Bush Free Trade Plan Puts Amazon up for Grabs
9/29/06
The Bush administration is quietly pressing for a free trade agreement with Peru that will put the Amazon rainforest -- often described as one of the earth's lungs -- on the chopping block. Because the Amazon rainforest - one of the most biologically diverse regions on earth - filters out massive amounts of the carbon dioxide that generates global warming, experts say the Bush plan will literally endanger the health of the planet.
Among other things, the rainforest provides one-quarter of the world's oxygen. And although it comprises less than one percent of the world's land area, the upper Amazon basin in the tropical Andes region is home to one-sixth of all the earth's plant life.
The basin is also rich in timber, oil and other valuable resources. Powerful multinational corporations are extracting these commodities at an increasingly destructive pace. A key example is mahogany, an endangered species central to the rainforest ecosystem. Rainforest mahogany is currently being imported into the U.S. in clear violation of international agreements.
The administration's proposed Peru Free Trade Agreement fails to halt this illegal trade. Further, as with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Peru deal gives industries such as logging, oil and gas the right to challenge environmental and public health laws by alleging that such protections undermine their ability to make a profit.
Such investment rules accord rights to foreign companies that are considerably broader than what the Supreme Court has mandated in the U.S. And, corporations have wasted no time in capitalizing on this opening: more than 40 lawsuits have already been brought to NAFTA's tribunals, which have repeatedly ruled in favor of the companies.
The Peru deal is now before Congress, but environmentalists understand that the current plan of the GOP leadership is to bring it up during the lame duck session after the November election, when there is likely to be less public attention. Conservation advocates remind us that every vote will count -- just as it did two years ago when the Central American free trade bill passed by exactly two votes.
Please click here to send a message urging Congress to save the Amazon.
Program Lets Forests Grow Longer to Combat Global Warming
July 17, 2006 By Don Thompson, Associated PressSACRAMENTO Californians could soon invest in trees to offset the greenhouse gases they pump into the air when they heat their homes or drive to work.
The nonprofit California Climate Action Registry was set up by the state six years ago to encourage corporations and government agencies to track, and ultimately reduce, their emissions. The Forest Protocols program will allow environmentally minded citizens to pay to preserve enough trees to offset their personal carbon emissions.
The registry has calculated how much the timber industry loses by allowing trees to grow longer and bigger -- past the time they are normally harvested. The industry would then be compensated by other companies that buy carbon credits -- or shares of the trees -- to offset their carbon emissions.
Scientists blame emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases for helping cause global warming, which researchers predict will lead to stronger storms, more severe droughts and bigger wildfires.
The Pacific Forest Trust manages the five parcels of timberland owned by the Fred M. van Eck Forest Foundation, and they jointly registered the 2,100-acre (840-hectare) property with the state. Negotiations are under way to set the prices for its carbon credits.
For instance, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. in January asked the California Public Utilities Commission to let it start a program next year where customers could choose to pay about 3 percent more on each monthly bill, with the money earmarked to preserve trees in a registered forest.
The utility pumps about 5.3 tons (4.8 metric tons) of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year to supply the electricity and natural gas used by a typical household. If the homeowner opted to pay about $4.31 (euro3.40) each month to be invested in forests, the trees would store an equivalent amount of carbon.
"It would cost them about $4.31 a month to become climate neutral," said Wendy Pulling, PG&E's director of environmental policy.
PG&E is the first utility in the U.S. seeking such a program for its five million electric and 4.2 million natural gas customers, Pulling said. The company serves about 14 million people in northern and central California.
Huge California Fire Sweeps toward Resort Town, Forest
July 14, 2006 By Dan Whitcomb, ReutersLOS ANGELES A massive California wildfire marched toward a mountain resort town and a parched national forest Thursday, threatening to combine with a second blaze in what state officials called a "very critical" situation.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency for San Bernardino County as a result of the wildfires.
Crews tried to establish battle lines at the western edge of the raging fire -- which has already blackened more than 40,000 acres and destroyed nearly 100 buildings in the California desert north of Palm Springs -- before it reached the mountain community of Big Bear Lake.
State officials also worried about the wind-fueled flames reaching stands of dead trees in the San Bernadino National Forest and the possibly explosive result of a meeting between the huge fire and a 2,000-acre blaze burning nearby.
"It will be an intense situation," California Department of Forestry spokeswoman Karen Guillemin said of the two fires merging. "There will be a tremendous amount of fuel on fire and a lot of energy being released at one time. The situation here is very critical."
The so-called Sawtooth fire, which was ignited by lightning strikes Sunday, was moving very quickly, fueled by temperatures near 100 degrees, humidity below 20 percent and hot gusts of wind. The blaze, which 1,300 firefighters struggled to contain, produced huge plumes of black and gray smoke visible as far away as Nevada.
"The things that are burning here -- plants trees, shrubs -- everything is very dry," Guillemin said. "There's been a drought in the area and the moisture levels are critically low. It's a major heads-up situation for firefighters."
