The Newsletter, Conservation Committees, Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club
The Conservation Committees provide forums for Club members to discuss impending conservation issues and to coordinate efforts of conservation subcommittees with groups and sections. They meet monthly every third Tuesday (Orange County) and third Wednesday (Angeles Chapter). Contact the Conservation Committee Chairs by the end of the previous month for a place on the agenda. Deadline or newsletter articles is 10 days before the first meeting. Email items or articles to Robin Ives, Editor, at ivesico@earthlink.net

Quote of the Month

Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used. —Article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, October 16, 2003

For more than 30 years, as federal agencies have considered those kinds of projects, NEPA has given a voice to people with questions and concerns about the possible consequences for public lands. NEPA's open process has ensured that the agencies' final decisions balance economic needs with environmental and public health considerations. Unfortunately, the Bush administration is so driven by a pro-industry, pro-development agenda that NEPA poses a bureaucratic obstacle that can only be overcome by waiving environmental protections and by shutting people out of the process. NEPA simply has no value to a White House that prefers making decisions behind closed doors, usually with the help of industry lobbyists and for the sole benefit of corporate interests.

Circumventing or dismantling NEPA protections is the quickest way for the administration to open up America's last remaining wild lands to rampant energy development, logging and other damaging activities. The Bush administration is doing just that—chipping away at the law agency-by-agency, project-by-project. Witness the steady stream of weakening actions, including an executive order by President Bush directing federal agencies to "expedite" energy-related permits; new rules requiring agencies to identify and eliminate "impediments" to oil and gas drilling; "categorical exclusions" exempting certain logging projects from standard review requirements; a list of a dozen or more controversial highway projects to be completed at an "accelerated" pace; or a special White House task force charged with finding ways to "streamline" or roll back NEPA protections based on industry complaints.

NEPA is considered the Magna Carta of environmental protection, the foundation on which all other environmental laws are built. But more than that, NEPA reminds us that this land is our land, that America's shared resources belong to us all, and that we have a fundamental right to determine what happens with them. Indeed, at its heart, NEPA embodies the promise we owe to future generations to safeguard our treasured resources and pass on a healthy environment.

As the White House quietly goes about trying to cut the heart out of NEPA, it is banking on the fact that most Americans know little about the law. One thing people need to know is how much America stands to lose if NEPA protections are taken away. All the more reason we must fight to keep that from happening.

back to index

Environmental Mendacity Agency
More Words to Choke On From Top Officials at the EPA
by Ed Hunt, posted 10/13/03

This week the Washington Post reported that a relaxation of air quality regulations pushed through by the White House will eopardize pending litigation by the Justice Department.

Moreover, top ranking officials at the Environmental Protection Agency knew that the new rules would undermine the government enforcement, and fibbed to Congress when asked about it.

The federal government filed charges against energy companies because they had violated a provision of the Clean Air Act that requires plants to install pollution control mechanisms on old coal fired power plants whenever a plant is upgraded or expanded. The Bush Administration—heavily funded by those energy companies—changed the law to help those companies beat the federal charges. If the Post report is true, officials within the Bush Administration also mislead Congress prior to the passage of the new rules.

All of this fits a pattern of misleading the American public about its representation by the EPA. Rather than environmental enforcement and protection, it seems that under the Bush Administration, the Agency's main purpose has been transformed into obfuscating about the environment.

We've seen the EPA censor information on climate change from comprehensive reports, lie to New Yorkers about the potential health effects of the air in New York City in the days following the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks. Now we add misleading Congress while working to undermine the federal government's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.

Under the "New Source Review" section of the Clean Air Act, industrial power plants are required to upgrade their pollution control technology whenever they upgrade or expand their power generating equipment. The Bush Administration has claimed that the requirement for pollution control measures inhibited power companies from upgrading their equipment because they would also have to pay for adding smokestack scrubbers and other technologies that seek to keep soot from coal fired power plants out of the air.

So this summer, the Bush Administration changed that part of the law by expanding the definition of "routine maintenance" which was exempt from the requirements. Under the Bush definition, "routine maintenance" now covers expansions and upgrades costing millions of dollars. Even if the upgrades result in increased pollution they are now exempt for Clean Air Act requirements. Power plants can upgrade and expand their output of energy and pollution by 20 percent of the power plant's capacity without having to bring pollution control measures up to meet current standards.

Moreover, because this change was made by altering the definition of a key term in the law, it undermined federal enforcement cases pending against Bush Administration friends and funders. Judges will now be forced to consider the cases before them based on the new definition of the term, assuming it is the "correct" definition.

Yet when asked about this prior to the change, EPA officials said this wouldn't be the case. EPA officials told Congress that they had consulted with attorneys in the Justice Department and were assured that this change would have no impact on pending prosecutions. The law was "prospective" they said, meaning it would only matter to things that happen in the future, not past violations of the law currently being prosecuted.

Which was wrong, and apparently they knew it.

Indeed, it should have been clear from the timing of the New Source Review change that the Bush Administration wanted it to apply to existing cases. As the Oregonian's David Sarasohn pointed out at the time, "the Bushies had to do something quickly. Much to their dismay, they were winning lawsuits against corporations."

Three weeks prior to the change, Sarasohn explained, "a federal judge ruled against the Ohio Edison utility for violating the Clean Air Act by upgrading its plant without improving its pollution controls—just what the new order says is now legal. The administration found itself in serious danger of winning lawsuits against several other utilities for doing the same thing."

"I don't think it's a coincidence that they moved so hastily," John Walke, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Clean Air Project told Sarasohn at the time. "I think the Ohio Edison victory caught (the administration) by surprise. The victory for government is overwhelming."

Just after the rule change, however, a trial against energy giant Dynergy was winding down in Illinois when Justice Department lawyers filed a brief "that essentially disavowed their previous definition" of the rule. It was a big gift to Dynergy's case, according to the company's attorney.

Yet, back in July, Jeffrey Holmstead, assistant EPA administrator for air policy, told two Senate committees that "we do not believe these [proposed rule] changes will have a negative impact on the enforcement cases. "Holmstead even went on national TV to downplay the impacts on air quality, saying "We can say categorically that pollution will not increase as a result of this rule."

