First time in 17 years that toxic pollutants in air have increased

Post-9/11 Era Forum

EPA report card stirs political fires
The latest EPA report shows a spike in toxic waste by US factories, only the second increase in 17 years.

By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Factories, power plants, and mines used to just dump their waste into waterways or on the ground, or they sent it up smokestacks. Out of sight, out of mind was the operating principle.

But that began to change with passage of landmark environmental legislation a generation ago - mainly the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act. Polluters started cleaning up, and more recently they've been required to report the kinds and amounts of toxic substances they emit.


Public and political scrutiny helped accelerate the cleanup of some 650 potentially dangerous substances at nearly 25,000 facilities around the country. Over the years, those yearly reports under the "Emergency Planning & Community Right-To-Know" law showed improvement.

But the latest national report card by the Environmental Protection Agency (with data from 2002) shows an increase in toxic pollutants, the second time that's occurred since reporting began 17 years ago.

In all, nearly 5 billion pounds of toxins were released into the environment in 2002, the EPA reports. That's undoubtedly less than before such reporting was required, but it is 5 percent more than the previous year, and it's likely that other toxic releases are missed in the total count.

For example, perchlorate, a toxic chemical used in military rocket fuel, has been found in the groundwater of at least 20 states. As a result, reported the Environmental Working Group last week, pregnant women and young children who drink milk from cows in California (home to many military bases) may be exposed to unsafe levels of the substance. State and federal regulators are considering new standards for perchlorate.

EPA and industry officials say the overall spike in toxics is mainly due to a one-time closing of a copper smelter in Arizona. (When the facility was shut down, everything on the site was considered waste.)

But former EPA officials and environmental watchdogs dispute that assertion, and they warn that government regulators are seriously underreporting the actual amounts of such dangerous pollutants as mercury, arsenic, and lead.

Using data gathered by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the Environmental Integrity Project (founded by Eric Schaeffer, former EPA official) and the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention warn that levels of such carcinogenic substances as benzene and butadiene may be four to five times higher than reported by the EPA.

"Systematic underreporting happens today because most air pollution is now estimated, not monitored," says Kelly Haragan, a lawyer with the Environmental Integrity Project in Washington. "To make matters worse, the guesswork is being done by the polluters who have the incentives to keep numbers low ."

Industry officials strongly reject the charge that toxic pollutants are being underreported, and they assert that years of improvements in their manufacturing processes have increased environmental quality around the country.

"Refineries and petrochemical plants are among the most highly regulated facilities in the US," says Bob Slaughter, president of the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. "The emissions limitations present in our air permits are fully protective of human health and the environment."

There undoubtedly will be political fallout. While the environment is not a top political concern for most people, it could be a deciding factor for undecided voters. The Bush administration wants to make the reporting of such toxics easier, and its proposed policy on mercury admissions has become very controversial.

"Carbon trading" programs, which allow relatively clean plants to sell pollution credits to dirtier facilities, have helped reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. The Bush administration favors a similar program for mercury, a substance far more toxic.

The administration also wants to lengthen the time frame for reducing overall mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. (The Clinton administration proposed a 90 percent reduction by 2008; the Bush administration favors a 70 percent cut by 2018.) Environmentalists say a mercury-trading program would leave dangerous "hot spots" in certain geographic areas near power plants. Scientists with the industry-sponsored Electric Power Research Institute deny this.

But in a report to the EPA, 36 leading scientists affiliated with the Hubbard Brook Research Foundation in Hanover, N.H., recently warned that "mercury pollution in the environment is widespread and severe." As a result of elevated mercury in the environment, they noted, 45 states have issued advisories regarding fish consumption in areas encompassing 12 million lake acres and 473,000 river miles.

Tuesday is the deadline for public comment on the EPA's proposal on the trading of mercury emissions from power plants.

----------

Cuts environment policies
Kills thousands by wars based on lies
Loosens Animal cruelty laws

EVIL IS RUNNING AMERICA AS WE SPEAK

Bush Administration Squelches Bad News on Parks

Candidate George W. Bush made two promises on the environment when he ran for President in 2000: he would regulate carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, and he would close the $5 billion maintenance backlog for our national parks. It took President George W. Bush a mere 53 days to break his promise on reducing greenhouse gases. [1] And to the dismay of environmentalists and career park officials alike, America's national parks have been steadily deteriorating since the President took office.

To deter public awareness of his national parks reversal, it appears the President has imposed a gag rule on park managers to prevent them from disclosing just how underfunded the parks have become. Since 1998 the Park Service has been collaborating with the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), a nonprofit advocacy group, to create business plans for the country's parks. With federal funding, NPCA and the Park Service recruited graduate students from the country's top business schools to identify funding problems and develop management solutions for the parks. The 64 reports produced so far portray a Park Service woefully short of money, with most parks showing annual budget shortfalls of around 30 percent.

This information has apparently not been sitting comfortably with the administration. The business plan for Olympic National Park in Washington, for example, was kept from the public after it found that funding shortages were crippling the park. The report found that Olympic, which had 3.2 million visitors last year, receives only about half the money it needs. The Washington Post last week quoted a Park Service official, who spoke anonymously out of fear of retaliation, as saying that the report was withheld because the Bush administration "...doesn't like bad news. They don't like to see or hear about it or fix it. And they punish the messenger."

Ron Tipton, senior vice president for programs at NPCA, told BushGreenwatch, "It's really regrettable that the Department of Interior appears to be uncomfortable with full public disclosure of the results of these business plans. The public and key decision-makers need this information to assure the parks are adequately funded and staffed so their visitors have a high quality experience."

The superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park was forced to cancel a scheduled press conference to announce that park's business plan, which showed budget shortfalls. The plan was later made public on the park's web site. The press conference was canceled, according to a Park Service spokesman, not to hide the plan but because NPCA "might go out there and say a lot of things that our superintendents aren't comfortable saying."

Apparently, however, it appears to be the Park Service's political appointees who are uncomfortable. To solve the problem of reports informing the public of chronic underfunding, the Park Service has canceled its partnership with NPCA. As NPCA's Tipton explained to the Post: "We were not seen as a friendly voice."

