Gang Green

Rainforest Action Network

        No company is safe from the “direct action” activists of the Rainforest Action Network (RAN).  RAN’s latest corporate targets include TXU Energy, Wall Street firms like Citigroup and Bank of America, and Detroit automakers—especially Ford. In a very recent campaign RAN is fighting affordable electricy production future and "Energy Independence," in its latest assault on the needs of the growing population and economy of Texas.

      Recently RAN joined two other radical left-wing groups, Global Exchange and the Ruckus Society, in a broad attack on the American auto industry.  RAN’s ongoing JumpStart Ford  campaign accuses the automaker of promoting the nation’s addiction to oil. The trio’s new Freedom From Oil Campaign asks all American automakers to cut their CO2 emissions.  But RAN, Global Exchange and the Ruckus Society have either lost their minds or have something up their sleeves because the “Freedom From Oil Campaign” calls for a world entirely without gas stations or oil refineries. Ford’s 2006 losses approached $6 billion, but that hasn’t stopped RAN from blaming the automaker for trying to improve its condition.  RAN, which launched street protests even after Ford laid off 40,000 workers and closed a dozen plants, says the company’s first priority ought to be improving the fuel efficiency of the vehicles it produces.. Rainforest Action Network spouts Marxist clichés, framing the policy battle over fuel emissions as class war: big corporations versus the masses. Never mind that it’s “the masses” who buy Ford SUVs and large trucks like the very popular F-150.
   
      Ford’s real problem is that it hasn’t adjusted fast enough to changing market conditions.  Free market consumer choices are responsible for Ford’s current hardships. When gas prices rise, consumer priorities change. Yet RAN takes credit for Ford’s decline.  In a full page New York Times ad, co-sponsored with the Sierra Club, U.S. PIRG and other groups, RAN berates Ford as “one of the biggest global warming polluters in the world.”  Baloney.  Ford makes cars in order to meet consumer demand and transportation needs.  Ford’s biggest problem is that it keeps apologizing for its own political incorrect sin—making cars.  RAN has picked up on President Bush’s remark that America is “addicted to oil” and offers a plan to radically alter our society called a ‘Twelve Step Program.”  It would require the U.S. to “Redesign American mobility for smart growth,” “Grow our own gas” and engage in a “Rooftop revolution.”

     It also appears that RAN’s newest corporate target is the Dutch banking company ABN Amro.  ABN’s crime?  Funding oil and gas exploration off the Russian island of Sakhalin II.  RAN is also attacking transnational financial giants like Citigroup and Bank of America. Under pressure, Citigroup has said it will invest $50 billion  in “green friendly” climate change initiatives.  A story in the Wall Street Journal reports RAN’s reaction:  Predictably, the group says $50 billion is nowhere near enough.

     RAN activists and Grassy Narrows supporters blockaded a Canadian highway in an attempt to prevent Weyerhaeuser trucks from transporting timber from Grassy Narrows, a sovereign “First Nation,” to a mill in Kenora, Ontario.  The Free Grassy Narrows campaign, a project of RAN, targets Weyerhaeuser, Abitibi (a Canadian logging company), the banks that support them, and the government of the province of Ontario which continues to uphold the harvesting rights of the companies.  While some protesters got comfy  atop a 30-foot tall tripod on the highway, others got creative by strapping themselves to cement-filled oil drums and to the axle of a Weyerhaeuser truck. RAN got its start attacking logging companies and retail stores such as Home Depot that sell lumber.  RAN’s “Don’t Buy Old Growth” boycott campaign solicits letters from children  to shut down companies unless they follow its orders.

This proves once again that RAN’s “civil disobedience” is really never civil.

Greenpeace Fund

The summer G-8 summit of the world’s leaders in Rostock, Germany was disrupted by Greenpeace, which piloted a hot air balloon and 11 high speed inflatable watercraft to protest global growth and development. Greenpeace pleads for a worldwide initiative on global warming, then disrupts the summit focused on its agenda. Odd.

