The Blog

Alex Higgins: The Maya Really Did Warn Us About Our Future (Unintentionally)

2009-11-23T22:45:25Z

Roland Emmerich's enjoyably silly CG destruction-fetish flick '2012', featuring more ruined cities and panicked statesmen than any of his previous offerings, takes its cue from the cranky claim that the Maya calendar predicted the apocalypse, and we're now due. The premise is that the astronomers of the doomed medieval Central American civilization figured out that an alignment of the planets in the solar system on December 21st 2012 would somehow cause the sun to emit excessive radiation that would mess up Earth's core, in turn tearing up the ground we're standing on.

If I take time from your life now to point out that the Maya did not make such a claim, and that solar-system-wide planetary alignment would not so much as disturb your cable reception, I can only hope you will forgive me for insulting your intelligence so egregiously.

But as with many such fanciful claims, there is a real, actually interesting, story lurking in the background, brought to us by history and science. And it tells us something about our own possible future.

The Maya live on in Central America today, the term covering different communities in southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salavador and western Honduras. Sadly, they are often grossly ill-treated peoples, long oppressed by ruling elites of European origin. But the great Maya civilisation that built some of the world's most impressive pyramids in highly populated cities and wrote in beautiful hieroglyphics from the 3rd to the 9th centuries AD disappeared long before the merciless Spanish conquest. Where millions once lived, Spanish armies would struggle to find enough food to steal from sparsely populated hamlets.

The ruins of their abandoned cities, given over to nature so soon after the height of their development have long presented an intriguing, romantic mystery since they were rediscovered by outsiders, John Stephens of the US and Frederick Catherwood from England in 1839. There are a number of competing theories of the principal cause -- from civil war to disease and foreign invasion to overuse of the soil. But another explanation that incorporates and expands on these, popularised by Jared Diamond in his book 'Collapse', is leading over the others -- and it's bad news.

Central America was never an easy place for a highly developed civilization to emerge, with its long dry season and unpredictable rains. The Maya required ingenuity and intense labor to keep the soil fertile, catch water in reservoirs and dig the canals and irrigation ditches that made the best use of it. The corn that made up much of their diet could not meet the nutritional needs of a marching army of an empire, but the Maya established flourishing city-state kingdoms that competed with each other for military and cultural pre-eminence. Surviving documents and monuments tout the achievements of self-obsessed kings and nobles, boasting of their conquests and the gory punishments meted out against the vanquished.

But 90 million miles away, their glories were undone. A pulse in solar activity with an average cycle of 1,500 years triggered climate change on Earth. Its impact was varied and seems to have primarily affected the North Atlantic region, unlike the artificial global warming we are experiencing today where temperatures rise steadily in every continent and ocean. But the lesser, natural, mediaeval warming was not without far-reaching consequences for people. Maya reservoirs could hold enough water to last 18 months without rain - but after the 8th century, this would not be enough. Evidence from sediment layers and pollen point to a history of drought, and in particular, three successive droughts between 800 and 950 AD, maybe decades long each.

Low-lying northern cities could access water from underground sources, but the southern cities, high up in the mountains depended on their reserves. Piecing together precisely what happened is not easy - but from 800 AD to 950 AD, the rule of the kings came to an end (perhaps at the hands of angry subjects), the calendar stopped and the Maya population fell between 90 and 99%.

The mega-drought theory for the Maya demise is not accepted by all archaeologists though it has been gaining ground. But while other causes have been suggested - such as the overuse of soil and warfare, the horrible possibility is that these were further consequences of regional climate change, the acts of increasingly desperate people. As Diamond suggests, "Like most leaders in human history, the Maya kings and noble did not heed long-term problems..." Faced with the greatest challenge to their rule, they recommitted to self-destructive habits of over-consumption, built greater monuments to themselves and killed each other over their dying land to the end. It is a warning to us.

The very existence of natural climate change is often brought up by global warming deniers as a feeble counter to the rock-solid science demonstrating man-made global warming, as though no climatologist had ever thought of it before. Even more curiously, they illustrate the history of natural climate change with cutesy anecdotes about wine-growing in a warmer northern England and ice fairs in London during colder times. The point being: climate change is natural ... and it's nothing to worry about! But the actual history of natural climate change is often of civilization-breaking havoc. And the medieval warming in the north Atlantic was weak stuff compared to the global warming our greenhouse gases are preparing for us, but was devastating nonetheless. Like the Maya, we face destructive forces that could be well beyond our capacity to adapt to. Their empty cities are a warning to us.

The major difference between the Maya in the 8th century and us now is that they had little ability to understand what was happening to them and even less to do anything about it. Our civilization, by contrast, knows what is happening and even at this late date has the ability to prevent catastrophe. What is in question is our willingness to act on what we know and demand the transformation the necessary transformation in the way we produce and use energy. Which is what you can do on December 12th, the day of the international climate conference in Copenhagen. It's not the day world ends, but it could be the day our governments didn't try to save it.

Deirdre Imus: Is Your Baby Crawling On Carpet Made Of Coal Ash?

2009-11-23T21:02:54Z

People are getting fed up with the broken promises made by bureaucrats who say one thing and do another. They consistently use our children and their "future" as props to advance their agendas on a variety of issues but are equally consistent in doing "too little, too late" when it comes to taking the necessary actions that will actually give those children a healthy future.

Since World War II, millions of tons of dangerous toxic chemicals have been produced and deposited into the air, water and soil throughout the country. Each day, approximately 90,000 more chemicals are released into the environment.

Today, Superfund sites and coal-fired power plants, two major sources of environmental pollution, dot America's landscape from coast-to-coast. As lawmakers struggle to address the unprecedented economic challenges caused by an unregulated financial system "gone wild," the legacy of decades of unregulated environmental policies persist throughout the country, allowing filthy noxious poisons to infiltrate and threaten our society.

It has been thirty years since the horrors of Love Canal, located near Niagara Falls, New York, made the front-page of the New York Times.

Twenty five years after the Hooker Chemical stopped using the Love here as an industrial dump, 82 different compounds, 11 of them suspected carcinogens, have been percolating upward through the soil, their drum containers rotting and leaching their contents into the backyards and basements of 100 homes and a public school built on the banks of the canal.

In 1978, Love Canal became the first man-made site declared a federal disaster area and is regarded as "one of the most appalling environmental tragedies in American history."

In an article from the EPA Journal (January 1979), Eckardt C. Beck provides a historical lesson on how industrial pollution becomes "ticking time bombs," destroying lives and communities for decades.

The explosion was triggered by a record amount of rainfall. Shortly thereafter, the leaching began ... Corroding waste-disposal drums could be seen breaking up through the ground of backyards. Trees and gardens were turning black and dying. One entire swimming pool had been popped up from its foundation, afloat now on a small sea of chemicals. Puddles of noxious substances were pointed out to me by the residents. Some of these puddles were in their yards, some were in their basements, others yet were on the school grounds. Everywhere the air had a faint, choking smell. Children returned from play with burns on their hands and faces.
And then there were the birth defects.

In my mind, "appalling" does not begin to describe what happened at Love Canal or what is happening all over this country.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated more than 15,000 hazardous waste sites across the country where uncontrolled pollutants are left to permeate adjoining neighborhoods and school playgrounds. Each one of these sites has the potential to become another Love Canal.

Arsenic, lead and mercury are the most frequently detected toxins in landfills and, along with other chemicals like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) chromium, and cadmium, provide persistent exposures to anyone living nearby. Some of these chemicals have been found to cause everything from birth defects to cancer.

Approximately 11 million U.S. children reside within one mile of a National Priorities List (NPL) Superfund site where they are uniquely vulnerable to the toxins that surround them. (Browner C. Environmental Health Threats to Children. EPA 175-F-96-001. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996.)

Not surprising, low-income minority families disproportionately live near Superfund sites, which could help explain the bureaucratic complacency.

Studies suggest exposures to benzene, arsenic and PCBs, and trichloroethylene (TCE) found in Superfund landfills are likely suspects for the increase of childhood malignancies. (DeVesa SS, Blot WJ, Stone BJ, Miller BA, Tarove RE, Fraumeni JF Jr. Recent cancer trends in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:175-182 (1995)

Although mortality rates have improved, there has been a significant increase in childhood leukemia, brain cancer and testicular cancer; brain cancer has increased by 40 percent and testicular cancer in young men (15-29 years) has risen 68 percent.

New Jersey is the home of the most, 114 sites, and some of the most toxic landfills in the country. These sites are rife with harmful contaminates that include heavy metals and a smorgasbord of industrial chemicals.