Record 600,000 Protest Bush Plan to Weaken Mercury Emission Controls

Tomorrow marks the last day for the public to comment on the highest-profile battle in years between the Bush administration and advocates of public health. The administration is under court order to finalize the first-ever federal regulations to reduce poisonous emissions of mercury from power plants--the largest uncontrolled source of mercury pollution in the U.S.

The battle is marked by an unprecedented public protest against a Bush administration Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal that would allow power plants to emit six to seven times more mercury into America's air--and for at least a decade longer--than would be the case if the current Clean Air Act were simply implemented in good faith.

An EPA analysis earlier this year stated that 630,000 American newborns are at risk each year of having unsafe levels of mercury in their blood. Mercury can cause serious developmental and neurological problems in children. It is a highly toxic chemical whose effects on the central nervous system are comparable to those of lead. Many people are exposed to mercury by eating tainted fish. Currently, more than 40 states have issued advisories against eating mercury-contaminated fish from their rivers, lakes and streams.

Properly implemented, the Clean Air Act would bring about a 90 percent reduction of mercury emissions over three years. But the Bush administration has stubbornly defended its plan to reduce mercury emissions by only 70 percent--and over a period of 13 years. As a result, over 600,000 citizens have submitted comments opposing the Bush plan. This is more than twice the highest number of comments EPA has ever received on a rulemaking--greater even than the outcry when the administration tried (unsuccessfully) to fend off stronger controls over arsenic in drinking water.

Two months ago 45 Senators and 10 attorneys general called on EPA Administrator Michael Leavitt to abandon the EPA proposal and instead finalize a rule that complies with the Clean Air Act. And this week 184 members of the House did the same.

"It seems the only people applauding the administration's mercury rule are the people who wrote it: power companies and the Bush administration," Angela Ledford, director of Clear the Air, an environmental health advocacy group, told BushGreenwatch. "Today's Washington Post reports that mercury releases are up 10 percent. This underlines the need to require power plants to reduce emissions as much and as fast as technology allows."

Critics of the Bush plan note that a combination of 25 mercury-emitting utilities have donated nearly $6 million to President Bush's campaign, and that they would share a savings of $2.7 billion under the administration proposal.

Experts Blast Administration Setback to Wild Salmon Survival

The Bush administration has once again rejected its obligations under the federal plan to save wild salmon in the Pacific Northwest. On June 8, the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) announced a revised proposal for big cuts in the "summer spill" on the Columbia and Snake river systems.

Reducing spill—the amount of water diverted from power-generating hydroelectric dam turbines to go over the dam spillways--imperils juvenile salmon as they migrate to the sea, further reducing the chances of survival for endangered salmon stocks.

"Slashing summer spill spurns the unanimous scientific advice of Northwest fishery agencies and Indian tribes. This continues a three-year pattern of failure of this administration to implement its own salmon plan," says Pat Ford, executive director of Portland, Oregon-based Save Our Wild Salmon.

"This is a scientifically irresponsible and indefensible decision," says Jim Martin, former chief of fisheries with Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, now on the National Wildlife Federation's board of directors. "...BPA continues to disregard the hugely positive economic impact spill has on fishing communities, and takes the politically expedient route to pad the agencies' bottom line."

The BPA claims that "offsets" will make up for the harm caused by the reduced spill, but fish biologists across the Northwest disagree. There is scientific evidence that one such measure, removing Snake River chinook from the river to barge and truck them around dam turbines, ultimately increases the mortality rate of juvenile salmon. Also, BPA has "double-counted" by including the Hanford Reach Protection Program, a Columbia River salmon preservation plan, as an offset to the eliminated summer spill. The Hanford program is already required as an offset under a different agreement. [1]

"Our overall assessment is that the analyses of biological impacts [by BPA] are fundamentally flawed, and available scientific data collected in the Columbia Basin do not support the Federal Agencies' findings," the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife wrote in a comment to the BPA in February.

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife wrote that it was "extremely concerned that the recently developed [Hanford Reach] agreement is being proposed as an offset measure...Mitigation simply cannot be double counted." A joint team of state, federal and tribal agencies noted that "[T]he offset analysis and predicted benefits from the proposed offsets are highly speculative...the agencies and tribes do not believe that there is adequate technical basis to support the projected benefits of the BPA proposed offsets." [2]

The BPA claims that the reduced spill will mean lower power generation costs, which will be passed on to Northwest residents as savings on electricity bills. However, the BPA included projected earnings from selling electricity to California when it estimated power costs with the full summer spill. While the BPA may earn $26 million more this summer under the reduced spill plan, Northwest ratepayers would likely see extremely minor savings on their electric bills--as little as $0.08 to $0.36 per month. [3]

This is not the first time the Bush administration has ignored science in decisions affecting endangered Northwest salmon. As reported by BushGreenwatch on May 27, a controversial fish counting method supported by the administration threatened to remove federal protection from 15 of 26 salmon stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act. The administration also proposed cutting the budget for wild salmon restoration by 40% in the 2005 budget. [4]

Lawsuit Alleges EPA Allowing Ohio to Ignore Clean Air Laws

The EPA is allowing major polluters in the heart of the
industrial Midwest to flout the Clean Air Act, according to a
lawsuit recently filed by the Ohio Public Interest Research
Group.

The lawsuit accuses the EPA and Ohio regulators of failing to
enforce a section of the Clean Air Act known as Title V, which
requires power plants, incinerators and other polluters to
obtain a permit to ensure compliance with the law. These permits
are issued by the states, but subject to EPA approval. Like many
other industrial Midwest states, Ohio has been slow to enforce
the Clean Air Act. More than 13 years since passage of the law,
records show that about 80 facilities in the state still operate
without Title V permits. [1]

Earthjustice filed the lawsuit on behalf of Ohio PIRG in an
attempt to compel the EPA to take over authority of Ohio's Title
V program. The EPA has the power to issue a notice of
deficiency, which sets an 18-month deadline for the state to
correct any Title V problems or face a federal takeover of the
program. The EPA acknowledged that Ohio was not compliant with
federal law, but refused to issue a notice of deficiency in
2002.

The lawsuit also alleges that permit requirements in the state
are too lax and undermine their effectiveness - if the permits
are even issued at all. If successful, the case will likely
result in stricter pollution controls in the state.

