Fundraisering amd the National Resource Defense Council

Tuesday July 8, 2003

According to a recent membership campaign by the Natural Resource Defense Council, the end of the world is neer. What could be driving us to this doleful fate? President Bush’s environmental agenda, says John Adams, the NRDC president. “The Administration is moving quietly but aggressively to roll back 30 years of environmental progress,” says the Adams mailer. “And I urge you to take this attack personally…because it poses an immediate threat to your health and natural heritage.” Blatantly ignoring President Bush’s numerous pro-environmental initiatives, including Clear Skies and Healthy Forests, Adams says the Administration is trying to “cancel” the “environmental rights” of Americans. The President is even exploiting the war on terrorism “as a pretext to destroy our environment.” This is not exactly a positive, feel-good program to encourage new membership. What’s going on here?

FACT: It’s called fundraising, or, better yet, NRDC’s patented fundraising through fear, lies, and distortion. Tucked into the Adams screed of terror is an appeal for green, which goes to the heart of NRDC’s existence. Adams urges his readers to “take the following steps right away: Help advance this campaign by contributing $10 or more to NRDC. Your gift will enable us to sound the alarm about White House attacks on our environment.” Of course, the Bush “onslaught” can’t be stopped “without your immediate help.” Incidentally, according to the American Institute of Philanthropy, a charity watchdog group, the NRDC was one of six national environmental groups that failed to meet the minimum benchmark for environmental spending—60 percent of annual expenses—because it spent so much on fundraising and overhead.

David Hawkins, National Resource Defense Council and Coal

Friday June 27, 2003

“We have used coal to our economic advantage in the U.S., fueling our industrial growth from the first years after the War of Independence and in the past century helping to bring electricity to nearly every home and hamlet in our country. There is no denying that our use of the coal that eons of biological and geological processes bequeathed us has brought great benefits. As a society we have decided to tackle many of the health and environmental problems caused by coal's use and we are doing a good job addressing a number of these problems. Indeed, the U.S. leads the world in addressing many of the problems caused by coal's use.” Wise words indeed. Who could be the author of such sagacity? Sen. Inhofe? The president of the National Mining Association? Not quite. They came from one David Hawkins, director of NRDC’s Climate Center, and were delivered before the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week. Should we take Hawkins’s paean to coal seriously? Does Hawkins himself really believe it?

 

FACT: It’s hard to tell. On the same day Hawkins delivered his testimony, the NRDC launched an ad campaign, defended the following day by Hawkins, comparing pollution from “dirty power plants”—read: coal-fired power plants—to weapons of mass destruction. Those dastardly power companies, who use coal to “deliver electricity to nearly every home and hamlet in the country,” are causing, according to the ad’s sinister voiceover, “death and disease and global warming.” And further: “We have the technology to stop it, but the polluting power companies won’t.” So, to get this straight: the U.S. leads the world in addressing many of the problems caused by coal, but power companies won’t address those problems; coal is good, but it’s a weapon of mass destruction. Makes eminent sense.

 

Natural Gas Prices and Chemical Security

Wednesday June 18, 2003

The Wall Street Journal reported today that high natural gas prices in the U.S. are wreaking havoc on the domestic chemical industry. “U.S. chemical companies are closing plants, laying off workers and looking to expand their own production abroad,” the Journal reported. “The higher cost of natural gas in the U.S. is hitting these manufacturers at the same time the weak economy damps demand for commodity chemicals.” This story provides further proof of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s testimony on the dire state of natural gas markets and the future consequences for economic growth. Thus far, no word from Democrats or environmentalists on how to reverse this state of affairs.

 

FACT: Both, however, have supported and proposed legislation that would exacerbate the current crisis, and even harm the environment. According to 2001 testimony by Mary Hutzler, of the Energy Information Administration, the Clean Power Act (S. 366), which, like other Democratic-sponsored bills, caps carbon dioxide emissions, would increase natural gas prices 20 percent by 2020. An analysis by EPA pointed out that under S. 366, coal-fired power plants would have to be replaced by natural gas plants, placing further pressure on prices. Beyond the economics of the problem, because companies would be forced to relocate overseas, often to developing countries, which have weak, and in some cases, no environmental restrictions, Democrats and their green allies would undermine environmental protections. This, indeed, is the opinion of none other than the Sierra Club: “Poor nations are exacerbating enormous environmental problems.”