According to the Washington Post, however, "EPA enforcement agents repeatedly had told Holmstead and others that the proposed rule changes would inevitably undermine ongoing clean air enforcement cases, possibly by prompting courts to accept a more lenient standard, according to Sylvia Lowrance, former acting chief of the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Eric Schaeffer, another former enforcement official."

Another 51 cases—begun during the Clinton Administration—are currently pending. The energy utility industry contributed more than $4.8 million to Bush and other Republicans in 2000, and many of the Administration top officials are former employees of the energy industry.

"These are troubling allegations that seem entirely credible, because they fit the pattern of arrogance and deception we have seen so often from this administration about its environmental policies," Senator Patrick J. Leahy (VT) told the Post. "To them, hiding the facts from the public and from the Congress may seem only to be a convenient public relations tactic. But it amounts to fraud when hiding the facts contributes to endangering the health of the American people."
back to index

Ember Alerts or Media Misinformation?
By Wayne Tyson
Tyson, a former city park planner, chaired an inter-agency task force on urban-wildland fire hazard reduction
following the Laguna Mountain fire in 1970.

Up, up, up goes the smoke, and with it dreams and lives and insurance rates. Largely – unfortunately – for nothing.

Why?

I don't know, but these tragedies keep happening. Accidents, dumb stunts, arson and other idiocy always will be with us, as will wildland fires. Lives will be lost. These are the givens, inevitable.

But what need not continue to happen is the loss of homes — at least not at nearly the rate they continue to be burned.

Raging fire fronts and burned-out houses make dramatic television, and anchormen and women sagely proclaim the failures of hapless homeowners to "clear enough brush" or "have tile roofs." A few make casual mention of "embers" or firebrands, but most imply that the fire front itself – those impressive flames – are the main culprit.

It's natural to think those ugly flames are the main culprit, but unless the fire front is closer than about 30 feet from a flammable structure, it is unlikely to cause ignition. (Some authorities think ignition might be possible at greater distances, but to cover their legal posteriors and account for exceptional conditions, they recommend not trusting real firestorms closer than a hundred feet. But it's clear that they feel comfortable with that figure.) Virtually all wildland fire scientists agree that hot firebrands or glowing embers are the primary cause of structure fires beyond the 30-to 100-foot separation distance (and probably most of those inside those distances).

Many homes do court disaster because of too much flammable vegetation too close, but those homeowners who either live adjacent to naturally low-fuel areas or have modified the natural vegetation or landscaping to create a "defensible space" as the fire suppression authorities call it, have relatively little to worry about from the fire front itself. What they do have to worry about is firebrands (a.k.a. "embers").

Firebrands from wildland fires can travel far greater distances than the width of any defensible space boundary, and they come in swarms as thick as killer bees on the rampage. They will find their way into any opening, any crack, any open window or vent opening big enough to admit them, and they are nearly always less than a half-inch in diameter, usually much less.

Firebrands from structure fires are another matter, especially when the structure is fully involved. The variety of fuels, from asphalt to plastic to wood can create larger and/or longer-lasting firebrands that can be thrust higher and farther in the stronger convection column produced by the much greater heat, which also is of longer duration than a wildland fire.

That greater heat and duration also mean that the separation distance for ignition by radiation is greater than a wildland fire. This fact is largely academic in most cases, however, as houses are commonly separated by only eight feet, more or less. Larger structures, such as mansions and apartments or condominium structures with multiple units, can be a real horror. Makes a
wildland fire relatively tame.

In recent years, TV anchors have gotten the message about shake-shingle roofs, but they need to emphasize that it is firebrands, almost exclusively (if not entirely), that ignite those roofs. They also need to emphasize that any combustible surface also is susceptible.

While creating an adequate defensible space (complete clearing is rarely if ever necessary) of at least 30 feet from all combustible structures is important, the great emphasis placed on this practice has not only distracted attention from other important issues like the firebrand phenomenon, but also establishes a false sense of security: Clear the brush, and all will be well.

Wrong! The planting of so-called "fire-retardant" vegetation is similarly useful, true, but misleadingly simplistic. All vegetation will burn — it will burn explosively when its water content is boiled quickly off by a fire front — the important thing is the quantity of the fuel, not the species of plant.

Firebrands are the exclusive propagators of "spot" fires downwind of the fire front. "Downwind" can be in almost any direction, as the fire creates its own winds, even whirlwinds.

So while some TV anchors and reporters do mention firebrands or "embers," this most important cause of structure ignitions needs much more emphasis. People need to understand the "why" of the actions recommended by the authorities, including the media. They need to know how impossible it is to save their homes when they are engulfed by millions of firebrands — or even one — in the wrong place.
back to index

Bad Mileage: 98 Tons of Plants per Gallon

Study shows vast amounts of 'buried sunshine' needed to fuel society

A staggering 98 tons of prehistoric, buried plant material that's 196,000 pounds is required to produce each gallon of gasoline we burn in our cars, SUVs, trucks and other vehicles, according to a study conducted at the University of Utah.

"Can you imagine loading 40 acres worth of wheat stalks, roots and all into the tank of your car or SUV every 20 miles?" asks ecologist Jeff Dukes, whose study will be published in the November issue of the journal Climatic Change.

But that's how much ancient plant matter had to be buried millions of years ago and converted by pressure, heat and time into oil to produce one gallon of gas, Dukes concluded.

Dukes also calculated that the amount of fossil fuel burned in a single year — 1997 was used in the study — totals 97 million billion pounds of carbon, which is equivalent to more than 400 times "all the plant matter that grows in the world in a year," including vast amounts of microscopic plant life in the oceans.

"Every day, people are using the fossil fuel equivalent of all the plant matter that grows on land and in the oceans over the course of a whole year," he adds.

In another calculation, Dukes determined that "the amount of plants that went into the fossil fuels we burned since the Industrial Revolution began [in 1751] is equal to all the plants grown on Earth over 13,300 years."

Explaining why he conducted the study, Dukes wrote: "Fossil fuel consumption is widely recognized as unsustainable. However, there has been no attempt to calculate the amount of energy that was required to generate fossil fuels, (one way to quantify the 'unsustainability' of societal energy use)."