"Ohio has some of the worst air pollution in the country," said
attorney Keri Powell, who argued the case before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. "Large facilities contribute
tremendously to the state's dirty air and it's essential that
they be subject to operating permits that reflect Clean Air Act
standards."

"To protect Ohio's families from toxic air pollution we must
enforce the Clean Air Act," said Erin Bowser, state director of
Ohio PIRG. "It is unacceptable that Ohio's polluters are getting
away with poisoning our environment, threatening our health and
keeping the public in the dark about side-stepping pollution
limits." [2]

The case is Ohio Public Interest Research Group v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

Bush Salmon Plan Seen as Ruse to Cripple Endangered Species Act

Late last month the Bush Administration announced that it would begin counting hatchery fish as well as wild when considering Pacific salmon for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

With only an estimated one in five west coast salmon now spawned in the wild, this threatened to end to federal protections for wild salmon-as well as safeguards for critical inland habitat from logging, mining, development and agriculture. Early reports suggested that 15 salmon stocks would lose federal protection. [1]

The administration claimed the revision was inevitable, thanks to a 2001 federal court ruling that the government had erred in listing coastal coho salmon as endangered based solely on the number of wild fish, without counting hatchery fish. This ruling contradicted 15 years of Pacific Northwest salmon recovery efforts. It was not appealed by the administration. The final policy is expected early next month, when it will be published in the Federal Register and opened for public comment. [2]

Public and scientific outcry greeted the new policy. "Hatchery fish and wild fish are very different in behavior and genetic variability," says Jeff Miller, Bay Area Wildlands Coordinator of the Center for Biological Diversity. "No credible scientist would support the idea of counting large numbers of hatchery fish -- which are produced artificially in concrete rearing tanks, and then dumped in the estuaries, bays and lower rivers -- when assessing the status of wild fish stocks."

"In crowded hatchery conditions hatchery fish spread diseases to wild fish, and also compete with wild fish for scarce resources and spawning habitat," Miller told BushGreenwatch. "Hatchery fish, which are mass-produced and have low genetic variability, lower the ability of wild fish runs to adapt to environmental change."

The administration backpedaled in mid-May, declaring strong support for preserving wild salmon stocks. "After re-evaluating the listing of 26 species of salmon and steelhead, and considering the science on hatcheries, we have preliminarily determined to propose relisting at least 25 of the 26 species, with evaluation of the remaining species still underway," a NOAA administrator wrote to Northwest representatives and senators on May 14. [3]

Relieved but wary, conservationists, foresee continued struggle. "The general trend of the Bush Administration--inviting challenges to endangered species listings, and then putting up no defense, or not vigorously defending them so that they're struck down--is ongoing," said Miller, noting that conservationists are having to go to court instead of working on restoration. "We're fighting to keep species listed that desperately need these protections. And there's a huge backlog of other species that need to get on the list."

Brian Barr, Wildlands Restoration Program Officer for the World Wildlife Fund's Klamath-Siskiyou Program, says the proposed policy could undercut critical habitat protections. "Hatcheries are operated as domestication processes. We could have captive breeding programs relied on very heavily to improve our odds of 'recovering' a vast array of other species that are currently listed under the Endangered Species Act," says Barr.

The Bush Administration ignored its own panel of outside experts when it crafted the new hatcheries policy. "Six of the world's leading experts on salmon ecology complained [in March] in the journal Science that fish produced in hatcheries cannot be counted on to save wild salmon," reported the Washington Post. "The scientists had been asked by the federal government to comment on its salmon-recovery program, but said they were later told that some of their conclusions about hatchery fish were inappropriate for official government reports." [4]

Bush appointee Mark C. Rutzick, a former timber industry lawyer, is considered a primary architect of the policy. [5]

"We're fighting a rear-guard action to keep [endangered species] from being taken off the list," says Jeff Miller. "It's like the Bush Administration is running through a hospital's critical trauma unit, pulling everyone's I.V. drips. These species are really in the emergency unit, and they're trying to pull them off life support."

Taxpayers Losing Millions as Bush OK's Logging in Roadless Forests

The Tongass and Chugach National Forests contain some of the largest remaining stands of roadless ancient temperate rainforest in the U.S. They hug the coast of southeast Alaska, providing habitat for numerous wildlife species—river otters, grizzly bears, bald eagles, mountain goats, wolves, salmon, and more. Vital local industries, including commercial fishing and tourism, depend upon the health of the Tongass and Chugach. [1]

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule, enacted in January 2001, protects areas like these from commercial logging. It also protects against oil and gas drilling, as well as extensive off-road vehicle use. [2] In May 2001, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman expressed support for the Roadless Rule, calling it "the right thing to do." [3]

But when the state of Alaska filed a lawsuit in 2001 the Bush administration chose not defend the rule. [4] Instead, last June it proposed exempting the Tongass from the Roadless Rule's protection.

During the 45-day public comment period, about a quarter of a million citizens sent in comments. Laurie Cooper, manager of the Alaska Rainforest Campaign, told BushGreenwatch that "99 percent of these were in favor of keeping protections on both the Tongass and the Chugach. The public is very much in support of protecting our last wild forests."

Nonetheless, last December the Bush Administration announced the exemption of the Tongass from the Roadless Rule. [5] According to Cooper, the indefinite, supposedly temporary, exemption of the Tongass opens up 9.3 million acres of ancient forest for road development and timber sales. If extended to the 5 million eligible acres of the Chugach, a quarter of the land originally covered by the Roadless Rule will be unprotected.

Cooper sees no economic justification for this level of logging. "Despite what the Forest Service or the Bush administration would like to portray, the decline of the timber industry is not due to the protection of these wild roadless areas," she says. "There was a series of pulp mill closures, as well as an increase in supply from other regions of the world that made it uneconomical to log in the Tongass."

Logging in the Tongass actually costs American taxpayers millions of dollars. According to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, "A recent analysis by the Southeastern Alaska Conservation Council estimates that U.S. taxpayers spent $170,000 for every direct timber job created by logging in the Tongass National Forest in 2002--an amount equal to more than four times the average U.S. household income ($42,409) for the same year." The timber program could lose up to $30 million a year through non-competitive and under-valued timber sales. Plus, there is a $900 million backlog of deferred maintenance and capitol improvements to existing Tongass roads. [6]

"For 2001, spending on the planning process, as well as road construction, cost $36 million," says Cooper. "And in return, receipts were $1.2 million. It’s a federal subsidy to keep the timber industry operating in the Tongass."

