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.