The Competitive Enterprise Institute Wants You to Think That They Care About People LOL

I’ve been meaning to get around to writing this post for a while, ever since September of this year, when I blogged about the 50^th anniversary of the publication of Silent Spring. In the googling I did to research for that blog post, I ran across the site Rachel Was Wrong. Go ahead, click around the site if you like.

This site claims that, in pointing out the environmental and health consequences from the overuse of many pesticides, particularly DDT, Carson and Silent Spring “generated a culture of fear, resulting in policies have (sic) deprived many people access to life-saving chemicals. In particular, many nations curbed the use of the pesticide DDT for malaria control because Carson created unfounded fears about the chemical.”

The site suggests that millions of deaths from malaria might be avoided had the US not banned DDT and the rest of the world restricted its use. Malaria is a serious health concern. Each year, worldwide, more than 200 million people contact malaria, and more than half a million people die each year from the mosquito borne disease, with more than 90 percent of these cases and deaths occurring in Africa. That Africa suffers the most from malaria is reflected in the logo of Rachel Was Wrong, a mosquito biting into the African continent.

DDT or other pesticides are not necessary for malaria eradication. As has been shown with the U.S. construction of the Panama Canal and the eradication of malaria from the South through the U.S. Public Health Service and the Tennessee Valley Authority, malaria is best fought through organized government efforts, efforts that sometimes span decades. DDT is still used in many parts of the world for malarial control. Its use is complicated, with demonstrated health consequences for humans and environmental damage, while it can be successful in stemming the occurrence of malaria or can serve as a part of a program for the disease’s eradication.[i]

Rachel Was Wrong is a website placed upon the Internet by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). CEI has been around since 1984. That they would attack Rachel Carson and her work is unsurprising. This organization has a track record of anti-environmentalism. In 2003 the institute worked to quash a report on global warming that had been published in 2000. In 2005 they supported a bill that would have severely weakened the Endangered Species Act. They are loath to credit environmental regulation with any success. In May of 1998, during a fairly upbeat time when more than 20 imperiled plants and animals had recovered so well that they were about to be delisted as endangered, Brian Seashole, a CEI spokesman, said that the eagle, peregrine, and other species, “have recovered despite the ESA, not because of it.”[ii]

On the Rachel Was Wrong website photographs of children, all of them African, give the impression that CEI is a compassionate organization, trying to right the wrongs of misguided environmentalists. But this organization’s positions have not been ones to enhance health or well-being. They have supported the tobacco industry, on one occasion trying to obfuscate the findings of a 1994 study that found that as many as 3000 American lives are shortened each year from the passive inhalation of tobacco smoke.

Just this year CEI published an op-ed in USA Today opposing increased inspection of slaughterhouses and farms and the adoption of risk prevention controls in food production to stem the incidence of food borne diseases. A 1997 study found that hundreds of thousands of premature deaths could be prevented each year by curbing the emission of greenhouse gasses and particulate matter into the atmosphere. CEI dismissed the findings, saying, “effect of particulates on health is controversial.”[iii]

So is CEI helping Africa? The cigarette companies that they support are opening markets in Africa, with some health organizations predicting a "tobacco epidemic" on the horizon there. The oil companies that back the CEI are causing great environmental damage in Africa, with corresponding human suffering and loss of life.

Like the beggars in Victor Hugo’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame, who are shown to be faking their lameness and blindness to gain the alms of their fellow Parisians, Rachel Was Wrong is a similar dishonest ruse, giving us the impression that CEI cares about suffering children, when they don’t care in the slightest.

---

[i] Bouwman, Hindrik, Henk van den Berg, and Henrik Kylin. "DDT And Malaria Prevention: Addressing The Paradox." Environmental Health Perspectives 119.6 (2011): 744-747. Environment Complete. Web. 25 Dec. 2012.

[ii] Hebert, Josef. “Bald eagle, peregrine, and others leaving endangered list.” Ludington Daily News May 6, 1998 page 6 print

[iii] “Study: Emission curbs would save lives” The Tuscaloosa News November 7, 1997 page 8A print

---

[i] Bouwman, Hindrik, Henk van den Berg, and Henrik Kylin. "DDT And Malaria Prevention: Addressing The Paradox." Environmental Health Perspectives 119.6 (2011): 744-747. Environment Complete. Web. 25 Dec. 2012.

[ii] Hebert, Josef. “Bald eagle, peregrine, and others leaving endangered list.” Ludington Daily News May 6, 1998 page 6 print

Alec Rawls Leaks IPCC Report: But How Did He Get the Document in the First Place?

There is a bit of a twitter, figuratively and literally, about a leak of a draft report of the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The final report is due out next year, but this draft was leaked yesterday.

