1. In a series of recent decisions, the National Park Service under the Bush Administration has approved the display of religious symbols and Bible verses, as well as the sale of creationist books about the origins of natural wonders in national parks, according to documents to be released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
The Bush Administration appears to be sponsoring a program of faith-based parks, said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.
In July, NPS Deputy Director Donald Murphy ordered the Grand Canyon National Park to return three bronze plaques bearing biblical verses to public viewing areas on the Canyons South Rim. Murphy overruled the park superintendent, who had authorized the removal based on legal advice from the Interior Department that the religious displays violated the First Amendment.
On its website, the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, which put up the plaques, says the Bible verses were allowed in the national park after God touched the hearts of officials to give permission.
This fall, the Park Service approved a creationist text, Grand Canyon: A Different View, for sale in park bookstores and museums. The book claims that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old and developed on a biblical, rather than an evolutionary, time scale. At the same time, Park Service leadership has blocked publication of guidance for park rangers and other interpretative staff that labeled creationism as lacking any scientific basis, PEER found.
The actions would appear to be in conflict with President Bushs stated support for environmental policies based on sound science.
Last month, the Park Service announced it would alter an 8-minute video shown at the Lincoln Memorial visitor center of past demonstrations and events at the memorial. Conservative groups had asked for the removal of footage of gay rights, pro-choice and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations because it implies that Lincoln would have supported homosexual and abortion rights as well as feminism. The Park Service has promised to develop a more balanced version that includes rallies of Christian groups and pro-war demonstrations, PEER said.
The Park Service is also engaged in a legal battle to continue displaying an 8-foot-tall cross atop a 30-foot-high rock outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve in California. The suit is pending before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
2. Perhaps taking its cue from the Cheney Energy Task Force, the EPA has been holding secret meetings with the agribusiness industry this year, putting together a "sweetheart deal" with lobbyists to exempt factory farms from Clean Air Act and Superfund regulations.
The EPA has proposed offering "an industry-wide pardon" for air pollution violations to massive hog, cattle and chicken farms, says Sierra Club attorney Barclay Rogers.
"This deal is being negotiated behind closed doors, and the Sierra Club and other environmental groups are trying to pry those doors open through a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act," Rogers toldBushGreenwatch.
The lawsuit demands the Bush Administration divulge information about the secret meetings between EPA and industry.[1] Even though documents had been leaked to environmental groups, EPA denied the existence of a deal until after the lawsuit was filed in September. The plaintiffs have asked the court to order EPA to immediately turn over its records.
A copy of the deal obtained by environmentalists indicates that EPA would agree not to pursue factory farms for polluting if they paid a $500 penalty and agreed to take part in a study to monitor emissions.
Localities, some of which have been unable to meet air quality standards because of farm emissions, have complained.
"The result would be an evisceration of states' and localities' ability to address air quality problems emanating from agricultural operations," two organizations representing state and local air quality officials said in a letter to EPA.
A small number of corporate farming giants dominate the U.S. meat industry -- in 2001, for instance, 75 percent of all hogs were packed into just 9 percent of U.S. hog farms, resulting in roughly 5,000 hogs per operation.[3] With so many animals -- and manure -- concentrated onto so few farms, they are a major source of air emissions of hazardous gases and particulate matter proven to cause lung ailments and even premature death.
3. The Bush administration backed off a plan that would have required the construction industry to spend $4.1 billion a year on environmental protection. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had planned to require construction companies to take permanent steps, such as building ponds in office parks, to reduce pollution from dirt and other runoff after storms. The White House Office of Management and Budget rejected the plan as too costly, and instead proposed temporary measures, such as water basins, that may be removed as the bulldozers leave. Environmentalists criticized the administration for, once again, favoring big business at the expense of the environment.
NRDC sued the EPA in 1990 to try to force tougher storm runoff rules, and President Clinton eventually drafted rules for permanent runoff protections. The agency sent those rules to the White House for approval two months ago, but OMB regulatory chief John Graham softened them. The new proposal calls for "minimum standards" for design and construction of erosion and sediment controls, and "minimum requirements" for conducting site inspections for water runoff protections. State and local governments are also encouraged to establish their own standards. Final rules will be issued after a four-month public comment period.