Guillemin said crews were optimistic that they could prevent the fire from reaching the Big Bear area but worried about the flames reaching the national forest, which had been hit hard by beetle infestations.
"There are some major bug kill areas in the forest where 80 to 100 percent of the trees are dead," she said. "If the fire started in (one of those areas of the forest) it would be almost impossible to stop."
Mandatory evacuations were in place for at least five communities with residents of other areas being advised of danger. Guillemin said more than 3,000 structures were considered threatened.
In the area evacuated was Pioneertown, a tourist attraction that has served as the backdrop for Hollywood westerns since the 1950s.
Source: Reuters
What's the worst thing you can do to a forest? The Walden logging bill!
When a forest has been burned, the scientific evidence is clear: the best thing for recovery is to leave it alone. Commercial logging activities after events like forest fires impede recovery, causing erosion, decreased water quality, compacted soils, and the elimination of the very nutrients a forest will need to recover.But a new bill introduced by Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) runs directly against this scientific consensus, and would fast-track logging projects all across America in the name of forest recovery. The bill also disregards important protections for clean water and wildlife, eliminates meaningful environmental analysis and public involvement, and would misleadingly define even rain or windstorms as "catastrophic events."
This timber industry's dream come true just passed out of the House Resources Committee. Please, ask your representative to oppose this "log first, ask questions later" legislation!
Please click here to send a letter to your representative asking him/her to vote "NO" on the ironically named Walden bill.
Lockyer Sues Over Plan to Boost Sierra Logging
byÊGlen Martin, Chronicle Environment Writer
Wednesday 2 February 2005
California Attorney General Bill Lockyer waded into the Sierra Nevada logging fracas Tuesday, announcing a lawsuit against a U.S. Forest Service management plan for the region's 11 million acres of federal woodland that could increase the number of trees that are cut by up to four times what has been allowed.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for eastern California in Sacramento, foreshadowed a decision expected soon by Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey over the fate of the plan, which has been in effect on the Sierra's 11 national forests and one special management area since January 2004.
Rey's decision to review the plan could conclude in any of several ways: He might allow the plan to stand as it is, or order a new planning process with emphasis on more or less logging.
Lockyer's suit, filed in association with similar litigation sponsored by several environmental groups, contends that the Forest Service failed to disclose critical scientific data regarding the impacts the plan would have on the Sierra's old-growth forests, water and wildlife.
Environmentalists applauded the state's entry into the conflict, while timber interests deemed it misguided.
The plan, the brainchild of Jack Blackwell, the agency's regional forester for California, revises a Clinton era "framework" for the Sierra that halted most logging and emphasized forest restoration.
Blackwell's plan shifted the focus from resuscitating old-growth forest ecosystems to wildfire hazard reduction, upped the anticipated annual timber cut from 100 million board feet to 400 million board feet and allowed for the taking of some larger trees to defray fuel treatment costs.
"The Bush administration jettisoned 10 years of work, study and public participation, violating a number of environmental and administrative procedural laws," Lockyer said in a phone-in press conference Tuesday, referring to Blackwell's revision to the Clinton framework.
Lockyer said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had been informed of the lawsuit.
"We hope he wishes to participate," he said. "We haven't heard back from him yet."
David Bischel, president of the California Forestry Association, said Lockyer's suit is unfortunate.
"They are badly misrepresenting or they don't understand what the plan proposes," Bischel said. "The only logging that is authorized is thinning for restoration, salvaging burned areas or harvesting trees that pose a risk to life or property."
But Bischel isn't really happy with Blackwell's plan either. His group filed suit against it late last year, contending it ignores the Forest Service's historic mandate of providing a continuous supply of produced timber from the national forests.
Jerry Franklin, a professor of ecosystems analysis for the college of forest resources at the University of Washington, criticized the Blackwell plan for allowing the logging of some older trees.
"The old-growth trees are the structural backbone of the Sierra's forests -- they're essentially irreplaceable," Franklin said. "Removing them may result in some economic or safety benefit, but not an ecological benefit."
Franklin dismissed agency claims that conifers 30 inches in diameter are not truly old-growth trees.
"In Sequoia National Park, of course, a 30-inch (sequoia) tree is a sapling," he said. "In a Jeffrey pine forest, it is immense."
Jim Lyons, an undersecretary of agriculture during the Clinton administration and an architect of the original Sierra Nevada framework, said Forest Service claims that thinning costs could be mitigated by logging bigger trees are specious.
"You look at the costs of laying out a timber sale, the amount of money you spend on roads and monitoring, and it always exceeds the revenue that's generated," Lyons said.
Matt Mathes, a spokesman for the Forest Service's California region, said the vast majority of trees harvested under the plan would be much smaller than the 30-inch diameter maximum.
As to the cost-benefit ratio of timber sales, said Mathes, "It may well be true that expenses exceed revenue in many cases. But these aren't the old days. Now, we're thinning only to reduce fire danger, not logging commercially."