The leaker is a man named Alec Rawls, who is the son of the prominent American philosopher John Rawls. The way he got a hold of the document was to sign up to be one of the 800 expert reviewers of the document.

To be an expert reviewer for an IPCC report, don’t you have to be an expert? How was Rawls vetted to be one of the select persons entrusted to work on this report? As far as I can tell, he isn’t a scientist or someone who has worked on climate issues. On his Linkedin account he says of himself that he is an “Independent Writing and Editing Professional.” (The bit of writer and editor in me wants to correct this to “Independent Writer and Editor,” but that’s another matter.)

            He also lists himself as being self-employed at Rawls Industries, which he says he has owned for over 57 years. If his photo is any indication of his age, he’s had his nose to the grindstone since he was in diapers. I didn’t look long in Google, but I found no trace of a company named Rawls Industries that has been in business for over 50 years.

            He wrote a book, Crescent of Betrayal, that is, well, a little loony. I haven’t read the book, but the summary on Amazon indicates that it is about the memorial in Pennsylvania for the persons who died on flight 93 in September of 2001 and describes the book as showing “how every major element of the proposed ‘Crescent of Embrace’ memorial design is in fact a typical mosque feature, built on an epic scale.” I imagine that I’ll get around to reading it while Elvis flies me around area 51 in a black helicopter.

            As many are pointing out, Rawls, as well as others on the attack the climate science bandwagon, is pinning his hopes of bringing down climate science, or at least the IPCC, on a single sentence that might be construed as implying a greater contribution to global warming from solar flares. The science of climate change and the work of the IPCC stand on their own, and I don’t need to go into that here and now.

            But holy guacamole! Before you’re allowed on a prestigious panel to review a very important document, shouldn’t somebody at least take a look at your Linkedin account and figure out whether or not you have any qualifications to review drafts? Maybe check to see if you have any degrees? See if you’ve ever done any work that would qualify you as somebody competent to work on the IPCC’s report? Maybe just a brief check to see that you haven’t written an entire book that should be shelved in the fantasy section of the library?

Love Pasta? Love Skiing? Become an Environmentalist

The amount of concern over global warming, at least as far as it goes for the countries around the world, has been divided along geographic and economic lines. Countries that are islands or whose boundaries are dominated by low-lying coastal plains—and who are already seeing the effects of rising tides—are most certainly concerned. Wealthy countries who have the resources for adaptations are less concerned about the consequences of climate change than are countries that are poor. Bangladesh, the Netherlands, and the Maldives are freaked out by global warming; Russia, Canada, and the US not so much.

            Reading the accounts of climate negotiations, those are the things that have been dominating the headlines. And there are the headlines that reflect the concerns of scientists and environmentalists: the loss of wetlands, water availability, increased numbers of wildfires, and other environmental calamities.

            Just recently, I’ve noticed a few different sorts of stories about global warming, the concerns that industries and individuals have over how a warming planet will affect their livelihoods and pastimes. Farmers are now figuring out that rising temperatures can affect their crops. As wheat is the one grain that is quite sensitive to higher temperatures, wheat farmers, as well as the folks who make bread and pasta, are anticipating a drop of about 25% in yield of their crop.

            Their current strategy is adaptation. Agronomists are developing and farmers are testing wheat strains that can handle hotter and drier temperatures. I guess that is their smartest move. It is probably easier to pay a few scientists their salaries and perform some trial runs of crops than it is to lobby Congress and other governing bodies for a carbon tax and other climate legislation.

            Folks who ski have noticed that ski seasons are shorter and there is in general less snow on the slopes than their used to be. These skiers and others who enjoy winter sports are lobbying Congress and putting the ski industry on notice that they need to be more involved in keeping the planet cool. Interestingly, just as the oil and coal industries have lobbied and done what they could to keep climate change legislation off the agenda, corporations who have a financial interest in seeing the ski industry thrive, such as The North Face and Patagonia, are sponsoring the efforts of the ski organization.

            Maybe we can think of the ski slope operators and wheat farmers as the poor coastal countries of the economy, the ones who are the first to feel the pains of a warming world. As weather patterns change and the world becomes for the most part hotter and drier, other crops besides wheat will be affected. Orchards may produce fewer apples, and we may not get as many grapes from vineyards that have produced grapes for generations. Other folks besides skiers and ski slope operators could see their pastimes and livelihoods melt away.

As the term is global warming, it’s hard to think of anyone who isn’t going to be affected by a warmer planet. As with the farmers and skiers, however, they only took action once they saw how climate change had already affected their crops and slopes. I guess that explains why so few others are ready and willing to take action. Though we are cognizant of the skiers and wheat farmers, we don’t see how climate change affects us just yet. We are like coal miners who see the canaries getting sick and dying, but we just figure that it’s the birds’ problem and go on digging ourselves deeper into the mine.