Although no liability was admitted, court documents revealed 69 Toms River, NJ families whose children were diagnosed with cancer - 15 died - from contaminated water from two Superfund sites were paid more than $13.3 million from Ciba Specialty Chemicals, Union Carbide and United Water Toms River in 2002.

An elevated incidence of childhood leukemia near a Superfund near Woburn, Massachusetts in 1979 became the story behind the book and film A Civil Action.

New Jersey also has the dubious honor as one of the states with the highest autism rate in the country, 1 in 92 children (1 in 60 boys.)

When a group of New Jersey researchers investigated a possible correlation between NJ autism rates in conjunction to identified Superfund sites, their findings were consistent with other studies linking the disorder to environmental pollution.

The residence of 495 ASD patients in New Jersey by zip code and the toxic landfill sites were plotted on a map of Northern New Jersey. The area of highest ASD cases coincides with the highest density of toxic landfill sites while the area with lowest ASD cases has the lowest density of toxic landfill sites. Furthermore, the number of toxic Superfund sites and autism rate across 49 of the 50 states shows a statistically significant correlation (i.e. the number of identified superfund sites correlates with the rate of autism per 1000 residents in 49 of the states (p = 0.015; excluding the state of Oregon).

Researchers at the University of Northern Iowa also found rates of autism that were one and half times higher in Minnesota school districts that were within 20 miles of a Superfund site.

In addition to the toxic exposures leaching from Superfund sites, each year 450 coal-fire power plants release approximately 100 million tons of coal ash and 48 tons of mercury into the atmosphere, multiplying the toxic exposure inflicted on unsuspecting residents.

Air pollution from coal-fired power plants has been linked to asthma, which affects 5 million U.S. children and has doubled since the 1980s. Approximately 150,000 children are hospitalized and 600 children die annually from asthma. It is the primary cause of school absenteeism.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest unregulated source of mercury pollution in the U.S., which once airborne, makes its way into the nation's waterways and eventually into the food supply. Although both the FDA and EPA have issued warnings about eating fish, the EPA has not taken action to reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants.

Unregulated mercury pollution has contaminated almost 500,000 miles of rivers and streams resulting in 45 states issuing thousands of fish consumption warnings.

In 2003, government researchers determined 630,000 U.S. newborns had unsafe levels of mercury in their blood, almost twice the previous estimate of 320,000. This analysis suggests 16 percent or one-in-six children born every year could be exposed to mercury levels high enough to put them at risk for a host of learning disorders and motor skill impairment.

A government report released in August found high mercury levels in every fish tested in 291 streams nationwide that exceeded EPA safety guidelines.

This report was followed by a new study that examined over 6,000 American women and found their blood mercury levels had increased significantly from "2 percent in 1999-2000 to 30 percent of women in 2005-2006".

These results suggest that chronic mercury exposure has reached a critical level where inorganic mercury deposition within the human body is accumulating over time. It is logical to assume that the risks of associated neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases will rise as well.

In addition to mercury pollution, recognition of the health effects caused by coal ash, the waste by-product from burning coal for electricity, has health officials concerned as more and more ash makes its way into the ecosystem.

A recent 60 Minutes segment, investigators reported 130 million tons of potentially harmful coal ash is "recycled" annually and used in consumer products like carpeting, and topsoil and is being dumped in wet ponds and golf courses around the country.

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) dumped up to 1,000 tons of coal ash every day into a wet pond near the plant, slowly amassing a waste-cake 60 feet high. Some of the ingredients, according to the EPA, were arsenic, lead, mercury, selenium, cadmium and other toxic metals.

There have been 34 coal ash spills from the 600 coal ash sites around the country.
According to a 2007 EPA risk assessment report, people living near a coal ash depository could have a 1 in 50 chance of developing cancer from arsenic laced drinking water. The report also suggests there is an increased risk of lung, kidney and liver damage cause by toxic metals including lead, cadmium and cobalt, stemming from coal ash pollution, that exceeds safety levels.

Although the health effects are not fully understood, there is enough information about the heavy metals found in coal ash that the EPA is currently considering classifying it as a hazardous waste.

Despite decades of scientific studies confirming how environmental exposures impact human health, it is astonishing that our current environmental laws are failing to provide the adequate regulations the public expects from their government.

For too long, programs aimed at cleaning up Superfund sites and reducing air pollution have been by woeful under-funding and undercut by inadequate regulatory authority.
As a result, millions of American children are exposed to dangerous levels of a variety of contaminates every day. These preventable exposures can lead to costly chronic illness and developmental disorders -- exceeding $55 billion annually -- that can last a lifetime.

Is it any wonder that we have a nation of very sick and disabled children and out-of-control health care costs?

So how do we correct the toxic mess polluters have made of our environment? Can't we do better?

In an ideal world, government would stop pollution before it gets out-of-control. But since it is unrealistic to expect the government to put people first, we need to look at what is possible and demand better.

In 1980, Congress created a multi-billion dollar trust fund that the government could use to cleanup waste sites. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), established a fund supported by a "polluter pays" fee. This fee placed the burden on industry for the cleanup of their contaminated waste sites.

Makes sense right?

Of course, industry doesn't like being responsible or accountable for their bad behavior so in 1995 they used their influence to convince members of Congress to let the "polluter pay" fee expire. As a result, the burden was shifted from industry to American taxpayers.

Earlier this year, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced a new campaign to accelerate Superfund projects in 28 states using $600 million in funding obtained through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

Last month, EPA announced their commitment to put controls on and "develop a strategy to reduce harmful emissions" from coal-fired power plants "which threaten the air we all breathe."

Administrator Jackson has also said: "In every action I take, I am acting not just as EPA Administrator but also as a mother. I never lose sight of the fact that protecting children's health is EPA's top priority. That means we take aggressive steps when we see areas where our kids are especially vulnerable."

It appears that with new leadership, the EPA is preparing to do what the public would expect from the Environmental Protection Agency.

However, the EPA needs to set new pollution standards with the understanding that children are uniquely vulnerable to early and repeated environmental pollutants and that persistent as well as cumulative exposures from a variety of sources need to be part of this equation.

Shortly after the Recovery Act Superfund funding was announced Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, introduced legislation that would reauthorize the "polluter pays" tax. In a statement announcing the bill, Rep. Pallone stated:

The American taxpayer should not be paying for the mistakes of corporate polluters. Today, superfund sites all around our nation are ready for cleanup, but the EPA cannot proceed due to a lack of funds...3 years of inaction in Congress" has resulted in the superfund trust fund dwindling from a high of $3.8 billion in 1987 to zero in 2003.

Americans are paying a heavy price for environmental pollution, in terms of lives, healthcare and cleanup costs. Time will tell whether the Congress and the Administration is really serious or if they will allow the special interest saboteurs to prevail yet again.

Corporations need to take economic and social responsibility for their business practices. Environmental pollution is a major health threat with enormous economic consequences.
It is a moral responsibility we simply cannot continue to ignore if we hope to give our children the future they deserve.

GET INVOLVED, MAKE A DIFFERENCE:
Show your support for cleaning up Superfund sites by calling and urging your member of congress to co-sponsor the Superfund Polluter Pays Act (H.R. 832)
See this link for more information.

Han Shan: Oil Giant Chevron Accused of "Extortion" on Capitol Hill

2009-11-23T20:24:47Z

Chevron is piling on the lobbyists and PR firms in an extraordinary effort to evade responsibility for its massive toxic contamination of the Ecuadorian Amazon.

But in a recent article for Politico, Kenneth Vogel, who tracks the confluence of money, politics and influence for the influential Washington news outlet, writes that the oil company's increasingly combative approach is backfiring, "drawing fire from environmentalists, media ethicists, state pension funds, New York's attorney general, members of Congress and even Barack Obama when he was a senator."

Facing the possibility of a $27 billion judgment in an Ecuadorean court, Chevron is employing an increasingly aggressive kitchen sink strategy, with a major lobbying effort in Washington, and a multifaceted PR campaign in the U.S. and Ecuador that produced a phony news report and promoted a contrived bribery scandal to smear the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

In DC, Chevron has been lobbying Congress and the U.S. Trade Representative to threaten Ecuador's trade preferences under the Andean Trade Preferences Act in order to pressure Ecuador into intervening in the private lawsuit. In a shocking admission, Chevron spokesman Kent Robertson explained, "If we were able to call a timeout and make the lawsuit disappear, then this entire issue disappears."