Greenpeace’s current target is Kimberly-Clark, the makers of Kleenex for supposedly clear cutting old growth forests (does a corporation ever semi-cut new growth forests?) Greenpeace asks, “Did you know that it takes 90 years to grow a box of Kleenex?” And I thought you could just buy them at the store.

The British people recently won a huge victory over Greenpeace protesters. Previously, a British judge had sided with Greenpeace in resisting a plan by the Blair government to expand Britain’s nuclear power facilities. The judge said the government had not consulted the public adequately. However, it turns out that Greenpeace also failed to consult British public opinion, which supports the government on the issue. Nuclear power planning is moving forward in Britain, despite Greenpeace’s obstructionism. How many crazed environmentalists does it take to change a light bulb? Eight, according to a U.K. group calling itself the “Greenpeace Light Brigade.” Entering a Woolworths store in Cardiff, four activists removed all of the incandescent light bulbs from the shelves, locked them in shopping baskets, and proceeded to lock themselves and the baskets to the store entrance. Meanwhile, four additional activists were handing out free “energy-efficient” light bulbs to shoppers. A spokeswoman from Woolworths said the store has these light bulbs in stock, but Greenpeace says it wants the products to be cheaper. Imagine that, consumers value lower costs bulbs more than expensive alternatives.

Greenpeace's attempted media censorship regarding the documentary, "Mind Your Own Business." The Filmmakers McAleer and McElhinney were quoted saying, "And just like the communists of old, Greenpeace now wants to control what the Romanian people see in the cinema and are even trying to stop our documentary being shown in Washington.

"It turns out Greenpeace isn’t as environmentally sensitive as they would lead you to believe. Go here for more.Greenpeace is taking a lead role in the Exxpose Exxon campaign, a joint effort by many green activists to blame their electoral failures, policy defeats, and most of the world’s evils on the Exxon Corporation. See Exxon Secrets for the Greenpeace contribution.

How much CO2 does it take to transport a 20-ton whale? Maybe real green activists should ask Greenpeace what wasvthe carbon foot-print of dumping a dead whale on the doorstep of the Embassy of Japan. If you thought France didn't have enough problems, Greenpeace is blocking one of France's warships. Not that it matters, since France only knows how to surrender.

Greenpeace is targeting the technology industry. Dell, their latest forced convert, has pledged to reduce its e-waste (electronic trash) but Greenpeace says this won’t be enough in the long run. Under pressure from the eco-activists, Dell has agreed to underwrite the costs of a program in which its customers send in outdated computers for recycling. Unfortunately, the computer giant’s recycling campaign may doom the efforts of community-based groups such as the National Cristina Foundation that are trying to reduce the so-called digital divide because it will divert computers that people would have donated to such groups.

Greenpeace wants 40 per cent of the world's oceans made into a marine reserves.Sierra Club and World Wildlife Fund fought to keep oil and gas rigs out of resource rich Bristol Bay, believed to hold 200 million barrels of oil and 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas for America's energy needs.

Natural Resources Defense Council

NRDC is one of the most effective environmental groups in the nation.  It is notorious for mounting scare campaigns and putting out studies based on shoddy science.  One of its biggest media coups came in 1989 when it promoted a completely unscientific study contending that Alar, a chemical used on apples, caused cancer. 

NRDC’s latest fundraising venture takes the green group into the world of high-priced fashion.  Celebrity designer Mauri Pioppo has created a new jewelry collection, LiveGreen, and 30% of proceeds from sales will be donated to support NRDC.  LiveGreen jewelry is specially crafted from recycled gold, which, according to NRDC, means “there is no environmental destruction, no contaminated fresh water, and no displaced communities harmed during the mining process.”  Necklaces cost $820.  So either Pioppo has (1) marked up her price to cover the donation or (2) discovered how selling over-priced jewelry helps the environment more than making a direct contribution to NRDC.

These days NRDC spends its time misrepresenting information about alternate energy resources.  It promotes visions of endless renewable energy, a perfect future of bio-fuels, wind and solar power.  But the reality is far different.  Studies show renewable energy and biofuels could meet a significant chunk of our energy needs—by 2050.  However, surveys conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency of current bio-refineries reveal that green energy is a major pollutant that is fouling the environment. In the past three years, over 60% of 73 bio-refineries examined by state or federal agencies have been cited for environmental violations.