Forget the Fiscal Cliff. We Are Approaching a Climate Cliff

At a time when we have the knowledge and ability to curb greenhouse gas emissions, this is more bad news. It seems that, instead of taking note of the evidence and heeding the warnings from scientists, we have been pumping ever more CO2 into the atmosphere.

            To no great credit of our own, the greenhouse gas emissions of the United States dropped by two percent. This is not so much because we are building windmills and installing solar panels on our rooftops, but more because the recession is still strangling the economy. Unemployed folks are not commuting to jobs; fewer products being built and shipped; construction of houses and buildings has been curtailed. All these things create carbon dioxide.

            But while we have been stuck in a recession other countries like India and China are growing richer. They are increasing industrial production, and more and more of their citizens are doing things that Americans take for granted—buying lots of stuff, eating more meat, and driving cars—that increase global warming. China’s output of greenhouse gasses is up by ten percent.

            We are now making more than 1,200 tons of greenhouse gasses every second. It is almost a certainty that the target of keeping global warming to two degrees centigrade will be impossible. It runs against my gut feelings of how to work with this problem, because it is treating the symptom of the disease rather than the causes, but we really have to start working on geoengineering projects. I don’t believe we have any other choice right now.

Cell Phones and Tumors: The Science Becomes Clearer

Perhaps this story didn’t make it into the American news because we were distracted by the columns and columns of newsprint and the hours and hours of television time devoted to Mitt Romney and Barack Obama running for President. And to tell the truth, I’m surprised I ran across it now.

            Back in October an Italian court ruled that a businessman’s brain tumor was caused by his extensive use of cell phones. The man, Innocenzo Marcolini, developed the tumor after long and intense use. He used a cell phone for five to six hours a day for 12 years. The tumor developed on the left side of his head. He usually held the phones in his left hand while he took notes with his right.

            Now, granted that Marcolini’s use of a cell phone was extreme, the rest of us should take caution. Most commonly we hear that the science connecting the use of cell phones and brain tumors is inconclusive. The Reuters article where I got this story even repeats the meme. The court in Italy ruled, however, that the scientific evidence supported the claim of Marcolini, that his tumor was caused by the cell phones.

            Indeed, the reason that the science is inconclusive may be for the same reason that for years the science connecting cigarettes and lung cancer was inconclusive, because industry made the science inconclusive. For years companies like Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds sponsored “science” that showed inconclusive connections between their products and heart disease, cancer, and other ailments. Cell phone companies are just following in their footsteps. This study[i] recently published in Open Environmental Sciences analyzed the scientific studies performed on cell phones. The study determined that industry sponsored studies found inconclusive or weak evidence linking cell phones and brain tumors, while independent studies linked tumors and cell phone use.

            As far as tobacco goes, it is just today, decades after the science should have been concluded and accepted about the dangers of smoking, that a judge has ordered the large tobacco companies to admit that they lied about their products. Let’s hope it doesn’t take as long to achieve clarity about cell phones and their hazards.

---

[i] Spiridione Garbisa, et al. "Mobile Phones And Head Tumours: A Critical Analysis Of Case-Control Epidemiological Studies." Open Environmental Sciences 6.(2012): 1-12. Environment Complete. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.

Are Folks Being NIMBYs When They Say To Keep the Fracking Out of Their Town?

One of the things that I’ve heard from those inside the environmental movement is that progress on the environmental front at the federal level is not promising. With gridlock the status quo in Congress and GOP lead opposition to environmental regulation, any environmental success in Washington would be long fought and quite possibly fruitless.

            Those in the environmental movement have encouraged folks to work on the state and local levels, where people can more directly take charge of their lives and the environment around them. That’s what makes this story out of Colorado so intriguing. Not wanting fracking type gas drilling to disturb their parks, schools, and neighborhoods, the residents of Longmont Colorado banned fracking in their town.

Now it looks like they are in for a plethora of lawsuits challenging their right to restrict the controversial extraction process. The state of Colorado says that it, not local governments, has the right to regulate drilling. The energy companies claim that the ban infringes on their property rights.

Certainly local municipalities cannot enact laws that run counter to state and federal laws. No matter how many crack addicts live in a town, they cannot make cocaine legal in opposition to state and federal statutes. On the other hand, people in a community should have the right to live in a town that is unmolested by the presence of large-scale drilling, especially considering the health concerns that have been associated with fracking.