 

Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES)

Monday June 16, 2003

In the name of “business certainty,” a coalition of investors, electric utilities, and environmental groups, which has earnestly dubbed itself the “Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies,” or CERES, recently recommended adoption of a “mandatory national climate change program to limit greenhouse gas emissions.” Climate change, according to the scientific opinion of the group, represents a serious environmental, not to mention financial, threat that should cause concern. Of course this must be the case, especially for several of the participating utilities, including Keyspan and the Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), which are heavily invested in fuels other than coal. Denise Nappier, treasurer of the State of Connecticut, who has spoken out in support of CERES, even said she has a “fiduciary responsibility” to shareholders to advocate for caps on carbon emissions.

 

FACT: CERES would, for certain, get higher electricity prices, which in turn would erode economic growth and undermine investment. Dr. Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation, echoing the conclusions reached by numerous government and private analysts, said that, “[C]arbon caps would increase the price of electricity.” In her testimony before the EPW Committee on June 5, Thorning said, “As U.S. economic growth slows in response to higher electricity prices, demand for electricity falls and profits decline. Thus, by weakening demand for the product (electricity) carbon caps will increase the risk and uncertainty of investment in utilities.” What about for domestic manufacturers? “Carbon caps will make it harder for U.S. manufacturers to keep their operations at home and will increase the attractiveness of locating in areas like China…with no carbon emissions caps.”

 

Kyoto and the Cost of Natural Gas

Tuesday June 10, 2003

Natural gas supplies in the US “have reached critically low levels” and “may be inadequate to meet demand during a hot summer this year,” the Financial Times reported yesterday. Democrats and environmental groups favor policies that would greatly exacerbate the natural gas crisis. Under the Clean Power Act, sponsored by 19 Democrats, and supported by, among others, the Natural Resources Defense Council, natural gas prices would increase nearly 18 percent by 2020, according to EIA. The Climate Change Stewardship Act of 2003, sponsored by a Democrat and cosponsored by 3 others, and supported by several environmental groups, would effectively implement the Kyoto Protocol and in turn substantially increase natural gas prices over the next 2 decades. Question: what do higher natural gas prices mean for the poor?

 

FACT: The following excerpt from a February 23, 2001 report by the Online News Hour is instructive:

ELIZABETH BRACKETT (reporter): Caridad Vasquez needed help. The gas bill to heat her home had tripled from the year before, and she couldn't pay it…

A $926-a-month Social Security disability check is the only source of income for Caridad and her 52-year- old husband Salvador. After 23 years as a factory worker, Vasquez lost his legs and much of his vision to diabetes. He's also had three strokes and triple bypass surgery. When the January gas bill for their small house jumped to $500, Caridad Vasquez had to start making some hard choices.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: What's more important to you, paying the medicine for your husband or paying the gas bill?

CARIDAD VASQUEZ: (speaking through interpreter) Both things are important. The medicine, because he does need his medicine to survive and keep healthy the way he should. The other thing is where the gas is needed for the heating, for the hot water. He needs all this attention, so both are important.

ELIZABETH BRACKETT: Can you pay for both?

CARIDAD VASQUEZ: (speaking through interpreter)

No.

 

Environmentalists and Energy

Friday June 6, 2003

What forms of energy do environmental groups like? Not oil and coal, of course, which are the twin evils of the modern world. Coal, which efficiently and cheaply provides 52 percent of the nation’s electricity, is just too dirty. So too with the oil we use to power cars, which, according to Leonardo DiCaprio’s environmental website, “destroys our environment.” Natural gas is cleaner, but, according to Greenpeace, those pesky pipelines just cause too many problems. So it would seem that renewable energy is the answer, like the nation’s first offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound, near Cape Cod. Or is it?

FACT: No, not even wind power is acceptable to environmentalists. As the New York Times reported yesterday, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, is leading the effort against installation of the Nantucket Sound wind farm. Other environmentalists are pressuring the Long Island Power Authority to scrap its plan for wind turbines off the eastern tip of Long Island. Mr. Kennedy said he found "zero" irony in the fact that he had devoted himself to environmental advocacy and yet opposed the wind project on Cape Cod, his Kennedy grandparents' summer home. "There are appropriate places for everything," he said. "You would not want a wind farm in Yosemite, and you wouldn't want one in Central Park."

“To some environmentalists,” the Times wrote, “the opposition to wind power from within their ranks not only stifles the growth of a new source of energy but also calls into question the integrity of the environmental movement itself.”