E-Topia.  NRDC board member Leonardo DiCaprio is working to produce a thirteen-part reality television series on the eco-friendly reconstruction of Greensburg, Kansas, which was destroyed by a tornado in May.  The town is scheduled to be rebuilt in an economically and environmentally sustainable manner.  If they rebuilt the town by hand, like the pyramids, the carbon footprint would be even further reduced.

Profits Are Treason! Or at least that’s what Robert Kennedy, Jr. said at the Live Earth concert held in New Jersey.  As hard as it is to believe that a Kennedy is making outlandish claims, this takes the cake. “These villainous companies [ExxonMobil and Southern Company] that consistently put their private financial interest ahead of American interest and ahead of the interest of all of humanity.”  This is treason and we need to start treating them now as traitors.”  Maybe you’re right Bobby Jr., but did you drive or fly to Live Earth?

NRDC distorted the findings of a Government Accountability Office report on President Bush’s voluntary climate change plan.  An NRDC press release with the headline “GOVERNMENT STUDY FAULTS VOLUNTARY CURBS ON GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS,” claimed that a the GAO study shows that Bush’s approach was “ineffective.”  Yet the study shows ow such thing: a word search of the study shows that the word “ineffective” is never used.  Rather the report notes that the complains of firms in the program “has varied… As of November 2005, 38 of the 74 firms had established goals, while most of the other 36 firms, including 13 that joined in 2002, were still working to establish goals; most of the remaining firms had joined the program recently and had not yet established goals.”  As usual, NRDC is full of hot air.

With expertise in filing lawsuits, NRDC works with other green groups to stop global warming. According to its website, global warming is “endangering polar bears, shortening ski seasons and creating more intense storms.”  NRDC’s four point plan to cut emissions relies on producing more liquid coal to lower auto emissions.  However, NRDC spokesman Julia Bovey has said, “Calling liquid coal alternative energy is like heroin versus methadone…Sure, you can use methadone instead of heroin, but it’s not a good idea.”  NRDC tries to baffle its opponents into submission by using such.conflicting arguments and drug metaphors.NRDC’s priorities are no different than those of other left-wing green groups – they value the protection of wildlife over the protection of human lives.  NRDC sued the U.S. Navy for using mid-range active sonar during the biennial RIMPAC maritime exercises off the coast of Hawaii.  The sonar, which NRDC claims inhibits the ability of marine life to find food, navigate and raise their offspring, is also “the most effective tool for hunting submarines.”

A proposal that would add several new power plants to the over-taxed California power grid is being protested by the NRDC and its allies. "The proposed amendments fly in the face not only of AQMD's (Air Quality Management District) commitment to environmental justice but also of the concept of environmental fairness in general," said Tim Grabiel, an attorney with the Environmental Justice project of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "This is as much a health and civil rights issue as it is an environmental problem.”  While the NRDC is willing to invoke health and civil rights to promote its agenda, it conveniently ignores the rights of citizens to affordable and reliable power.

NRDC said in regards to the 2006 congressional election in a recent email to members. "Last Tuesday may well go down as one of the greenest days in American political history." It indeed was a blue night, but the jury is still out as to how "green" of a night it really was.   

EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund

Earthjustice is one of the two biggest harassers of private property owners in the environmental movement (the Center for Biological Diversity is the other).  Earthjustice has filed nearly 50 lawsuits since the late 1990s just under the Endangered Species Act!  They also file lawsuits under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, National Forest Management Act, and Migratory Bird Treaty just to name a few.  You name it, Earthjustice targets it:  logging, fishing, suburban development, gas and oil drilling, Navy war games, etc.

In a recent action, Earthjustice prevailed upon a federal court to withdraw approval of an agreement between Utah and the federal government that permitted development–particularly gas and oil drilling–on western land.  Perhaps the reason Earthjustice opposes Roberts is that he represents a threat to this sort of judicial activism.