Patriot Coal Announces They Are Ending Mountaintop Removal

This news is a wonderful surprise. Patriot Coal announced today that they are ending their practice of mountaintop removal. The coal mining company said that its decision came as part of their agreement over a water pollution lawsuit with the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, the Sierra Club, and the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy.

Patriot Coal is to be applauded. Credit is due as well to the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy and other organizations that have been working with legislators, state agencies, and the courts to ensure that the remaining mountains of Appalachia continue to stand; the waters of those mountains run clean and clear; and the residents of the eastern coalfields can live lives unharmed by the ailments associated with mountaintop removal.

            Mountaintop removal by Patriot Coal is not ending today. The company will be phasing out mountaintop mining production over the next three to four years. But all things considered, the news is still good.

Robert Murray Has a Tantrum Over Obama's Election and 156 People Lose Their Jobs

Following through as he had threatened to do earlier, Robert E. Murray has laid off 156 employees of his mining company, Murray Energy. Other business people have made similar threats concerning Obama’s reelection. I only know of this one instance with Murray Energy in which those threats have been made real.

On this Fox Business show, in a rather besieged tone, Murray said that he anticipates reduced economic activity and reduced power use, although current trends indicate an expanding economy with greater energy use. He went on to call the president a liar and “unfit to guide this country.”

            As I have blogged before, coal is in decline, but not because of Barack Obama. The market for coal has been diminished by falling gas prices. As well, in Appalachia, most of the easily mined (and therefore cheap) coal has already been shipped off to power plants. Whoever occupies the Oval Office cannot change these two facts. Murray is correct in asserting that Romney would most likely loosen restrictions on coal mining, as was done by George W. Bush. Presently, however, a change in regulations would have little effect on the coal market or the ability of the mining companies to extract coal.

If anything, this is purely a political temper tantrum, and one that has real people hurting. As the folks who got laid off point out, nothing has changed in the last few days, besides the election, that would have any bearing on the ability of Murray Energy to dig up coal and sell it. There is no real economic reason for the layoffs. It is merely headline grabbing political theatre.

Murray has demonstrated before that he is not above using his employees for political purposes. Earlier this year he required miners at one of his mines to attend a Romney rally, an event for which they were not paid. Murray Energy also pressured employees to donate to their GOP supporting political action committee, with the company tracking who was and who was not giving money to the PAC.

Because the workers were “at will” employees, the layoffs seem to be legal. I have a hard time with this. An America that is supposed to honor the people who work to put food on their tables and care for their children should not allow those people to lose their jobs because the CEO of their company decides to have a post election hissy fit.

Michael Mann Sues the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and That's a Good Thing

Among the scientists most besieged by the global warming denial industry is Michael Mann. Mann is a faculty member in the Meteorology and Earth Sciences departments at Penn State University, where he is also the director of the Earth System Science Center. He was the lead author of the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter for the IPCC’s Third Scientific Assessment Report in 2001. One the graphs that resulted from his work on climate showed a great increase in recent times and nicknamed the “hockey stick” graph. That might be how you’re familiar with him. He is also coauthor of Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming and the author of Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines, which gives his account of the forces behind the global warming denial industry.

            Industry, their allies in Congress, and their sponsored “think tanks” have attacked Mann and his work for the last ten years. That is why I’m glad to see that he is fighting back and fighting back against one of the most prominent players in this misinformation industry, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. A post on the institute’s blog referred to the scientist as “the other scandal” at Penn State and accused Mann of “molesting data” in his research, obviously comparing him to Jerry Sandusky, the convicted serial child molester.

            Mann now has a lawsuit suing the Competitive Enterprise Institute for defamation, as well a right wing magazine, National Review, that reposted the institute’s blog. The 37-page complaint also accuses the institute and National Review of recycling “false and defamatory statements” about the scientist’s research.

            Good luck to Michael Mann. He’s done good science. I don’t know much about how well the legal system will treat his case. The Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review are guaranteed to employ some high-power lawyers, so he might have an uphill battle. It is nonetheless a good thing to see a scientist fighting back against the industries that try to cover up and distract us from a global problem.

Maria Gunnoe Receives the Raoul Wallenberg Award

Maria Gunnoe, who has worked for environmental and social justice in West Virginia, has just received the University of Michigan's Raoul Wallenberg Medal.

For the last eight years, Gunnoe has marched, organized, written, and spoken out against the practice of mountaintop removal. She has testified in front of congressional committees and is the recipient of the Goldman Environmental Prize.

The Raoul Wallenberg Medal is given to individuals who have worked against great odds for peace and human dignity. Wallenberg was a Swedish diplomat in Hungary during World War II. He saved the lives of tens of thousands of Jews—some believe the number is in the hundreds of thousands—by issuing passports and finding other means of protection for Jews. Last year Aung San Suu Kyi received the medal. Archbishop Desmond Tutu received the medal in 2008.