 

Kyoto and Coal

Wednesday June 4, 2003

In a recent hearing of the House Resources Committee, Robert Murray, president of the Ohio Valley Coal Company, gave eloquent testimony on the benefits of coal, including that it provides nearly 52 percent of the nation’s electricity. He also discussed the how coal creates jobs. His remarks on this subject are worth quoting in full: “This [Ohio Valley region] is desperate for good paying and well-benefited jobs. Our people just want to earn a reasonable living with honor and dignity. Our young people want to stay in the area and have good employment. Many times grown men and women have broken down and cried in my office when I told them that we had a job for them. They know that, with the high pay and excellent benefits provided by coal mining, they can build the lives of their dreams, be with their families, and retire with dignity.”

 

FACT: Environmentalists don’t like coal and support policies such as the Kyoto Protocol to eliminate its use. According to Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates, the Kyoto Protocol, and, by extension, any domestic legislation that would unilaterally implement Kyoto, would put coal out of business. “Under Kyoto,” WEFA found, “coal consumption would be phased out over the period between 2010 and 2020. The result would be massive dislocations in coal producing areas.”

 

Money for Endagered Species

Thursday May 29, 2003

As the New York Times reported today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, because of a lack of funds, will temporarily stop designating tracts of land as critical habitats under the Endangered Species Act. Craig Manson, assistant secretary of the Department of Interior who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, said bluntly, "We are out of money, or will be in a few days.” Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, which proudly describes itself as “Nature’s Legal Eagles, said the Bush Administration has “engineered a budget crisis.” What’s going on here? Where did all the money go?

 

FACT: To pay for the flood of ‘critical habitat’ litigation brought about by environmental groups, whose legal war has undermined the very species they want to save. Big Green litigiousness is not a new phenomenon, of course, but one that also vexed Jamie Rappaport Clark, former head of the Clinton Fish and Wildlife Service. Clark said in 2000 that critical habitat lawsuits have “turned our priorities upside down.” More ominously, she said those lawsuits were creating a “biological disaster.” In testimony before Congress, the Clinton Fish and Wildlife said, “In most circumstances, the designation of ‘official’ critical habitat is of little additional value for most listed species.” So, one might ask, what’s the point of these “citizen suits?” Mr. Kieran Suckling, noted above, said it best: “You know what is so important about the spectacled eider [a sea duck]? That designation will be the only thing standing between George Bush and the oil rigs” (Sacramento Bee, April 24, 2001).

 

 

Greenpeace and Global Warming

Friday May 23, 2003

Greenpeace, known for its sober, thoughtful approaches to solving environmental problems, has launched a crusade against corporations that don’t believe in “global warming.” Despite reams of compelling scientific evidence to the contrary, Greenpeace is sure that “global warming” is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that are destroying “Mother Earth.” Any attempts by corporations to “sabotage international climate policy,” i.e. the Kyoto Protocol, constitutes a mortal sin against humanity that warrants universal condemnation. What’s more, in a statement that is astounding in its audaciousness, the Group confidently asserts that Kyoto “will not impose significant costs” and “will not be an economic burden.”

 

FACT: Among the many questions this provokes, one might ask: Won’t be a burden on whom, exactly? Greenpeace doesn’t elaborate, but according to a recent study by the Center for Energy and Economic Development, sponsored by the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, if the U.S. ratifies Kyoto, or passes domestic climate policies effectively implementing the treaty, the result would “disproportionately harm America’s minority communities, and place the economic advancement of millions of U.S. Blacks and Hispanics at risk.” Among the study’s key findings: Kyoto will cost 511,000 jobs held by Hispanic workers and 864,000 jobs held by Black workers; poverty rates for minority families will increase dramatically; and, because Kyoto will bring about higher energy prices, many minority businesses will be lost.

 

Hans Blix, David Hawkins and global warming

Tuesday May 20, 2003

What do Hans Blix, intrepid leader of the U.N. weapons inspectors, and David Hawkins of the Natural Resources Defense Council share in common? Both believe global warming poses a colossal threat to mankind’s existence. “I am tremendously motivated by the scale of [environmental] problems, and global warming is the biggest one of them all,” Hawkins said in today’s The Hill newspaper. In an interview with MTV earlier this year, Blix sounded a similar note, and, interestingly, was even more Cassandra-like: “I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict.”

FACT: Such global warming alarmism runs counter to the thinking of…the UN. The ministerial declaration from last year’s UN Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg found that eradicating poverty—not global warming—was the world’s most serious environmental challenge, particularly for developing countries. “We recognize,” the UN declared, “the reality that global society has the means and is endowed with the resources to address the challenges of poverty eradication and sustainable development confronting all humanity.” Conferees even gave a green light to “efficient, affordable, and cost-effective energy technologies, including fossil fuel technologies.” Seems Indira Gandhi had it right when she said, “Poverty is the worst polluter.”

 

« First < Prev Next > Last »

Related Links