Among Chevron's cabal of high-powered lobbyists are Mickey Kantor and Carla Hills, former U.S. Trade Representatives who are lobbying their former agency, Wayne Berman, Managing Director of Government Relations for Ogilvy Worldwide and former National Finance Co-Chair of John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, former Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux, former U.S. ambassador to Ecuador Peter Romero, Mac McLarty, President Clinton's former Chief of staff, and Brian Pomper, former staff director for Senator Max Baucus.

Last week, U.S. Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) excoriated Chevron's tactics in testimony before the House Ways & Means Trade Subcommittee. She testified that the company is engaging in "a lobbying effort that looks like little more than extortion." Interviewed for the Politico.com article, she accused Chevron of "trying to leverage our trade policy in order to get a lawsuit dismissed that is currently pending before the Ecuadorean court. It is a way of trying to undermine the rule of law, and I just find that completely abhorrent. It's shocking."

Chevron is the largest corporation in Representative Sanchez's home state of California, and she is currently circulating the first of three letters to colleagues about what she describes as Chevron's "very heavy-handed" and "misguided" approach to the case.

But as Politico.com noted, she's hardly the first or most influential government official to speak up on the issue. In February 2006, Barack Obama joined fellow Senator Patrick Leahy in writing a letter to then-U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman.

They write:

"Chevron is reportedly lobbying Members of Congress and your office to use the leverage of the Andean Free Trade Agreement to pressure Ecuador to dismiss the case. A Chevron spokesman expressed the company's "present opposition to the inclusion of Ecuador in the Andean Free Trade Agreement until the government of Ecuador honors its existing contractual obligations and respects and upholds the rule of law with respect to our interests."

The letter goes on to say:

"We are writing to seek your assurances that the U.S. Trade Representative will not allow negotiations Over the Andean Free Trade Agreement to interfere with a case involving Chevron that is under consideration by the Ecuadorian judiciary, particularly one involving environmental, health and human rights issues that have regional, importance. While we are not prejudging the outcome of the case, we do believe the 30,000 indigenous residents of Ecuador deserve their day in court."

According to opensecrets.org, Chevron has spent $77,199,296 on lobbying the federal government from 1999-2009. While this is a staggering amount of money, it appears to be an excellent investment for a company that made about $24 billion in profits last year. According to the California Secretary of State, its California state lobbying expenditures add up to nearly $12 million since 1999, not counting the $35 million it spent to help defeat Proposition 87, a 2006 state ballot initiative that would have increased taxes on California oil producers in order to fund research and development of renewable and clean energy.

Chevron's "Human Energy" ad campaign seeks to portray the oil giant as a friendly, environmentally-conscious neighbor in California, and wherever the company operates. But behind the slogans and smiling faces is a behemoth that is aggressively throwing its considerable weight around in Sacramento and Washington, seeking to undermine the rule of law and deny the indigenous residents of Ecuador "their day in court."

We need to build a people power campaign that will mobilize our representatives -- like the courageous Linda Sanchez -- to push back against the influence of the Big Oil lobby. In solidarity with the rainforest communities of Ecuador, and all communities where Chevron and its allies seek to put profit ahead of people and the planet, we must say "no more."

For more on Chevron's 'Chernobyl in the Amazon' and the Clean Up Ecuador Campaign, visit www.ChevronToxico.com

Nora Ephron: Top 10 Thanksgiving Recipes You're Cooking This Year That You Didn't Cook Last Year

2009-11-23T19:48:45Z

I know you've been on tenterhooks waiting for the winners of the contest with the longest name of any contest -- the Third Annual Huffington Post Tell Us What You're Cooking for Thanksgiving This Year that You Didn't Cook Last Year Contest -- and here they are.

I myself am inspired by the sweet potato pudding recipe and just might have to try it.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone and thanks for all the great entries.

Get HuffPost Style on Twitter and Facebook!

Carl Pope: The Beginning of Accountability

2009-11-23T19:24:43Z

In one of the most intriguing court decisions in years, the federal district judge who has presided over most of the cases involving responsibility for the damages caused by Hurricane Katrina, Stanwood Duvall, ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers was grossly negligent in shoddy oversight of the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, and that this negligence led to the flooding of the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans and the neighboring St. Bernard Parish. Judge Duvall also ruled that because the Corps ignored clear evidence of the problems in doing its environmental assessments of the project, it was legally liable for the damages.

Judge Duvall's ruling is important for a number of reasons. First, it confirmed what has been repeatedly documented -- that the failure to keep the Outlet properly narrowed allowed much bigger waves to build up than its levees were designed for, and that this led to their breaching. Since the relationship between "fetch" or breadth and wave height is -- well it's so basic it's not even civil engineering 101 -- it's hard to argue this doesn't constitute gross negligence, but the Corps in the trial argued that this really didn't matter, because the storm was so big that even a properly maintained system would have flooded.

Second, the judge rejected the Corps's argument -- which had always worked before -- that its failures are the result of "discretionary policy" decisions and hence immune from judicial review. There is some chance -- perhaps a substantial chance -- that the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which tends to defer to the Corps, will overrule Duvall on appeal. It's still a strong signal to the Corps that it has been found accountable. And finally, and perhaps most intriguingly, Judge Duvall may have breathed new strength and life into the National Environmental Policy Act.

NEPA was originally designed -- although this is largely forgotten -- to improve the quality of federal decision-making by mandating that agencys take the unintended environmental consequences of their actions into account. Over the years it has, unfortunately, been turned into more of a procedural hurdle that simply requires that agencys write down the possible implications of their decisions -- not that they necessarily do anything about them.

But Duvall specifically found that the Corps's liability lay in the substantive, not merely the procedural, vision that underlay NEPA. "It is beyond arbitrary and capricious -- it flies in the face of the purpose of NEPA [the National Environmental Policy Act] and ignores the very heart of what 'operation' means," Duval wrote of the way in which the Corps ignored what its internal reports told it about the threats from the poor maintenance of the channel.

Combining Duval's decision with another, a few weeks earlier, in which the 5th Circuit itself ruled that oil, coal, and chemical companies could be sued by citizens of the Gulf Coast who suffered losses from Katrina on the grounds that their carbon emissions had caused the waters of the Gulf of Mexico to warm and increased the ferocity of the storm. In its ruling the 5th Circuit clearly laid out the argument for holding carbon emitters liable for climate damages:

Plaintiffs' .... assert that defendants intentionally and unreasonably used their property so as to produce massive amounts of greenhouse gasses and thereby injure both plaintiffs and the general public by contributing to global warming, which caused the sea level rise and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina, the combined effects of which resulted in the destruction of plaintiffs' private property, as well as their loss of use of certain public property in the vicinity of their dwellings. Plaintiffs' trespass claim asserts that defendants' greenhouse gas emissions caused saltwater, debris, sediment, hazardous substances, and other materials to enter their property.

The Court also specifically linked the ability of the plaintiffs to use the common law of nuisance to sue oil companies to the findings by the Supreme Court in its ruling that carbon dioxide was subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act (the Supreme Court found that carbon dioxide causes climate change, and that even if carbon dioxide from the entire world causes climate change, so does carbon dioxide from specific sources).

And finally the 5th Circuit rejected the oil industry's defense that the issue of global warming can be dealt with only by Congress (the same argument that was made by the American Petroleum Institute last week in the EPA hearing where I testified) last week. In fact, the court said that while Congress could pass climate legislation that would preempt common law lawsuits, it had not done so. (And the oil industry of course does not want Congress to act.)

What is emerging -- most prominently on the Gulf Coast but also in recent decisions in the 2nd Circuit -- are a remarkable set of legal tools for citizens damaged by environmental mismanagement. The courts are ruling that, because of NEPA, the federal government -- in this case the Corps of Engineers -- must not only formally record but also act upon evidence that it is creating new environmental risks. While private corporations -- the oil industry -- do not have the same affirmative duty, the courts are finding that under the common law they do face legal liability for damages that result from their greenhouse-gas emissions. And the only way polluters can shield themselves legally from this common law liability is to persuade Congress to enact a comprehensive regulatory scheme to protect the public -- in which cases aggrieved citizens will have the right to sue the government if it fails in its duty to protect under such schemes.

If these broad protections apply to global warming in which a given company is by percentage a small part of the problem, they are likely to be far more effective in the more typical environmental situation in which a few major polluters are the culprits.

This is still a fledgling set of legal doctrines -- and higher courts may well modify or trim them. But if these rulings develop and are expanded upon, environmental law might move beyond its recent focus on the purely procedural and evolve into a more robust substantive shield for average citizens whose lives are damaged by the environmental mismanagement of corporations and government.

