Old King Coal

Two-hundred and twenty children attend Marsh Fork Elementary School out here in West Virginia’s Coal River Valley, the poorest region in West Virginia. Or rather, two hundred and twenty children are supposed to attend the elementary school. The fact of the matter is, about 10% of those students are absent from school every week; sick from the mine dust snowing down from a coal loading silo just 225 feet away.

Runoff from the loading silo flows through outtake pipes into a small creek separating the silo from the elementary school. Sometimes the drinking water here runs clear, but sometimes it’s black or red or brown. A 2.8 billion gallon reservoir of coal slurry with more than 200 safety violations rests uphill of the school and town. If it bursts, as one did in Lyburn, West Virginia in 2002, it will be only a matter of seconds before hundreds of people, including all the children at Marsh Fork Elementary, are encased in a tsunami of toxic sludge.

Mountain top removal (MTR) is the dirty, dangerous, and destructive process of blasting the tops off mountains to get at the coal seams inside. The excess sediment is dumped in the valleys between mountains, leveling not only millions of years of geologic processes, but hundreds of years of Appalachian culture. It is this process that is engaged in by Massey Energy, the latest of twelve different coal companies to rape Appalachia in the past 125 years.

When the President addresses his, "fellow Americans" once a year at the State of the Union, don't take it to mean that he's including the residents of the Coal River Valley. If Bush cared about his fellow Americans, he wouldn’t have molested a Clinton Administration environmental impact statement on MTR into a review of the permitting process for coal companies. If Bush cared about his fellow Americans, the EPA’s department of Environmental Justice would not have remained conspicuously quiet on this issue for the past six years.

The people of the Coal River Valley, and people like them in Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee, are being slowly poisoned to death. They are dying, and their democratically elected government is watching it happen. Democrats, in their newfound position of power within Congress, must instate an immediate moratorium on MTR and commission a study into the environmental, health and public safety effects of MTR on the people and regions most affected.

Two-hundred and twenty children deserve better.

HR 5642: An Inconvenient Truth

It’s times like these that I wish Democrats ran the country with an iron fist. Oh, how I long for the FDR years…

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California 30th) has just written an incredibly comprehensive bill on climate change. The Safe Climate Act (HR 5642) would, through a series of market-based emissions caps, EPA regulations on greenhouse gases, increased CAFÉ standards for automobiles, boosted use of renewable energy and improved energy efficiency standards, launch the first comprehensive plan to control US greenhouse gas emissions.

Through a process of gradual reductions beginning in 2010, our greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 would be 80% lower than they were in 1990. You can read Rep. Waxman’s summary here or, if you’re a real enviro-geek, you can read the entire bill here. The plan is pioneering, economically viable, and of the utmost necessity.

The only “elephants in the room” are the 231 of them in the House, and the 55 of them in the Senate. And they've stubbornly foiled more moderate plans than this before:

In 2003, the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act failed in the Senate, 43-55. Not only was that bill more moderate than HR 5642, but the Senate too, is historically more moderate than the House. Nevertheless, only six (6) Republicans voted in favor of the “bi-partisan” effort.

And that, my friends, is the most Inconvenient of all Truths: As long as the Republicans remain in power, our country will continue to ignore the cries of the global community in confronting this important global challenge. As a result, HR 5642’s chances of getting through the House are the same as a ray of infrared light’s chances of getting through an entirely sulfur-hexafluoride atmosphere (that’s climatologist-speak for “a snowball’s chance in hell”).

The United Kingdom is placing climate change "at the heart" of its foreign policy. Unless you plan on becoming of a member of the Labour Party, it was fun dreaming with you, Rep. Waxman.

Clear Skies, Mere Lies

I'm beginning to feel more and more like Winston Smith:

“WAR IS PEACE.
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

Some of you may recognize this doublespeak slogan as the guiding credo of the INGSOC government in George Orwell’s classic, 1984. If so, you may also remember that the slogan is nothing but contradictory nonsense supported by twisted logic, all meant to confuse the “proles” into complacency.

To those three unforgettable lines, I would posit a new line of equally contradictory nonsense--inspired by the Bush administration's failed forays into environmental policy:

“POLLUTED SKIES ARE CLEAR SKIES."

The Clear Skies Act was advertised in 2003 as a helpful supplement to the Clean Air Act. It has come back into prominence recently because 12 states (Virginia not one of them), as well as several US cities and environmental groups are suing the EPA over "Clear Skies" amendments made to the Clean Air Act. The plaintiffs argue that carbon dioxide, a leading cause of climate change that is wholly ignored under “Clear Skies,” must be controlled as an airborne pollutant.

