People Before Profit blog

Californians battle for far-reaching climate legislation

Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:32:00 +0000

OAKLAND, Calif. - In the face of fierce opposition from Big Oil companies and Republican legislators, the California state Assembly will decide on an array of pace-setting legislative bills to combat climate change within the next three weeks, thrusting the Golden State into the forefront of this consequential global struggle.

The state Senate already approved the package of climate bills in June that California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, has agreed to sign into law once passed by the Assembly. Both state legislative houses are controlled by Democrats.

"This package of bills represents the most far-reaching effort to fight climate change in the history of our nation," Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon declared in a statement. "These bills put California on path to sustainable economic growth, while also protecting the health of our communities."

Earlier this week the state legislative battle heated up when Presente.org in partnership with California Environmental Justice Alliance, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Communities for a Better Environment, and the Greenlining Institute blasted the oil industry.

In an online message, the groups accuse the oil industry of "buying influence with legislators, spending millions on dishonest advertisements, and intimidating critics" while "peddling the false claim that a clean economy will hurt low-income communities."

On Tuesday, Presente.org and its partners released results of a survey conducted by Latino Decisions showing that the state's Latino voters overwhelmingly support stronger state measures to fight pollution particularly in communities of color, decrease dependency on petroleum and expand the green economy.

The poll further revealed that 82 percent of Latino respondents would be more favorable toward a legislator who supported a bill to add new penalties and fines to companies that pollute.

The poll is sending a strong message to wavering legislators from California Latinos, who now make up the single largest ethnic group, larger than whites, at 38 percent of the overall population, as well as a large slice of the eligible voters in the state.

As the loosely knit coalition - including environmental groups, consumer advocates, labor representatives and renewable energy entrepreneurs - ratchet up their activities in favor of the climate bills, the environmental organization 350.org is appealing directly to the public to join the fray.

Oil companies are particularly riled by that portion of Senate Bill (SB) 350 that proposes a 50 percent reduction in petroleum use in cars and trucks by 2030.

In addition, SB 350 sets a 15-year target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by requiring:

That 50 percent of energy supply come from solar, wind and other renewable sources.
Doubling the energy efficiency of existing buildings.

The Senate approved SB 350 on a 24-14 vote, with all Republicans voting no.

Out of the 12 bills making up the legislative package, two more bills are key:

SB 32 commits California to slash greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
SB 185 requires California's sizeable public employees' and teachers' pension funds to divest from coal.

Other pieces of legislation the Senate approved would direct cap and trade funds towards public transportation infrastructure and establish a committee to advise the Legislature on climate policies that would create jobs.

The California legislative package if approved by the state Assembly in its present form will represent a formidable boost to climate initiatives of President Barack Obama and mandates of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and a major slap at Republicans in Congress out to undermine the president's agenda.

Significantly in September, as the fight on the California climate bills heads for a final showdown in the Assembly, widely popular Pope Francis is scheduled to visit the U.S. and expected to appeal for urgent and far-reaching action on climate change and the eradication of poverty in the world before the United Nations and most likely also the U.S. Congress.

Photo: Sacramento, Calif., Aug. 25, 2015. California Environmental Justice Alliance/Facebook

Today in history: Hurricane Katrina’s pain index 10 years later

Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:38:00 +0000

Ten years after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, the author looks at the pain index for those who were left behind. The population of New Orleans is noticeably smaller and noticeably whiter now, and despite the tens of billions of dollars poured into Louisiana, the impact on poor and working people in New Orleans has been minimal. While not all the numbers are bad, they do illustrate who has benefited and who continues to suffer ten years after Katrina.

When Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast on August 29, 2005, the nation saw tens of thousands of people left behind in New Orleans. Ten years later, it looks like the same people in New Orleans have been left behind again. The population of New Orleans is noticeably smaller and noticeably whiter. While tens of billions poured into Louisiana, the impact on poor and working people in New Orleans has been minimal. Many of the elderly and the poor, especially poor families with children, never made it back to New Orleans. The poverty rate for children who did made it back remains at disturbingly high pre-Katrina levels, especially for Black children. Rents are high and taking a higher percentage of people's income. The pre-Katrina school system fired all its teachers and professionals and turned itself into the charter experiment capital of the U.S. even while the number of children in public schools has dropped dramatically. Since Katrina, white incomes, which were over twice that of Blacks, have risen three times as much as Blacks. While not all the numbers below are bad, they do illustrate who has been left behind in the ten years since Katrina hit.

33 Rent in New Orleans is up 33 percent for one-bedroom apartments and 41 percent for two-bedroom apartments since Katrina hit. This is very tough because in New Orleans, 55 percent of residents rent. The national average is 35 percent. In 2005, one bedroom was $578 and two was $676. In 2015, it is $767 for one and $950 for two. CNN/Money recently named New Orleans as one of the worst cities in the US for renters. Before Katrina the average renter spent 19 percent of their income on rent. The Data Center, a terrific resource for information on the region, reports 37 percent of renters in New Orleans now spend more than 50 percent of their income on rent. Rental apartments are mostly substandard as well, with 78 percent, nearly 50,000 apartments, in the city needing major repairs.

38 In 2005, 38 percent of the children in New Orleans lived in poverty, 17 percentage points higher than the US as a whole. The most recent numbers show 39 percent of the children in New Orleans live in poverty, still 17 percentage points higher than the national average. In 82 percent of these families there is someone working, so the primary cause is low wages.

44 New Orleans now has 44 school boards. Prior to Katrina, nearly all the public schools in New Orleans were overseen by the one Orleans Parish School Board. 91 percent of the public schools in New Orleans are now charter schools, the highest rate in the country. Only 32 percent of African Americans believe the new nearly all charter school system is better than the public school system before the storm versus 44 percent of whites even though precious few whites attend the public schools.

50 50 percent of the Black children in New Orleans live in poor households, a higher percentage than when Katrina hit.

59 New Orleans is now 59 percent African American, down from 66.7 percent in 2000; 31 percent white, up from 26 percent in 2000; and 5.5 percent Hispanic, up from three percent in 2000.

67 Prior to Katrina, New Orleans incarcerated more of its citizens than any city in the U.S., five times the national average. Ongoing efforts by community members and local officials have reduced the number of people held in the jail by 67 percent.

73 73 percent of New Orleans students who start high school graduate on time.

