[Mb-civic] Enviro new headlines -- keep tabs on your world!

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE
<http://grist.org>

DOOM AND GLOOM WITH A SENSE OF, UH ... DOOM
Comprehensive assessment of world's ecosystems released; be very afraid

The largest and most comprehensive assessment of the world's 
ecosystems ever undertaken was released today, and the results 
constitute a "stark warning" that "the ability of the planet's 
ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for 
granted," according to the 45-member board of the Millennium 
Ecosystem Assessment. The study was written by 1,360 experts from 95
countries, including government officials, scientists, members of
civil-society groups and indigenous tribes, and industry representatives,
under the rubric of the U.N. Environment Program, using widely agreed-upon
scientific evidence. It warns of rapid decline in biodiversity and
freshwater availability, and says the likelihood of disease outbreaks (a
la SARS), "dead zones" in coastal waters, and destructive climate shifts
will rise sharply in the coming 50 years. It recommends means of slowing
some of the damage -- developing markets for freshwater, improving
forestry practices, removing some agricultural subsidies -- but stresses
that none of those means are yet being applied.

straight to the source: The Philadelphia Inquirer, Seth Borenstein, 30 Mar
2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4676>

straight to the source: Scripps Howard News Service, Joan Lowy, 29 Mar
2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4678>

straight to the source: The Washington Post, Shankar Vedantam, 30 Mar 2005
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4679>

straight to the source: Planet Ark, Reuters, Alister Doyle, 30 Mar 2005
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4680>

OIL TOGETHER NOW
Bipartisan coalition presses Bush to get behind oil-use reduction

Lambasting U.S. oil addiction: It's not just for America-hating 
radical homosexual vegetarian Schiavo-killing eco-terrorists anymore! A
growing bipartisan coalition is arguing that U.S. dependence on foreign
oil is a serious national security threat. Today, a letter signed by 26
former national-security officials from both Republican and Democratic
administrations is winging its way to the White House, bearing a plea for
President Bush to kick off "a major new initiative to curtail U.S.
consumption." "I don't often find myself in agreement with those at the
Natural Resources Defense Council, but ... I do think there is common
ground," said neocon Frank Gaffney, a former Reagan administration
official. The letter was organized by the bipartisan Energy Future
Coalition, which arose in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to
advocate for tighter fuel-economy standards and higher subsidies for
alternative fuels. Auto-worker unions, automakers, and farming groups --
traditional foes of environmental groups -- are on board, perhaps more
comfortable around the manly men of the national-security apparatus.

straight to the source: The Wall Street Journal, John J. Fialka and 
Jeffrey Ball, 28 Mar 2005 (access ain't free)
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4644>

.
HE SHOOTS HORSES, DOESN'T HE?
Trophy-hunting enthusiast appointed to head Fish and Wildlife Service

Nothing gives one an appreciation for the challenges facing 
endangered species like, uh, hunting and killing said species. With 
that verity in mind, the Bush administration has appointed Matthew 
Hogan as interim head of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Director
Steve Williams resigned earlier this month). Among his accomplishments,
Hogan used to be the chief lobbyist for Safari Club International, a
trophy-hunting group that holds competitions wherein its members roam five
continents, shooting at a variety of exotic and sometimes endangered
species. The generally wealthy members of SCI on occasion take shortcuts,
shooting captive animals or animals that have drifted to the peripheries
of national parks. No, we don't make this stuff up.

straight to the source: The NewStandard, Jessica Azulay, 20 Mar 2005
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4637>

straight to the source: Humane Society press release, 18 Mar 2005
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4638>


THE SOUND OF ONE HULL SPLITTING
Sixteen years after Exxon Valdez, tankers still not safe

This week, to mark the 16th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez disaster that
spilled 11 million gallons of oil in Alaska's Prince William Sound, the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer is running a special series on the
environmentally precarious state of modern oil-tanker transport. Some key
findings of its investigation: Post-Valdez initiatives intended to reduce
crew hours, require more tug escorts for tankers, and crack down on
alcohol use are all regularly dodged.  Many West Coast officials have been
lobbying to loosen tug-escort rules meant to help shepherd tankers safely
to port.  Also, even 16 years later, Exxon still hasn't double-hulled any
of its Alaskan tankers.  And even modern double-hulled tankers, such as
those now used by ConocoPhillips to transport nearly 38 million gallons of
oil at a time, are still vulnerable to spills thanks to human fallibility.
More sobering, perhaps, is the fact that experts estimate it only takes
some 1 million gallons of spilled oil to cripple wildlife and commerce in
sensitive waterways for months or years.  Sigh.

straight to the source:  Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Eric Nalder, 22 Mar
2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4621>



MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING TO THIS "POLITE" BUSINESS
Auto industry agrees to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in Canada