Jerry Cope: Copenhagen Now; Inhofe Is The Fourth Horsemen

2009-11-23T19:17:37Z

Twelve years have passed since the Kyoto Protocols were signed and agreed upon by 187 countries, except of course the US. In the intervening years there have been countless summits, meetings, discussions, and peer-reviewed scientific reports leading up to the next global climate agreements scheduled to be concluded at COP15 in Copenhagen this December. As the scientific research indicates that critical climate tipping points are being reached, the Obama administration has for some time been releasing statements to lower expectations for consensus agreement in Copenhagen and now has proposed the world wait until next year for international action to address climate change.

President Obama has proposed in 2010, if the US Senate can agree on a bill that will appease the powerful carbon industries and their K street lobbies in Washington (who have increased spending to thwart climate legislation by over three-hundred percent this year), to perhaps then negotiate and sign a global climate agreement. Legislation in the US Senate, considered critical to Obama's ability to commit to a climate treaty, has been effectively shelved until 2010. Clearly pleased with the delay, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) declared the stalled legislation a Republican victory this week proudly announcing, "We won, you lost -- get a life!" to Senator Barbara Boxer. Inhofe and his allies were justifiably boasting their continued success in preserving a business-as-usual model and preventing the transition to a sustainable clean energy economy. The machinations of "skeptic" Senators led by Inhofe must not be allowed to determine the fate of international climate agreements.

To further delay coordinated international action is clearly unacceptable given the science and strategic interests of the US nor will it fulfill Obama's campaign pledge to "restore science to its proper place" and ensure that the global temperature rise due to anthropogenic climate change is held at 2 degrees which may be impossible in any event. Recent studies are leading to a greater sense of urgency in addressing carbon emissions and increasing pressure on world leaders to act now in Copenhagen. A new report by The British Antarctic Survey determined that in the past when levels of carbon dioxide reached high levels Antarctic temperatures rose rapidly to 6 degrees above previous levels. Were this to happen again this century as is now likely, a sea level rise of six meters can be expected. Some of the world's largest cities will be threatened including New York, London, Shanghai, Miami, and of course New Orleans. These findings support the United Nations Climate Change Science Compendium Report issued in September which found a global temperature rise of 6.3C probable by 2100 if present trends continue unabated.

Photo Kejser Pingvin

The United States is responsible for the vast majority of GHG emissions already in the atmosphere and continues to be the world's highest per capita emitter. President Obama must do more than merely acknowledge the science; he and his administration must ensure that a legally binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions is reached in Copenhagen. The failure to do so could result in incalculable negative costs in terms of human suffering, loss of biological diversity, and adverse economic impacts.

These are matters of scientific fact agreed upon by the vast majority of the world's foremost scientists and supported by observations around the globe. To further delay a legally binding international agreement to reduce GHG emissions is likely to set the Fourth Horsemen free, or at the very least saddle him up. This is no longer an issue that can be passed on to future generations; 85% of the world's population now living will be forced to deal with the consequences of a warming planet. COP15 may represent the last best chance for action to make a global commitment while the window is still open to ensure the worst case scenarios of climate change are averted.

Inhofe has announced he will be in Copenhagen to make sure a climate treaty is not forthcoming; President Obama remains undecided. According to Danish officials sixty-five world leaders have confirmed they will attend COP15.

Robyn Griggs Lawrence: 8 Ways to Green Your Thanksgiving Celebration

2009-11-23T18:11:40Z

The holidays are a time of family, warmth, joy -- and waste. Between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day, 5 million extra tons of trash are created each week. It’s easy to reduce your contribution to all that waste -- and greening your Thanksgiving is a great place to start. Here are eight ideas to get you on your way.

1. Buy organic, local produce.

Support the local economy and the environment by purchasing organic produce for your Thanksgiving feast from a local farmers’ market. Better yet, participate in the 100-mile Thanksgiving Challenge. Make a meal for your family and friends using only ingredients sourced within 100 miles of your home.

2. Eat natural turkey.

Although turkeys are native to North America, today’s turkeys have little in common with their ancestors. More than 99 percent of turkeys raised in the United States today are broad-breasted white turkeys. This version is renowned for its large, meaty breast, which has become so big that these turkeys can’t reproduce on their own and must rely on human intervention to keep their species alive.

Buy a natural turkey this year. Order your family a certified organic heritage turkey, which is raised outdoors, eats a varied diet and has a more succulent flavor than turkeys raised on factory farms. Find a heritage turkey near you using Local Harvest.

3. Make just enough food.

Although Thanksgiving is a holiday renowned for its leftovers, you should still take extra care not to prepare more food than your family can eat. To help you plan your Thanksgiving feast, Use Less Stuff came up with this list of the amount of food you should make for each person:

Turkey – 1 pound
Stuffing, green beans, sweet potatoes – 1/4 pound
Cranberry salad – 3 tablespoons
Pie – 1/8 of a 9-inch pie

After the meal, look at the number of guests versus the amount of leftover food and evaluate how much food was consumed. Keep track of your calculations for next year!

4. Manage leftovers.

Divide up the leftovers between your guests and send them home in reusable containers. If you have more leftovers than your family can manage, donate them to a local food bank or homeless shelter.

5. Clean house with nontoxic, green cleaners.

If you’re hosting the Thanksgiving celebration (and therefore must clean your house beforehand), be sure to use green cleaning products. Natural homemade cleaners will also get the job done, and most use basic ingredients already in your cupboard.

6. Use reusable dishes and napkins.

A horde of guests and a kitchen full of dirty pots and pans can make it tempting to set your Thanksgiving table with disposable dishes. Don’t give in! If you don’t have enough dishes or china for a crowd, pick up inexpensive used plates, which can be found in thrift stores for $1 or less. You can set a pretty -- and interesting -- table by selecting mismatched dishes with similar color themes.

If you must use disposable dishes, buy biodegradable and compostable dishes and utensils. Along the same lines, use cloth napkins instead of disposable ones.

7. Make your own centerpiece.

If there’s still room at your table after all the food and dishes have been set, create a homemade centerpiece. Avoid store-bought bouquets and gather items from nature. In most areas of the country, not much is in bloom, but cutting bare branches or branches with seasonal berries adds sculptural interest and connects your table to the season. You can put your hand-picked bouquet in this 60-second vase or this wood chip vase.

8. Drink organic wine.

If wine is part of your Thanksgiving feast, buy organic. Check out Natural Home’s guide to organic wine to get started.

Steven R. Gundry: Your "All Natural, Organic, Free-Range Turkey" Never Ate Its Natural Food Or Stepped Outdoors

2009-11-23T16:49:28Z

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), to qualify for the "Free Range" chicken or turkey designation, "Producers must demonstrate to the agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside." In other words, you can keep your turkey in a dark warehouse, open a door (once) to a patch of grass and the "access to the outside" distinction has been met. The turkey could have been free-range and thus, qualifies for the labeling.

This loophole shows us that the USDA labeling criteria is in desperate need of updating and revision.

In our desire to eat healthy we have also jumped on the Organic Food bandwagon, looking for foods that predate modern agribusiness where pesticides, antibiotics, genetic engineering, hormones, and petroleum based fertilizers are used to mass produce the food we eat.

Mounting evidence shows that our food manufacturing is making us fat and sick. For many of us, there has to be a better way. For example, eating a "free-range" turkey that spent its days idyllically scratching up bugs and pecking at grass behind the hen house sounds a lot more healthy than eating one that had its beaks clipped, was housed in a dark warehouse, jammed against others so tight that it couldn't walk, was force fed genetically engineered corn, and then slaughtered. Which one would you choose? You'd opt for that first turkey. But guess what? The second turkey meets the USDA criteria for organic "free range" turkey, the first does not.

Incredulously, your "wholesome turkey" ate bugs and grass (its natural food) which can't be certified organic, whereas the warehouse turkey ate certified organic genetically engineered grain (an unnatural food), and thus wins the coveted label. Even more troubling is that when organic grain is unavailable or costs more than twice that of regular grain, the USDA allows the farmer to feed regular non-organic grain yet still use the organic label because he meant well (you have Congressman Nathan Deal (R) of Georgia to thank for that).

One solution, however impractical, is to find out how your turkey was raised by meeting the farmer directly. If you don't have time to get to know the person raising your food then look for the words, "pasture raised" or "sustainably raised" on the package. Until the USDA changes the way manufacturers are allowed to label our food, we are all going to have to become more aggressive consumers and shoppers.