The study is titled "Burning Buried Sunshine: Human Consumption of Ancient Solar Energy." In it, Dukes conducted numerous calculations to determine how much plant matter buried millions of years ago was required to produce the oil, natural gas and coal consumed by modern society, which obtains 83 percent of its energy needs from fossil fuels.

"Fossil fuels developed from ancient deposits of organic material, and thus can be thought of as a vast store of solar energy" that was converted into plant matter by photosynthesis, he explains. "Using published biological, geochemical and industrial data, I estimated the amount of photosynthetically fixed and stored [by ancient plants] carbon that was required to form the coal, oil and gas that we are burning today."

Dukes conducted the study while working as a postdoctoral fellow in biology at the University of Utah. He now works for the Carnegie Institution of Washington's Department of Global Ecology on the campus of Stanford University in California.

How the calculations were done

To determine how much ancient plant matter it took to eventually produce modern fossil fuels, Dukes calculated how much of the carbon in the original vegetation was lost during each stage of the multiple-step processes that create oil, gas and coal.

He looked at the proportion of fossil fuel reserves derived from different ancient environments: coal that formed when ancient plants rotted in peat swamps; oil from tiny floating plants called phytoplankton that were deposited on ancient seafloors, river deltas and lakebeds; and natural gas from those and other prehistoric environments. Then he examined the efficiency at which prehistoric plants were converted by heat, pressure and time into peat or other carbon-rich sediments.

Next, Dukes analyzed the efficiency with which carbon-rich sediments were converted to coal, oil and natural gas. Then he studied the efficiency of extracting such deposits. During each of the above steps, he based his calculations on previously published studies.

The calculations showed that roughly one-eleventh of the carbon in the plants deposited in peat bogs ends up as coal, and that only one-10,750th of the carbon in plants deposited on ancient seafloors, deltas and lakebeds ends up as oil and natural gas.

Dukes then used these "recovery factors" to estimate how much ancient plant matter was needed to produce a given amount of fossil fuel. Dukes considers his calculations good estimates based on available data, but says that because fossil fuels were formed under a wide range of environmental conditions, each estimate is subject to a wide range of uncertainty.

Plants in your tank?

Dukes calculated ancient plant matter needed for a gallon of gasoline in metric units:

Dukes made similar calculations for oil, natural gas and coal to determine that it took 44 million billion kilograms (97 million billion pounds) of carbon in ancient plant matter to produce all the fossil fuel used in 1997. That includes 29 million billion kilograms of prehistoric plants to produce a year's worth of oil (including gasoline), almost 15 million billion kilograms of buried plant matter to make all the natural gas used in 1997, and 27,000 billion kilograms of dead plants to produce all the coal used in the same year.

"It took an incredible amount of plant matter to generate the fossil fuels we are using today," says Dukes. "The new contribution of this research is to enable us to picture just how inefficient and unsustainable fossil fuels are — inefficient in terms of the conversion of the original solar energy to fossil fuels. Fortunately, it is much more efficient to use modern energy sources like wind and solar. As the reasons keep piling up to switch away from fossil fuels, it is important that we develop these modern power sources as quickly as possible."

What about modern plant biomass?

Unlike the inefficiency of converting ancient plants to oil, natural gas and coal, modern plant "biomass" can provide energy more efficiently, either by burning it or converting into fuels like ethanol. So Dukes analyzed how much modern plant matter it would take to replace society's current consumption of fossil fuels.

He began with a United Nations estimate that the total energy content of all coal, oil and natural gas used worldwide in 1997 equaled 315,271 million billion joules (a unit of energy). He divided that by the typical value of heat produced when wood is burned: 20,000 joules per gram of dry wood. The result is that fossil fuel consumption in 1997 equaled the energy in 15.8 trillion kilograms of wood. Dukes multiplied that by 45 percent the proportion of carbon in plant material to calculate that fossil fuel consumption in 1997 equaled the energy in 7.1 trillion kilograms of carbon in plant matter.

Studies have estimated that all land plants today contain 56.4 trillion kilograms of carbon, but only 56 percent of that is above ground and could be harvested. So excluding roots, land plants thus contain 56 percent times 56.4, or 31.6 trillion kilograms of carbon.

Dukes then divided the 1997 fossil fuel use equivalent of 7.1 trillion kilograms of carbon in plant matter by 31.6 trillion kilograms now available in plants. He found we would need to harvest 22 percent of all land plants just to equal the fossil fuel energy used in 1997 — about a 50 percent increase over the amount of plants now removed or paved over each year.

"Relying totally on biomass for our power using crop residues and quick-growing forests as fuel sources would force us to dedicate a huge part of the landscape to growing these fuels," Dukes says. "It would have major environmental consequences. We would have to choose between our rain forests and our vehicles and appliances. Biomass burning can be part of the solution if we use agricultural wastes, but other technologies have to be a major part of the solution as well things like wind and solar power."
back to index

California Wildfires

In a discussion with Virgil today (11/1/2003) at the Outings Assembly, we decided to work on putting together an activity this spring to help the hillsides recover from the fires. We envision some activity, involving as many of the affected Chapters (San Gorgonio, San Diego, Los Padres) as well as Angeles. In order to flesh this out, and to make contact with other groups such as Tree People, etc. we would like some volunteers to help organize this effort. Some of the ideas already include tree planting, erosion control, trail maintenance, wildflower planting, etc. If you are interested, or know someone who would be interested in working on putting on this event, please email me at mikesapp@cox.net

Thanks, Mike Sappingfield

Sierra Club Statement on Southern California Wildfires

The Sierra Club expresses deep concern and sympathy for the families who have lost loved ones and who have been put in harm’s way by the recent fires in Southern California and to the firefighters courageously working to protect homes and lives.

In the wake of this tragedy, there have been some people willing to place blame on environmental groups. There is no need to sensationalize this tragedy for political gain. Americans deserve better. The Sierra Club has long supported responsible fuel reduction around communities and fully supports any wildfire policy that makes community protection its top priority.