After years of halting negotiations, the auto industry has reached a deal
with the Canadian government to voluntarily reduce its greenhouse-gas
emissions by some 5.8 million tons by 2010. Canadian Environment Minister
Stephane Dion had previously threatened to impose strict fuel-economy
standards if the automakers didn't agree to voluntary cuts. According to
government sources, the automakers insisted the deal be made in terms of
total emission reductions rather than fuel economy (though the end result
will be the same); they feared that explicitly agreeing to fuel-economy
standards would imperil their pending lawsuit against California, which
recently imposed strict standards. Enviros expressed the only sort of
optimism of which they are capable -- that is, guarded -- saying that the
need to make fuel-efficient vehicles for Europe, California, and now
Canada might finally push automakers to just make their entire fleets more
efficient. While government officials touted the happy, shiny, voluntary
compromisiness of it all, the Sierra Club's Dan Becker was more blunt:
"The Canadian government has managed to bludgeon the auto industry into
submission."

straight to the source: The Globe and Mail, Steven Chase and Greg 
Keenan, 23 Mar 2005
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4629>

straight to the source: The New York Times, Ian Austen, 24 Mar 2005
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4630>


I COULDA HAD A V-12
Automakers make SUV engines bigger, less efficient

Under heated criticism for making SUVs that are unsafe and grossly 
fuel-inefficient, American automakers are responding the way any 
responsible industry would: making their SUVs even less safe and less
fuel-efficient. General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford are all cranking
up horsepower in their SUV engines, in some cases to the point that
behemoths like the Jeep Grand Cherokee will go from 0 to 60 miles per hour
in under five seconds, rivaling most sports cars. Though concerns about
high gas prices, dependence on foreign oil, and global warming -- did we
miss any? -- have heightened awareness of fuel economy, 84 percent of
large-SUV owners still rank horsepower as an important vehicle attribute,
compared to 45 percent who say the same about pinko-commie fixations like
fuel economy. Of course, with their high centers of gravity and propensity
to roll over in crashes, SUVs "were never designed to be driven as sports
cars," says David Champion of Consumer Reports. So watch out!

straight to the source: The Wall Street Journal, Michelle Higgins, 24 Mar
2005 (access ain't free)
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4627>


BEHIND ENEMY LIVESTOCK
Ranchers, greens unite to fight oil and gas wells in West

Ranchers and environmentalists have traditionally gone together like
chocolate and, uh, people who really hate chocolate. But of late, they
have been overlooking past tussles to fight a common enemy: increasingly
ubiquitous oil and gas drilling in the Western U.S. The ranchers say the
drilling process often sickens or kills livestock, which are hit by
drilling trucks or drink pooled antifreeze or other chemicals from
contaminated disposal pits. Greens have been led on guided tours of
affected ranches to document contamination. A coalition opposing drilling
in New Mexico's San Juan Basin plans to negotiate with drillers to clean
up old messes in the area instead of taking the matter to court, an
approach favored by area ranchers. "After all the smoke and mirrors go
away, ranchers and environmentalists have a common agenda -- and it is
protection of the land," said Mark Gordon, a Buffalo, Wyo., rancher.

straight to the source: The Wall Street Journal, Jim Carlton, 23 Mar 2005
(access ain't free) <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4624>

---------

ALL YOUR BASE ARE BEFOULED BY US
Military base closures leave behind toxic, uninhabitable land

Military bases frequently serve as economic engines for the 
communities they inhabit, and with what could be the biggest round of base
closures ever on its way from the Department of Defense, those communities
hope that developing the land freed up by the closed bases will replace
some of the lost revenue. But they may be out of luck: The bases
frequently leave behind contaminated water, asbestos-ridden soil,
unexploded munitions, the presence of endangered species, and a variety of
other environmental concerns that can make development more expensive 
than
it's worth. Since the late '80s, the DoD has spent some $12 billion on
environmental cleanup at closed bases, but one-third of that land remains
uninhabitable thanks primarily to toxic contamination. Developers have
sued the military over contamination on some bases, but even for residents
on adjoining land -- suffering from cancer, miscarriages, and other
ailments -- "every bit of cleanup they get is a struggle," said Tara
Thornton of the Military Toxics Project.

straight to the source: Scripps Howard News Service, Joan Lowy, 29 Mar
2005 <http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4677>

see also, in Grist: There's No Base Like Home -- Is contaminated 
housing poisoning military families? -- By Justin Scheck
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4681>

ROUTE SCOOTIN' BOOGIE
Shell alters pipeline route to spare whale feeding grounds

It's one small step for environmentalists, one giant leap for 
endangered gray whales: Energy giant Royal Dutch/Shell has agreed to alter
the planned route of a massive oil and gas pipeline off of Russia's
Sakhalin island by 12 miles to preserve the charismatic mammal's feeding
grounds. Shell and its partners bowed to pressure from enviros concerned
that the project could harm the roughly 100 gray whales remaining off the
island with noise, ship traffic, and possible oil spillage. The project
has been delayed since last April after Shell's own research revealed that
work in the area could harm the whales. Though the new route "does avoid
the whale feeding areas quite significantly," said John Kidd of the World
Conservation Union, "there are still concerns" because a longer pipeline
"obviously increases the risk of spillage once the pipeline is in
operation."

straight to the source: Bloomberg.com, 30 Mar 2005
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4672>

straight to the source: San Francisco Chronicle, Associated Press, 
Alex Nicholson, 30 Mar 2005
<http://grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=4673>
-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - 
up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you 
this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to 
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.


"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
   ---   George Orwell


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050401/bf363e8c/attachment.html