            If there are any folks treated like second-class citizens today in this country, it is the people who live around mountaintop mines, and Gunnoe has bravely spoken up against the mine companies and our government that enables them. If anybody deserves this award, it is she.

Upon receiving the award Maria Gunnoe said, “We demand an end to the abuses of the people of Appalachia and our human rights. We deserve a life with healthy land, clean water, clean air and a clean sustainable energy and future for our children.” Photo from the Goldman Fund

TransCanada and Eleanor Fairchild: Is a Texas Great-Grandmother an Eco-Terrorist?

This story out of Texas is kind of a double whammy for me: one, because of how corporations now have ever greater power over our lives and property, and two, because of how we now allow corporations and their promoters the power over the way we think.

The story concerns Eleanor Fairchild, a Texas great-grandmother who was arrested for putting up a fuss over TransCanada’s Keystone XL Pipeline coming through her property. She owns a 425-acre hay farm and recently stood her ground in front of a large mechanized shovel as it was being deployed to make way for the pipeline through her farm.

She, along with other protesters, including actress and activist Daryl Hannah, were arrested on misdemeanor trespass charges. She was fingerprinted, photographed, and held in isolation at the county jail.

Now here is the part that troubles me. Fairchild is upset because of the way her land wound up under the blades of a huge mechanized shovel. The state of Texas took a portion of Fairchild’s land though eminent domain and transferred ownership to TransCanada. Eminent domain has been around forever. It’s the ability of a government to seize private property for the public use, traditionally things like highways and bridges. Of course landowners must be fairly compensated when their property is taken.

But it is through a newer and corporate friendly understanding of eminent domain that Fairchild’s land was taken. The Supreme Court took up a case in 2004, Kelo vs. City of New London, in which they ruled that private property could be taken and transferred to another individual or company for business reasons, as long as there was a “public benefit,” such as jobs provided or the gentrification of a part of a city. This opens up a big can of worms for property owners. Like Fairchild, their land is now vulnerable to any corporation that can say that they are providing jobs or enhancing economic activity.

TransCanada says that their XL Pipeline provides jobs and oil, so they get Fairchild’s land, as well as other folks’ land, too. Fairchild also claims that the oil company did not compensate her to the degree of their original offer.

The other part of the story is scary, too. About a week after Fairchild was charged with misdemeanor trespassing, she was served with legal papers from TransCanada and their lawyers labeling Fairchild and other protesters as “eco-terrorists.”

I’ve blogged about the term eco-terrorism before, and it’s awfully upsetting to see that word rear it’s ugly hyphenated head again. It is believed that Ron Arnold, who is vehemently opposed to environmental concerns, coined the term in the late eighties or early nineties as a smear against people like Fairchild. Even if it was not Arnold’s neologism, the term has been used to make the suggestion that Fairchild and others like her are somehow equivalent to car bombers and Osama bin Laden.

The term has gone from being a smear to taking on the life of a real word with legal consequences. The FBI now has a definition for it and says it’s a crime. Which goes to show you how successful the corporations and right wing folks like Arnold have influenced people’s thinking.

I’m glad Eleanor Fairchild doesn’t think the way corporations want her to.

Appalachians: Should They Be Treated Like Americans?

The Sierra Club, along with Kentuckians for the Commonwealth and the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, are suing to have the approvals for mountaintop removal mines in Kentucky and West Virginia reversed

            The groups contend that the Army Corps of Engineers did not consider the detrimental effects the mining would have on the health of the local residents. By law health concerns are part of the permitting process.

            There is growing evidence that there is nothing healthy about living near a mountaintop mine. Health investigations have found learning disabilities, kidney stones, tooth loss, diarrhea, rash, and some forms of cancer in individuals living close to Mountaintop mines.[i] Mountaintop removal has also been associated with birth defects of the circulatory, respiratory, central nervous musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, and urogenital systems.[ii] And people who live around this destructive mining practice also experience extreme psychological stress.[iii]

            Considering that the people of Appalachia are our fellow Americans, how much of a stretch is it to think that they should be safeguarded by the same laws that keep the rest of us safe and healthy?

---

[i] Holzman, David C. “Mountaintop Removal Mining.” Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 119, Issue 11 November 1, 2011 electronic journal

[ii] Ahearn, Melissa M. et at. “The association between mountaintop mining and birth defects among live births in central Appalachia, 1996–2003.” Environmental Research Vol. 111 Issue 6. Aug 2011, p 838-846 electronic journal

[iii] Paige Cordial, Ruth Riding-Malon, and Hilary Lips. Ecopsychology. Vol.4, Issue 3, September 2012, 201-208. electronic journal

The Clean Water Act Turns 40: Yippee!

