by the House of Representatives of a 17% cut from 2005 to 2020 -- showing just how unacceptably weak the goal is (science shows that the US needs to cut its emissions to around half of 2005 levels).

If the targets aren’t tightened in whatever cap-and-trade bill gets signed into law by Obama (the Kerry-Boxer bill in the Senate is slightly better with a -- 20% target), its likely that far too many allowances (the “permits to pollute” that are the currency of the trading scheme) will be available, crashing the permit price and removing the incentive for polluters to act to bend down the emissions curve.

Falling emissions, and the possibility that we’ve reached peak carbon for the US, is great news. But is also shows that Congress is missing a massive opportunity to promote policies that would accelerate the emissions drop to levels close to where the science suggests we need to be, while also promoting all the co-benefits of a decarbonizing economy: better health, cleaner air, green jobs, improved housing, and more pleasant towns and cities.

Robert Redford: Common Sense for the Clean Energy and Climate Debate

2009-11-11T16:07:23Z

In January of 1776, Philadelphia essayist Thomas Paine published a 47-page pamphlet that changed the world. Within three months, Common Sense had sold 150,000 copies -- in a land of just 2.5 million people -- framing the terms of debate for the American colony's epic break from British rule. By July of that year, the national conversation charged by Paine's work culminated in the Declaration of Independence.

In that hallowed tradition, Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, has penned a modern classic in revolutionary thought. Titled Clean Energy, Common Sense, this book calls on us, as a nation, to rise to the challenge of climate change while there's still time to act.

Time is of such essence, Frances writes, that every American of conscience must
be engaged. Reading this essay is an essential first step.

Like Paine's pamphlet, Clean Energy, Common Sense is small enough to fit into your pocket and brief enough to read in two hours. It is accessible and timely and destined to shape the climate conversation now, when it matters most.

Because right now, the Senate is debating the single most important environmental bill of this generation: a clean energy and climate act that could generate millions of jobs and slash our global warming emissions.

But the stakes are higher still. In a few days, President Obama will travel to China, where climate change and clean energy will be top of the agenda. No doubt both nations will be positioning themselves for the international climate talks in Copenhagen in December.

This is a pivotal moment in our nation's history, a time when complex and fateful decisions must be made.

There are people of good will who hear claims on both sides of the climate change debate and aren't sure what to believe. If that feels familiar, this little book is for you.

In a clear and compelling tone, Beinecke draws from the most current and authoritative sources anywhere to lay out the case for American action against world climate change. She outlines solutions that can help get American workers back on their feet, strengthen our country and set us on the path to a clean energy future.

And she calls on each of us to take up paper and pen to urge Congress to act.

This is what I find so inspiring about Beinecke's book. I believe that the act of making our voices heard is the best of American politics. I have seen it work time and again -- I have seen citizens, neighborhoods, entire communities carry the weight of truth to our lawmakers. But in order to succeed, we must raise our voices loudly and fully. This is what Beinecke moves us to do.

I have known Beinecke for more than 35 years, and I admire her unwavering commitment to protecting the environment. Beinecke's dedication and intelligence make her a formidable fighter, but she is also an optimist. She trusts that green solutions and smart policies can diffuse the climate crisis. And she believes that we can create a cleaner, healthier planet for our children.

This is the spirit that infuses her book. Beinecke writes:

This book is a call to action, one citizen's honest appeal. It is not a political treatise. It is not a partisan screed. Maybe that's because my politics on this are simple. I believe Democrats and Republicans alike have a real chance here to lead, to look to the future and show us the way to a brighter future.

Two centuries ago, Paine wrote, "I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense." That's precisely the approach Beinecke has taken in her stand against climate change. Simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense. It's all there in her book.

Jennifer Grayson: Eco Etiquette: How To Eat Local This Winter

2009-11-11T15:55:43Z

For those of us in the Midwest, summer is so much easier when it comes to eating local -- lots of farmers markets stocked with goodies from local growers, bakers and purveyors. Now those little meccas of low-impact food are closed for the season. Any suggestions for how we can continue to lesson our impact on the environment as we head back indoors for our grocery shopping?

-Maggie

Say what you will about the smog and traffic in Los Angeles, but it's pretty darn fantastic to be able to pedal on over to my local farmer's market year-round. That's one of the advantages of living in sun-soaked California, the nation's breadbasket. San Joaquin Valley, to the north, produces nearly half of all the fruits, nuts, and vegetables sold in the United States (though that number has declined in the past three years due to drought); San Diego County, to the south, has more farms than any other county in the country.