Just before he left office President Clinton announced the Roadless Rule, which outlaws roads and road-building on about one-third of the nation’s public lands. Congress wasn’t consulted. The states weren’t consulted. Communities and private landowners surrounded by public lands weren’t consulted. Oddly enough, environmentalist groups knew about the rule beforehand and Congress subsequently discovered that certain grantmaking foundations also knew about the rule. In fact, they wrote it. 

The Bush administration has tried to review the Clinton power grab. It wants the states to have greater responsibility over the management of 50 million acres of forestlands but it has been subjected to a barrage of criticism from green groups and their deep-pocketed supporters. The EJLDF, another environmental “public interest” law firm like NRDC, argues that “State governors should not be able to override the American people’s interest in protecting these forests, any more than they can override the American people’s interest in protecting Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon.”

The group is in court trying to preserve the Clinton fiat. Funny, but we thought state governors, unlike EJLDF, were elected by the people of the states they represent. As former Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne, who is currently Secretary of the Interior, points out: “The old rule said in essence that Washington, D.C., decision makers know better than those of us in Idaho what should work for us.” 

Environmental Working Group

Environmental Working Groups (EWG) is the archetype of the environmental groups that uses junk science to advance public health scares.

EWG has been hyping the supposed cancer danger of soft drinks.  It has sent a letter to the FDA asking the agency to warn “the public about the presence of two ingredients in many popular children's drinks that can mix together to form the cancer-causing chemical benzene.”  Is there any evidence that soft drinks are causing cancer?  No, but since when does the EWG need evidence?  It only needs the possibility of a problem to launch a scare campaign.  Indeed, there is little if any danger, as the EWG concedes in another press release:  “The actual levels of benzene formed in these products may be at trace levels and within legal limits for drinking water. EWG has no information indicating that benzene is actually present in any of these products at any level, however, we recommend that consumers avoid any amount of benzene in drinks intended for children.”

LA gossip columnists and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) have something in common—sensationalism. EWG specializes in scare campaigns and its latest is a doozy. The EWG wants to ban a fire retardant known as “deca,” which is used in upholstered furniture and TV and computer casings. Firefighters embrace fire retardants, but EWG claims deca is toxic. Even the European Union conducted a 10-year study and found deca posed no environmental or health related threats. 

Observes Patrick Morrison, director of health and safety at the International Association of Fire Firefighters (http://www.iaff.org/) , “The bottom line is that if deca is replaced, will it mean a rise in residential and commercial fires?”  

Then there’s the EWG website called Skin Deep that denounces cosmetic companies using human placentas in their products. EWG claims the application of creams containing placenta may spur breast growth in toddlers. Obviously, EWG expects its readers to recoil from such images. But it makes no mention of a report from the FDA that found that placenta is in no way harmful.  The great placenta-scare is just another EWG red-herring. 

Or what about the EWG report claiming that only 16% of sunscreens actually work? This time EWG scare tactics backfired as doctors rushed to repudiate the group’s factual distortions. Medpage Today, a medical information website, rejects EWG findings on sunscreen products and says readers could get “burned” by relying on it. Doctors from both the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston and the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association question EWG’s findings and research methods.

EWG is also known to fight against farm subsidies.Their farm subsidies database lists government payouts by county, name, or/and company.

Center for Biological Diversity

The Center for Biological Diversity, along with Earthjustice, is the biggest abuser of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The Center is the embodiment of the radical eco-philosophy “Deep Ecology.”  Indeed, it has received over $150,000 in grants from the Foundation for Deep Ecology since 2001.

The Center has filed nearly 60 lawsuits under the ESA since the late 1990s.  The lawsuits target a host of economic activities from mining, housing construction, oil and gas drilling, and biopharmaceutical crops, just to name a few.  Thus, it should come as no surprise that one of the Center’s current campaigns is against changes to the ESA. According to the Center, if the changes been “law in 1973 instead of the Endangered Species Act, there would be no bald eagles, wolves, grizzly bears, Florida panthers, or desert pupfish in the continental U.S. today. If it is made law in the future, hundreds of endangered species could become extinct.”  It will be interesting to see if the Center’s extreme rhetoric becomes characteristic of environmental movements fight against any sensible changes in the ESA.