Experts agree that focusing on the area immediately around homes should be the first priority of any wildfire legislation, and the situation so many are facing in California today reinforces this need. The Senate has approved legislation, based on the Bush Administration’s “Healthy Forests Initiative” that falls short of this goal by failing to guarantee resources will be directed to the removal of small trees around homes and instead allows more logging far in the back-country.

The Administration’s bill and current Senate legislation would not improve the situation in Southern California. The legislation does not address fire prevention on non-federal land, which is where most of these fires are burning. In addition, the landscape in Southern California is primarily covered by chaparral and other types of brush and grass while the President’s proposal and pending legislation in Congress focuses on areas with valuable timber. In this case, the desire by the Bush administration and others in Congress to protect special timber interests is compromising America’s ability to deliver real relief to communities in need.

Finally, neither the Senate bill nor the House bill provides the level of resources needed for communities with high fire risk in California and across the West. Simply put, the pot of money is too small and no reallocation of funds will fix that. In some of the areas in Southern California, local residents and local government officials have been asking for financial assistance yet have never received enough to protect their communities adequately. California’s 17 national forests have to split a mere $46 million in annual fuel-reduction funds, a fraction of what is needed.

There is a better way. We can all agree that removing brush and small trees immediately around homes and communities will help save homes and lives, and we must dedicate the resources need to do this most important work first. Firewise and Forest Service experts have shown that this can be accomplished. Now the Congress and the Bush Administration need the will to protect communities, not the timber industry.Regarding claims that conservation groups are responsible for the current wildfires:

National Forests: Los Padres, Cleveland, Angeles, and San Bernardino.

There were NO appeals on any fuels projects for the last three years (through 2000). There was one appeal on the San Bernardino National Forest in 1999, the Bee Fire Salvage, which was appealed by Forest Guardians and the San Bernardino Mountains Group.

This was the only appeal for all years listed (1997-2003) and this appeal was for a post-fire salvage, not hazardous fuels reduction. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/index.shtml

According to an October 24 General Accounting Office report (GAO-04-02):

Ninety-seven percent of the 818 fuel reduction projects proposed by the Forest Service during FY 2001 and 2002 went forward without litigation. The study also revealed that 95 percent of these 818 fuel reduction projects were ready for implementation within the standard 90-day public review period.
back to index

Sheep’s Clothing
by Bill Berkowitz, a long time political observer and columnist

For folks who think that groups like the Sierra Club have too much influence over environmental policy and that President George W. Bush is getting a bad rap on his environmental record, a new organization has emerged to set the record straight. This new group may sound green, but don’t be fooled by their “sensible” anti-environmentalism

Partnership for the West (PFTW) was formally unveiled on the Capitol steps in late October, and aims to exercise growing influence over green legislation in Washington. The group plans to work on “restoring a common sense balance to economic growth and conservation in the West” — sounds nice, until you see who’s behind it. Claiming to be a grassroots lobby group, PFTW actually represents a kinder, gentler and more politically savvy brand of anti-environmentalism. And as such, we can look forward to PFTW and its corporate backers to be pushing for a “balance” that may weight short-term bank accounts more heavily than long-term environmental impacts.

The new organization wants to provide “a counterbalance to what it views as a disproportionate influence of environmental groups like the Sierra Club,” according to Donna Kemp Spangler of the Utah-based Deseret Morning News. They’ll do this by lobbying in Congress and “pushing an agenda of increased access to public lands for recreation and oil and gas development.” The group’s members number over a hundred, and include large interests in fossil fuel, logging and mining industries. PFTW eventually hopes to attract 100,000 members and raise $5 million for lobbying Congress.

Partnership for the West grew out of a summit in Denver, Colorado, attended by elected officials, corporate representatives and long-standing anti-environmental organizations like the American Land Rights Association, the Blue Ribbon Coalition, the Mountain States Legal Foundation, and People for the USA. Its president, Jim Sims, is the former communications director for the National Energy Policy Task Force — also known as Cheney’s secret panel — and helped craft the administration’s energy policy. Sims wears other hats, too: he heads the Western Business Roundtable, a trade association comprising western CEOs and business execs, and sits on the board of the Center for the New American Century, a Denver think tank supporting various right-wing causes including reforming the endangered species act.

Sims doesn’t try to hide his scorn for green activists. “While they are small in number, these [radical environmentalist] fringe groups are well-funded, operate in sophisticated networks, and are solely dedicated to producing conflict and delay,” he told Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News recently. And speaking for the WBR, he commented to The Denver Post that “environmental extremists” are dead set against common-sense efforts at better government. Sims accused “the radical enviro crowd” of trying to “gum up the works as much as possible.”

PFTW may tout itself as a new group, but the same four people — Sims and three colleagues — also run WBR as well as Policy Communications, a well-established and well- connected public relations firm with offices in Colorado and Washington, D.C. Policy Communications boasts a strong history of developing regulatory policies and lobbying aggressively for their clients. And that client list reads like a who’s who of the extraction industry including corporations like Western Gas Resources, Forest Oil, Prima Energy, Xcel Energy, Inc, Pfizer, Inc, The Dow Chemical Company and Unocal.

For a quick look at what may be in store from PFTW, we can turn to Policy Communications’ recent PR campaign, called Take Pride in America. A loose affiliation of groups representing the interests of motorized recreation lobbied to replace paid employees with ‘volunteers’ who could construct projects on public lands. Scott Silver, who heads the environmental group Wild Wilderness, called it “a classic example of a ‘privatization through volunteerism’ campaign” pushed hard by Interior Secretary Gale Norton and President Bush. It represents a win-win-win situation for the administration, he said: Federal employees are eliminated; control of public lands is shifted to special interests; and third, wild lands will be so heavily impacted that protection will seem pointless, and they can become a source of revenue for logging, mining, grazing and energy extraction.

Although PFTW itself hasn’t announced the specifics of its agenda, Sims says the group has already set public policy goals. Not surprisingly, these outline the same basic approach as its sister organizations, such as the continuation of the multiple-use of public lands, continued energy development in the West and regulatory reform, specifically focusing on the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act.