The Bush administration wants to make the Tongass and Chugach exemptions permanent. It may use them to gut the Roadless Rule, which also protects some 44 million acres of forest in the lower 48 states. The administration is said to be preparing an extensive revision of the rule to give governors options to apply for exemptions in their states. [7]

As Cooper noted, Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey was previously a top lobbyist for the timber industry.

Bush Giving Away Wilderness to Oil and Gas Industry

The White House's rush to lease pristine public lands across the
Rocky Mountains to the oil and gas industry is showing signs of
being little more than a land grab, designed to prevent
protection of hundreds of thousands of acres under the
Wilderness Act.

A recent study of oil and gas drilling activity by The
Wilderness Society found that the gas industry is stockpiling
leases and drilling permits on 34 million acres of public lands
in the Rockies, but is only producing oil or gas on 32 percent
of that land. Over the past 10 years, the industry has received
permission from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to
drill 25,000 new wells, but has only drilled 19,000. Based on
the record pace of drilling over the last few years, it would
take several years to finish drilling the wells that have
already been approved by the BLM.

While some industry representatives and Republican leaders
accuse environmental groups of allegedly causing a slowdown in
gas drilling activity, drilling is currently at its physical
limit: there aren't enough drilling rigs in the Rockies to
satisfy the abundant drilling prospects already made available
to the gas industry. Further, some experts suspect that the gas
industry is sitting on all that land in order to keep gas prices
high -- many firms in the Rockies are posting record profits
while families and businesses struggle to pay their energy
bills.

"If sensitive areas on public lands were the only places left to
drill, the BLM's actions might be explainable," the Denver Post
said in a recent editorial. "But they're not. Energy companies
have plenty of promising places to drill without invading
proposed wildernesses or creating disturbances near parks and
monuments."[1]

Meanwhile, the industry continues to push BLM to lease more land
in even more remote areas -- many of which had already been
nominated in Congress for wilderness protection.

One recent such proposal in Colorado drew the ire of U.S. Rep
Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat who has legislation pending
to protect nearly 19,000 acres of critical habitat and
watersheds in her state's high country. Next month the BLM plans
to offer all 19,000 acres for lease to the oil and gas industry.


"I realize that it is not a mistake that these particular areas
are picked out for drilling, and all of us intend to protect
them," DeGette told the Rocky Mountain News.[2] "(The) vast
majority of federal land in Colorado already is open for
drilling," she added. "Only a small amount is eligible for
protection as wilderness, and the Bush administration should
respect that."

The reasons behind Bush's push to give away public lands may be
less obvious than they appear. The President's industrial
backers and business partners are consistent opponents of
federally-designated wilderness, because it precludes industrial
activity like road building, timber cutting and oil and gas
drilling.

But oil and gas industry executives, working from inside the
administration, may have a more pressing reason to give away
public lands to their once and future employers.

The energy industry, rocked by the Enron scandal and its own
dubious business decisions, is saddled with massive amounts of
debt. Large gas companies like El Paso have been forced to sell
off major assets in order to keep Wall Street off their backs.

But questionable accounting practices common in the industry
encourage gas firms to book potential future profits as a way to
improve their earnings outlook. By stockpiling leases and
drilling permits, the gas industry could be sacrificing
America's wilderness heritage in order to pay off its junk debt.

Study Finds Top Air Polluters Closely Tied to Bush Administration

The nation's top 50 polluting power plants are owned by corporations that are tightly allied with the Bush Administration both as major campaign contributors and in conducting pollution policymaking, according to a new study released yesterday. Conducted by two nonprofit, nonpartisan groups--the Environmental Integrity Project and Public Citizen--the study utilized data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Ranking the polluters based on their emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide, the report finds that sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide pollution actually increased from 2002-2003, thereby expanding risks of asthma attacks and lung ailments.

According to the report, America's Dirtiest Power Plants: Plugged into the Bush Administration, the firms cited in the study, along with their trade associations, met at least 17 times with Vice President Cheney's energy task force.

The report found that since 1999, the 30 largest utility companies owning the majority of the 89 dirtiest power plants in the study have contributed $6.6 million to the Bush presidential campaigns and the Republican National Committee. The 30 companies also hired at least 16 lobbying or law firms that have raised at least $3.4 million more for the Bush campaigns.

"It is no coincidence that a wholesale assault on the Clean Air Act is taking place today," said Eric Schaeffer, who founded EIP after resigning in early 2002 from his post as director of EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, in protest of the administration's rollback of environmental protections. "This is a well-connected industry that is absolutely intent on preserving its 'right' to foul the air regardless of the consequences to the American people."

The study ranked the top 50 polluters for each of the three emissions (mercury, SO2, CO2). Because several companies were in the top 50 for more than one pollutant, the list totaled 89 power plants. Of those 89, some 47 have either been sued or placed under investigation by the EPA for violating the Clean Air Act's New Source Review requirement, under which plants that upgrade or expand must add expensive new clean technology.

Last August the EPA stirred a huge controversy by relaxing requirements for New Source Review, exempting many plants from the law's pollution control requirements. A federal court stayed the new rules, but as the report notes, "The result of the administration's policy, coupled with the program's current status in legal limbo, is that many of these companies have either had the cases against them undermined or simply dropped by the Bush Adminstration."

The study lists five former executives or lobbyists for the electric utility industry who have been placed in important regulatory posts in the Bush administration. One is assistant administrator of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, another is counsel to that office, and a third is deputy administrator of EPA. A fourth is now in charge of all government lawsuits against coal-fired power plants, and the fifth helped write national energy policy as assistant secretary at the Department of Energy.

The full report is available at www.environmentalintegrity.org.

On Earth Day Eve, Experts Blast Bush Environmental Rollbacks

Leaders of 13 national environmental groups-- from Friends of the Earth to Republicans for Environmental Protection--marked the eve of America's 35th Earth Day by calling on President Bush to halt his administration's unprecedented rollbacks of the entire panoply of laws and regulations that protect the nation's air, water, natural resources and public health.