In its continuing effort to undermine common sense reform of the Endangered Species Act, the Center for Biological Diversity recently released a report entitled “Measuring the Success of the Endangered Species Act.”  The press release states that as regards preventing extinction, the report finds that the Endangered Species Act (ESA)  has been “100% successful.”  However, the report states that the Center only looked at 49 species (see page 5), primarily those in the Northeast.  In fact, the Center knows that species listed as endangered under ESA have gone extinct, as evidence from this Center report in 2004.

Just east of L.A., California’s San Bernardino County is as big as Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont and Rhode Island combined.  It’s a Mecca for homeowners with large families seeking affordable houses in a very expensive part of the country. And it’s the latest battleground for the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), which has filed several lawsuits asking the courts to stop the construction of new houses.  California already has one of the strictest environmental building codes in the world, but dogmatic CBD doesn’t care. It is determined to prevent affordable homebuilding outside L.A..   

California is a soft target for any activist environmental group.  The Delta smelt, for instance, is a three inch long fish in the inland delta waters around Sacramento. Invoking the Endangered Species Act, the CBD wants to stop the pumps responsible for supplying 25 million people with water because there is a possibility that the smelt will be harmed. Currently, there are sufficient water reserves, but if CBD wins in court, new construction projects will be postponed, costs will skyrocket, and economic development in the delta area will be stymied.   

The most elite, private military force in the world has finally met its match in an unlikely foe: the Center for Biological Diversity.  Sighting a golden eagle's nest a half-mile away, the CBD opposes the creation of an expanded training camp for Blackwater USA.  The company, which has received over $320 million from the State Department to provide private soldiers in Iraq, counters that this is an issue of national, not natural, security.

To prove that no cause is too small for the Center to protest, they began a petition to have Paris Hilton’s pet “Baby Luv” taken away from her as a “statement against animal exploitation.”  Baby Luv is a kinkajou, native to Central and South America.  While the Center may have the best of intentions, the kinkajou is a wild animal and, judging by Hilton’s treatment at a hospital in past weeks for a bite inflicted wound, quite capable of taking care of itself.  Unless the Center plans to text-message the petition, it is doubtful Ms. Hilton will ever see it.

Sierra Club Foundation

Once headed by eco-radical David Brower, the Sierra Club in recent years has tried to moderate its image.  Of course, it depends on what the meaning of the word “moderate” is.  In 2003, eco-radical Paul Watson (who left Greenpeace, dismissing it as the “Avon ladies of the environmental movement”) had joined the Sierra Club board. Watson has also remarked, “As a former Director of Sierra Club, I saw firsthand the insanity of bureaucratic environmentalism.” 

Currently, Watson runs the violent environmental group Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Says Watson, “You cannot be an environmentalist and a conservationist if you support the meat and fishing industry. My ships are run as vegetarian/vegan vessels.” The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society pilots boats that harass whaling and fishing vessels.

The Sierra Club made no friends when it filed suit against a project to replace a rusting bridge over the St. Croix River in Wisconsin.  Residents and state leaders worked for years on the project.  Democrat Congressman Ron Kind nicely summed up the popular attitude toward the group: “The Sierra Club had every opportunity over the past four years to participate in the process, but it is my understanding that they chose not to fully participate, electing to circumvent the negotiations at the 11th hour instead of working with all parties to achieve a compromise.”   

Gone With the Wind?  For twenty years, the Altamont Pass Wind Farm in California has been the leading cause of death for between 17,000 and 25,000 raptors. Oddly enough, the Sierra Club, a stern defender of the Endangered Species Act, is supporting the American Wind Energy Association, which wants to rescind legislation to protect endangered birds and bats that are killed by the facility’s wind turbines. What an interesting change of heart.

The Sierra Club and the United Steel Workers (USW) have joined in a strategic “Blue-Green” alliance to influence public policy and promote “Good Jobs, A Clean Environment, and A Safer World.” The impact of this electioneering and policy alliance will likely first be felt in the Rust Belt states from Minneapolis to Philadelphia this fall as it gears up to promote expensive government mandated alternative energy solutions and the job-killing Kyoto Protocol. 