These agricultural tidbits went largely unnoticed by me until a trip to Boston in the dead of winter a few years back, after I had already moved out West, when I realized that it was only in LA that grocery stores offered almost entirely local produce; even the Beantown Whole Foods I visited featured -- you guessed it -- California's finest fruitage.

Believe it or not, you don't have to live in the Golden State to enjoy farm-fresh food 365 days a year; there are winters farmers markets, even in some darn-cold areas of the country. The Chicago Green City Market, for example, runs year-round, and will feature 47 vendors this winter. But just because farmers markets elsewhere are closing up shop doesn't mean you should just throw in the CO2 towel and start buying anemic-looking tomatoes and asparagus that have been flown in from Chile to the local Jewel. Want to know how to procure farm-fresh, local food even in a four-foot snowstorm? The answer is as simple as C-S-A.

For those who aren't familiar with community supported agriculture (CSA), it's pretty much like buying a subscription to a local farm: You pay a fee, usually per growing season, and in return receive a share of fresh, locally nurtured fruits and vegetables -- some farms even offer dairy, eggs, and meat. The great thing about a CSA is that you enjoy whatever is in season: Depending on where you live, that can mean spring peas and asparagus in April; strawberries and corn in July; and apples and sweet potatoes in October.

With the spread of the local, organic food movement, CSAs have become very popular in recent years; so much so that many are now offering winter goodies to help keep their shareholders happy and not-so-fat (thanks to nutritious eating). A friend who recently finished an internship with Illinois' Cedar Valley Sustainable Farm told me that selective freezing enables the farm to offer its pasture-raised chicken and humanely bred Angus beef even throughout a brutal Chicago winter.

I did a survey of CSAs around the country and found that surprisingly, winter offerings can be quite diverse: Garden of Eve's farm share on the East End of Long Island includes stored vegetables like beets, rutabagas, and winter squash, as well as organic eggs; Laughing Stock Farm in Freeport, Maine, offers fresh salad greens and baby carrots from its greenhouse (which is heated with a renewable fuel, of course); and Hog's Back Farm in Arkansaw, Wis., delivers cold-hardy crops like broccoli and kale to pick-up sites in nearby Minneapolis and St. Paul. To search for a CSA that offers a winter share in your area, check out the LocalHarvest website. But don't wait -- many are already sold out for the season.

Reducing your carbon footprint and supporting good health are important reasons to join a CSA, but I think an equally compelling consideration right now is to support your local farmers -- and your community -- through this economic winter.

Send all your eco-inquiries to Jennifer Grayson at eco.etiquette@gmail.com. Questions may be edited for length and clarity.

Rob Perks: Veterans, Clean Energy, and Common Sense

2009-11-11T15:53:11Z

Another Veterans' Day is upon us, a time to reflect on our armed servicemen and women who are stationed around the world to protect us. Many of these brave soldiers, sailors and marines have spent years serving in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, selflessly putting their lives on the line for their families, friends and fellow countrymen here at home. While I honor their duty and courage, frankly I'm not happy that our nation's dependence on foreign oil is partly to blame for putting our soldiers in harm’s way.

There’s a growing consensus among our troops, military leaders and national security experts that one of the best things we can do to enhance our national security is to get off fossil fuels and transition to clean, home-grown energy. If America shifts to renewable alternatives -- like wind, solar and geothermal -- we can significantly reduce our dangerous addiction to oil, which currently costs our country $1 billion per day.

That’s why I'm so glad that a group of veterans, led by Operation Free, launched a bus tour across America. Their stated mission: promote clean energy! These vets, after serving our country overseas, volunteered to spend two weeks travelling through nearly 70 cities and towns in 22 states. My NRDC colleague, Rocky Kistner, rode along on one of the buses and blogged about his experiences and observations along the way. Here’s an excerpt from his last blog:

Although it was a grueling schedule with tight quarters at times, we developed a camaraderie that made the trip a rewarding experience. I also gained a special insight into why these veterans took the time to make this tour. All were motivated to help humanity deal with one of the most serious threats civilization has ever known. But there was also another important reason -- no one wanted to put a single service member in harm's way due to the international security threats posed by climate change.