"The Bush Administration continues to allow big corporations to weaken our environmental laws so they can pollute our air and poison our water, cut down our national forests and make taxpayers--rather than polluters--pay to clean up toxic wastes," said Gene Karpinski, executive director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, at a Washington, DC press conference.

Speakers rattled off a seemingly endless stream of environmental and health protections being undermined by the Bush Administration, from a polluter-friendly energy bill to suppression or distortion of federal scientific analyses. Referring to the latter, Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists said "This pattern of behavior is widespread, affecting issues from climate change and air pollution to forests, endangered species, reproductive and workplace health, and nuclear weapons policy."

Noting that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) "is a safety net..the checks and balances part of the conservation equation," Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife, said President Bush "has literally set record for abuse of the Act." While President Reagan added an average of nearly 32 new ESA listings each year, and President Bush's father averaged 58 per year, the current president has averaged only eight per year--and every one of them by court order.

"The Republican Party has an obligation to do better," said Martha Marks, president of Republicans for Environmental Protection. Recalling that "Republicans helped create the environmental movement," Marks said "That made us proud. But we are not proud of our leaders today." Instead of extending a record of responsible stewardship, "They have chosen an ideological path."

Decrying the Bush Administration's "shameful and abysmal record on clean water," Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, said "Bush has given the OK to allow mining companies to dump waste directly into waterways; destroy over 20 million acres of wetlands; pump untreated sewage directly into our nation's rivers, lakes and other waters; and pollute with impunity because they don't enforce the law--with the result that 60 percent of industrial facilities nationwide are now in violation of Clean Water Act discharge limits." Moreover, added Blackwelder, the administration has proposed cutting half a billion dollars from sewage plant construction.

Several reports and a new TV ad, were released at the press conference.

The TV ad, dramatizing the administration's auctioning off of America's public resources, will air in Albuquerque, Columbus (Ohio), Concord and Manchester (NH), Lansing (Michigan), Raleigh (NC), Tallahassee and Washington, DC. For details, see www.saveourenvironment.org.

Leading Republican Blasts Bush Environmental Actions

Russell Train, a lifelong Republican who played a key role in
forging environmental policy under Presidents Nixon and Ford,
charges in his recently published memoirs that the current
Republican Administration not only lacks leadership on crucial
environmental issues, it fails to grasp the "long-term
implications" of its bias toward the energy industry.

"The George W. Bush Administration appears to view most issues
as either black or white -- that, for example, environmental
protection and energy supply are mutually exclusive objectives,"
writes Train, in Politics, Pollution and Pandas: An
Environmental Memoir (Island Press, December 2003). "Such
simplistic approaches may lend themselves to good sound bites or
to easy political communication, but they do not serve us well
in terms of developing effective solutions to the all-too-real
problems that face this country and the world."

Train, who served as Undersecretary of the Interior under Nixon
and later the second Administrator of the newly created
Environmental Protection Agency (1973-1977), left the Ford
Administration to serve as President of the World Wildlife Fund
(WWF) - U.S. His memoirs provide a "behind-the-scenes account"
of bipartisan efforts under two Republican Administrations to
craft the laws and regulations that have protected our
environment for more than three decades.

Now chairman emeritus of WWF, Train also offers his insights on
the current lack of U.S. leadership on environmental issues,
going so far as to say that President Bush "is not playing
square with the American people" by "blatantly ignoring" solid
scientific research, particularly on man's contribution to
climate change.

Train writes that he does not blame the EPA or other federal
agencies, because "it has been clear from the beginning of the
George W. Bush Administration that it is the White House that is
calling the tune. Moreover, it seems that the tune is being
called not by program staff in the White House, but by political
operatives. I find it unacceptable that the current U.S.
political leadership should demonstrate such disregard for and
disinterest in values that are among the most crucial concerns
of humanity today."

Not only does President Bush ignore his ethical responsibilities
in matters of environmental stewardship, he fails to understand
the complex relationship between economics and environmental
concerns and the longtime consequences of setting policies
slanted so strongly in favor of the energy industry, Train
writes.

"On a broader scale, we need to recognize as a society that the
economy and the environment are not antithetical to each other
but are instead different sides of the same coin," he concludes.
"Economic activity is to a great extent the conversion of the
earth's environmental resources to human use and enjoyment...a
healthy economy that is sustainable over the long term can be
achieved only in the context of a healthy environment. The two
must go hand in hand."

Previous American political leaders -- both Republican and
Democratic -- understood that, writes Train. "We need to find
that road again; it is the only path to a sustainable future for
humanity."

Bush Undermines Northwest Protections Against Old Growth Logging

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the landmark forest
management plan which halted rampant logging in the Pacific
Northwest. But now, thanks to recent actions by the Bush
Administration, the region's old-growth forests are again in
jeopardy. There is danger of a return to the bad old days of
timber wars, which had bitterly divided forest advocates and
logging interests.

Late last month the Bush Administration endangered the past
decade's fragile truce by making two major changes to Northwest
Forest Management Plan. These changes, which weaken protection
for watersheds, salmon, and rare animals and plants, will allow
timber companies to increase logging on 24 million acres of
public land in Oregon, Washington, and Northern California.[1]

In a letter to President Bush, six members of Congress from the
region described the changes as "a tragic misstep" which
"weaken...the basic environmental safeguards for forests, fish,
and clean water." They warned that it would be "a step backward
in time for the people of Oregon and Washington and may reopen
decade-old wounds that have been slow to heal."[2]

Jasmine Minbashian, who heads the Northwest Old Growth Campaign,
shares this fear. "The Bush Administration is trying to take us
back to the days of conflict," she said, describing the changes
as "irresponsible and reckless."

In response to a timber industry lawsuit, the Bush
Administration dropped a requirement that forest managers survey
a proposed cutting area for rare plants and animals -- a rule
which offered protection for nearly 300 imperiled plants and
animals not yet listed under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Logging companies had complained that these precautions were too
time consuming and expensive.