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) barely needs any introduction.  From giving $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front, to exploiting Rudy Guiliani’s prostate cancer for its famed “Milk Sucks” campaign, to the recent revelation that it euthanizes dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters, PETA has shown that it is an organization without any ethics.

PETA was silent when horrifying stories appeared alleging the group’s own cruelty to animals.  Two PETA workers were found guilty of poisoning  31 dogs and disposing of their bodies in garbage dumpsters.  Even rival radical animal rights group, the Animal Liberation Front, is claiming that PETA destroys 90% of all animals in its care.  

PETA’s latest campaign targets fisherman. At FishingHurts.com, PETA claims that, “Many people have never stopped to think about it, but fish are smart, interesting animals with their own unique personalities–just like the dogs and cats we share our homes with.”  I’ll bet you never knew that your goldfish can sit up, beg, and roll over, did you?The also suggests that Grandpa was a torturer all these years. The site for PETA’s “Fishing Amnesty Day” reads, “You can make sure that Grandpa’s old fishing rod won't cause any more pain and suffering.”   

Then there’s Jimmy Webb, soldier-son of Virginia Senator Jim Webb, who recently returned from military service in Iraq. His dad decided a father-son fishing trip was in order.  However, PETA president Ingrid E. Newkirk chided the senator: “There are plenty of opportunities for fathers and sons to bond that don’t involve killing animals,” she said. 

PETA is also trying to frighten us with lots of nonsense about the health dangers of fish.  “Fish flesh today is badly contaminated with toxic chemicals that are known to cause cancer and brain degeneration and is also the most likely of all foods to make you sick from bacterial contamination,” the website warns.  Only a few fish, like shark and swordfish, are of any concern.  Indeed, you may be hurting your health more if you don’t east fish, since fish contains many health nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids.  PETA has taken the Fishing Hurts campaign one step further recently by attacking the Florida Aquarium for serving fish in its facility’s cafeteria. PETA claims that  “years of study” show that fish are intelligent, that they feel pain just as all animals do, and that they are definitely not “health food.” PETA also chastised Thom Stork, President of the Florida Aquarium, that serving fish at an aquarium is akin to “serving poodle burgers at a dog show.”

PETA also capitalized on the news stories concerning the giant 1,051-pound boar that Mike Stone and his son shot at a hunting ranch in rural Alabama. Several weeks after the story appeared, it was discovered that the “wild” boar was actually raised and sold to the ranch.  PETA went berserk and demanded that the father and son be prosecuted for cruelty to animals. 

PETA wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to accept a vegan diet.
 
Then the extremist animal rights group issued a press release that said eating plants is cruel and it would be better if the president abstained from eating altogether. PETA is non-partisan in its tactics, combining smart self-promotion with ideological fanaticism. For example, it warned the fat left-wing filmmaker Michael Moore that he needed to go on a vegetarian diet if he was going to live up to the mission of “Sicko,” his new film on the American healthcare system. Said PETA: “[A]ccepting a vegetarian diet could help his long term health and thus the health care system itself.” What about it, Michael?

PETA has campaigned against Hormel Foods.

Steve Irwin was laid to rest in a private service, but it seems a few were reluctant to let him rest in peace.  PETA spokesman Dan Matthews, not to be outdone by haggard feminist icon Germaine Greer, has cast his hat into the ring of tactless publicity hounds foaming at the mouth at the expense of the dead.  What is shocking is that the animal activists, who were rather silent while Irwin was alive and promoting the love of animals are now riding the wave of publicity given the untimely death of the beloved “Croc-hunter.” PETA finds it appropriate to denounce him as a “cheap reality star.” 

Environmental Defense

Environmental Defense (ED) was founded in 1967 to stop the production of DDT.  It succeeded, much to the detriment of the third world.  In the 1970s, ED filed a torrent of lawsuits that critics dubbed the “Chemical of the Month Lawsuit” campaign.  ED’s recent targets are oil and other natural resource companies and the Bush administration.  Last year ED filed suit against the Interior Department’s plan to allow gas and oil drilling in the Powder River Basin. 