3,221 There are now 3,221 fewer low-income public housing apartments in New Orleans than when Katrina hit. In 2005 there were 5,146 low income public housing apartments in New Orleans, plus thousands of other public housing apartments scheduled for renewal or maintenance, nearly 100 percent African American. The housing authority now reports having 1,925 public housing apartments available for low income people on the sites of the demolished complexes, less than half of the number promised, and less than half of those completed have rents set at rates which are affordable to those who lived in public housing before Katrina, meaning the majority of their public housing units now require higher incomes from renters than the people who were living in public housing prior to Katrina. That is why only about half of the families who lived in the four public housing developments which were demolished after Katrina made it back to New Orleans at all by 2011. And only seven percent of those original families were living in the new housing which replaced their homes.

6,000 There are 6,000 fewer people on Social Security in Orleans Parish than before the storm. Orleans Parish had 26,654 people on Social Security, either old age or disability, in 2004. Orleans Parish had 20,325 people on Social Security in the latest report. There are similar drops in the numbers of people on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in New Orleans. There were just over 3,000 families receiving state temporary assistance in New Orleans in May 2005. As of May 2015, that number was down to 463.

7,500 Over 7,500 public school teachers and paraprofessionals, mostly African American, were fired after Katrina when Louisiana took over the New Orleans public school system. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear their appeal in May 2015.

9,000 There are 9,000 fewer families receiving food stamps than before. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the old food stamps program. In May 2015, Orleans Parish had just under 40,000 households receiving SNAP benefits. In May 2005, New Orleans had 49,000 households receiving food stamps.

17,392 There are 17,392 fewer children enrolled in public schools in New Orleans now than before Katrina. There were over 63,000 enrolled pre-Katrina and now there are 45,608.

35,451 The median income for white families in New Orleans is $60,553; that is $35,451 more than for Black families, whose median income was $25,102. In the last ten years the median income for Black families grew by seven percent. At the same time, the median income for white families grew three times as fast, by 22 percent. In 2005, the median income for Black households was $23,394, while the median for white households was $49,262. By 2013, the median income for Black households had grown only slightly, to $25,102. But the median for white households had jumped to $60, 553.

44,516 The New Orleans metro area (Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, and St. Tammany Parishes) has 44,516 more Hispanic residents in 2013 than in 2000. The total is now 103,061, just over 8 percent of metro population according to The Data Center.

71,000 71,000 fewer people live in New Orleans now than before the storm. In 2005, New Orleans had a population of 455,000 and in 2014 its population was 384,000.

99,650 There are 99,650 fewer African Americans living in New Orleans now than in 2000, compared to 11,000 fewer whites.

71,000,000,000 Seventy one billion dollars was received by the State of Louisiana for Katrina repairs, rehabilitation and rebuilding. One look at this index and you see who did NOT get the money.

Bill Quigley is Associate Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans, and a Katrina survivor. Thanks to the author for granting permission to repost in PW; originally appeared on Portside, July 25, 2015.

A new video from the Sierra Club Lower 9th Ward: Rightfully Returned tells a story of transformation, rebirth, and restoration in the Crescent City's hardest-hit neighborhood and celebrates the resiliency and enduring spirit of the local community.

Photo: Hurricane Katrina | Wikimedia (CC)

Dethroning fossil fuels: rise of the New Abolitionists

Thu, 27 Aug 2015 11:38:00 +0000

Here's the good news: The percentage rate of change in global carbon emissions in 2014 was zero. It didn't go up. That's the first time in the record books that the world economy grew but carbon emissions didn't.

Here's the bad news: The average global temperature has been hotter every month since February of 1985 than the 20th-century average for any given month. We're talking 360 consecutive months of warmer-than-average temperatures.

Here's the really bad news: If we continue to extract fossil fuels - coal, oil, gas - at the current pace, we will not be able to live on the planet by mid-century.

Here's the science: Despite the climate deniers, the consensus of people who study this field professionally say that if we raise the temperatures of the planet more than two degrees Celsius (that's about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) human life as we know it will not be possible. We have already raised it 0.8 degrees Celsius, meaning that we have only 1.2 degrees to go. That means that we can spew about 565 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere in the next 35 years and still preserve human civilization.

Some of these scientists have tried to determine how much proven fossil fuel reserves the world holds and what using them will put into the air. The Carbon Tracker Initiative concluded that the planet has enough proven, extractable energy sources now to pack 2,795 gigatons into the atmosphere. That's about five times what we can use if we want to stay below the threshold of civilization collapse. That means we must leave 80 percent of the coal and oil and gas in the ground, if civilization is to survive.

As Jonathan Franzen put it so vividly in the New Yorker: "We're taking carbon that used to be sequestered and putting it in the atmosphere, and unless we stop we're fucked." Even Britain's Prince Charles agrees with that conclusion.

So here's the economics: Keeping 80 per cent of the current known reserves of fossil fuel in the earth instead of putting them in the air means depriving the fossil fuel extractors from Alaska to Saudi Arabia of $20 trillion. That's not chump change. In fact, the last time that such a large amount of wealth was taken away from its owners followed that bloody mess known as the Civil War.

A generation before the war, cotton - the major product of slavery - amounted to about five percent of America's $1.5 billion economy. But the additional goods and services, along with non-slave labor, required to grow this major export greatly multiply that amount. Edward Baptist, in his book The Half Has Never Been Told, calculates that altogether slavery was responsible for about half the nation's gross domestic product.

To take the wealth of fossil fuels from its holders and drastically reduce its role in our economy will take political courage beyond our imagination. President Obama has just announced new regulations to shift from coal to renewable energy. The rules would decrease the U.S. carbon footprint by at least 30 percent from the 2005 level by 2030. In recent years the U.S. has eliminated 150 coal-burning plants. This would require more. Already the Senate majority leader, who comes from a coal-producing state, has sent a letter to all state governors telling them to just ignore the new federal guidelines. Meanwhile, India and China, the world's two most populous nations, plan huge increases in the number of their coal-fueled electrical plants.

Similarly, America is on target to match or even break its peak-oil production year of 1970. New technologies and sources of fossil fuels, including deep water wells, fracking, horizontal drilling and shale fields make more oil more easily accessible. Nations with a back yard facing the Arctic are rubbing their hands together over the ice melt, hoping to cash in on the quarter of all reserves believed buried below the seabed. The U.S., Russia, Norway and Denmark (which owns Greenland) all want to go after the wealth. It's not called "black gold" for nothing.