Looking back, I will remember most our stops at veterans' war memorials along the way. This was "hallowed ground," as Army vet Rafael Noboa described it, a testament to the lifelong service each veteran gives his or her country. Many said this tour was one of the most important battles of their military careers. It was an honor to serve beside them.

You can watch a video from the bus tour here (also on Rocky’s blog).

This week, the group VoteVets.org launched a television ad campaign aimed at getting the Senate to pass a clean energy and climate bill. The ads are airing in West Virginia, Indiana and Missouri. (Previously, versions of this ad ran in Michigan, North Carolina, and Virginia). These ads coincide with a growing movement by veterans and security groups making a push on Capitol Hill to get a bill passed and on to President Obama for his signature. Check out the ads:

WEST VIRGINIA

INDIANA

MISSOURI

This week also marks the release of NRDC President Frances Beinecke’s new book, Clean Energy Common Sense, in which she explains why America needs to move to clean energy to protect our planet and increase our national security.

In her book, Frances quotes leaders like four-star General Anthony Zinni (ret.), U.S. Navy Admiral Lee Gunn (ret.), and CIA Director Leon Panetta. These are experts with unquestioned authority on national security and who know what it means to put young people on the front lines. They know the price we pay due to our reliance on oil and the opportunity we have by shifting to a clean energy future.

Veterans of America, on a mission to support a clean energy future, we salute you!

This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

Laurie David: Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer

2009-11-11T11:39:24Z

A young, self-effacing, quiet, humble novelist from Brooklyn has written a powerful, groundbreaking book that might very well save our lives and the planet, if only everyone would read it.

Don't be afraid. Don't be put off by its title Eating Animals, or assume you already know what's inside it. You don't. I didn't.

Author Jonathan Safran Foer, just 32 years old, draws on his family history (his grandmother survived the Holocaust by scavenging), and his experiences as a young father debating what to feed his first child, in order to shed light on our relationship with our food supply. He took time away from his work as an acclaimed novelist and short story writer, best known for Everything Is Illuminated and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, to send this earth-shattering message to the world.

This book is a game changer. Eating Animals offers an impassioned argument against animal cruelty and for a more informed, responsible relationship with our food, the life-giving sustenance we rely on for our existence.

Are you wondering about where this crazy swine flu pandemic originated? Read this book. Wonder why everyone you know is always getting sick, often with weird one-day stomach bugs? Read this book. (Did you know there are 76 million food borne illnesses reported every year?) Wondering why health care costs are soaring, and why every illness and malady - cancer, heart disease, diabetes, obesity - is on the rise? Read this book.

What we choose to eat matters tremendously, Foer argues, and not just for our own personal health but also to the core of who we are as human beings. While he extensively details the facts about the dangers of eating factory-farmed animals (which includes 99 percent of all the meat sold in supermarkets and restaurants), Foer also points out that the food choices we make now will influence whether our kids and grandkids inherit a healthy or unhealthy planet.

As most people know by now, raising livestock for human consumption is one of the leading causes of global warming. The United Nations reported in 2006 that livestock operations account for 18 percent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire transportation sector.

Making a different choice for dinner is the most powerful individual thing we can do to reduce global warming, as Foer points out. How big a sacrifice is that? To just reduce what we are consuming, say by going meatless one night a week as a starter? Remember our grandparents' dinners. Meat was a special once-a-week treat, for economic reasons and availability reasons. Today we are going in the opposite direction eating it sometimes three times a day, at breakfast, lunch and dinner. The more we eat, the more factory farms have to produce, the further we get from core values of stewardship and morale responsibility.

How we treat our chickens, pigs, fish and cows affects everyone. Whether you eat animals or not, they have an impact on your life in the pollution they create, and the unhealthy impacts they can have on our friends and family members who do eat animals (including asthma, heart disease, cancer and more). Ever noticed how other countries whose diet is not meat-based have much lower incidences of these illnesses?

This isn't about turning the whole population vegan, and Foer doesn't go that far.

It's about moving out of our massive state of denial about how our food is being produced today. In researching the book, Foer says he "came face-to-face with realities that as a citizen I couldn't ignore, and as a writer I couldn't keep to myself."