Silver thinks this “grassroots” effort smells a lot more like well-groomed astro-turf. “These people are paid lobbyists and public relations consultants serving the needs of every imaginable sort of polluter, developer, resource extractor or despoiler of the environment,” he says. Silver and other environmentalists say wealthy industry-sponsored groups like PFTW are co-opting buzzwords like “collaborative partner-ships” and “sensible growth” to counter green voices and promote destructive, but lucrative, practices.

Certainly economic growth is important, and everyone would like to see growth managed in an environmentally responsible way. But Partnership for the West, whose message reads more like the decades-old playbooks of right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, is hardly as environmentally dedicated as it claims. But that doesn’t mean it can’t sell its product: its agenda is already being repackaged by the professional spinmeisters (like PFTW staff itself) at Policy Communications. We can only hope the spin and the money won’t create a winning formula for the twenty-first century anti-environmental movement.

For more information, contact http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9286
back to index

Mother Nature, the Newest Scapegoat
by David Suzuki

I happen to live in a part of the country that has, of late, been especially hard hit by what are often called "natural" disasters. This summer, the interior of British Columbia was ravaged by drought and forest fires, not to mention the insidious spread of a little beetle that seems intent on devouring the entire province.

Then, before anyone could even catch a breath, the drought turned into record flooding on the coast. As a result of these tumultuous events, thousands of people have been evacuated, hundreds have lost their homes, many have lost their jobs and a few have even lost their lives.

It hasn't been a good year. So it's only natural for people to be looking for a scapegoat. Someone or something to point the finger at and say—You! It was your fault! Yet I was still quite taken aback when my local newspaper bizarrely chose to blame Mother Nature.

The lead editorial in the Oct. 21st Vancouver Sun likens Mother Nature to Mommy Dearest, claims that "our culture has a history of viewing nature as benign, as the wellspring from which all good things come," and argues that "it's time to relieve ourselves of the notion that everything natural is good."

Perhaps the Sun is under the impression that its readers are infants or merely stupid, but I imagine most might have figured out that nature does not just cause the sun to shine and the birds to chirp, but also volcanoes to erupt and riverbanks to overflow. Maybe I'm an optimist, but it seems to me that even the most slack-jawed yokel now peers just as suspiciously at the words "all natural" on a cereal box, as he might the term "cholesterol free."

The intent of the editorial, it seems, is to remove any hint of human culpability from the disasters that have gripped the province. Never mind that the extreme weather events and insect infestations British Columbia has been experiencing are exactly what scientists have been telling us for years are the kind of thing we will be seeing more and more of if we don't stop pumping increasing amounts of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere.

Instead, the editorial seeks to frame the world as "nature vs humans" as though the two entities are fundamentally different and at odds. In such a world, whatever people do to shore up their defenses against the dangers of nature could be seen as justifiable.

But such a world doesn't exist. In the real world, we are as much a part of nature as an overflowing stream or a hungry insect. In the real world, everything we have comes from nature. Viewed from space, the earth is a blue oasis amidst a black desert. And the thin, shining veneer of biosphere around it contains all that we hold dear—all that keeps us alive, all our loves, all our art, all our culture, all of human history. That's all the life we know of in the universe. That's it.

So the Sun is correct in that the metaphor of Mother Nature is problematic. Although it's apt in many ways, referring to nature as our mother reinforces the idea that nature is outside of ourselves, something that will always take care of us no matter how badly we screw up.

But nature isn't like that. Nature is neither loving and caring, nor harsh and cruel. It just is. And we are a part of it. And no matter how small and insignificant each of us may sometimes feel as individuals, as a group we have the power to either conserve this thin veneer of life or fritter it away.

We are all part of a giant ecological system, the knowledge of which we have only a most basic grasp. The system does not play favorites. It does not care which species thrive and which species fail. To it, 10,000 years of human civilization is a mere pittance in the planet's 4.5 billion year history. If we squander our opportunity to achieve something truly great as a species, it will be no one's fault but our own. And Mother Nature will simply shrug her shoulders, roll up her sleeves, and start again.
back to index

Joshua Hills Deal in Jeopardy

State Rejects Appraisal of Nearly 9,000 Acres at Joshua Hills Site

A proposal to purchase and preserve nearly 9,000 acres of land near Joshua Tree National Park could fall apart if environmentalists can't convince state officials to sign off on the deal. A spokesman for California's Department of General Services said the state has rejected an appraisal of the property, effectively halting local conservationists' bid to buy the land.
back to index

Tell Ford Motor Company to Build Cleaner Cars!

Each year, Ford's cars and trucks release more global warming pollution than the entire country of Mexico. Ford could cut its emissions in half by using existing technology to make all Ford's cars, trucks, and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gas. Yet, instead of taking responsible action, Ford continues to undermine attempts to raise the fuel economy of its fleet. Tell Ford Motor Company CEO, Bill Ford Jr that business as usual is no longer acceptable.

Another Quote of the Day

"If you ever despair that the US auto industry is whirling, slowly but with gathering momentum, down the tubes of history, the second-generation Toyota Prius will give you no comfort. This is a car Detroit assures us cannot be built. No way. No how. A spacious, safe and well-appointed mid-size four-door with practical performance while returning more than 60 miles per gallon? For $20,000? Are you, like, high?" — Dan Neil, Los Angeles Times automotive critic

Earth Shaking Conference in Los Angeles—November 17-20
By Scott Silver, <ssilver@wildwilderness.org>

If the title of this message seems a little melodramatic, believe me, it is not.

Few events are more likely to reshape the control and management of recreation on America's public lands than the Partners in the Stewardship-Joint Ventures meeting to be held in Los Angeles November 17-20, 2003. Few events open to the general public will more clearly reveal the extent to which the "Corporate Takeover of Nature" agenda dominates public land management policy. I can not imagine an event that requires closer scrutiny than this or which poses a greater threat to the preservation of the Great Outdoors as the American Commons. This conference should more properly be titled: "Commercializing and Privatizing the Great Outdoors through Public-Private Partnerships, Volunteerism, Corporate Sponsorship and Non-Traditional Funding."

I strongly encourage activists and journalists to attend this event and I encourage you to contact me for additional information.

back to index

Sierra Club Wins on Election Day!
by Faramarz Nabavi

Great News! Two of the three candidates we endorsed in Santa Clarita, and both of our candidates in Rancho Palos Verdes HAVE WON!!!