So the advocates for keeping fossil fuels in the ground - the so-called New Abolitionists - are demanding of the world what this nation required of itself following the Civil War. Then, slaveholders had to let go of their wealth, and others dependent on its economic surplus were left without any. The orderly transition President Lincoln envisioned, but did not live to accomplish, left freed slaves suffering and everyone else in chaos as the Southern economy collapsed.

The dilemma before us now is just as stark. Will we be shrewd enough to leave vast amounts of wealth in the ground in order to preserve human life and civilization? Will we carefully construct a "Great Transition," as Naomi Klein and others call for, or will we just drift? As Martin Luther King Jr. put it a half century ago, will we slide into chaos or will we make community?

Reprinted by kind permission of the author and Capital & Main.

Rev. Jim Conn is the founding minister of the Church in Ocean Park and served on the Santa Monica City Council and as that city's mayor. He helped found Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, Los Angeles, and was its second chair, and was a founder of Santa Monica's renter's rights campaign.

Scientists alarmed by 30 whale deaths

Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:45:00 +0000

What's killing the whales? That's exactly what scientists are trying to determine, now that at least thirty have been confirmed dead off the coast of Alaska. The investigation has pinned down a large toxic algae bloom off the West Coast as a likely culprit, as it has already affected fish populations from California to Washington. But experts remain uncertain.

The news came Aug. 20, when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) confirmed the deaths, noting that it was an "unusual mortality event" and that it "demands immediate response." The dead include 11 fin whales, 14 humpback whales, one gray whale, and four that have yet to be identified. The carcasses have all been found around the islands of the western Gulf of Alaska or near the Alaska peninsula. It has also been determined that the whales were not beaching themselves, but rather, dying at sea and then washing ashore.

While experts maintain that they do not yet know the precise cause, all signs seem to point to the enormous algae wending its way from the Golden State to Alaska. "It's a bloom of phytoplankton in the ocean that actually releases toxins," said Bree Witteveen, marine mammal specialist at the University of Alaska. "Those get accumulated into various prey and it works its way up the food chain, and it can cause paralysis and death. We always see a handful of carcasses every summer, but when you see so many in such a short period of time, it's quite shocking."

"NOAA Fisheries scientists and partners are very concerned about the large number of whales [dying] in recent months," said Teri Rowles, NOAA Fisheries' marine mammal health and stranding response coordinator. "Our investigations will give us important information on the health of whales and the ecosystems where they live." The administration has cautioned that it could take months - years, even - for a solid conclusion to be formed based on data collection and analysis. Some factors have, however, been ruled out; the NOAA mentioned that it's "highly unlikely" that the deaths were caused by radiation from Fukushima.

This has led many to speculate that the algae bloom, which is more widespread than scientists had initially predicted, is indeed responsible. And some experts are inclined to agree. "Our leading theory at this point is that the harmful algal bloom has contributed to the deaths," said NOAA spokesperson Julie Speegle. "But we have no conclusive evidence."

Rowles said the investigation could be hindered by the sheer difficulty of conducting the required analysis. For one, tests for biotoxins like domoic acid, which is released by the algae bloom, have so far been inconclusive. [Domoic acid is a kainic acid analog neurotoxin. It is produced by algae and accumulates in shellfish, sardines, and anchovies. When sea lions, otters, cetaceans, and humans then eat contaminated animals poisoning may result.] And procuring samples of such toxins from living specimen is a difficult task. "Trying to investigate large whale mortality events provides a lot of logistical complications," she said, "including getting access to good samples, getting access safely to carcasses, and even finding a place for carcasses to be towed and examined."

It's possible that use of sonar "may also be a cause" in the whale strandings, according to Witteveen. "To our knowledge, however, the most recent Navy sonar exercises in the Gulf of Alaska were not initiated until nearly three weeks after the carcasses began to be sighted."

Spencer Fire, an expert on the effects of algal blooms on whale populations at the Florida Institute of Technology, suggested that the NOAA's prevailing theory is the more likely one. "Some algal toxins mimic neurotransmitters in the brain and cause seizures and death of brain tissue," he remarked. "Some interfere with normal nerve function and can cause respiratory paralysis. Some cause gastrointestinal problems."

"The most critical thing," said Rowles, "is our ability to get to these animals, document them, and, if possible, perform sample collections either at sea or on the beach if they strand. It's going to take a bit of time to pull it all together."

Photo: A dead fin whale, one of the 30 confirmed dead. | Dr. Britt Witteveen & Alaska Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program, via AP

National Park Service anniversary is bittersweet in face of growing perils

Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:48:00 +0000

Today marks the 99^th anniversary of the National Park Service, and it could prove the right time for careful reflection. The agency is waiving the entrance fee this month for all 408 of its national parks, monuments, and other protected sites, including iconic landmarks like Mount Rushmore and the Grand Canyon. But the move can be seen as a pushback against young peoples' increasing disconnect from nature. At the same time, national parks face dual attacks, in the form of legislation meant to destroy them, and climate change, which could pose a similar threat.

The National Park Service was founded on August 25, 1916, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Park Service Organic Act into law, which would "conserve the scenery and the natural and historical objects and wildlife therein, and provide for the enjoyment of the same in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future nations." The legislation had heavily been pushed for by conservationist and Sierra Club member Stephen Mather, who was subsequently appointed as the first director of the National Park Service. According to a bronze plaque at Utah's Zion National Park, Mather "laid the foundation" for the agency, "defining and establishing the policies under which its areas shall be developed and conserved."

Today, national parks enjoy the benefit of that conservation. But while their early history contained a note of hope, recent times have proven tumultuous for the supposedly protected sites. On one hand, these parks saw high visitation last year, contributing $29.7 billion to the economy and supporting 277,000 jobs. But on the other, apparently not many of those visitors were of the younger generation. For this reason, the National Park Service recently launched a "Find Your Park" campaign designed to connect more kids with these public lands. Launched on Mar. 30 this year, the campaign is intended to help people find those national parks that are closest to where they live. First Lady Michelle Obama hosted a video in connection with the movement, noting her own family's connection to the Pullman National Monument in Chicago.