The US Supreme Court will make their decision this fall in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency--a case that will pit climatology against ideology.

In light of the upcoming legal battle over the validity of climate change, I think it’s high time we reexamine that murky nadir of environmental legislation, the Clear Skies Act. The Act, despite its misleading name, is nothing more than another example of Orwellian doublespeak.

Among the reasons hailed by Big Brother Bush as to why “Clear Skies” will keep America’s lungs breathing freely:

BUSH'S CLAIM: The Clear Skies act provides the first ever cap on mercury emissions.

THE FACTS: Tricky language. While no law specifically set caps on mercury emissions, laws covering “toxic air pollution” would have limited mercury emissions to 5 tons per point source by 2008. The so-called "Clear Skies" Act loosens those caps to 26 tons by 2010--a 520% increase in mercury emissions from original goals. Hardly something to tout.

Perhaps more frighteningly, an EPA study on the teratogenic effects of mercury on unborn children was not brought to public attention until journalists exposed it nine months after its completion. The results of this silenced study? Mercury can cause mental retardation in infants. Oops.

BUSH'S CLAIM: The Clear Skies Act cuts emissions of Nitrous Oxide (NOx) by 67%.

THE FACTS: Another example of tricky language. While Clear Skies would cut NOx emissions by 67%, the Clean Air Act would have cut them by almost one million tons more had it been left untampered.

That’s like saying, “Under my plan, we will donate $100 to charity,” when the orphans were promised $10,000.

BUSH'S CLAIM: The Clear Skies Act protects our wildlife, habitats, and ecosystem health.

THE FACTS: The Clear Skies Act subverts one of the most valuable systems states have to protect their environment: The legal system. Under the Clear Skies Act, states can’t sue each other over ecosystem threats like upwind air pollution. This is vital for the in states like New York where H2SO4 generated by West Virginia’s coal-fired power plants travels upwind and and acidifies lakes.

Perhaps Dubya doesn’t understand that state borders don’t apply to acid rain.

BUSH'S CLAIM: The Clear Skies Act saves as much as $1 billion in compliance costs that are passed along to the American consumer.

THE FACTS: The Detroit Edison power plant where Bush first unveiled this sparkling piece of legislation is, ironically, one of the most polluting power plants in the country. The EPA (yes, the EPA) estimates that each year, Detroit Edison is responsible for 293 premature deaths, 5,740 asthma attacks and 50,298 lost workdays. Due to a loophole in the Clear Skies Act, the power plant won’t have to install any pollution-controlling technology until 2020!

Sure, that'll be 4,981 premature deaths (from this power plant alone) since the Clear Skies Act was announced, but at least we won’t have to pay any “compliance costs!”

BUSH'S CLAIM: The Clear Skies Act is a better alternative to the Kyoto Protocol in the fight against global climate change.

THE FACTS: This is perhaps the biggest joke of them all, and the crux of the upcoming Supreme Court case. Carbon dioxide, the number one anthropogenic greenhouse gas—a molecule upon which the entire scale of measuring a molecular global warming potential is based—has ABOSULTELY NO CAPS! None! Zero! Cutting CO2 emissions is completely voluntary under current US emissions law! No government penalties for excess emissions, no government incentives for limiting emissions, no carbon trading program. Apparently the, “better alternative to the Kyoto Protocol,” entails ignoring climate change entirely.

Don’t even get me started on Dubya’s “Healthy Forest Initiative." Let's just say, the Logging Industry loved it.

Ignorance is strength, right?

Need Yet Another Reason to Vote Against George Allen?

ME NEITHER.

Whether it's his corporate-financed trips in private jets, archaic stance on reproductive rights, affinity for elite-friendly tax cuts or his distaste for civil rights, the reasons to vote against George Allen are as plentiful as the excess carbon-dioxide in our atmosphere.

But just in case you need a little extra convincing as to Senator Allen's incompetence, the League of Conservation Voters has a new piece of incriminating evidence: His environmental record.

LCV released its annual environmental scorecard and, once again, Allen has placed in the bottom tier of the US Senate. His pro-environment voting record of 5% (up from 0% for the past four years) qualifies him as one of the worst environmental stewards in the federal government.