Steven R. Gundry, MD is the Medical Director and Founder of the International Heart and Lung Institute, Palm Springs, CA and author of "Dr. Gundry's Diet Evolution: Turn off the Genes that are Killing You", Crown Publishing

Laurie David: Eating Animals: Caring Is Not A Zero-Sum Game

2009-11-23T14:36:00Z

Friday I read the strangest, most infuriating book review (on the front page of the New York Times Arts Section) I have ever seen. Minutes later, while I was still shaking my head, Larry called to rant about the "smug" review of Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, a book we had both recently read. "What's wrong with that reviewer?" he yelled in my ear. "Doesn't she care about fecal soup?!" See for yourself, read the concluding paragraph of Michiko Kakutani's review and tell me if it isn't completely insane:

It's arguments like this that undermine the many more valid observations in this book, and make readers wonder how the author can expend so much energy and caring on the fate of pigs and chickens, when, say, malaria kills nearly a million people a year (most of them children), and conflict and disease in Congo since the mid-1990s have left an estimated five million dead and hundreds of thousands of women and girls raped and have driven more than a million people from their homes.

Since Kakutani believes that caring is a zero-sum game, and that most of us are too pea -brained to care about more than one thing at a time, she felt it was important to put Foer in his place for raising a voice against factory farming -- an industry that, let's face it, is merely really, really, really horrible.

Since reading her review, we've found it difficult to remember why we ever cared about what kind of car we drive, or whether to pay or shoplift, or who to punch and when. She's right: in the bright light of malaria, everything else is invisible. So no more money to the NRDC, no more hand wringing about health care, and no more helping old ladies across the street. Screw you, injured person lying against the curb, there are hungry kids somewhere else! Better still, here's a kick!

One of the many problems with Kakutani's lame and flamboyantly irrational review is that it suggests her own irrelevancy. If one shouldn't spend time and energy worrying about 50 billion factory-farmed animals (and the attendant environmental and human health effects, which comprise the other half of Foer's book, and are curiously ignored in the review), then one most definitely shouldn't spend time reviewing books. How many kids did Kakutani's recent columns of text on Sarah Palin--"...she does a lively job of conveying the frontier feel of the 49th state..." -- save?

Except that we need book reviewers, not in spite of the good they might be doing in the world, but -- in the case of good reviewers -- because of the good they are doing. The function of a reviewer is not to impress her personality at any expense, but to connect readers to books, ideally to those they wouldn't likely find (or want to find) on their own.

We found Foer's book that way. We didn't know Foer, and Eating Animals hadn't crossed our radar yet. Someone said, "Check this out. You're gonna care about this." That was the understatement of the century. What should we care about more than what we are putting into our bodies and feeding our children every day, three times a day? Foer's book raises critical ethical questions we all need to face. I agree with Foer -- who doesn't? -- we shouldn't raise hens in cramped and stacked cages, or pregnant hogs in crates too small to allow for movement. We shouldn't modify animals' bodies in ways that destine them for suffering and steady diets of drugs. We shouldn't remove their appendages without anesthetic. We shouldn't pretend they aren't alive and we shouldn't be eating animals riddled with sickness and disease. We shouldn't be polluting the planet to satisfy our appetites.

Such care is not, as Kakutani implies, excessive. It is basic human decency. And decency never takes away from humans -- not even when it's directed toward animals. It's frankly hard to imagine the person who would argue that it's no big deal to systematically harm animals, while at the same time be a champion of human causes.

What a shame this book didn't have a more thoughtful review.

F. Kaid Benfield: Village Green: For Cities to Be An Environmental Solution, We Need to Address Public Safety

2009-11-23T14:22:43Z

The environmental community needs to broaden our definition of what is "environmental." First, my friend and frequent collaborator Lee Epstein posted a thoughtful blog entry on urban education and its effect on middle class families' housing choices and, thus, on suburban sprawl. This week, I've had several occasions to think about that other elephant in the smart-growth room: personal safety.

To slow the spread of development willy-nilly across the landscape, we need to repopulate our central cities, many of which lost population in the latter half of the 20th century. We're starting to make some real progress on that but, to grow that progress and make it stick, we need to get serious about crime.

That was certainly one of the strongest messages to emerge from the residents of Indianapolis's Smart Growth Redevelopment District. They know better than anyone whether their community is safe enough to flourish. And then on Friday I ran across a thoughtful but troubling blog post from Indianapolis resident and Urbanophile Aaron Renn, about all sorts of things, but concluding with some notes about a shooting in a revitalized section of his city (not the redevelopment district I visited):

"This week in Indy a horrific shooting left Gabe Jordan, wine steward at upscale specialty grocery Goose the Market, in critical condition and likely paralyzed from the waist down. This was an apparently random act of violence. He was shot in the back during a robbery while he was out walking his dog late one evening near his home on the East Side . . .

"Urbanist blogs don't often talk a lot about crime or education or race. I have talked the race issue but am a rarity. Those conversations tend to happen in more specialty places. But things like this remind us that things like safety and education and social justice are the basics. If you don't have safe streets, all the light rail lines in the world aren't going to save your city . . .

"I've walked all over the East Side. I've walked around Fountain Square and other places at night by myself frequently and nothing has happened to me. The odds of anything like this happening to anyone are probably very low. But the plain fact is it would be nearly non-existent in a place like suburban Fishers."

Renn's commentary on the subject is more extended than I have quoted here, and I invite you to read and consider it.

Here in DC, there was a recent, tragic murder of a 9-year-old child in his own home, in our city's trendiest success story of revitalization, Columbia Heights. As Petula Dvorak wrote in Friday's Washington Post, "Oscar Fuentes was killed there by a gunshot through the front door of his apartment. He was looking through the peephole at the commotion outside. Someone had tried to rob his family members as they walked home along Columbia Road, and the women ducked inside to get away." This is almost unbelievably heartbreaking to read, yet Dvorak's main point is that the other kids in the neighborhood don't consider it all that unusual.

Dvorak continues:

"It went from a neighborhood that had small ethnic groceries, check cashing joints and little else to a teeming commercial district that looks straight out of an urban planner's handbook.

"There is public art, a pop-jet fountain, a restaurant that serves wasabi-crusted meatloaf. Some residents are taking an online poll to determine whether their new plaza should be adorned with a Christmas tree this year.

"And in that city block where the boy died are the District's most prominent Latino community organizations, a church, tenant-owned buildings, two well-regarded charter schools, a wonderful youth center, a health center, counselors, social workers, a mural with the planet Earth that reads 'He's got the whole world in his hands' and a display of Chinese brush paintings by kids."

These are our showcase neighborhoods. Yeah, I know and applaud the statistics showing that city crime has gone down a lot since the worst days of the 1970s and 1980s, while suburban crime has gone up. And I know the statistics about how personal risk from car accidents in the suburbs make them just as unsafe as the city, in their way. But I also know that most of the people who cite those stats are bold, creative-class types who love urban living anyway.

Renn is right when he says that this sort of random gunfire is much less common in newer suburbs (and he's a city-lover, too). This is a real problem, and we wish it away at our peril.

So, what to do? I don't pretend to know, really. But maybe we start by being honest about the problems that linger in our cities rather than sweeping them under the rug while we celebrate the virtues of urban bikesharing, streetcars, and green roofs.

Rummaging around on the topic, I was pleased to learn that the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), whose track record on inclusive, affordable urban smart growth is impressive (and with whom NRDC is beginning to partner on revitalization), has a Community Safety Initiative that "has helped establish police/community partnerships in over a dozen cities nationwide." Other LISC projects specifically target parcels where crime is taking place for renovation and adaptive reuse.

Working with the MetLife Corporation, LISC also administers an award program to communities that do especially outstanding work in addressing problems of crime and violence. One of this year's award recipients, announced earlier this month, is Brooklyn's Myrtle Avenue Revitalization Project:

"Once tagged "Murder Avenue" by the broader Brooklyn community, Myrtle Avenue struggled with a negative image stemming from high crime and perceptions that it was unsafe due to building vacancies and poorly maintained public space. Simple yet effective strategies were used by MARP and the NYPD to turn the tides.

"MARP began by facilitating communication between merchants and the 88th precinct and by removing all graffiti from the commercial corridor. From there, the partners worked to increase police visibility on Myrtle Avenue, helping to reduce crime and make the retail district a more welcoming place to visit. Other ongoing efforts include storefront and streetscape improvements, recruiting new entrepreneurs to fill retail vacancies and attract foot traffic, hosting special events, and coordinating a system for Myrtle Avenue merchants to communicate quickly and frequently to facilitate crime prevention. The commercial corridor now thrives as reductions in crime and vacancies continue to attract new businesses and private investment to the area."

The neighborhood's restoration appears to be progressing very nicely. You can read about it here.