Despite campaigns like these, a lack of consideration for national parks is also evident amongst Congress, as these places continue to be plagued by financial burdens. The National Park Service is currently operating under an $11.5 million maintenance backlog, which has caused facilities and park infrastructure to age. Park roads and bridges alone account for at least half of that backlog, according to National Parks Traveler. The agency received some of its operational funding through the Federal Lands Transportation Program, but that expired in May, and Congress has not considered alternative ways to fund parks.

Craig Obey, National Park Service's senior vice president of governmental affairs, said, "As the centennial of the National Park Service approaches in 2016, we hope Congress will work in a bipartisan fashion to support 'America's best idea.' Now is the time to reinvest in our national parks, through both traditional and creative new approaches."

But 'bipartisan' doesn't look as though it will be a word used in coming discussions, as Rep. Don Young, R-Ark., introduced legislation on Jan. 13 that would make preserving lands and monuments a thing of the past. Called H.R. 330, the bill would amend the 1906 Antiquities Act to block the president from designating new national monuments without congressional approval and an "extensive environmental review." It would also require the president to get similar approval for marine monuments.

"Americans value national parks," said Alex Taurel, deputy legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters. "But this legislation would attack the century-old law that has helped protect them. By introducing it, Rep. Young has proven how out of step with the American people he is." Given the fact that recent polling data demonstrates that 70 percent of voters support the efforts of President Obama to protect new monuments for future generations, those words likely ring quite true.

Finally, national parks must contend with the ever looming portent of climate change. A new report has shown that up to one quarter of the total combined land area of national parks was especially vulnerable to global warming's effects, factoring in elements such as wildlife relocation and dislocation.

"We already established that climate change and habitat loss affect national parks, but this scientific study links these negative effects and identifies just how much of the landscape is at risk," said National Park Service director Jonathan B. Jarvis. "The good news is that the study also identified areas of biodiversity that are refuges and wellsprings for species."

Part of the chaos caused by the changing climate is, of course, a steady increase in wildfires, and for myriad reasons, that is a complex issue in and of itself. There are currently at least 167 such fires burning across the U.S., with an infamously memorable blaze occurring in Yosemite National Park in 2013. And much like the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service has experienced crippling funding cuts and limited access to safety equipment. The agency now spends more than 50 percent of its budget on firefighting alone, and scientists say the fires are only going to get worse.

With so many attacks on all sides, the National Park Service's best bet is to renew interest in the lands it has helped protect, so that the fightback on the part of environmentalists and conservationists will be that much greater.

"The National Park Service's 99^th birthday is an opportunity to celebrate the role of national parks in the American story," Jarvis concluded. "And it's also a time to look ahead to our centennial year, and the next 100 years. These national treasures belong to all of us, and we want everyone - especially the next generation of park visitors, supporters, and advocates - to discover and connect with their national parks."

Photo: A herd of elk graze in a meadow at Yellowstone National Park. | AP

First tar sands mine to open for business in Utah

Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:34:00 +0000

BOOK CLIFFS, Utah (AP) - On a remote Utah ridge covered in sagebrush, pines and wild grasses, a Canadian company is about to embark on something never before done commercially in the United States: digging sticky, black, tar-soaked sand from the ground and extracting the petroleum.

The impending opening of the nation's first tar sands mine has become another front in the battle across the West between preservationists and the energy industry.

U.S. Oil Sands has invested nearly $100 million over the last decade to acquire rights to about 50 square miles, obtain permits and develop what it says is a brand-new, non-toxic method of separating out the oil with the use of an orange-peel extract similar to what's in citrus-scented household soaps and detergents.

"We're dedicated to having the world's most environmentally responsible oil sands project ever built," CEO Cameron Todd said in a boast that has failed to reassure protesters.

Across the rolling green hills of the Book Cliffs of eastern Utah, about 165 miles from Salt Lake City, the company plans this fall to begin digging the first in a series of pits, each the size of a football stadium, and start unsticking oil from the sand that crumbles in your hand like a brownie.

Tar sands, also called bitumen, are naturally occurring deposits of petroleum. Unlike the oil that flows out of wells, the hydrocarbons in tar sands must first be separated from the dirt by mixing the stuff with hot water and solvent. The oil is then sold to refineries for eventual use as fuel or an industrial ingredient.

Oil production from tar sands has been going on for years in Canada and Venezuela. The Canada-to-Texas Keystone XL pipeline that has been blocked by the Obama administration is supposed to carry tar sands oil.

While tar sands mining involves higher operating costs than traditional drilling, it can be highly profitable, especially when crude prices are high. But whether U.S. Oil Sands can make any money on this project remains to be seen.

What looked like a shortage of oil when the company began raising money has now become a glut, in part because energy companies have learned to extract petroleum from formations long thought out of reach.

By the company's own estimate, it will make little to nothing at crude oil's current price of $48 per barrel, down from a peak of $147 in 2008. As of Tuesday, U.S. Oil Sands stock was trading at just 12 cents.

Protesters have tried to thwart the mine's construction for two summers in a row and have gotten arrested for chaining themselves to equipment. They argue that the project is an eyesore and that it could contaminate nearby springs and ruin habitat for deer, beaver and bears.

The mine sits on a cleared swath of land enclosed by barbed wire, with modular buildings, bulldozers, large metal posts and rails and a massive metal cylinder with a cone-shaped bottom where the tar sand mixing will be done.

Demonstrators who have been camping out all summer near the site gathered outside the front gate on a recent day to show their opposition. Some wore chipmunk masks. Other banged drums. Some held signs with messages such as "Dirty Energy Kills."

"It's heartbreaking to see what they've been doing out here," said Melanie Martin of the Tar Sands Resistance Movement. "It's impossible to reclaim and rehabilitate the land once they do what they are planning to do with it. The land is not going to come back for millennia."

Opponents also worry the mine will spur more projects in this pristine area that attracts hikers, campers and hunters. A 45-mile, $86 million highway as smooth as an autobahn has been built out to the mine. And the state has given approval for three other tar sands operations in the same corner of Utah.

Instead of relying on the usual industrial-strength hydrocarbon solvent, U.S. Oil Sands says it will employ the biodegradable citrus extract that is in grease-cutting household products.

Utah officials who recently approved the mine also imposed a key requirement environmentalists considered a victory: The company must monitor water and air quality.