The administration also weakened the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy, which promotes recovery of the region's salmon. More
than five dozen timber sales have been judged illegal because
they failed to comply with provisions to protect salmon habitat.
The Bush Administration change will likely allow for quick
approval of damaging timber projects, which include logging and
road construction on steep slopes and next to salmon streams.[3]

"The Northwest Forest Plan is one of the most comprehensive
efforts ever undertaken to manage an entire ecosystem and
sustain all of its parts -- forests, imperiled species, water
resources, and communities," Mike Leahy, natural resources
counsel for Defenders of Wildlife, told BushGreenwatch. It "was
a fragile compromise addressing the needs of all stakeholders.
But the Bush Administration is now turning its back on that
historic effort."

Ironically, the Bush Administration's latest gift to the timber
industry may also be superfluous. "Ten years later, hardly any
mills depend on old-growth timber, there is a glut of timber on
the market, and support for ancient forest protection is
stronger than ever," said Mitch Friedman of the Northwest
Ecosystem Alliance. "How the Bush Administration can justify
continued logging of old-growth forests is mystifying."

Watchdogs Blast Proposed Bush Forest Policy Overhaul

Officials at Defenders of Wildlife, one of the nation's premiere environmental groups, are expressing increasing frustration over the failure of the U.S. Forest Service to release documents which may confirm that logging industry executives wielded the same kind of influence over proposed forest policy that the energy industry enjoyed with Vice President Cheney's secretive energy task force.

Early in its tenure, the Bush Administration began work on an overhaul of the National Forest Management Act, which governs 200 million acres of publicly owned forests. Seeking evidence that would shed light on the motivations behind the overhaul, Defenders of Wildlife and the Endangered Species Coalition filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in October, 2002.

Defenders charges that Mark Rey, a longtime timber trade association official who is now President Bush's undersecretary for natural resources and environment in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has been deliberately dragging his feet in response to requests for the documents.

"Bush's NFMA overhaul is the biggest-ever rewrite of our nation's forest management policies," said Defenders President Rodger Schlickeisen. "These regulations govern every decision that is made about every acre of national forest, and the Bush reforms cater precisely and blatantly to requests that have been made for years by the logging industry." Schlickeisen says the rewritten policies diminish public and scientific input in the planning process, gut many key wildlife protections, and allow increased logging on public land.

"They reverse even the protections that were put in place by the Reagan administration, including basic [National Environmental Policy Act] reviews and biodiversity standards," he added.

Defenders was further irked that Rey's office seemed to come down with a sudden case of amnesia when it told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that it had no records whatsoever -- no transcripts, memos, emails, or calendar records -- documenting meetings between the agency and industry groups (or anyone else, for that matter) during the process of revising the forest policies.

The court agreed with Defenders' claim that USDA did "not meet their burden of conducting a reasonable search and justifying non-disclosure of exempted information." The court requested that Rey's office do a further search for information and give a more reasonable explanation for why certain documents should be withheld.

"We're going to comply with the court order," said Rey, but he insisted that "there's no need to reach beyond that to broader theories of bad faith and conspiracy, because the court didn't find them and they don't exist."

Defenders' Schlickeisen has his doubts. Last month, Rey told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that substantial "modifications" are in the works, and the final draft is likely to be released in the next several months.

"They're probably consulting lawyers to try and make themselves least vulnerable to legal challenge," said Schlickeisen. "Because clearly if these new modifications are anything like what we've seen, they're illegal. And we've made it clear that we'll do what's necessary to prove it."

Bush Opens Door to More Coal Burning

The second story in a two part series.

In a little-noticed development with potentially devastating consequences for energy consumers, public health and the environment, the Bush Administration has been laying the groundwork for a resurgence of coal-fired power generation across the nation.

Many of the Administration's actions to roll back the Clean Air Act -- such as its weakening of New Source Review rules (rules requiring better emission controls) and its retreat on regulating mercury emissions -- are custom tailored for the coal industry. Coal-burning power plants are the largest single source of mercury and greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.[1]

With these key regulatory victories under its belt, the coal industry is leading a gold rush to acquire federal permits for coal-fired power plants before it loses control of the White House to a more public-health-friendly administration. Since Bush took office, more than 94 new coal-fired power plants have reached the planning and permitting stages, according to government sources and media reports.

"I think most Americans would be shocked that utilities are dragging the 19th century into the 21st century," says Dan Becker, director of global warming and energy program at the Sierra Club.[2]

Industry lobbyists, many of them working from inside the administration, claim that the resurgence of coal will be good for consumers. They point out, correctly, that North America sits on abundant coal reserves. Electricity generated from burning coal has been the cheapest domestic source of power since the industrial revolution; roughly 50 percent of the power produced in the U.S. still comes from coal.

But what industry officials fail to mention is the certainty that the federal government will eventually have to enact carbon and mercury regulations. According to the EPA, eight percent of American women of child-bearing age have enough mercury in their blood to pose a significant risk of nervous system damage to their children. And roughly 630,000, or 15 percent of all babies born in the U.S. each year, are exposed to dangerous levels of mercury in the womb.[3]

While President Bush has abandoned a Clinton-era proposal to virtually eliminate mercury emissions from coal plants, political pressure from health advocates will inevitably force the issue. Once mercury regulations are enacted, all coal facilities -- both newer, more efficient plants and the old polluting behemoths -- will be forced to invest in expensive technology to remove mercury from their smokestack emissions.

The upshot: if the White House enacts strong mercury regulations before the new slate of coal-fired power plants is approved, plant proponents will have to include the costs of compliance in their applications to rate-setting agencies. But if the plants are approved before stronger mercury rules are enacted, the eventual costs of removing mercury from smokestack emissions will be passed on to consumers in the form of escalating electricity costs.

The tragedy is that, with meaningful investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy technology, the U.S. could avoid building any new coal generation facilities -- and could begin to shut down some plants currently in operation. But unless President Bush undergoes a miraculous change of priorities, American consumers can count on getting burned.

Environmental Pioneer Decries Bush Environmental Damage

A major new book explains why global efforts have failed to curb the world's most serious environmental threats -- and lays a large share of the blame at the feet of the Bush Administration.

"I think the biggest problem we have in facing these issues is the lack of U.S. leadership. In fact, what we've had is negative leadership," said longtime environmental leader Gus Speth, author of Red Sky at Morning. Now dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Speth offers eight approaches that can deter global environmental deterioration, as well as an analysis of why most efforts thus far have failed.