More recently, ED joined with other environmental groups to block the mercury regulations issued under the Bush Administration.  A U.S. Appellate Court rejected the lawsuit in August of 2006.ED also warns the public against eating fish.
 
Its campaign, called Oceans Alive, argues that Americans consume dangerous chemicals every day—from DDT to mercury poison.  Oceans Alive ignores the research of both the American Heart Association and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, which says the average American has little to fear in eating a pan-seared salmon for dinner.

In its recently published report, Freshman Economics, Environmental Defense has proposed three potential scenarios to reform the upcoming farm bill: divert $10, $15, or $20 billion of direct payments to farmers into programs of what is called “working lands conservation.”  If my tax dollars are going to subsidize agriculture, I would much rather they be put towards lowing the cost of food than keeping land from being used.  Paying farmers to be idle does not put food in the stomachs of any American.

Of course, ED has jumped on the global-warming-hysteria bandwagon, with a campaign called “Global Warming: Undo It.”  Through this campaign, ED espouses nonsense like the findings of the report “entitled Impacts of a Warming Arctic -- are an alarm bell for U.S. policymakers who have up to now chosen the path of inaction as a way of dealing with the increasingly pressing problem of global climate change.”  (See Steve Milloy and Patrick Michaels for more on the nonsense of a warming arctic.)  Back in July 2005, ED encouraged its followers to petition Congress to pass the jobs-destroying McCain-Lieberman climate change bill.  Fortunately, this effort failed. What will the fate be of their new efforts?

Environmental Defense (ED) poses as a mainstream environmental organization, but it is not reluctant to say and do things to send people into a panic.  The group’s lead scientist, Bill Chameides, scolded the media in a May column, demanding that journalists begin delivering balanced news stories in the debate over global warming. How dare the media present both sides of the argument?

ED joined the activist chorus that preaches the notion that our unusually intense hurricanes this season are caused by global climate change. This is an example of shamefully exploiting a natural disaster to score political points on an agenda that has politically stalled. In addition to its “Global Warming: Undo It” campaign, ED has released two TV and two radio ads encouraging viewers to fight global warming “while there's still time."ED’s “Fight Global Warming” website even offers a fanciful device that allows individuals to calculate their personal contribution to global warming.  After answering a few questions about living arrangements, travel habits and transportation usage, you can find out how many metric tons of carbon pollution you produce each year.  ED ignores the fact that there is “no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame.”

Environmental Defense recently sued the state of Ohio, arguing that the state’s air quality needed to improve to become as good as most other U.S. counties.  Pamela Davis of the Cleveland-based Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency said of the air quality regulations proposed by ED  “could have a big effect on industries wanting to locate in Ohio and Ohio businesses that want to expand, and that could hurt Ohio's economy.” It seems that Ohio’s moribund industrial economy will stay that way. 

Daily commuters from Maryland to Washington, D.C. have long yearned for the construction of an 18-mile Inter-County Connector highway to relieve traffic congestion. Construction of the route would actually reduce pollution in the area because fewer vehicles would idle in traffic jams. Why then do ED (and the Sierra Club) want to halt construction?  Environmental Defense claims it has groundbreaking studies that show the new road raises serious air quality issues. However, the Federal Highway Administration has already approved the highway saying that it will meet all current regulations concerning safe air quality.

Earth Island Institute

Earth Island Institute (EII) was founded by eco-radical David Brower in 1982.  Of all the organization Brower was involved in, EII most closely adheres to Brower’s radical vision.  Indeed, Brower once said, ““I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded the Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We’re still waiting for someone to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable.”

Apparently CRC’s Gang Green above entry has gotten under the skin of Earth Island Journal (EIJ) editor Chris Clarke. In our above entry regarding the Earth Island Institute, we criticized the editorial Clarke wrote in the Winter 2006 issue.

Here is Capital Research Center's full response to Chris Clarke's editorial assault on our GreenWatch Highlights.