And instead of leaving open pits, ponds of mining debris and barren land, U.S. Oil Sands says it will fill in the holes with the clean leftover sand and plant grass and other vegetation.

U.S. Oil Sands estimates there are 180 million barrels of oil close to the surface on the land it is leasing. It plans to begin turning out 2,000 barrels per day later this year - a puny share of the 9.3 million the U.S. produces daily - and take it by truck to refineries. It says the mine will create about 50 full-time jobs when opened.

"This is a breakthrough in technology," Todd said by telephone from Calgary. "If we're able to demonstrate to the investment world that this is possible, there are many, many places where this could be done."

Alex Beeker, an industry research analyst, said he doesn't expect the mine to set off an explosion of tar sands mining in the U.S., where the prospects are basically limited to Utah. "But if U.S. Oil Sands starts to do very well, you're going to see more operators try to mimic what they're doing," he said.

Photo: Rick Bowmer/AP

Islamic leaders call for fast action on climate change

Wed, 19 Aug 2015 15:15:00 +0000

Islamic leaders from 20 countries yesterday called for rapid transition from a world economic order based on fossil fuel to one powered by renewable energy.

Wael Hmaidan, international director of Climate Action Network (CAN), described the declaration adopted by 60 prominent Islamic scholars and religious leaders at the two-day International Islamic Climate Change Symposium as a potential "game changer."

"It challenges all world leaders, and especially oil producing nations," Hmaidan said, "to phase out their carbon emissions and supports the just transition to 100 percent renewable energy as a necessity to tackle climate change, reduce poverty and deliver sustainable development," according to a CAN report.

As part of a worldwide groundswell, the declaration urges governments to deliver a new international climate agreement in Paris this December that guarantees limiting global warming above pre-industrial levels to 2, but preferably 1.5, degrees Celsius.

The declaration makes the moral case, based on Islamic teachings, for the 1.6 billion Muslims and people of all faiths worldwide to take urgent climate action.

The declaration is in sync with the much lauded Encyclical by Pope Francis released two months ago.

For its part, the Vatican has enthusiastically endorsed the Islamic declaration.

"The climate crisis needs to be tackled through collaborative efforts, so let's work together for a better world for our children, and our children's children," declared Din Syamsuddin, chairman of the Indonesian Council of Ulema.

Speakers at the Symposium included three senior UN officials, scientists, NGO leaders and academics.

Also attending were religious leaders from many other faith traditions.

Pope Francis' activism, especially since the release of his Encyclical in June, has energized people of faith who have long advocated for the environment.

Since June, the World Council of Churches, Unitarian Universalists, Union Seminary, and the Episcopal Church have all divested from fossil fuels.

As of Aug. 13, 403 rabbis had signed a Rabbinic Letter on the Climate Crisis, calling for vigorous action to prevent worsening climate disruption and to seek eco-social justice.

In a related action, in July more than 180 evangelical Christian leaders signed a letter backing President Barack Obama's plan to reduce carbon emission from power plants.

The Climate Change Symposium Declaration urged "well-off nations" and oil producing states to "re-focus their concerns from unethical profit from the environment, to that of preserving it and elevating the condition of the world's poor."

Among other notable demands, the declaration called on the people of all nations and their leaders:

"To set in motion a fresh model of wellbeing, based on an alternative to the current financial model which depletes resources, degrades the environment, and deepens inequality.
"Prioritize adaptation efforts with appropriate support to the vulnerable countries with the least capacity to adapt. And vulnerable groups, including indigenous peoples, women and children.

The declaration further called on the corporations, finance, and business sector:

"To shoulder the consequences of their profit-making activities, and take a visibly more active role in reducing their carbon footprint and other forms of impact upon the natural environment;
"Change from the current business model which is based on an unsustainable escalating economy, and to adopt a circular economy that is wholly sustainable;
"Assist in the divestment from the fossil fuel driven economy and the scaling up of renewable energy and other ecological alternatives."

Photo: Muslim leaders from 20 countries are convening in Istanbul to launch the Islamic Climate Declaration today. The Declaration calling on 1.6 billion Muslims around the world to act on the moral imperative to addressing climate change and for governments to phase out the use of fossil fuels and use renewable sources of energy. (Islamic Relief Facebook )

Climate contradictions: Obama approves Arctic drilling, plans visit to Alaska

Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:01:00 +0000

After Shell proved, through blunders and its infamous reputation, that it is not fit to drill in the Arctic, Aug. 17 brought news that the Obama administration had granted them approval to do just that. The troubling development came just days after President Obama announced he would visit Alaska to discuss the impact of climate change on the region. Now, as the oil corporation further destroys the already-disrupted Arctic sea ice, the problem of global warming can only grow worse.

The move is especially bewildering for many, as the president has declared Alaska to be "the frontlines of our fight against climate change." For a place of such importance, it hardly seems like an opportune time for the administration to greenlight a venture that will wreak environmental havoc, but that is what has come to pass. Even so, the approval has not gone unnoticed by activists.

Friends of the Earth climate campaigner Marissa Knodel said, "When Obama visits the Arctic this month, he must face the communities he is sacrificing to Shell's profits." Greenpeace executive director Annie Leonard added, "The president cannot have it both ways. Announcing a tour of Alaska to highlight climate change days before giving Shell the final approval to drill is deeply hypocritical."

In an official report, however, Greenpeace seemed to suggest that the brunt of the blame does not lie with Obama, but rather, with the greed-driven company that seeks to ravage the Arctic. They noted that the president "has used his executive power to show climate leadership before. Earlier this year, he vetoed the Keystone XL pipeline in response to a nationwide public outcry, demanding the U.S. no longer champion policies and projects that accelerate climate change.

"The world is watching Shell right now. [They have] a history of ineffective equipment. In 2012, one of Shell's Arctic rigs ran aground and became stuck in Dutch Harbor. The technology does not exist to effectively clean up an oil spill in the icy and unpredictable waters. This is a disaster waiting to happen."

The imbalanced and contradictory approach the Obama administration seems to be taking in regard to environmental matters is confusing. That has grown more so with today's news that the EPA, which was responsible for the recent mishap resulting in a large mine waste spill, has proposed new regulations aimed at cutting methane emissions by 40 to 45 percent (from 2012 levels) over the next ten years. The rules would apply to new or modified sources of oil and natural gas and require energy companies to find and fix leaks and take careful steps to limit emissions. And yet, experts seem to point out that this is not quite cause for celebration.