Congratulations to Lynne Plambeck, Maria Gutzeit, Doug Stern, and Tom Long, and thanks also to Phil Hof, who came within 13 votes of winning (and the results are still provisional).

These victories show that local residents do NOT want more of the unrestrained growth that's destroying the last remaining open spaces and increasing the risk of catastrophic wildfires burning homes.

Annual California Water Policy Conference
Los Angeles, November 19-20

The 13th Annual California Water Policy Conference, sponsored by Public Officials for Water and Environmental Reform, will be held November 19-20 at the Wilshire Grand Hotel in downtown Los Angeles. The conference features several plenary speakers, as well as smaller breakout sessions during both days. Registration for members of nonprofit groups is $100, students $80. The complete program and registration form can be accessed at www.cawaterpolicy.org.

Glen Canyon Video to Be Shown November 19
After Conservation Committee Meeting

The 57-minute video "Glen Canyon: A Dam, Water and the West", produced by Salt Lake City PBS station KUED in 1999, will be shown after the Chapter Conservation Committee meeting on November 19. The video depicts the story of the creation of one of the world's largest man-made bodies of water in a desert, which drowned a thousand years of human history and a million years of natural history.

An extensive historical background on Congress's decision to construct Glen Canyon Dam, authorized in 1957 by the Colorado River Storage Project Act, and the Sierra Club's role, including that of David Brower in condoning construction of the dam in a oft-regretted political compromise that prevented dam construction at Echo Park in Dinosaur National Monument, is contained in Russell Martin's book "A Story that Stands Like a Dam: Glen Canyon and the Struggle for the Soul of the West", published in 1989 (paperback in 1990) by Henry Holt and Company (354 pages).

The video presentation will be made in conjunction with a report by David Czamanske at the Conservation Committee meeting on the activities of the Sierra Club's national Colorado River Task Force, of which he is member.
back to index

Delaware North on Track
by Scott Silver

When a "gaming" company with a shady past attempts to take-over the Video Lottery Terminal Industry, that's not something that would normally raise eyebrows within the conservation community. But how about if that gaming company was also taking over America's National Park System??? Surely THAT should raise eyebrows—at least amongst National Park watchdog
groups—wouldn't it!!!???

Apparently Not. But that's not surprising when you know that the same gaming company is one of the main funders of America's #1 National Park watchdog group—as is the case with Delaware North and the National Park Conservation Association. http://www.npca.org/support_npca/corporate_support.asp

Printed below is a news release and an article, both days old. One is about Delaware North's current efforts to capture a bigger share of the gaming industry. The other is about Delaware North's successful acquisition of concessions throughout the National Park System. To learn more about Delaware North's efforts to work in concert with recreation industry leaders in the pursuit of a broad-based takeover of public land recreation and tourism management, see: www.wildwilderness.org/docs/round.htm

The web page (http://famulus.msnbc.com/famuluscom/bizjournal11-08-010110.asp?bizj=BUF) says "Delaware North on track with new video gaming deals—November 10—Delaware North Companies is rolling the dice on a plan to capture a significant share of the video lottery terminal industry."

"We're certainly using our Wheeling experience as the template," Szefel said. The Wheeling growth is similar to how Delaware North grew and nurtured its 10-year-old Parks Service division. That group began in the early 1990s when Delaware North Parks Services landed a contract to manage and operate visitor operations at Yosemite National Park. Since then Delaware North Parks Services has landed some of the most prestigious hospitality, food, beverage, retail or concession contracts within the industry including perations at NASA's Kennedy Space Center and the US Mint.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031107/nyfnsr06_1.html (Press Release Source: Tenaya Lodge at Yosemite National Park) says "2004 Yosemite Winter Getaways: The Best of All Worlds Seasonal Recreation, Spectacular High Sierra Scenic Beauty and Unprecedented Savings"

FISH CAMP, Calif., Nov. 7 /PRNewswire/ "As promise of the season's first snowfall looms just around the corner, Tenaya Lodge at Yosemite illustrates that you can please all of the people all of the time by announcing an expanded menu of lodging/recreation packages for the 2004 winter season. Tenaya Lodge at Yosemite is owned and operated by Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts, a subsidiary of Delaware North Companies, Inc., one of the world's leading hospitality and food service providers."

About Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts

Delaware North Companies Parks & Resorts, Inc., a subsidiary of Buffalo, N.Y.-based Delaware North Companies, Inc., is a leading hospitality provider with significant experience in hotel, retail, food service, recreation and transportation operations. The company's portfolio includes some of the unique properties in North America, including Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex, Yosemite, Sequoia, Yellowstone and Grand Canyon National Parks, Asilomar Conference Grounds, Tenaya Lodge at Yosemite, The Grand Hotel at Grand Canyon, Harrison Hot Springs Resort & Spa near Vancouver, British Columbia, Niagara Falls State Park, Jones Beach, Robert Moses and Captree State Parks, Deer Creek Resort & Conference Center, Jetty Park, Roaring River Inn & Conference Center, the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia and Denver and The Lodge & Conference Center at Geneva State Park (opening in 2004).
back to index

National Treasures as Economic Engines
By Scott Silver

Pacific Lumber Funds California District Attorney Recall Effort

Environmental Resolutions Passed by Chapter ExComm
(10/26/2003)

Request Schwarzennegger Transition Team to Retain Mary Nichols

The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club requests Sierra Club California to propose that Mary Nichols be retained by the Schwarzennegger Administration as Resources Agency Secretary.

Approval of Conservation Grants

The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club approves the recommendation of the Conservation Committee to award Conservation Grants in the amount of $44,064 for the third cycle.

Celebration of State Purchase of Ahmanson Ranch and Ballona Wetlands

1. The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club authorizes a celebration to commemorate the acquisition of Ahmanson Ranch and the Ballona Wetlands.
2. The Executive Committee authorizes the transmission of a formal letter thanking Governor Gray Davis and Resources Secretary Mary Nichols for their efforts in preserving these areas for our families in the future.
3. The Executive Committee allocates up to $400 from Chapter contingency funds for expenses associated with the Ahmanson/Ballona celebration.