"This is a very big lost opportunity," said Nancy Stoner, director of NRDC's clean water program. "Temporary steps won't protect Americans from chemical and biological pollution after storms wash construction debris into the water supply."
4. Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced the closing of an Interior Department field office in south Florida, which had been established to coordinate work on a 30-year, $8.4 billion recovery plan for the Everglades. Approved under the Clinton administration, the recovery plan represents the most ambitious ecosystem restoration project in U.S. history. Norton claimed that abolishing the Interior Department's local office would eliminate "bureaucratic overhead" and save $1.3 million that will be redirected to programs on non-native trees and endangered deer. She also insisted the decision would not jeopardize the work that's just beginning under the restoration plan.
But environmentalists vehemently disagreed. "This action undercuts the bipartisan Everglades bill passed last year and sends a troubling signal about the administration's future commitment to the largest ecosystem restoration in history," said Chuck Clusen, NRDC's director of parks programs. "I don't see how the Everglades are going to be fixed by directives out of Washington, D.C. "
5. In a campaign speech, George W. Bush announced a proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development. Opening up the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge would not lessen U.S. oil dependence or lower gasoline prices, would destroy this pristine wilderness area and is not a solution to our nation's energy problems or the electricity crisis in California. His proposal to drill in the refuge is expected to be part of a larger package that Vice President Cheney's energy task force will release.
6. Many of America's roadless areas have pristine qualities that make them worthy of federal wilderness designation, but how should "wilderness-in-waiting" lands be treated while Congress mulls their status? Wilderness advocates believe these special places should be protected in the meantime, lest they be degraded and become ineligible for wilderness status. The law is on their side but the Bush administration is not.
The administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling last year that allows the public to sue if wilderness-candidate lands do not receive strong interim protection. That decision stemmed from a lawsuit brought by environmentalists to stop the Bureau of Land Management from allowing off-road vehicle recreation on wilderness study areas in Utah -- of which there are 2.5 million acres. The administration is appealing because it claims that federal agencies not only should be immune from public suits that challenge broad land-use programs, but also should be able to change those plans without filing an environmental impact statement.
"If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, the fate of more than 4 million acres of roadless areas proposed for wilderness designation will be at stake," said Johanna Wald, director of NRDC's lands program.
What are we to do?
The Bush Administration appears to be sponsoring a program of faith-based parks, said PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch.
In July, NPS Deputy Director Donald Murphy ordered the Grand Canyon National Park to return three bronze plaques bearing biblical verses to public viewing areas on the Canyons South Rim. Murphy overruled the park superintendent, who had authorized the removal based on legal advice from the Interior Department that the religious displays violated the First Amendment.
On its website, the Evangelical Sisterhood of Mary, which put up the plaques, says the Bible verses were allowed in the national park after God touched the hearts of officials to give permission.
This fall, the Park Service approved a creationist text, Grand Canyon: A Different View, for sale in park bookstores and museums. The book claims that the Grand Canyon is only a few thousand years old and developed on a biblical, rather than an evolutionary, time scale. At the same time, Park Service leadership has blocked publication of guidance for park rangers and other interpretative staff that labeled creationism as lacking any scientific basis, PEER found.
The actions would appear to be in conflict with President Bushs stated support for environmental policies based on sound science.
Last month, the Park Service announced it would alter an 8-minute video shown at the Lincoln Memorial visitor center of past demonstrations and events at the memorial. Conservative groups had asked for the removal of footage of gay rights, pro-choice and anti-Vietnam War demonstrations because it implies that Lincoln would have supported homosexual and abortion rights as well as feminism. The Park Service has promised to develop a more balanced version that includes rallies of Christian groups and pro-war demonstrations, PEER said.
The Park Service is also engaged in a legal battle to continue displaying an 8-foot-tall cross atop a 30-foot-high rock outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve in California. The suit is pending before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
2. Perhaps taking its cue from the Cheney Energy Task Force, the EPA has been holding secret meetings with the agribusiness industry this year, putting together a "sweetheart deal" with lobbyists to exempt factory farms from Clean Air Act and Superfund regulations.
The EPA has proposed offering "an industry-wide pardon" for air pollution violations to massive hog, cattle and chicken farms, says Sierra Club attorney Barclay Rogers.
"This deal is being negotiated behind closed doors, and the Sierra Club and other environmental groups are trying to pry those doors open through a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act," Rogers toldBushGreenwatch.