Up in the Arctic, when Shell starts breaking up ice in its exploration for oil, more methane will be released into the atmosphere - enough, perhaps, to render the curbing of emissions from other manmade activities a moot point. Merritt Turetsky, a biology professor at the University of Guelph, Ontario, remarked, "Permafrost carbon feedback is one of the important and likely consequences of climate change, and it is certain to trigger additional warming. Even if we ceased all human emissions, ice would continue to thaw and release carbon into the atmosphere."

Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said, "Granting Shell the permit to drill in the Arctic was the wrong decision, and the fight is far from over. The people will continue to call on President Obama to protect the Arctic and our environment."

And the opposition to Shell's drilling is composed of more than just environmental activists. Hillary Clinton released a statement on the matter in the form of a tweet, saying, "The Arctic is a unique treasure. Given what we know, it's not worth the risk of drilling."

Brune added, "She's exactly right. Everything we know about dangerous oil drilling in the Arctic indicates it imperils a national treasure and is guaranteed to make our climate crisis worse. Allowing Shell to use unproven technology in the Arctic is a recipe for disaster and toxic to any climate action legacy."

Photo: AP

Mine waste spill fouls water in Colorado and New Mexico

Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:01:00 +0000

The latest ecological disaster has left Colorado's Animas River a sickly orange and yellow, after an accident on Aug. 5 sent at least three million gallons of mine waste gushing into the water. The spewage came from the abandoned Gold King Mine, and occurred when an EPA mining safety team used equipment to - ironically enough - reduce pollution emanating from the disused site. Now the sludge is spreading, and it reached New Mexico on Aug. 10, flowing from the Animas into the San Juan River there, as officials struggled to gain control of the situation.

The wastewater contains toxic heavy metals including lead, which can harm fetal development and cause vision impairment and kidney disease, and arsenic, which at high levels could cause paralysis, blindness, and cancer. The contamination was apparently the very thing EPA workers were attempting to treat before inadvertently unleashing it upon the environment. "The project was intended to pump and treat the water and reduce metals pollution flowing out of the [Gold King] Mine," EPA spokesman Rich Mylott confirmed.

There has been no drinking water contamination, because utilities shut down their intake valves in time to prevent the plume from reaching their systems. Farmers also closed the gates on their irrigation ditches to preserve their crops. But the same could not be said for the wildlife that will surely be adversely affected, including local fish; the EPA has warned boaters and anglers to stay far away from the water for this reason.

Meanwhile, New Mexico health officials were outraged that the EPA did not tell them about the plume until a day after it reached the cities of Aztec and Bloomfield, causing a last-minute scramble to cut off the river's access to water treatment plants in those areas. As it is, the EPA has released very little information, and virtually nothing in the way of updates, concerning New Mexico's share of the problem.

"We're having a real problem getting the EPA to tell us what's in this stuff," said Don Cooper, emergency manager for San Juan County. "We're just kind of shooting in the dark and telling people to stay away from it."

Though EPA officials are reportedly continuing to conduct tests to determine the health and environmental impacts of their mistake, nothing has yet been said about a cleanup. In fact, it would seem that experts are hoping for the situation to resolve itself; the agency's coordinator Craig Myers said, "It's hard to know what's going to happen [to the Animas River] as more river flows join it. It is diluting. The sludge of contaminants is going to be settling out in places."

But for affected residents and concerned environmentalists, pollution, sadly, is more readily available than answers. What is apparent is that the EPA's initial estimate of the amount of spillage - one million gallons - has proven to be wrong, as the U.S. Geological Survey has clarified that the incident sent at least two million gallons more into the Animas.

Kim Stevens, director of advocacy group Environment Colorado, remarked, "This is a really devastating spill. We've been hearing from rafting companies and other businesses that rely on the river that if they can't get their clients out on the river in the next couple of days, they may have to shut down their doors."

And then, of course, there's the impact to the livelihoods of fishermen to consider. She added, "The fish population is especially very sensitive to water contamination, and we really won't be able to see what the impacts are until all of the pollution has run its course. Time will tell."

The poisoned water also runs through sensitive indigenous peoples' territory, and the Navajo Nation people have said they will not stand for the toxification of their land. Nation president Russell Begaye stated, "They're not going to get away with this. The EPA was right in the middle of the disaster and we intend to make sure the Navajo Nation recovers every dollar it spends cleaning up this mess and every dollar it loses as a result of injuries to our precious natural resources."

And things are only going to get worse, at least in the short term, because the next stop on the mine waste's tainted tour is Utah. The orange and yellow wastewater is still wending its way through the San Juan River, which eventually joins Lake Powell over in the Beehive State. Officials in the adjacent town of Montezuma are making preparations by shutting off water pumps there, and the same is being done in the neighboring town of Aneth. Trouble, of a most toxic variety, is most certainly brewing.

"There are people who want to know, 'Okay, what's going to happen now? Are you going to fix this?' " said Michele Truby-Tillen, a spokesperson for New Mexico's San Juan County Office of Emergency Management. And above all, she said, as health concerns worsen, one question nags at the backs of people's minds: "How are we going to protect our families?"

Photo: In an image so shocking one might think it's Photoshopped, people kayak in the yellowed, poisoned Animas River on Aug. 6, in the midst of the effects of the massive wastewater spill. | Jerry McBride/AP & The Durango Herald

President announces Clean Power Plan to supportive poll results

Fri, 07 Aug 2015 13:37:00 +0000

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency released its final rule on the regulation of power plants in an effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent (compared to 2005 levels) by 2030. In our nation's first ever limits on carbon pollution, the EPA provides individual measures of success for which the 47 states (excluding Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont) will craft their own action plans, "reflecting the inherent flexibility in the way the power system operates."

The EPA crafted the state guidelines based on four "building blocks" they see as reasonably actionable: improved efficiency at existing plants, a preference for the use of natural gas over coal, requiring investment in renewables and reducing electricity use.

The third of those building blocks, requiring investment in renewables, is perhaps the most controversial. There is serious legal debate as to whether or not basing the carbon reduction goals on a plan that takes into account investment in renewable energy is constitutional. Critics argue that the EPA is overreaching by making states create broad "state plans" crafted by "a complex formula" as opposed to simply setting emission rates at existing plants. Supporters say that the plan allows enough flexibility for states to use any or all of these building blocks in its final road to reduction.