Foer doesn't pretend to have all the answers, but he poses all the right questions that we should ask ourselves every time we put fork to plate. It is past time to stop being co-conspirators with the industrial agriculture business. We are killing ourselves with what we are eating and what we are feeding our kids. And because of our demand for meat we are aiding and abetting the horribly cruel, unsanitary, unsustainable and pollution-spewing factory farm system. A system completely shrouded in secrecy because if Americans saw the process, they would never take another bite.

I believe this is one of the most important books ever written. Read it, and quickly pass it on to your friends and family. You'll wish he had written it a long time ago. Bon appetit.

Heather Taylor-Miesle: What the Health Care Vote Means for Climate Change

2009-11-11T04:28:54Z

The pig has hit the fan in our household. My poor husband is laid up with H1N1 and I am playing both nursemaid and quarantine agent as my currently-well children are desperately trying to get to daddy so they can help him with his “owies.” All of this sickness and the recent flush of press about vaccines have got me thinking about health care. The successful health care vote by the House on Saturday is probably a good sign for climate change legislation if you are prone to reading the political tea leaves.

The bumps in the road felt by elected officials tackling healthcare are eerily similar to those taking on global warming. Both were top priorities for then-candidate Obama - priorities that he continues to push forward from behind his desk in the White House. Both topics have been bogged down by inaccurate, slanderous rhetoric; both actually have large and diverse public interest groups supporting them and both have been under constant attack by opposition groups driven by paid industry lobbyists. Most recently, both policy issues have some 2010 Congressional candidates running scared, as they fear a vote on either bill could cost them their jobs.

In the face of a national anti-incumbent mood after last week’s election and the impending health care vote, our Congressional leadership had a decision to make – postpone the vote for fear of election repercussions or keep their promise and pass health care legislation. With many Blue Dogs forecasting the end of the Democratic majority, they could have permanently postponed the health care vote. But that wasn’t the case. The House leadership chose to courageously pass a health care bill, just as they passed a global warming bill last summer. It was a tough, close vote on a bill that may not be perfect, but they took an important next step in both cases. Not because they were fearless, but because they knew it was the right thing to do. It was what they were elected to do.

Now both bills are in the Senate waiting on consideration. Will the Senate hold fast? Or will they flail in fear of losing their jobs? Here is to hoping for backbone…

Lisa Bennett: Where are Schools on Climate Change?

2009-11-11T01:15:31Z

I met a teenager recently who I cannot get out of my mind--a 16-year-old who seemed to have everything going for him. He was handsome, smart, likeable, a good student, and comfortable in his lanky frame. The kind of kid whom one instantly feels will do well in life. Except for one thing: He didn't think so.

In the future he envisioned, his whole generation was hurtling toward catastrophe. Few adults seemed to care enough to stop it. And the best he could do, he naively reasoned, was plan to move to the Midwest, which at least would protect him from rising sea levels (if not heat waves, droughts, and economic disasters).

When this is how some of our best and brightest view their future, isn't it time for schools to start doing something different? And I don't mean just a token nod to "Education for Sustainability Week" (Nov. 9-13). I mean something truly, radically different.

Schools, like the rest of us, need to acknowledge the part they have played in perpetuating the ignorance that has gotten us into our environmental messes. And they need to step up to the plate to offer young people the chance at a better future.

Why schools?

Because all of our environmental crises are essentially symptoms of a larger underlying problem, which is our collective failure to understand and practice sustainable living. And if school is not the obvious place to root out that ignorance and replace it with something better, I don't know what is.

While world leaders prepare to address climate change in Copenhagen next month, we also need to look to schools to do their part. Schools have a responsibility to prepare young people to understand and deal with the growing challenges that will come with climate change, as well as the depletion of natural resources, population growth, and other issues. But perhaps even more important, they need to offer students an education that will enable them to live in better relationship to the natural world than we have done.

How schools teach young people about climate change, of course, must be age-appropriate and empowering. Elementary school kids, for example, are too young to be burdened with melting ice caps and drowning polar bears. Not only do they lack the intellectual capacity to understand the implications, they have a fundamental psychological need to trust their world--and deserve to simply enjoy nature before anyone calls on them to protect it.

High school students have the capacity to study climate change but an equally strong psychological need to do so constructively. The harsh facts, in other words, need to be balanced with the hopeful ones--those that demonstrate progress and ways they too can make a difference.

But teaching young people about sustainability--or, more generally, the laws of nature and how we might best interact with it--can and should take place in every grade.