Appointments

Replacing John Monsen:

Don Bremner has been appointed Chair of the Chapter Forest Committee.

Faramarz Nabavi is now a member of the Conservation Committee Management Committee.

Orange County Events

THURS, NOV 13, 5 pm Deadline for comments on the draft environmental impact report on the West Coyote Hills Specific Plan. It is posted on the city's website: www.ci.fullerton.ca.us. Contact Angela Lindstrom, angela.lindstrom@att.net, 714-931-9584.

THURS, NOV 13, Tentative OC Native American Sacred Sites Steering Committee Meeting. Contact Rebecca Robles.

TUES, NOV 18, 9:30 am PUBLIC HEARING! Saddleback Canyons Task Force needs your help! The OC Board of Supervisors will hear the appeal of the recent approval of the tract maps for SaddleCreek and SaddleCrest. 10 Civic Center Plaza, 1st Floor, Board of Supervisors Hearing Room. We urge everyone to attend and generate support with a loud voice. We have another opportunity in front of the Board with our new 3rd District Supervisor Bill Campbell in place. Please see the attached .pdf file.

TUES, NOV 18, 7 pm Orange County Conservation Committee Meeting, Inn at the Park, Irvine. Contact Gail Prothero, gprothero@cox.net.

THUR, NOV 20, 7 pm Community Outreach Program on Putiidhem, San Juan Capistrano's historic archaeological site. Educational program, Native American music by The Tushmal Singers, craft and archaeological displays, refreshments. Free. The Women's Club, 31442 El Horno, San Juan Capistrano (corner El Camino Real and El Horno, across from the SJC library). Contact Rebecca Robles, OC Native American Sacred Sites TF, (949)369-0361.

MON, DEC 1 Deadline for Southern Sierran articles/calender for the December issue. We need articles about our Orange County conservation efforts. Please write up what you're doing, attach a digital photo, and e-mail to Dominique at /p>

WED, JAN 14 or THURS JAN 15 California Coastal Commission Public Hearing re: Dana Point Headlands, Montage Resort, Laguna Beach. Contact Celia Kutcher.

Useful Information

Action Directory

Sierra Club Legislative Hotline: (202) 675-2394
Sierra Club National: (415) 977-5500
Sierra Club Sacramento Legislative Office: (916)  557-1100; fax (916) 227-9669
Sierra Club World Wide Web: http://www.sierraclub.org
Sierra Club Vote Watch Website: http://www.sierraclub.org/votewatch/
White House Comment Line: (202) 456-1111
White House Fax Line: (202) 456-2461
  President George W Bush president@whitehouse.gov
  Vice President Dick Cheney: vice-president@whitehouse.gov
White House Address: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC 20500
US Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121
To contact your senators: Senate Office Bldg, Washington DC 20510 http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm
To contact your representative: House Office Bldg, Washington DC 20515 http://www.house.gov/writerep
California Capitol Switchboard: (916) 322-9900

The Conservation Committee Newsletter, now electronic, is sent automatically and free electronically to all activists who hold any of the following positions in the Angeles Chapter or its entities (and on email):

• Executive Committee Member

• Entity Chair

• Entity Conservation Chair

• Conservation Subcommittee Chair

• Newsletter Editor

• Political Chair

• Many activists throughout the Chapter and state receive it by email free, either by request or by position.

• Distribution is approximately 350 by email, and 40 by hard copy.

If we do not have your email address - please let us know.
If you wish, it will be tagged "private" and not printed or given out.

If you no longer hold the Club office with the automatic pull and wish to continue to receive it, email ivesico@earthlink.net

The Newsletter (without upcoming resolutions) is available on the Chapter website at http://angeles.sierraclub.org/home.html

Paper postal copy is available (for a fee) for those who are technically challenged or simply don’t want to be bothered. To receive The Newsletter by first class mail, send a donation of $20/year to (almost) cover printing/mailing costs (payable Angeles Chapter) to Conservation Newsletter, 112 Harvard Ave PMB 297, Claremont CA 91711. 

AOL Subscribers Please Note

Some aol.com subscribers have reported difficulty receiving the full text of the Conservation Newsletter. The following message was distributed by the Sierra Club list serves: "Due to recent spam filter changes by AOL, "some" (by no means all) messages to "some" (again "not all") AOL subscribers were not delivered by AOL. Lists with only a few dozens subscribers were mostly unaffected." National is in the process of reconfiguring their systems and lists in a way that they hope will prevent AOL from incorrectly considering our messages to be spam. The best way to determine if you have not received messages is to have a look at the "web archives" of your list at : http://lists.sierraclub.org/archives/index.html. Complaints should be addressed to aol.com.

National's GoldBook provides information to chapters and groups on

   • the differences between 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) funds,

    • how to utilize and access charitable 501(c)(3) funds,
    • how to get a project approved,

    • fundraising

    • plus much, much, more material on the Sierra Club.

It is now available at the Clubhouse website. Go to  http://www.clubhouse.sierraclub.org; follow the instructions for obtaining the password. The GoldBook can be found by clicking on A - Z List of Materials box, then on "G" under A-Z List of Documents, then on GoldBook, Educational Project Guidelines.

California/Nevada Regional Directory (RedBook) is now available free in electronic form (html), with extensive linking of information. The paper edition ($15 each) is available on special order. The electronic version is updated continuously, and will be re-distributed on demand. Both hard and electronic copy are available only from Lori Ives. Contact her for details at ivesico@earthlink.net.

Sierra Club California's GreenBook , the handbook of bylaws and standing rules, is available (in Word). Contact Lori for this also.

Chapter Office Parking

Weeknights: You may park free inside the building after 5:30 pm. Be prepared to show your membership card or one of our parking passes, available at the front desk in the Chapter office. Take a ticket when you enter through the gate; present it at the parking office near the elevators, and sign it. The ticket machine at the front gate may be turned off after 6 pm. If so, buzz the attendant and say you are going to a Sierra Club meeting. There is no entry after 8 pm.