Cap-and-trade fallback measure

Like the Affordable Care Act that allowed states to set up their own healthcare exchanges in accordance with guidelines by a certain date or to take a Federal alternative, the EPA's rule accounts for potential state abstinence.

In a separate document, it was highlighted that state governments who refuse to act in accordance with the new rule may face what, to them, will amount to a catch-22. A governor of a state who might benefit politically from resisting the new regulations opens the door to a potential primary challenger by being painted as the governor who allowed the EPA to institute cap-and-trade, a notorious buzzword on the right for what is an internationally common practice. According to the EPA, cap-and-trade is a free market-friendly carbon reduction option. The Federal governments cap-and-trade fallback measure would effectively allow them to bypass state obstruction and target energy producers directly in order to get emissions under control.

This aspect of the rule is not final and may undergo revisions in light of future state feedback.

"Stop putting polluters over people"

In the wake of the Obama administration's most significant action on the environment yet, and with climate change no longer just a problem for future generations, polling results around this are firmly on the side of the President's action.

In a recent Public Policy Polling poll of 8 swing states, 58 percent of respondents said they favored the clean power plan whereas 40 percent oppose it after hearing the arguments wielded by both sides. Considerable margins of voters in all 8 of the states surveyed consider climate change a "serious problem": 77 percent of Democrats and 55 percent of independents, with 37 percent of Republicans.

When asked about potential Congressional obstruction from the likes of Mitch McConnell who recently urged states to ignore the EPA, the response was a definitive lack of support: 59 percent of those polled said states should follow the plan to develop their means of meeting new climate goals.

Not only is obstruction unpopular, but cooperation is popular (or at least harmless) with 63 percent of those polled saying they'd be more likely to support their member of Congress or that it would make no difference if they supported the EPA's Clean Power Plan. Even 47 percent of Republicans responded that they would be more likely to support their congressperson or that it wouldn't matter to them.

Brad Woodhouse, President of Americans United for Change said in a press conference on Thursday, "'Republicans who say no to the President's Clean Power Plan are saying no to the average American saving nearly $85 a year on their energy bill, no to preventing health impacts like asthma attacks, lung cancer, heart attacks other air pollution-related illnesses, no to preventing 3,600 premature deaths every year, and no to 250,000 new jobs. "

And yet Republican Attorneys General from 14 states are attempting to get the court to rehear their case against the rule even though it was thrown out by a Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia in June. In December, The New York Times broke the story on the connection between state attorneys and energy firm influence documenting the millions in campaign donations they've received.

At the same press conference, Christopher Hale, Executive Director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, focused on the moral aspect of the fight saying that "care for creation is at the heart of the Christian and other faith traditions." Citing a line from Pope Francis' groundbreaking environmental encyclical, Hale warned, "God always forgives; we men sometimes forgive; but nature never forgives."

Looking forward its clear that climate change will be a topic on the debate stage this election season. The new EPA rule has come out so close to the first Republican Presidential debate that it's hard to imagine moderators ignoring it. The poll numbers have shown to be on the side of action, but which of the Republican candidates will break from big energy orthodoxy on the issue has yet to be seen.

Debbie Sease, National Campaign Director for the Sierra Club spoke with confidence when she said "These polls make one thing crystal clear: anyone who is serious about winning an election in these key states must be serious about supporting the Clean Power Plan."

Photo: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy speaks at the White House, Aug. 3, before President Obama spoke about his Clean Power Plan. The president is mandating even steeper greenhouse gas cuts from U.S. power plants than previously expected, while granting states more time and broader options to comply. | Andrew Harnik/AP

Toxic algae blooming in warm water from California to Alaska

Wed, 05 Aug 2015 13:37:00 +0000

SEATTLE (AP) - A vast bloom of toxic algae off the West Coast is denser, more widespread and deeper than scientists feared even weeks ago, according to surveyors aboard a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration research vessel.

This coastal ribbon of microscopic algae, up to 40 miles wide and 650 feet deep in places, is flourishing amid unusually warm Pacific Ocean temperatures. It now stretches from at least California to Alaska and has shut down lucrative fisheries. Shellfish managers on Tuesday doubled the area off Washington's coast that is closed to Dungeness crab fishing, after finding elevated levels of marine toxins in tested crab meat.

So-called "red tides" are cyclical and have happened many times before, but ocean researchers say this one is much larger and persisting much longer, with higher levels of neurotoxins bringing severe consequences for the Pacific seafood industry, coastal tourism and marine ecosystems.

Dan Ayres, coastal shellfish manager for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, said the area now closed to crab fishing includes more than half the state's 157-mile-long coast, and likely will bring a premature end to this year's coastal crab season.

"We think it's just sitting and lingering out there," said Anthony Odell, a University of Washington research analyst who is part of a NOAA-led team surveying the harmful algae bloom, which was first detected in May. "It's farther offshore, but it's still there."

The survey data should provide a clearer picture of what is causing the bloom which is brownish in color, unlike the blue and green algae found in polluted freshwater lakes. Marine detectives already have a suspect: a large patch of water running as much as 3 degrees centigrade warmer than normal in the northeast Pacific Ocean, nicknamed "the blob."

"The question on everyone's mind is whether this is related to global climate change. The simple answer is that it could be, but at this point it's hard to separate the variations in these cycles," said Donald Boesch, professor of marine science at the University of Maryland who is not involved in the survey. "Maybe the cycles are more extreme in the changing climate."

"There's no question that we're seeing more algal blooms more often, in more places, when they do occur, they're lasting longer and often over greater geographical areas. We're seeing more events than documented decades ago," said Pat Glibert, professor at Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

Odell recently completed the first leg of the survey, mostly in California waters. On Wednesday, researchers plan to continue monitoring the sea between Newport, Oregon, and Seattle. The vessel will then go to Vancouver Island, wrapping up in early September. Another research ship is taking samples off Alaska.

The brownish bloom was particularly thick off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, and Odell said it was unusually dominated by one type of algae called Pseudo-nitzschia, which can produce the neurotoxin domoic acid.

"It's an indication of an imbalance," said Vera Trainer, a research oceanographer with the Northwest Fisheries Science Center in Seattle. "Too much of any one thing is not healthy for anybody to eat."