Among other strategies, addressing vacant properties (not much of an issue in Columbia Heights or Fountain Square, perhaps, but a significant one in the Indianapolis Smart Growth Redevelopment District and elsewhere) may help. Writing last week on Smart Growth America's blog, Mara D'Angelou cites research finding an increase in total assaults in a given set of blocks by 18.5% for every additional vacancy. And the design of redevelopment can help, too: Seattle has a good summary of "crime prevention through environmental design" that explains how natural, passive surveillance of an area ("eyes on the street") can be enhanced with lighting (not glaring "crime lights"), window placement, porches and balconies, landscaping, and right-size fencing, among other things. (Wikipedia also has a good summary.)

It's a beginning.

Kaid Benfield writes occasional "Village Green" commentary on Huffington Post and (almost) daily about community, development, and the environment on NRDC's SWitchboard. For daily posts, see his Switchboard blog's home page.

Ellen Kanner: Meatless Monday: History Lesson

2009-11-23T13:08:33Z

With frantic schedules, fast food and frozen entrees,Thanksgiving may be the one day of the year we return to the kitchen. And in so doing, we return to ourselves. We connect with the people who matter in our lives by inviting them to our table for a special meal. We connect to the past by honoring the spirit of that first Thanksgiving -- even if you may be wondering what exactly to be thankful for. Perhaps it's been a sucky year -- for you and a lot of others, ace. Unemployment's at 10.2 percent and a record 49 million Americans have faced food shortages this year. If it's any comfort, those celebrating the first Thanksgiving had a hard time of it, too.

Back in England, the Pilgrims had been merchants, artisans and land owners. In this wacky new world, they had nothing and no workable skill set.

Fortunately, the Wampanoag, Native Americans who'd been living in the 'hood, took pity on the inept newcomers. They gave them the seeds for native crops like corns and beans and squash, cranberries and corn and showed them how to plant and harvest them. For the first time, many Pilgrims had to connect to -- and depend on -- the land. Plymouth suffered drought. The Pilgrims suffered doubt. And homesickness (oh, for the days of religious persecution, social infrastructure and a steady job). And sickness in general. So when harvest rolled around and they were still alive and discovered sustaining themselves might be possible, there was serious reason for gratitude.

The Pilgrims were clear about who to invite -- everyone who'd survived, plus the Wampanoag, who'd helped save their collective ass. They were also clear about how to source their food. They went for seasonal and local. That's all they had. There was no running to the store. There was no store to run to.

According to record, the feast was not the triumvirate of turkey, cranberries and pumpkin pie we know but a variety of roast meats, leeks, watercress salad, msickquatash, corn bread, and wild plums for dessert. Despite its alarming name, msickquatash, a Native American dish, is the forerunner of succotash. However, food historians believe what they ate wasn't the summertime salad of corn and limas, but an amalgamation of whatever they had on hand -- you know, like corn and beans and squash. Msickquatash is basically a term for cleverly prepared harvest stew.

Thanksgiving was not a three-day weekend in November they planned on every year. It was invented on the spot, brand-new and heartfelt. There were no frozen pumpkin pies, there were no freezers, not to mention a dearth of desserts in general, what with sugar being at a premium. And you know what? It was still a great meal.

Armed with modern conveniences the Pilgrims never dreamed of, you'd think hosting Thanksgiving these days would be a slam-dunk. If only. Many of us are as lost in the kitchen as the Pilgrims were when they washed up at Plymouth Rock, and even seasoned Thanksgiving hosts can find the holiday a big, honking pain in the ass. It takes time to make a home-cooked meal in the middle of a busy week. It takes effort to remember and accommodate everybody's food phobias and emotional baggage. It takes patience to deal with last-minute surprises, whether it's guests stuck in traffic or roasted vegetables stuck in the pan. And for what? So people can snarf their way through a lovingly prepared meal quicker than downloading porn. Do it anyway.

Thanksgiving doesn't need to be elaborate. It doesn't need to be an eat-a-thon. It doesn't even need to involve turkey (the Pilgrims didn't have one). Thanks, though, should be on the menu even though, like the first wave of American settlers, we're struggling through tough times. Giving thanks, especially in the face of hardship, is humanizing, energizing -- and free. Make this Thanksgiving meal like the first Thanksgiving, seasonal, sourced as close to home as possible, made mindfully from what we have and served with love and gratitude.

Modern Msickquatash -- Limas, Squash and Caramelized Leeks

An homage to that first feast, this silky, lemony stew is made with limas, squash and leeks, but the point is to use what's local and available. Onions make an easy substitution for leeks and you can use any type of bean you like. Canned will get the job done, but the recipe is really better made from dried. Dried beans are cheaper and cook up creamier. No zucchini? Add a few handfuls of watercress (which also appeared at the first Thanksgiving), spinach, collards or any leafy green. Happy Thanksgiving.

2 tablespoons olive oil
6 garlic cloves, minced
2 leeks or onions, sliced thin
2 zucchini, diced
2 cups (or 1 15-ounce can) limas or other beans
1/4 cup vegetable broth (or reserved cooking liquid from the beans)
2 lemons, both zest and juice
sea salt and pepper to taste
1 small handful fresh thyme leaves (or 1/2 teaspoon dried)

In a large pot, heat olive oil over medium-high heat. Add garlic and leeks, cover and reduce heat to low. Cook unattended for 30 minutes. When you remove the lid, the leeks will still be pale and will have produced a lot of liquid. This is good.

Bring heat back up to medium-high and add zucchini. Stirring occasionally, cook until zucchini softens and leeks turn golden, about 8 minutes. If you're adding greens instead of zucchini, add them here and cook until just wilted, about 5 minutes. Add beans and broth, stirring to kep beans from sticking. Grate in lemon zest and add lemon juice and thyme. Season with salt and pepper

Can be doubled super-easily. Keeps in the fridge for days.

Serves 4.

Jeff Biggers: Copenhagen, U.S.A.: Don't Miss Dec 7th Showdown at Climate Change Ground Zero

2009-11-23T12:50:00Z

If the Obama administration is unwilling or unable to stop the massive environmental destruction of historic mountain ranges and essential drinking water for a relatively tiny amount of coal, can we honestly believe they will be able to phase out coal emissions at the level necessary to stop climate change? --Dr. James Hansen, June 22, 2009

Welcome to Copenhagen, U.S.A.

On December 7th, the opening day of the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Americans from around the country will converge for a historic protest at climate change ground zero for our nation--the Appalachian coalfields.

At the same time 65 heads of state and other world leaders and environmental regulators view a special Google Earth tour of the importance of Coal River Mountain in West Virginia at the Copenhagen conference, leading anti-mountaintop removal activists and citizens groups--with Robert Kennedy, Jr. reportedly in their ranks--will demand an end to mountaintop removal mining on Coal River Mountain and across Appalachia.

Their target: The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, in Charleston, West Virginia, the embarrassingly inept and Big Coal-ridden state agency that has overseen one of the greatest environmental and climate change disasters in American history: Mountaintop removal's destruction of over 1.2 million acres of hardwood forests in our nation's carbon sink of Appalachia.

The American citizens at climate change ground zero will not be alone in the coalfields.

As a wave of climate change protests rock London on December 5th, and throughout the world on the December 12th Global Day of Action, the citizens groups and coal mining communities descending on the Big Coal-strangled halls of governmental incompetence are drawing a line in the sand at Coal River Mountain.

Site of the Coal River Wind Project, the most symbolic clean energy project in the nation, Coal River Mountain is the last intact mountain in the historic range, and an area that has been plundered by mountaintop removal and left in ruins. Despite regulatory violations, Massey Energy began clear cutting the lush hardwood forests and setting off blasts for a massive 6,600 acre mountaintop removal operation on Coal River Mountain last month.

And just why should Coal River Mountain--and the Appalachian coalfields--be considered climate change ground zero for the U.S.A.?

The Carbon Connection: As an advisor on the Presidential Climate Action Project, and a leading environmental scholar and entrepreneur, David Orr has noted, "To permanently destroy millions of acres of Appalachia in order to extract maybe twenty years of coal is not just stupid; it is a derangement at a scale for which we as yet do not have adequate words, let alone the good sense and the laws to stop it."

In a major paper, The Carbon Connection, Orr recounted a trip to a mountaintop removal site in the Coal River Valley of West Virginia and its link to our climate fate:

Nearly a thousand miles separates the coalfields of West Virginia from New Orleans and the Gulf coast, yet they are a lot closer than that. The connection is carbon. Coal is mostly carbon, and for every ton burned, 3.6 tons of CO2 eventually enters the atmosphere, raising global temperatures, warming oceans and thereby creating bigger storms, melting ice, and raising sea levels. For every ton of coal extracted from the mountains, perhaps a 100 tons of what is tellingly called "overburden" is dumped, burying steams and filling the valleys and hollows of West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. And between the hills of Appalachia and the sinking land of the Louisiana coast, tens of thousands of people living downwind from coal-fired power plants die prematurely each year from inhalation of small particles of smoke laced with heavy metals that penetrate deeply into lungs.