Visitor parking on Saturday is limited to 8 am to 4 pm inside the building with attendant on duty. Arrangement for Sunday parking inside for Sierra Club meetings is pending at press time.  Linda Hoyer 

E-Mail Lists

• There are four important discussion lists for Angeles environmental activists:

• Angeles Chapter Cons Listserve angeles-conservation@lists.sierraclub.org

• Angeles-Alerts Listserve angeles-alerts@lists.sierraclub.org

• California/Nevada Listserve calif-activists@lists.sierraclub.org (moderated list for announcements)

• California/Nevada Listserve calif-activists-forum@lists.sierraclub.org (unmoderated discussion list)

Subscribe to California Activists: calif-activists-request@lists.sierraclub.org

Subscribe to California Activists Forum: calif-activists-forum-request@lists.sierraclub.org

For both lists, send

• your name

• email address

• Sierra Club membership number

• your position in Club (how are you active?)

Subscription is processed by one of the list owners, usually the same day.

Subscribe to Angeles-Alerts:

email listserv@lists.sierraclub.org with the message “subscribe angeles-conservation” or “subscribe calif-activists”

or "subscribe angeles-alerts" Note: it's "listserv," not "listserve."

To leave a list, send an e-mail to listserv@lists.sierraclub.org In the text of your message (not the subject line), write: “signoff calif-activists” or “signoff angeles-conservation” or "signoff angeles-alerts"  

The Angeles Chapter’s website is www.angeles.sierraclub.org

Return to Index

Angeles Chapter Conservation Management Committee

Angeles Chapter Grants Committee

Gordon LaBedz/Chair 562-494-6368 GlaBedzMD@aol.com

 Bonnie Sharpe/Vice Chair/Grants Chair, Jay Matchett/Treasurer, Jeff Yann/Secretary, Robin Ives/Newsletter
Judy Anderson, Faramarz Nabavi, Lynne Plambeck, Rudy Vietmeier
Lori Ives, Publisher/Webmaster/Circulation (Non-voting)

Johanna Zetterberg and Rachel Myers, Conservation Coordinators (Non-voting)

Motions should be submitted in advance, together with objective background material and supporting and opposing arguments, both to the Committee Chair and Newsletter Editor, for distribution with the agenda. Other motions will be postponed for action at a later meeting unless the motion is submitted in writing and unless the Committee votes an exception to ordinary procedure. Motions needing further action by the Angeles Chapter ExComm or some higher level of the Sierra Club should start out: “The Angeles Chapter Conservation Committee recommends that the Sierra Club...”

Agenda — November 19, 2003 — 7:30 pm

3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 320, Los Angeles CA 90010-1904

To find out more about voting requirements and representatives, consult the Angeles Chapter website Conservation Committee

7:30 Introductions/Announcements/Review of Agenda
7:40 Staff Reports
7:55 The Proposed Conservation Budget
     a. Finance Committee proposals to SLASH our grants budget.
     b. Next year's staff travel budget?
     c. Staff meals for certain circumstances.
     d. Paper copies of Conservation Newsletter?

Should we eliminate all paper copies of the newsletter, with none for Committee members without e-mail, none for libraries, none for the UCLA Archives and libraries?

8:55 Report from Amigos de Los Rios (San Gabriel River Campaign)
9:10 Report from Orange County campaign
9:25 Report on meeting with Great Coastal Places campaign staff
9:35 RCC Vouchers
       Should the Chapter continue to fund the Regional Conservation Committee or fund another California campaign?
9:40 Student Grants
9:45 Election for ’04 conservation chair and vice chair— recommendations to Executive Committee.
9:50 Appointment of Roy van de Hoek to Glen Canyon Committee, Bonnie Sharpe as alternate

Grants (deadline date: Friday, January 23, 2004.)

Next meeting is December 17

Return to Index

Orange County Conservation Committee

Gail Prothero, Chair 949-347-1255, Vice Chair: Bob Siebert; Secretary: Chuck Buck

Rachel Myers, Conservation Coordinator (*non voting)

Location: Inn at the Park in Irvine
From the north, come down 405 to 73 and off at University. Turn left and pass Campus and turn right on Harvard. Follow Harvard as it bends; look for Marquette. The Inn is at 10 Marquette, on the corner of Harvard and Marquette behind a steel fence.
From the south, get off 405 at Culver and go left. Follow Culver past Michelson and University and turn right on Harvard. Take Harvard to Marquette. It's on your right.

Agenda — November 18 , 2003

7:00 Welcome, Introductions, Approval of Agenda

7:10 Approval of Minutes for September/October
7:15 Announcements/Old Business

• KUDOS! To Bob Hansen, for the Orange County Open Space Campaign Website.
  Check it out at: http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ocosc/
• Help is needed to assemble the administrative record for the SaddleCreek/Crest litigation. Ray Chandos will be leading the effort at the Starr Ranch on Monday, Tuesday, and possibly Thursday this week (Nov 10, 11, and 13), from 9 AM til about 3 PM each day. The tasks include assembling documents, page-number stamping, and copying. Please contact Ray at chandos_r@yahoo.com if you are able to help and for more details. If there is someone you know who would be available and interested in helping please forward this message to him/her.
• The Banning Ranch Park & Preserve TF Website is now up at http://taskforce.sierraclub.org/banningranch/
• The Chairmanship of OCCC will rotate to North County in January, 2004.

7:20 Guest Speaker (John Monsen) 4 Forests Campaign

7:40 Guest Speaker (Roger Von Butow) South Orange County Watershed Conservancy

8:00 Hobo Aliso TF (Penny Elia)

8:10 RESOLUTION Sully-Miller property in the City of Orange (Orange Hills Task Force) Task force rep

8:20 Dana Point Headlands (Celia Kutcher)

8:30 Saddleback Canyons TF (Rich Gomez)

8:40 Friends of the Foothills (Bill Holmes or Brittany McKee)

8:50 Save Coyote Hills (Angela Lindstrom)

9:00 OCCC Treasurer Update (Jay Matchett)

9:05 Orange County Open Space Campaign Update (Jay Matchett)

9:15 Staff Report

9:25 Adjourn

Next OCCC Meeting is Tuesday, December 16.

Conservation Committees Calendar