Trainer said this bloom is the worst she's seen in 20 years of studying them. Harmful algal blooms have usually been limited to one area of the ocean or another, and have disappeared after a few weeks. This one has grown for months, waxing and waning but never going away.

"It's been incredibly thick, almost all the same organism. Looks like a layer of hay," said Raphael Kudela, a professor of ocean sciences at University of California, Santa Cruz.

The current bloom also involves some of the highest concentrations of domoic acid yet observed in Monterey Bay and other areas of the West Coast.

"It's really working its way into the food web and we're definitely seeing the impacts of that," Kudela said, noting that sea lions are getting sick and pelicans are being exposed. And now that the Pacific is experiencing its periodic ocean warming known as El Nino, it may come back even stronger next year, he said.

Domoic acid is harmful to people, fish and marine life. It accumulates in anchovies, sardines and other small fish as well as shellfish that eat the algae. Marine mammals and fish-eating birds in turn can get sick from eating the contaminated fish. In people, it can trigger amnesic shellfish poisoning, which can cause permanent loss of short-term memory in severe cases.

State health officials stress that seafood bought in stores is still safe to eat because it is regularly tested. While there have been no reports of human illnesses linked to this year's bloom, authorities aren't taking chances in fisheries with dangerous toxin levels.

California public health officials have warned against eating recreationally harvested mussels and claims, or any anchovy, sardines or crabs caught in waters off Monterey, Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara counties. Other shellfish harvests are shut down along Oregon's coast.

The most recent samples showed the highest-ever recorded concentrations of domoic acid in the internal organs of Dungeness crab, Ayres said.

"This is really unprecedented territory for us," said Ayres.

Photo: AP

Florida’s wildlife and environment endangered by the governor

Mon, 03 Aug 2015 11:47:00 +0000

ORLANDO, Fla. - Since his first year as governor, Republican Rick Scott's environmental track record has been a natural disaster.

The state of Florida, under Democratic and Republican Governors, has had a steady five-decade accumulation of positive environmental policy and enforcement (not without hiccups) that has led to the purchase of millions of acres of natural preserves, protecting the Everglades and many waterway clean-up projects. Now, under Gov. Scott's tenure, that progress has halted and even deteriorated.

Since taking office, Scott has watered down environmental protection law, cut funding for conservation and clean water, appointed development/energy industry friendly department heads, ordered Department of Environmental Protection and other state workers to not acknowledge climate change and laid off DEP investigators, and all while championing himself as an environmentalist at election time.

From the start, Scott appointed Secretary Herschel Vinyard to head the Florida DEP, a shipping company executive and attorney who had special "insights on the challenges businesses face in the permitting process." In other words, expertise on how to skirt environmental law, as an editorial in the Tampa Bay Times framed it. And since then, enforcement has dropped by just about every measure. The governor even has his own personal finances tied to lax environmental protection.

The governor's investment in the French energy company Schlumberger is in the six-figures. At the same time, it is Gov. Scott and his Cabinet that oversee the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and are tasked to regulate oil drilling in Florida. This is obviously a conflict of interest if the governor has investments in businesses that should be regulated by DEP and other state agencies."

In a report released this July by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), statistics show an 85 percent drop in environmental enforcement. According to the PEER report, "Scott's tenure has coincided with a dramatic drop in enforcement for every pollutant type - air, water, waste, etc. - and in every one of the five Department of Environmental Protection districts across the state." The PEER report continued, stating:

In 2014, there were a scant 234 enforcement cases opened, whereas in 2010, the year before Scott, there were 1,587.
Of those 234 cases opened in 2014, DEP assessed penalties in only 144 of them - a rate of 62 percent. Four years earlier, penalties were assessed in 1,318 of 1587 cases opened - a rate of 83 percent.
Although there was a miniscule increase in the number of assessments in 2014 from a year earlier, the dollar value of assessments still declined from the disastrous 2013 levels. And in terms of money actually collected, total collections reached an all-time low.

Jerry Phillips, the Florida PEER director and a former DEP enforcement attorney, recently stated that "environmental enforcement in Florida now resembles that of a corrupt third world nation. Consequently, little is being done to clean up our air and our water, while Scott's administration continues to hand out what amounts to welfare for corporations across the state."

Not only has Scott stacked the DEP with pro-industry and development appointees, but, according to Mark Ferrulo of Progress Florida, "Gov. Scott, his administration, and his allies in the legislature have declared war on wildlife." Ferrulo continued saying that in 2012 the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission removed the Florida black bear from the threatened species list and "despite substantial public outcry and no scientific evidence it's needed, the Wildlife Commission (packed with Gov. Scott's appointees) approved a hunt on Florida black bears."

Ferrulo went on to say that the Wildlife Commission this June made it clear that the vulnerable Florida panther is next. And now Gov. Scott's supposed wildlife protection agency is "looking to persuade the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to de-list the Florida panther from the endangered species list and take over management of the panther population."

When the Florida panther was added to the U.S. list of endangered animals, the population was in the double digits. But now, after decades of habitat management and "imperfect but improved protection," the Florida panther population falls between 150 and 250 in the wild and to continue to safeguard the panther, much more habitat needs to be protected.

"This has met resistance from some ranchers and big developers," Ferrulo continued. "Instead of working to provide incentives to landowners and developing ecological pathways for panthers to expand their range into a sustainable size, the Wildlife Commission is moving in the opposite direction."

In what would seem like an episode of the Twilight Zone, Craig Pittman of the Tampa Bay Times reported last week that Gov. Scott is set to receive an award from the Fish and Wildlife Foundation of Florida for "being instrumental in helping develop a strong connection between fish and wildlife conservation and traditional outdoor activities like hunting and especially fishing." It so happens that the chairman of the Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Rodney Barreto, is the owner and president of Barreto Group, a Miami real estate investment and development firm and lobbyist.

Floridians have three more years of Scott's horrid environmental policies to look forward to. Hopefully public outcry will begin to be heard by the governor and his cabinet before more damage can be done to our state's fragile ecosystem.

Photo: In a demonstration of Rick Scott's hypocrisy, the politician has been championed for supposed assistance in fish and wildlife conservation, but in truth, with his pro-industry - including pro-oil - stance, he has declared war on wildlife. | Joshua Leclair/PW