More complete accounting of the costs of coal would also include the rising tide of damage and insurance claims attributable to climate change. Some say that if we don't burn coal the economy will collapse and we will all have to go back to the caves. But with wind and solar power growing by more than 25 percent per year and the technology of energy efficiency advancing rapidly, we have good options that make burning coal unnecessary. And before long, we will wish that we had not destroyed so much of the capacity of the Appalachian forests and soils to absorb the carbon that makes for bigger storms and more severe heat waves and droughts.

Coal River Mountain is a Tipping Point in Climate Change Policy: As NASA climatologist James Hansen has pointed out for years, "we must move rapidly to carbon-free energy to avoid handing our children a planet that has passed climate tipping points." Calling mountaintop removal "an undeniably catastrophic way of mining," Hansen issued a personal plea to President Obama this summer to halt the blasting of Coal River Mountain, as part of a larger vision for the rapid phase-out of coal emissions now:

The Obama administration is being forced into a political compromise. It has sacrificed a strong position on mountaintop removal in order to ensure the support of coal-state legislators for a climate bill. The political pressures are very real. But this is an approach to coal that defeats the purpose of the administration's larger efforts to fight climate change, a sad political bargain that will never get us the change we need on mountaintop removal, coal or the climate. Coal is the linchpin in mitigating global warming, and it's senseless to allow cheap mountaintop-removal coal while the administration is simultaneously seeking policies to boost renewable energy.

The Coal Barons at Massey Energy Are Not Only Destroying Coal River Mountain, But Leading the Anti-Climate Change Propaganda Campaign: As head of the fourth largest coal producer, and a gleeful mountaintop removal detonator, Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship and his company's notorious denial of climate change and bizarre global warming-denying shows are the stuff of bad vaudeville. But Blankenship's wrath in Appalachia, and especially in the Coal River Valley, has not only resulted in record penalties for mining violations, and the devastation of the region, but placed him in the forefront of Big Coal's refusal to accept any compromises in cap 'n trade legislation. In a recent interview on stopping climate change legislation in the Senate, Blankenship referred to "the hoax and the Ponzi scheme of global warming."

72 Foot Coal Slurry Tidal Wave: Blasting at Coal River Mountain Risks A Climate Change Catastrophe: Blasting within a football field of the class "C" Brushy Fork impoundment, one of the largest and potentially weakest coal slurry impoundments in the nation, Massey Energy is engaging in a blatant act of aggression against besieged coalfield residents. According to their own evacuation reports, a break in the coal slurry impoundment would result in certain injury or death for the nearly 1,000 residents downslope in the valley. Some area residents would have less than 15 minutes to escape a 72-foot tidal wave of coal slurry.

Coal River Mountain, like Copenhagen, is a Battle Over a Clean Energy or a Regulated Dirty Energy Future: As a study last year by Downstream Strategies noted, an industrial wind farm on Coal River Mountain would provide more jobs, tax revenues and electricity over the long-term than the current mountaintop removal operation, which will exhaust the coal seams within 17 years. The study concluded:

The economic results of the mountaintop removal and wind scenarios stand in stark contrast For mountaintop removal, the cumulative external costs from coal production exceed the cumulative earnings in every year. Even without comparing it with the wind scenarios, the mountaintop removal scenario is not defensible from the perspective of Raleigh County citizens when considering just two externalities: excess deaths and illnesses, and environmental damage. In contrast, both wind scenarios show cumulative earnings that exceed cumulative externalities in every year...The benefits of mountaintop removal mining would end after 17 years when the mining ends, but the costs of mountaintop removal mining are projected to continue due to the expected deaths and illnesses caused by the coal mining. In contrast, the benefits from the wind scenarios continue indefinitely.

The showdown at Copenhagen, U.S.A. is on: December 7th, 2pm, Charleston, West Virginia.

Michael Brune: An Open Letter to Chevron's New CEO

2009-11-23T05:35:10Z

Mr. John S. Watson
Incoming Chief Executive Officer
Chevron Corporation

Dear Mr. Watson:

Congratulations on your promotion to the helm of Chevron. I am writing on behalf of Rainforest Action Network to make you an offer.

Late last month, on October 24th, tens of thousands of citizens in 181 countries participated in one of the most widespread demonstrations in our planet's history. At over 5,200 events around the world, people joined together to inspire strong leadership on the climate crisis from the world's top political and business leaders. Please see the photos at www.350.org.

Earlier in October, members of Rainforest Action Network's staff and Board of Directors returned from an investigation in northern Ecuador. We toured many of Texaco's former drilling sites and waste pits, and met with medical professionals and family members who have paid an enormous price for decades of oil-related contamination by your company.

These two issues -- climate change and the environmental and human rights impacts of Chevron's operations -- are likely to define your tenure as Chief Executive Officer. How will you respond?

It might be tempting to maintain your current posture. After all, your company is a highly successful global enterprise in a very profitable industry. But you must realize that Chevron is falling behind other businesses and many political leaders who are taking a leadership position on climate change. Furthermore, your company is drawing increasing criticism -- unnecessarily -- for failing to rectify the human rights and environmental disaster that was left behind in Ecuador.

Let me acknowledge the obvious. I'm not an oil-industry executive. As the leader of an environmental and human rights organization, I focus much more on how to clean up dirty industries than how to keep a company such as yours healthy in a competitive business environment. But I do know that Chevron is not the first company faced with the need to balance strong profits and principled leadership. My organization has worked with dozens of other successful businesses who align their core business strategies with strong social and environmental values. Please don't ignore this opportunity.

Taking the following steps will only strengthen your company's future. First, Chevron will benefit financially when it adopts more aggressive strategies to provide clean energy to a carbon-constrained world. At the same time, your company will restore its reputation and avoid future damage to its brand when it accepts its moral obligation to clean up its toxic legacy in Ecuador. Finally, Chevron would be positioned as a genuine global leader when it develops a global environment and human rights policy that prevents similar controversies in the future.

Here's our offer: come with us to Ecuador. Chevron's new leader should witness first-hand the extent to which your company's former sites remain contaminated. It would seem prudent as the new CEO to determine for yourself whether Chevron's legal team is providing accurate information, but on a more personal level, showing genuine concern for the suffering of thousands of families throughout the region would give life to the Chevron slogan of "human energy".

We do not make these requests lightly. We know that it is indeed possible to do well by doing good. We are proud of our track record of working with corporate leaders to produce innovative solutions to complex problems. We would much prefer working with your company to address the challenges laid before you, rather than pressuring Chevron's shareholders, customers, and employees to compel you to take action.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss these issues. I sincerely hope you will join us for a visit to the region, and I look forward to speaking with you soon.

Sincerely,

Michael Brune
Executive Director
Rainforest Action Network

Rob Perks: Interior Department Comes Out Strong (Rhetorically) on Mountaintop Removal

2009-11-23T04:29:34Z

The Interior Department announced yesterday that it is taking immediate steps to strengthen oversight of state-approved surface coal mining operations -- including mountaintop removal -- and to impose tighter restrictions on the dumping of mining waste in steams.

In a statement issued by the agency, Assistant Interior Secretary Wilma Lewis acknowledged that coal is a vital part of the country's energy mix, but that "we have a responsibility to ensure that development is done in a way that protects public health and safety and the environment."

Interior doing its job by pledging to crack down on mountaintop removal? That's certainly welcome news. Aye, but here's the rub: the department said its actions are designed to serve as "interim steps" until a federal rulemaking process can be completed.

"We are moving as quickly as possible under the law to gather public input for a new rule, based on sound science, that will govern how companies handle fill removed from mountaintop coal seams," Wilma explained. "Until we put a new rule in place, we will work to provide certainty to coal operations and the communities that depend on coal for their livelihood, strengthen our oversight and inspections, and coordinate with other federal agencies to better protect streams and water quality."

Why in the world would I have a problem with this? As I previously posted on the apparent "slow-walk" on this issue by the Interior Department, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar knows full well that President Bush's 'midnight regulation' loosened protections to allow coal companies to dump mining waste directly into streams, and he favors revoking that rule change to restore original "stream buffer zone" protections that were enacted back in 1983. But rather than having his agency propose that change right away and proceeded straight to public input, the Interior Department's chosen course of action is a brand new rulemaking process that won't result in any changes to the rule until at least 2011. As I have written:

Interior's inexplicable and inexcusable decision to delay appropriate regulatory action is a setback for the protection of Appalachian streams and rivers, as well as for the people who depend on clean drinking water in the areas affected by mountaintop removal. Clearly, the last-minute rulemaking under the Bush administration was a giveaway to coal mining companies, leaving America's waterways exposed to the waste and damage from this dirty business. It shouldn't take two years to determine what we already know: mountaintop removal is one the most environmental destructive activities, especially for our waterways.