Those of you who read this blog with any regularity may tire of my cynicism. I don’t blame you. I

tire of it myself.

            Today, however, is a reason for celebration. The Clean Water Act is 40 years old today. While there is still work to be done and reason for concern, the change that this legislation brought about is striking. Today, because of the Nixon administration legislation, the number of Americans who have access to clean drinking water has risen from 79 percent in 1993 to 92 percent in 2008. More than 2000 bodies of water identified as impaired ten years ago now meet water quality standards.

The big thing, though, is that the Clean Water Act has us thinking differently now. Until the early seventies many of us thought that it was OK to use our waterways as open sewers. Industry dumped waste into streams and rivers without a thought to the consequences that lay downstream.

That is no longer the case today. As Martin Luther King, other civil rights leaders, and the civil rights legislation of the early sixties enabled us to vote for a presidential candidate because of the content of his character, not the color of his skin, the Clean Water Act now has us look at our waterways not as dumping grounds, but as ecosystems and parts of our communities to be preserved and enjoyed.

Benghazi and the Presidential Debate: But What About Lives Lost in This Country?

The violence in Benghazi that left four Americans dead last month, including ambassador Christopher Stevens, was brought up at the presidential debate last night. I did not watch the debate and think that what was said last night doesn’t really matter. I just heard about the debate from the news this morning and know that the Benghazi incident has entered the fog of politics.

            One thing I do know is that there have been hearings in the House, lead by GOP representative Darrell Issa into the matter. There is also an FBI investigation.

            Now I am not saying that this is a matter that should not be investigated. The government should ensure the safety of its staff overseas. But look at the hearings and investigation in the context of other lives lost.

            In 2010 the lives of 29 miners were lost in the Upper Big Branch mine in southern West Virginia, due to an explosion. In their report on the disaster the Mine Health and Safety Administration excoriated Massey Energy, the owner of the mine, for their disregard of safety regulations and their emphasis of profit over safety. The report says in essence that the miners lost their lives because of the criminal activity of the mine owner.

            Though the families of the deceased miners pleaded with Congress for improved mine safety and stiffer penalties for mine safety violations, Washington lawmakers did nothing.

            There were also no Congressional hearings on the matter either.

            So Congress is holding hearings on the Benghazi attacks, which left four dead and held no hearings on a mine disaster that killed 29. Unlike Benghazi, which is in another country in a different continent on the other side of the world, the coal mine those miners died in is right here in this country.

            Does this make any sense at all?

I Stand With United For Coal: I Just Think the Blame Lies Elsewhere

This Saturday—if all goes according to plan, and so far it looks like things will go according to plan—residents of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio will gather along highways in a “United for Coal” demonstration. Sometimes called a “prayer line” and obliquely compared to the “Hands Across America” of 25 years ago, the demonstration is intended to call attention to the plight of miners, their families, and their communities, as more miners are laid off with little hope of ever getting their jobs back.

            The plight of these folks is real. Mines have been shuttered throughout the region. Just last month Alpha Natural Resources shut down eight mines in Appalachia, laying off 800 workers.

The organizers of this event say that the blame for their situation sits squarely with the Federal government and its environmental regulations. The United for Coal website says:

Our government has decided to commit "Regional Genocide" against our people. They have summarily executed the entire coal industry thru overreaching environmental regulation. This was done with no consideration of the human cost whatsoever. No replacement industry was offered, no migration path was planned. An entire society stamped out by rule of law with nary a thought about its citizens. Our "American Dream" has become a nightmare, and we are but the first domino to fall in an economic chain of events that will end the dreams of us all. Who can we turn to? Who will save us??

Now, inflammatory rhetoric aside, this narrative, that environmental rules are forcing the closure of power plants, which thus reduces the demand for the coal that is mined in the hills of Appalachia, is being reinforced by the press. That line of thought is conveyed in the headline of this Chicago Tribune story, published yesterday, “More US coal plants to retire due to green rules: study.”

            The newspaper story is based on a study by the international economic consulting firm The Brattle Group. But if you take a look at the study itself, the authors say that the retirement of the coal-fired power plants is due to lower prices for natural gas. The reduction of capacity is foreseen as being about 59,000 megawatts, going as high as 77,000 megawatts of capacity if strict environmental regulation is implemented. As The Brattle Group points out, however, the environmental regulations and deadlines for the coal plants are less restrictive than they had previously estimated. In the body of the Tribune story other factors affecting the closure of the power plants are mentionerd, including warmer than average weather. The headline is nonetheless misleading.