The lawsuit demands the Bush Administration divulge information about the secret meetings between EPA and industry.[1] Even though documents had been leaked to environmental groups, EPA denied the existence of a deal until after the lawsuit was filed in September. The plaintiffs have asked the court to order EPA to immediately turn over its records.
A copy of the deal obtained by environmentalists indicates that EPA would agree not to pursue factory farms for polluting if they paid a $500 penalty and agreed to take part in a study to monitor emissions.
Localities, some of which have been unable to meet air quality standards because of farm emissions, have complained.
"The result would be an evisceration of states' and localities' ability to address air quality problems emanating from agricultural operations," two organizations representing state and local air quality officials said in a letter to EPA.
A small number of corporate farming giants dominate the U.S. meat industry -- in 2001, for instance, 75 percent of all hogs were packed into just 9 percent of U.S. hog farms, resulting in roughly 5,000 hogs per operation.[3] With so many animals -- and manure -- concentrated onto so few farms, they are a major source of air emissions of hazardous gases and particulate matter proven to cause lung ailments and even premature death.
3. The Bush administration backed off a plan that would have required the construction industry to spend $4.1 billion a year on environmental protection. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had planned to require construction companies to take permanent steps, such as building ponds in office parks, to reduce pollution from dirt and other runoff after storms. The White House Office of Management and Budget rejected the plan as too costly, and instead proposed temporary measures, such as water basins, that may be removed as the bulldozers leave. Environmentalists criticized the administration for, once again, favoring big business at the expense of the environment.
NRDC sued the EPA in 1990 to try to force tougher storm runoff rules, and President Clinton eventually drafted rules for permanent runoff protections. The agency sent those rules to the White House for approval two months ago, but OMB regulatory chief John Graham softened them. The new proposal calls for "minimum standards" for design and construction of erosion and sediment controls, and "minimum requirements" for conducting site inspections for water runoff protections. State and local governments are also encouraged to establish their own standards. Final rules will be issued after a four-month public comment period.
"This is a very big lost opportunity," said Nancy Stoner, director of NRDC's clean water program. "Temporary steps won't protect Americans from chemical and biological pollution after storms wash construction debris into the water supply."
4. Interior Secretary Gale Norton announced the closing of an Interior Department field office in south Florida, which had been established to coordinate work on a 30-year, $8.4 billion recovery plan for the Everglades. Approved under the Clinton administration, the recovery plan represents the most ambitious ecosystem restoration project in U.S. history. Norton claimed that abolishing the Interior Department's local office would eliminate "bureaucratic overhead" and save $1.3 million that will be redirected to programs on non-native trees and endangered deer. She also insisted the decision would not jeopardize the work that's just beginning under the restoration plan.
But environmentalists vehemently disagreed. "This action undercuts the bipartisan Everglades bill passed last year and sends a troubling signal about the administration's future commitment to the largest ecosystem restoration in history," said Chuck Clusen, NRDC's director of parks programs. "I don't see how the Everglades are going to be fixed by directives out of Washington, D.C. "
5. In a campaign speech, George W. Bush announced a proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development. Opening up the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge would not lessen U.S. oil dependence or lower gasoline prices, would destroy this pristine wilderness area and is not a solution to our nation's energy problems or the electricity crisis in California. His proposal to drill in the refuge is expected to be part of a larger package that Vice President Cheney's energy task force will release.
6. Many of America's roadless areas have pristine qualities that make them worthy of federal wilderness designation, but how should "wilderness-in-waiting" lands be treated while Congress mulls their status? Wilderness advocates believe these special places should be protected in the meantime, lest they be degraded and become ineligible for wilderness status. The law is on their side but the Bush administration is not.
The administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling last year that allows the public to sue if wilderness-candidate lands do not receive strong interim protection. That decision stemmed from a lawsuit brought by environmentalists to stop the Bureau of Land Management from allowing off-road vehicle recreation on wilderness study areas in Utah -- of which there are 2.5 million acres. The administration is appealing because it claims that federal agencies not only should be immune from public suits that challenge broad land-use programs, but also should be able to change those plans without filing an environmental impact statement.
"If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, the fate of more than 4 million acres of roadless areas proposed for wilderness designation will be at stake," said Johanna Wald, director of NRDC's lands program.
What are we to do?