A sampling of Senator Allen’s voting record from this year includes:

• A vote FOR a bill that would have allowed oil drilling in America’s Artic Wildlife Refuge;
• A vote AGAINST a bill that would have rewarded farmers who took steps to preserve the environment;
• A vote AGAINST a bill that would have required power plants to limit mercury pollution earlier than 2020, a date set by the Bush Administration under the Orwellianly named "Clear Skies" Act;
• A vote AGAINST a bill that would have ended subsidies for logging companies to build logging roads through Tongass National Forest in Alaska;

And perhaps one of the scariest environmental votes of the year:

• A vote AGAINST a bill that would have put a moratorium on EPA-commissioned human testing of pesticides with known nuerotoxins.

No matter the environmental bill—whether proposed by Democrats, Republicans, or in true bi-partisan form—George Allen made sure that he cast his vote for corporate interests over the health and safety of his constituents. The facts are clear cut: One cannot be an Environmentalist and still vote for George Allen. Come November, let's cut his Senate career shorter than the trees in Tongass National Forest.

I’ve added a Web sticker from LCV to the bottom of this blog. Enter your zip code to look up the voting record for your congressional delegation!

For more information on the League of Conservation Voters and their environmental scorecards, visit http://www.lcv.org/.

Exxon im-Mobil-ized!

LAST MONTH, TIM KAINE SENT THE OIL INDUSTRY A CRYSTAL CLEAR message: "Sic Semper Tyrannis."

Gov. Kaine vetoed SB262, the bill that would have allowed oil companies to drill for oil off Virginia’s coast--most notably Virginia Beach. Although Exxon had hoped that Virginia would be the weakest link in a 25 year-old national offshore drilling moratorium, Gov. Kaine showed the country that Virginians don’t barter their natural resources away to corporate interests.

In the measure's place, Gov. Kaine proposed a bill supporting natural gas exploration a minimum of 50 miles off the Virginia coast. The measure states that drilling for natural gas could not occur unless valid scientific research (not funded by ExxonMobil) showed that drilling would be worthwhile.

Interestingly enough, all waters more than three miles from the Virginian coast are considered US waters, not Virginian. Thus, to drill there would require an act of Congress…The same Congress that has, for the past 25 years, consistently shot down Ted Stevens’ diabolical dream to drill the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It seems that Virginia’s coasts are safe once more.

Thank you to all those who called the Governor with their concerns over SB262 and bravo to Gov. Kaine! We all hope to see more aggressive environmental defense from him in the future!

Offshore Drilling? Not in MY state!

WE ARE AT THE FOREFRONT OF AN EPIC ENVIRONMENTAL BATTLE currently being waged between multi-billion dollar corporations like ExxonMobil, and the everyday People of our state...People who want nothing but to keep our coastlines clean from the dirty business of oil drilling. For the past 25 years we’ve been moderately successful; a national moratorium prohibiting the establishment of new offshore drilling sites has both maintained Virginia’s beaches as high-quality recreational areas, and preserved some of our uniquely beautiful wild spaces for future generations to enjoy.

But if ExxonMobil and the Republican-controlled legislature have their way, Virginia’s coasts will never be the same again.

Exxon (and the legislators they control like marionettes) wants Virginia to “declare her independence” from the moratorium and open her beaches to offshore drilling. Using nationalistic rhetoric, they have set the tone of the debate by phrasing the issue as a “state’s right to choose” to drill off its own coast—in this case off the coast of our very own Virginia Beach.

This is not a state’s-rights issue. This moratorium was originally put in place when “tarballs” (large, solid chunks of congealed oil) kept washing-up on the beaches of Southern California. We, the People of Virginia, have a right to expect clean coasts from our government. It is our right to know that the environment is being cared for in a responsible manner. Oil drilling—particularly offshore—is a dirty and dangerous business that strikes at the core of this inherent right. In these times of growing environmental crises, we cannot afford another chink in the ever-weakening legal protections provided to defend our planet.

The Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center, a program within government-controlled NASA, states that 0.25% of global environmental oil production (6 million TONS per year) is ultimately spilled into the world’s oceans--fifteen million gallons of oil EACH DAY, or one hundred and fifty-six ExxonValdez-sized spills annually. An end to the quarter-century long moratorium on offshore drilling will only lead to an increase in the number of these spills. But this time, the crisis will be much closer to home. Bringing the dirtiest business in the world to the shores of Virginia will have no ultimate effect but to degrade the natural and recreational environment of our state.

Now is the time to fight back. We, the People of Virginia, elected Tim Kaine as our Governor for a reason; we put our trust in the expectation that he would fight for our rights; that he would be a voice of common sense in a debate desperately in need of some lucidity.

Call Gov. Kaine at (804) 786- 2211 and tell him to veto SB262.

The future of our coast depends upon your action.