And the good news is that, in recent years, a growing number of schools have begun doing just this. I know of schools in Maine, Wisconsin, and Oregon, for example, that are getting students outdoors to tend school gardens, restore creeks and watersheds, and develop a genuine sense of caring about nature, which almost inevitably comes with having experiences within it.

I've seen students in fast-growing suburbs deeply engaged in examining the impact that our insatiable consumption habits have had on the natural world and fascinated by their studies of the new and inspiring alternatives of sustainable energy, agriculture, housing, development, and transportation.

There is a long way to go, but so far the results should be encouraging to educators and parents alike. A growing body of research shows that engaging students in the experiential or place-based learning that is central to this kind of education leads to better test scores and classroom behavior.

Equally important, these schools are helping young people envision a future that includes not only climate change but also the development of wind, solar, and thermal power. Not only the loss of vital natural resources, such as oil and water, but also the gain of brilliant new inventions that allow us to take less from nature and live more peaceably within it.

Selfishly, I think to myself that schools may also enable young people to design solutions that we cannot yet even dream of. A little less selfishly, I think of that 16-year-old and how easy it really would be to show him that there is plausible hope for a promising future.

Lisa Bennett is the communications director for the Center for Ecoliteracy (www.ecoliteracy.org), a Berkeley-based nonprofit dedicated to sustainability education, and a contributor to the new book, Smart by Nature: Schooling for Sustainability (Watershed Media/U.C. Press, 2009).

Kerry Trueman: Eating Animals: Foer Gets The Facts On Factory Farms

2009-11-10T23:57:08Z

Eating Animals, the searing indictment of factory farming that Jonathan Safran Foer spent three years painstakingly researching, has got the champions of cheap chuck circling their wagons and denouncing the celebrated novelist's latest work as just another piece of fiction.

Chuck Jolley, writing for the Cattle News Network, even questions Foer's very identity, describing him as "supposedly a critically acclaimed author of several books of fiction."

Jolley, a freelance writer based in Kansas City who evidently distrusts Google and Wikipedia, drew from perhaps more fair and balanced sources to conclude that Foer is part of a "chattering cabal of rarely-been-west-of-the-Hudson River or east-of-the-Cal-Berkeley-campus pseudo-experts who travel on the same midnight train to an eco-purgatory where all food is suspect, meat and poultry is particularly deadly, and the evils of factory farming will force us into an unsustainable, doomed lifestyle that will eventually kill our planet."

Slice through the snark and Jolley is spot on, describing the dilemmas posed by industrial agriculture in a nutty nutshell.

Meanwhile, his fellow factory farm defender Gary Truitt over at Hoosier Ag Today bemoans the fact that Foer's book is "being hyped on CNN and quoted widely in liberal newspapers." Truitt takes issue with Foer's claim that industrial ag's excessive reliance on antibiotics -- an inevitable by-product of the unhealthy living conditions that are the norm in factory farm operations -- is contributing to the rise of drug-resistant pathogens:

The arguments in this book are the same old tired accusations that have been made for decades: modern livestock practices are bad, farmers overmedicate their animals, and this will lead to bacteria that are resistant to drugs. These "super bugs" will then infect humans and kill us all. You would think a fiction writer could come up with something more original.

Unfortunately for Jolley, Truitt, and their pro-CAFO colleagues, the science is on Foer's side. There is a very real debate about the role of factory farms in the current swine flu outbreak, as the New York Times noted on Monday. Tom Philpott of Grist has been doing some terrific reporting on the apparent link for months. Now, thanks to Foer's mention of the topic on the Ellen Degeneres Show last week, the issue may finally get some play in the MSM.

The industrial meat industry accuses Foer of failing to do his homework. In fact, Foer sent multiple letters to Tyson Foods, "the world's largest processor and marketer of beef, chicken, and pork," as Foer notes, politely asking if he could pay a visit to some of their farms. Tyson never responded to any of Foer's seven requests.

Perhaps this is simply the literary equivalent of Michael Moore showing up in the lobbies of corporate headquarters, doing his patented song and dance with the security guards, pestering them to let him go upstairs and have a friendly chat with The Powers That Be before they throw him and his camera crew out.