            Historically, the regulation for mining itself has been lax to nonexistent. In her groundbreaking expose of mountaintop removal mining for US New and World Report Penny Loeb said that the regulations of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, the department in charge of permitting mountaintop mining, “are outdated, its enforcement muscle is puny, and it is constantly reacting to problems rather than heading them off.”[i] Most fines are low, even for serious violations. The average fine is about $800 per incident. The maximum fine can be $5,000, but after protests by mine owners DEP assessment officers reduced nearly 80 percent of fines recommended by inspectors.[ii] And as illustrated by the disaster at the Upper Big Branch Mine in 2010, mine owners continue to disregard regulations, with little action by Washington even in the wake of a large and headline grabbing disaster such as Upper Big Branch.

            Now, things are bad for the folks of Appalachia. You can read books about the Battle of Blair Mountain or watch the movie Matewan and get a glimpse of the hardscrabble life of the Appalachian miners and others as they fought for unionization in the early twentieth century. Fifty years ago, as he campaigned through Appalachia, John Kennedy was moved as he witnessed the poverty of the region, leading him to form the Appalachian Regional Commission, intended to raise the living standards of Appalachians. Lyndon Johnson followed through with this effort by signing the bipartisan Appalachian Regional Development Act.

            But any ameliorative efforts by the Johnson and Kennedy administrations have been erased by 30 years of mountaintop removal, which requires only a fraction of the miners employed by more traditional mining techniques, and the union busting by the coal companies, particularly Massey Energy. The folks at United For Coal are correct. They need help. That help will not come from the coal companies. They are showing no solidarity with the miners and their families with United for Coal. Washington needs to do something. Just as the auto industry bailouts kept people working in Ohio and Michigan, investments in infrastructure or green projects could keep paychecks coming into Appalachian’s wallets.

            I support the people who will stand along the highways of Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia. In spirit I am United for Coal. I believe, however, that the dire condition of the miners and their communities lies with forces beyond their control: a warm winter that drove down the demand for all fuel, as well as natural gas whose price has plummeted. They are also at the mercy of an industry that has been indifferent if not hostile to their needs, mountaintop removal that destroys the land and ruins communities, and state governments that are often more beholden to the coal companies than their own citizens.

            United for Coal is correct that the Federal Government is to blame for their plight as well. But it is more the fault of a short sighted and gridlocked political system than are the environmental requirements for cleaner air and water.

           

---

[i] Loeb, Penny, “Shear Madness,” US News and World Report (August 3 1997)

[ii] ibid

Losing Blair Mountain: The Mountaintop Removal of History

A federal judge yesterday ruled against the Sierra Club and other organizations in a case brought before the court to preserve Blair Mountain, a historic landmark in American and labor history. The ruling opens up the ability of a coal company to destroy the mountain, or at least a significant portion of it, through mountaintop removal mining.

I use this cyber soapbox often to point out how mountaintop removal is destroying our ecological and cultural heritage. In this case this mining practice will destroy part of our history as well. The largest armed conflict on American soil since the time of the Civil War occurred on Blair Mountain. In 1921, after years of lawless exploitation, 10,000 West Virginia miners marched against the oppression of the mine owners. Met with armed resistance by the local sheriff, hired mine guards, and a makeshift militia at Blair Mountain, a battle ensued. The conflict lasted ten days. President Warren G. Harding sent in the Army, including the Air Force, and included the use of aerial bombing.

            Once the Army came in and the bombs started to fall from the sky, the miners went home. The mine owners won this battle. It was not until 1933, under FDR’s first term, that West Virginia coal miners gained unionization.

            As far as labor history goes, the Battle of Blair Mountain bears the same significance as John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry does to the Civil War. And just as our understanding of the Civil War is incomplete without a knowledge and appreciation of Brown and his quixotic raid, we do not fully understand the New Deal or other achievements of the labor movement without a knowledge of the struggle of Blair Mountain.

Details about the court ruling can be found here. Briefly summarizing, the plaintiffs in this case were trying to have Blair Mountain returned to the National Register of Historic Places, which the National Park Service had bestowed on the landmark in the spring of 2009. Being on the register would keep the mountain safe from mountaintop removal. The judge ruled that the Sierra Club and others lack standing, the ability of a plaintiff to demonstrate to the court that the actions of the defendant would cause harm to the plaintiff.

Mountaintop coal mining has decimated the United Mine Workers, depressing wages and the economy of West Virginia and rolling back the accomplishments of the UMW and organized labor. What those miners fought for at the Battle of Blair Mountain is being lost. Losing the mountain as well makes this irony especially bitter.