One of the pioneers of the modern environmental movement, Speth was co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental advisor to President Jimmy Carter, founder of the environmental think tank World Resources Institute, and CEO of the UN Development Programme.

Speth described to BushGreenwatch a pattern of obstructionist policies throughout the Bush tenure that have impeded global efforts to address pressing environmental issues such as climate change, renewable energy development, fossil fuel emissions, population measures and depletion of the ozone layer.

Rather than join with European nations to forge agreements on how nations can reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, combat global warming, thwart further depletion of the ozone layer or reduce exposure to toxic chemicals, the Bush administration has chosen policies that curry favor with industry, Speth said.

"I think they've been more concerned about their own future from the outset," he said, "their own political future, rather than the public's future and our country's future. In my judgment this is really reprehensible."

Specifically, Speth criticized the Bush administration for:

-Backing out of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce man's contribution to global climate change, and breaking "his own campaign commitment to a bill that would have regulated carbon dioxide emissions," a major contributor to global warming.
-Opposing multinational efforts to reach goals on renewable energy development at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa.
-Attempting to water down an international treaty to strictly limit or eliminate exposure to Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and "dragging its feet" on getting the treaty ratified.
-Opposing legislation put forward by Senators McCain and Lieberman that would establish a federal goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
-Blocking support for international population program measures because of pressure from the right to life movement.
-Seeking massive exemptions from a successful international treaty to reduce production of methyl bromide (a potent ozone-depleting chemical). This would reverse U.S. progress on the problem, and has caused international anger.

Perhaps the most egregious acts of the Bush Administration have been in the area of U.S. energy policy and the failure to support the Kyoto Protocol, Speth said. Not only did the U.S. pull out of this historic agreement to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but doing so has delayed Russian ratification, and will likely deter European nations from participating in the latter phases of the treaty, he said.

"This is huge in historic terms," said Speth. "We are rapidly losing our chance to prevent extremely serious and costly climate disruption. We haven't acted on this problem, and the U.S. is the biggest culprit. If we don't tackle this problem now we will reap very serious consequences."

Troubled Waters: Bush Team Works to Weaken Clean Water Protections

Between January 2002 and June 2003, more than 3,700 facilities across the U.S. violated their Clean Water Act permits for discharging pollutants into the nation's waters, according to a new study from U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG). Some facilities exceeded their permits repeatedly, and for multiple pollutants. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration has weakened both protections and enforcement under the Act, putting public health at risk.

The report, "Troubled Waters: An analysis of Clean Water Act compliance, January 2002-June 2003," details extensive violations of the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA). USPIRG notes that in the 18-month period covered in the report,

-35 facilities exceeded their permits during every reporting period.
-436 major facilities exceeded their CWA permit limits for at least 10 of 18 reporting periods.
-There were more than 32,000 total violations of CWA permits.
-On average, facilities that exceeded their permits had violations in excess of six times the amount of allowed pollution discharge.

Meanwhile the Bush Administration has persistently worked to weaken protections for America's waterways, resisted clean-up of dirty waters, and undercut enforcement of the CWA.


-In January 2003, the Bush Administration announced an intended rule change that would exclude numerous waterways from protection under the Act, including 20 million acres of wetlands, comprising 20% of all wetlands in the contiguous 48 states. Simultaneously the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers instructed staff to stop enforcing the CWA in "isolated" waterways such as small streams and non-navigable ponds. Responding to an angry outcry from the environmental community, EPA announced in December, 2003 that it would not go forward with the rule change. However, agency staff must now apply for "formal project-specific approval" to protect these waters. Formerly, mining companies, developers, and other polluters had to apply for exemptions under the CWA.

-Last November the Bush Administration issued a draft of revised guidelines for sewage treatment by publicly owned facilities. The changes would allow these plants to divert filtered sewage from secondary, biological treatments and mix it with fully treated wastewater before discharge. The risks to public health from this relaxed guideline could include increased outbreaks of pfisteria, giardia, and hepatitis A.

-The Bush Administration's proposed EPA funding for fiscal year 2005 slashes over $600 million from the agency's budget, reducing the agency's ability to monitor and enforce federal clean water laws. The proposed budget also reduces by 37% funds made available to states for improvement of wastewater treatment facilities.

"At a time when our leaders should be working with the states to address this illegal pollution and make all of our waterways fishable and swimmable, the Bush Administration suggested, proposed, or enacted numerous policies that would weaken the Clean Water Act and threaten the future of America's rivers, lakes, streams, and oceans," writes USPIRG's Alison Cassady.[1]

Bush Administration Favoring Air Polluters Over National Parks

The Bush Administration is systematically disregarding the findings of National Park Service (NPS) scientists, imperiling the air quality of the nation's national parks. Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has documented a pattern of favoritism for energy interests by Bush Administration appointees, circumventing 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments meant to protect the national parks.

PEER reports three examples of Bush Administration appointees overturning NPS staff recommendations meant to preserve clean air in parks and wilderness areas:

-In December 2002, NPS scientists advised the State of Montana that emissions from a proposed coal-burning plant to be built in Roundup, 112 miles from Yellowstone National Park, would adversely affect the park's air quality and visibility. In January 2003, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Craig Manson withdrew the scientists' findings from the state, in effect allowing the plant to go forward. Manson and his deputy, Paul Hoffman, announced that the NPS scientists had erred in their findings. Neither Manson nor Hoffman have any scientific training.

-In February 2003, NPS scientists reported to the State of Kentucky that the proposed Thoroughbred coal-fired generating station would harm Mammoth Cave National Park, 50 miles away. Manson and Hoffman overruled the scientists' findings, and withdrew this determination last fall.

-Last month EPA announced it would allow the state of North Dakota to establish a different baseline for the air quality around Theodore Roosevelt National Park. The new, lower baseline will mean that emissions from two proposed coal-fired power plants are permissible under the Clean Air Act amendments. NPS scientists have long since determined that the park's air quality was already at the Clean Air Act's threshold for allowable pollution.