In any case, Foer's approach proved to be a similar dead-end. To see for himself just what goes on inside a factory farm, Foer was obliged to seek the help of an animal welfare activist who snuck him into a massive poultry operation in the dead of night. Given the revolting conditions that Foer witnessed himself, and the accounts he provides from others with firsthand exposure to industrialized meat production, you can hardly blame Tyson for ignoring Foer's requests.

As Foer points out, the most appalling aspect of the industrial meat industry is not the more sensational, flagrant animal abuse that's been captured on undercover videos, but rather the chronic, systematic disregard for the fact that animals are living, breathing creatures not intended to be stacked like pallets or made to steep in their own waste on concrete.

Industrial agriculture has done its best to bend these poor creatures to its will, modifying them to better tolerate this style of farming. In so doing, it has created genetic freaks like pigs who can't survive outdoors and turkeys who can't reproduce naturally and have to be artificially inseminated. Can anything truly healthy come from a system where disease, deformity, and environmental degradation are the default?

Foer's intent with Eating Animals is clearly to start a conversation about whether it's necessary, or justifiable, or ethical, to eat animals. He writes favorably of the farmers who rely on more humane and ecologically sound methods of meat production but concludes that, although these operations are infinitely preferable to their factory farm counterparts, some suffering is inevitably inflicted on the animals.

And the fact remains that this kind of pasture-based farming comprises such a tiny fraction of meat production in the U.S. that it's not a viable alternative for most folks. As Foer writes:

We shouldn't kid ourselves about the number of ethical eating options available to most of us. There isn't enough nonfactory chicken produced in America to feed the population of Staten Island and not enough nonfactory pork to serve New York City, let alone the country. Ethical meat is a promissory note, not a reality. Any ethical-meat advocate who is serious is going to be eating a lot of vegetarian fare.

Eating Animals makes a compelling case for eliminating all factory farmed animal products from your diet:

We know, at least, that this decision will help prevent deforestation, curb global warming, reduce pollution, save oil reserves, lessen the burden on rural America, decrease human rights abuses, improve public health, and help eliminate the most systemic animal abuse in world history.

Ellen Degeneres noted that some folks will surely feel overwhelmed by the suggestion that they should abandon the cheap meat, dairy, eggs and poultry they count on to feed their families.

"How do we take one little step?" she asked Foer.

He answered:

"There is nothing more powerful than an informed conversation, so get informed..talk, talk, talk. Talk about it with your family, don't take these things for granted, don't let corporations lie to you, act on your values."

I sometimes worry about being a "carnibore," as the Ethicurean's ever witty Bonnie Powell describes those of us who are only too happy to hector our friends on the merits of pastured meats versus factory farmed.

On the other hand, a friend had us over for lunch the other day and served a roasted chicken from a local farm. Another couple invited us for dinner and made a stew with beef and lamb from a butcher who sells only local, grass-fed meats. These are all friends who formerly bought their meats at the supermarket; their choices were a direct result of the many conversations we've had about this subject.

This is how a sea change starts, with a few tiny ripples.

Cross-posted from The Green Fork.

Carl Pope: When a Tree Falls in a Forest...

2009-11-10T23:25:51Z

...and the forest is the Tongass, it's highly unlikely that anyone will hear it -- so remote, pristine, and primeval is this temperate-rainforest treasure. The Tongass still has 9.5 million acres of roadless areas -- in all of the National Forest System there are only some 60 million, so the Tongass is a huge chunk of what remains. Logging the Tongass has never made even ordinary commercial economic sense. The trees, often hundreds of years old, fetch only a few dollars on the market. Over the years, the Forest Service has lost more than a billion dollars trying to convert this priceless natural wonder into toothpicks.

If the Clinton administration's Roadless Rule had not been high-jacked by the Bush administration, the Tongass would be safe. But it was, and now the Forest Service has proposed to rev up the chainsaws again, approving the logging of nearly 1,500 acres of old-growth forest in two roadless areas. The Central Kupreanof and Sue timber sales would be the first new assault on our wild forest heritage since President Obama took office. The Forest Service doesn't have the final say here -- these sales must personally be approved by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, and environmentalists are urging him to stand up for keeping our wild forests standing.

The revival of logging proposals on the Tongass is one of the surest signs that "business as usual" is making a comeback in Washington. So watch closely what Secretary Vilsack does -- it's a sign of just how emboldened the old boy network is feeling this winter that such a proposal is even on his desk.

You can encourage Secretary Vilsack to keep the Tongass wild by sending him a message.