Rachel Carson's Silent Spring at 50: Why This Book Inspired and Where We Stand Today

Rachel Carson Postage Stamp issued in 1981

In the papers and scattered on the Internet folks are taking note of the 50^th anniversary of the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. As every introductory paragraph of every article or feature about the book has the phrase “inspired the modern environmental movement” or something of that nature, I’d like to take a moment to consider why this book created the fervor that it did and where we presently stand because of Carson and her book.

Carson targeted the use of pesticides, particularly DDT, in her book. Most Americans could not see the harmful effects from the misuse of these substances. They could not witness the cracking of the DDT weakened eggshells of pelicans and eagles and their subsequent empty nests, nor were most of the people living in this country privy to the topsy-turvy ecological landscapes created by pesticides.

            But Americans could bear witness to the harm industrialization caused their environments. And a large number of folks felt that things were getting worse. In 1955 Los Angeles declared its first smog alert. In the sixties and seventies these alerts became more frequent.[i] Beaches of Lake Erie that people had enjoyed for decades were closed because of pollution, and commercial fishing in that body of water had been severely impaired.[ii] Other lakes and rivers were increasingly fouled with industrial waste and poorly treated sewage.

            Though the specifics of the book differed from people’s everyday experiences, the central leitmotif of Silent Spring—that as far as Mother Nature was concerned something was out of whack and that we were, because of our carelessness and hubris in matters of the environment, the cause of that out of whackness—resonated with the American People.

            In many ways our environmental problems have increased since the time of Silent Spring. Mountaintop removal has destroyed over 500 mountains of Appalachia, as well as destroying communities and ruining the health of many Appalachians.  Oil spills still kill fish and waterfowl. These and other problems plague us and our environment despite the environmental movement and the workings of our government that Silent Spring inspired, such as the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, NEPA, and the EPA.

            Carson is often compared to Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose book, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, stirred antislavery sentiments and prepared the way for the Civil War and emancipation. I often think that as far as environmental awareness, we are living through a time comparable to the hundred years after the Civil War. Just as the sons and daughters, grandsons and daughters, of freed slaves were technically emancipated yet still enslaved by discrimination, segregation, and Jim Crow, we are environmentally safeguarded by the environmental laws of the early seventies yet still enslaved by the same mindset of hubris and carelessness that saw the spraying of hundreds of tons of DDT and other pesticides across field and forest that Carson addressed in Silent Spring.

            With anti-environmentalism threatening the 50 year legacy left by Silent Spring, it would be easy to despair. But we can also look forward as well. Like the struggle of civil rights 50 years ago, perhaps we are only beginning our work of environmentalism. I remain hopeful.

---

[i] Chronology of California History: New Dreams 1945 to 1964 n.d. web 9/25/12

[ii] Hill, Gladwin. “Fight to Save an Ailing Lake Erie Nears the Crisis.” New York Times June 20, 1965: pg 50 print

President Obama Accepts Reality During His Acceptance Speech: So Why Am I Not Campaigning For Him?

Delivered as an obvious rebuke to the flippant dismissal that Romney gave the topic of climate change during the GOP convention, President Obama had this to say about a warming planet during his acceptance speech.

Well, three cheers! It’s good to hear a note of reality during a party convention speech. But as Obama talks the talk, please excuse me for being skeptical about our president walking the walk.

When he ran for president in 2008, Obama and his campaign promised “swift and comprehensive action to combat global climate change.”[i] Yet the tack on global warming that the administration took after gaining office was often tepid and cautious. During those first hundred days of the new administration, when Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and Oval Office, the administration more or less threw cold water on comprehensive legislation introduced to the House that would have capped greenhouse gasses.[ii] Also, for the International Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Obama waited until the last day to show up.[iii]

            Perhaps I have been expecting too much. After all, it’s impossible to describe the opposition that the GOP has presented to advancing any progress on reducing greenhouse gasses. And opposition on this issue also extends to the president’s own party.[iv] In his favor I do have to give Obama credit for raising standards for gas mileage for American cars. He didn’t need Congress for that.

Obviously, I can have no truck with a candidate who is dismissive of the dangers of rising seas and a planet that is wrapping itself more thickly in the thermal insulation of CO2, as Governor Romney did last week. I just wish that, campaign speeches and acceptance speeches aside, I could vote to reelect a president who had done more to keep the globe from getting hotter and hotter.

---

[i] Broder, John M. “Obama, Who Vowed Rapid Action on Climate Change, Turns More Cautious.” New York Times April 11, 2009

[ii] ibid

[iii] Broder, John M. “Obama Shifts His Visit to Last Day of Climate Conference.” New York Times December 5, 2009

[iv] Broder, John M. “Climate Bill Threatened by Senators.” New York Times August 7, 2009