Further jeopardizing air quality protections for America's national parks, under the administration's proposed "Clear Skies" initiative, NPS scientists would be allowed to review new facilities only if they are within 35 miles of a park. Under this rule, neither the Montana nor Kentucky plant proposals would have been evaluated for possible harm to park air quality.[1]

"Roosevelt National Park is the thing that links these three seemingly isolated incidents," Chas Offutt of PEER told BushGreenwatch. "Bush Administration appointees to the National Park Service are consistently favoring politics over the recommendations of career employees. And employees now have a greater fear of retaliation from these appointees."

Bush EPA Seeks Weaker Rules for Radioactive Waste

If the Bush Administration has its way, radioactive waste will soon be officially no different than ordinary trash--meaning it could be dumped into your nearby town landfill.

Long a dream--and goal--of the nuclear industry, the Bush EPA is actively considering a reclassification, or redefinition, of what constitutes radioactive waste. The period for public comment on the controversial proposal expires this Wednesday, March 17.

The nuclear industry has been pushing for such a redefinition of contaminated "low-activity" waste for over a decade. Sending this waste to an ordinary landfill or hazardous waste handler (if radioactive material is mixed with hazardous waste) would be cheaper than disposal at facililities licensed to handle radioactive materials, which is what current EPA regulation requires.

In November, when the proposed deregulation was announced, a coalition of prominent leaders from enviromental, recycling, and nuclear watchdog groups wrote to EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt, warning that this change "could significantly harm the environment and public health." The group also noted that such a change could result in "public outrage".[1]

"The scientific and medical communities agree that there is no safe level of exposure to radioactive material," Ed Hopkins, director of the environmental quality program for the Sierra Club, told BushGreenwatch. "Radioactive wastes should be carefully contained and isolated, not spread throughout the environment. Only the nuclear industry benefits from deregulating and recycling radioactive waste."

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's past efforts to reclassify radioactive wastes to allow for cheaper disposal, which date from 1986, have prompted strong opposition. In 1992, Congress overturned NRC waste reclassification policies, which went by the term "Below Regulatory Concern". Between 1992 and 1996, 15 states passed laws or regulations aimed at continued regulatory control over the disposal of radioactive materials.[2]

The EPA reclassification proposal dovetails with complementary proposals under consideration by other government agencies, including the NRC, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Transportation, to relax or remove regulations now governing the transportation and disposal of radioactive materials.[3]

The proposed deregulation could also threaten the ability of states to regulate radioactive wastes and protect their citizens.

As a nature lover of this great planet I am truly appalled by this presidents actions! This administration is EVIL

What else would explain this! He is sacrificing our environment so his corporate buddies can make more money. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the Bush Administrations environmental policies.

They have even passed a bill to make endangered animals allowed in the circus

If this isn't evil I don't know what is!

God I apologize for my fellow man....... they are lost in a world of greed

THIS IS THE ARTICLE I WAS REFERRING TO ABOUT BUSH & THE ENDANGERED ANIMALS

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...0¬Found=true

U.S. May Expand Access To Endangered Species

By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 11, 2003; Page A01

The Bush administration is proposing far-reaching changes to conservation policies that would allow hunters, circuses and the pet industry to kill, capture and import animals on the brink of extinction in other countries.


Giving Americans access to endangered animals, officials said, would feed the gigantic U.S. demand for live animals, skins, parts and trophies, and generate profits that would allow poor nations to pay for conservation of the remaining animals and their habitat.

This and other proposals that pursue conservation through trade would, for example, open the door for American trophy hunters to kill the endangered straight-horned markhor in Pakistan; license the pet industry to import the blue fronted Amazon parrot from Argentina; permit the capture of endangered Asian elephants for U.S. circuses and zoos; and partially resume the trade in African ivory. No U.S. endangered species would be affected.

Conservationists think it's a bad idea. "It's a very dangerous precedent to decide that wildlife exploitation is in the best interest of wildlife," said Adam Roberts, a senior research associate at the nonprofit Animal Welfare Institute, an advocacy group for endangered species.

Killing or capturing even a few animals is hardly the best way to protect endangered species, conservationists say. Many charge that the policies cater to individuals and businesses that profit from animal exploitation.

The latest proposal involves an interpretation of the Endangered Species Act that deviates radically from the course followed by Republican and Democratic administrations since President Richard M. Nixon signed the act in 1973. The law established broad protection for endangered species, most of which are not native to America, and effectively prohibited trade in them.

Kenneth Stansell, assistant director for international affairs at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said there has been a growing realization that the Endangered Species Act provides poor countries no incentive to protect dying species. Allowing American hunters, circuses and the pet industry to pay countries to take fixed numbers of animals from the wild can help protect the remaining animals, he said.

U.S. officials note that such trade is already open to hunters, pet importers and zoos in other Western nations. They say the idea is supported by poor countries that are home to the endangered species and would benefit from the revenue.

Officials at the Department of Interior and Fish and Wildlife, who are spearheading many of the new policies, said the proposals merely implement rarely used provisions in the law.

"This is absolutely consistent with the Endangered Species Act, as written," said David P. Smith, deputy assistant secretary at the Department of Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks. "I think the nature of the beast is such that there are critics who are going to claim some kind of ulterior motive."

Animal welfare advocates question the logic of the new approach, saying that foreign countries and groups that stand to profit will be in charge of determining how many animals can be killed or captured. Advocates also warn that opening the door to legal trade will allow poaching to flourish.

"As soon as you place a financial price on the head of wild animals, the incentive is to kill the animal or capture them," Roberts said. "The minute people find out they can have an easier time killing, shipping and profiting from wildlife, they will do so."

The proposals also trigger a visceral response: To many animal lovers, these species have emotional and symbolic value, and should never be captured or killed.

The Endangered Species Act prohibits removing domestic endangered species from the wild. Until now, that protection was extended to foreign species. Explaining the change, Stansell said, "There is a recognition that these sovereign nations have a different way of managing their natural resources."

.....continues

Is the environment important to right wingers??? From the lack of responses to this thread I'll assume yes.

I am amazed by some usual comments I hear from american right wingers regarding environment concerns.
Climate change due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases massive release in the atmosphere is labelled by them as a "load of crap". The Kyoto protocole, that the Bush admin refused to ratify, is of course intended to "undermine the US economy". Scientists - among which most respected american ones - are providing evidences of the growing dangers and ringing the bell, but that's because they are "leftist propagandists". And so on. God I wonder what should happen to make those people open their eyes and acknowledge the obvious.