But Joe Pizarchik, the controversial new director of Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation (OSM), begs to differ. OSM is publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the stream buffer zone rule issued by the Bush Administration in December 2008.

"We are moving as expeditiously as possible in the rulemaking process, but we will not take shortcuts around the law or the science," said Pizarchik. "Until we complete the new rule, we have to manage the shortcomings of the [Bush] rule."

In the meantime, Pizarchik pledged tougher oversight and stronger enforcement to put "all hands on deck to ensure that Appalachian communities are protected."

This all sounds like progress but is it really? I needed a reality check so I consulted my colleague Jon Devine, NRDC's resident policy pro on mountaintop removal. He confirmed my suspicions, telling me:

"Sounds like pretty weak tea. An advanced notice of proposed rulemaking is unnecessary, especially if they want to act quickly, as they claim here. They should just do a proposed rule, and get the process underway."

So, all the talk of "immediate steps" and "sound science" sounds, well, nice. But if there's one thing Appalachia doesn't need is bureaucratic dithering. For too long the coal companies have gotten speedy approvals for their recklessly destructive mining that is leveling America's oldest mountains, polluting streams and poisoning communities. At a time when the Environmental Protection Agency is waking up to significant water quality threats from mountaintop removal -- and acting promptly to hold all of the pending permits -- it baffles me as to why Interior is plodding along in its promise to fix a simple problem: stop letting mining companies dump millions of tons of dirt, rock, rubble and debris into our waterways.

Each day of delay means more irreversible damage to Appalachian streams.

This post originally appeared on NRDC's Switchboard blog.

Nikolas Kozloff: Blackout in Brazil: Hydropower and Our Climate Conundrum

2009-11-23T04:25:13Z

It's everyone's worst nightmare: being caught in an underground subway in the midst of a power outage. Yet, that is exactly what happened recently when Brazilian commuters in the city of Sao Paulo were trapped inside trains and literally had to be pulled out of subway cars. In addition to sparking problems in public transport, the blackout or apago led to hospital emergencies and the shutting down of several airports. In all the power outage darkened approximately half of the South American nation, affecting sixty million people.

In recent years Brazil has become an economic powerhouse yet the blackout exposed vulnerabilities in the country's infrastructure. In the wake of the power outage, government officials intent on sustaining high economic growth have tried to figure out what might have gone wrong with the country's electrical grid. Initial reports blamed the power outage on the massive Itaipu hydroelectric dam though a spokesperson for the facility said there had been no problem at the plant.

Itaipu, the official stated, was solely responsible for power generation and the failure occurred in the transmission line. Perhaps, the Energy and Mines Minister declared, a chance atmospheric event like a storm could have disconnected Itaipu. While the authorities conduct further investigations into the matter, some are concerned about the scope of the apago and have demanded a more detailed explanation.

In addition to power outages there are other, more profound problems associated with hydropower, problems that now concern us all. Indeed, hydroelectric plants lead to emissions of methane which are formed when vegetation decomposes at the bottom of reservoirs devoid of oxygen. The methane is either released slowly as it bubbles up in the reservoir or rapidly when water passes through turbines.

One Brazilian dam, Balbina, flooded about 920 square miles of rainforest when it was completed and during the first three years of its existence the actual reservoir emitted 23 million tons of carbon dioxide and 140,000 tons of methane. Dr. Philip Fearnside, a scientist who I interviewed for my upcoming book No Rain In the Amazon: How South America's Climate Change Affects The Entire Planet (Palgrave Macmillan, April 2010), has calculated that during this time Balbina's greenhouse gas output was four times that of a coal-fired plant producing the same amount of power.

The news is particularly troubling as methane is twenty times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon. Environmentalists say that methane gas produced by forests inundated by hydroelectric projects accounts for one-fifth of Brazil's greenhouse gas contribution to global warming.

How concerned should we be about dams and their effect on Earth's climate? According to researchers, the world's reservoirs release 20 percent of the total methane from all known sources connected to human activity, including livestock, fossil fuels, and landfills. Experts say that same methane released by dams, meanwhile, accounts for 4 percent of total global warming while reservoirs contribute approximately 4 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions resulting from human activity.

The issue of hydro power has been climbing up the political agenda of the world's leading scientists: in 2006 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included emissions from artificially flooded regions in its greenhouse gas inventory. That hasn't stopped Brazilian policymakers however from proceeding full throttle with their plans for Amazonian dams and currently the country relies on hydropower for more than 80% of its electricity. In particular, the government has pushed a controversial dam project called Belo Monte. Scientists have raised the alarm bell about the complex, which will cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions due to the decomposition of organic matter within the stagnant water of the reservoir.

President Lula has said that developing hydro power in the Amazon is essential if the country wants to sustain more than 5 percent growth. The mere fact, however, that Brazil is afflicted by chronic energy problems does not mean that Lula must sacrifice the rainforest to hydro power and thereby intensify climate pressures. Indeed, critics charge that Lula's dam building is merely designed to satisfy big business which gobbles up energy so as to export tropical commodities.

With all of the social drawbacks associated with hydro power, not to mention the implications for climate change, why won't authorities consider meeting Brazil's future energy needs through alternative means? Environmentalists argue that the Lula government should upgrade existing energy systems and push through rapid development of wind, solar, and biomass technologies. If Lula adopted such clean technologies Brazil could meet its electricity needs through 2020 and actually save $15 billion in the process.

Sounds like a proposal worth exploring, but predictably the electrical sector has wasted no time in attacking environmentalists for being utopian and naive. To retrofit older dams and cut transmission losses is simply wishful thinking, the powerful lobbying group has charged. One expert reports that hydroelectric projects die hard in Brazil. "It's like a Dracula movie," he says. "Every 20 years or so, it surges up out of the coffin. You have to drive the stake back through the thing and make it go away again."

Where is all the money coming from for these hydroelectric initiatives you ask? One chief culprit is the Brazilian National Development Bank, the financial arm of the Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade. Because of the incestuous relationship between the government and hydropower, it's politically difficult to challenge these boondoggle projects.

But just in case you thought methane-producing dams were a strictly Brazilian affair, consider that the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB) is also expected to contribute financially to hydro electric projects despite heavy lobbying from environmental and human rights groups that have been urging the bank to steer clear of such initiatives.

Moving away from hydropower and solving our climate conundrum will require political leadership in Brazil but also significant international cooperation. As we move forward in crucial climate change negotiations, the Global North needs to do much more to invest in truly green technology such as wind, solar, and waves. Instead of sponsoring hydropower, large financial institutions as well as affluent countries should provide clean energy transfers to such nations as Brazil.

Failure to act now could exact a heavy environmental toll and condemn Brazil to a vicious energy-climate trap. Consider the case of an earlier, 2001 apago: in that year, a blackout crippled the country and authorities were forced to decree emergency measures, including a ban on power-hungry floodlights. A special government task force (nicknamed the "Blackout Ministry") called for the switching off of lighting on streets, beaches, and squares. In the midst of the energy crisis some Rio business leaders feared a crime wave and called for the army to be deployed in the event of power cuts.

Meanwhile, panic-stricken citizens stocked up on candles, generators, and flashlights. When the rationing went into effect, cutbacks obliged schools and businesses to close and disrupted transportation, trade, and leisure. As street lighting in most major cities was cut 35 percent, police night shifts were increased and even Brazilians' prized night games of soccer were prohibited.

The connection between hydro power and climate change is becoming all too painfully clear. Consider: the immediate cause of the 2001 energy crisis and blackout was a severe drought--the worst in more than sixty years. When the dry spell hit, water levels at hydroelectric plants fell to less than one-third of capacity.

In the long run hydro power may be caught in a vicious cycle of its own making: as large boondoggle projects such as Belo Monte proliferate, they may emit harmful greenhouse gases and thus contribute to climate change and increasing drought. But if global warming dries up parts of the Amazon, Belo Monte and other dams like it could wind up being white elephants as there won't be much water left to harness.

Nikolas Kozloff is the author of the upcoming No Rain In the Amazon: How South America's Climate Change Affects The Entire Planet (Palgrave Macmillan, April 2010). Visit his website, senorchichero.