"We will not pollute our water, ravage our land, darken our skies, and destroy our agrarian economies so a gluttonous national appetite for energy may continue to be fed." Sound like a MOTHER-type environmentalist? Maybe but it was Governor Thomas L. Judge of Montana who said it. Gone forever, we hope are most of the proponents of growth at any cost. Strong ecological consciousness is here to stay especially in the West. The question of energy vs. the quality of life is vitally important. And newcomer congress men and women seem to have gotten the message.
Their latest victory and ours is the Strip Mine Bill's passage through both House and Senate. The prior Congress (the 93rd) had approved a similar measure, but President Ford's veto last winter left no legislative time for efforts to counter his move.
This year, however, the Strip Mine Bill is back and with enough votes to override another Executive turndown. Unfortunately, though, the final joint version written in conference committee-emerged much weaker than either chamber's individual bill. The reason? Floor leaders (especially those in the House of Representatives) were afraid that stringent legislation wouldn't get enough support to survive the expected Presidential veto. They may have been a little too careful.
Nevertheless, the measure once passed into law will have tremendous impact after all, strip mining now accounts for half the solid fossil fuel produced in the United States. Both coal extraction and oil 'shale refining require vast amounts of water the most precious of all resources-and compete with farming for supplies of H20 vitally needed for the production of food. Furthermore, restoration of ravaged areas exists at present only in the minds of strip mining advocates. Once the land is wrecked, it becomes for the most part permanently non-productive.
The new Strip Mine Bill includes provisions for the establishment of minimum environmental and reclamation standards, and authorizes states to both set up their own enforcement programs and impose a tax of up to 35 cents per ton of fuel mined, to be used as funds for cleaning up the resulting ecological damage.
Another key part of toe legislation declares that government coal reserves-most of which lie under private acre age cannot be strip mined without permission of the property's surface land owner. Since many ranchers don't want to sacrifice their soil to energy, the stipulation may be essential for preserving the essence and integrity of life in much of this country.
Still, the bill is not strong enough for some legislators. Among them is Ken Hechler (D-W. Va.), who's considered to be Congress' most outspoken strip mining critic. He voted "no" when the measure came up for approval, and explained that he feels the proposal is too weak to be effective. We hope he's wrong.
WHERE INDUSTRY HATH A WILL, INTERIOR SECRETARY HATHAWAY
By now, Stanley Hathaway has probably been confirmed over the strenuous objections of environmentalists-as Secretary of the Interior. During his two terms as Wyoming governor, Hathaway compiled a poor record; He opposed wilderness areas in his state, tried to permit the hunting of golden eagles, proposed more coal leasing for strip mining-and the construction of a jetport in Grand Teton National Park and generally supported a policy of unrestricted growth.
The Ford Administration's attempts to make the mew, sound like an ecologist are hollow. As F.O.E.'s Tom Garret 4 testified, "Mr. Hathaway's proposals on the environment represent the standard political tactic of throwing meatless bones to the dogs to quiet them. Much of the legislation the governor takes credit for is legislation which he could not have stopped, but which he tried to emasculate." Hathaway is also opposed by 44 members of the Montana Legislature who dots'! like his pro-strip-mining stance
NUCLEAR NEWS
The Vermont legislature has overwhelmingly passed a till requiring voted approval from both its Houses before any news nuclear plant can be built in that state. F.O.E. applauds this move we hope the country's other 49 states will follow suit
The Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor program is in trouble again. The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy did approve 181.5 million dollars' funding for the Clinch River demonstration nuclear plant, even before hearings were held (Spend first, ask questions later.) But the breeder wasn't so lucky elsewhere.
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to delay the LMFBR project for four to twelve years. the EPA said that the Atomic Energy Commission overestimated future demand for electricity in other words, the super-reactors-which manufacture more difficult-to-dispose-of fuel than they use-might not be needed.
Ralph Nader recently denounced the program in Congressional hearings; He said the plants have "catastrophic dangers" and "won't solve the problems of reactor safety. If anything. the breeder promises to be more deadly." The controversial facilities, Nader continued, could experience a "core disruptive accident". (That is, they could blow rip, releasing deadly materials into the air.)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Which replaced the AEC recently banned the use of plutonium as a nuclear fuel. The atomic industry wants to use the easily produced isotope to supplement hard-to-find uranium, which now powers most nuclear generating sites. The NRC, however, wants to wait until methods are developed to guard the substance from "loss or diversion and illicit use" (by terrorists and blackmailers).
e ban on the dangerous element is also a slap at the LMFBR program since breeder reactors use and manufacture pluto am. We find it encouraging that the NRC is beginning to a close, hard look at many of the old AEC's questionable. Keep it up.
Many energy specialist by the way, are now questioning the basic economics of nuclear power. The process, they say, costs more than it gives, and is unreliable to boot. The latest evidence: Japan's atomic reactors (which, incidentally, are designed) functioned normally for a total of 17 days in 1974 and produced only 37.2 percent of the total energy they're supposed to provide. Another instance: Consumer's , in Michigan, decided in 1973 to build two nuclear plants for 349 million dollars. The reactors were to start, working in 1974. As it turns out, they'll now run 1.4 billion dollars and won't be ready until 1982, if at all. A cost of 1,000 per kilowatt of capacity ain't cheap electricity!
OFFSHORE LEASING
The Department of the Interior, rushing to develop off-rise oil before states can stop it, has proposed leasing 1.6 million acres along California's shoreline for drilling operations. However, the Golden State's leaders-including Governor Brown and his administration-have said "Not so fast!". A new coastal plan-a blockbuster land-use measure that would hamper the D.O1's move has just come before the legislature, and environmentalists feel the government agency is trying to push the leasing through before California can decide whether it wants more leaky offshore rigs, pipelines, and refineries.
Ken Cory, chairman of the State Lands Commission, 11 wonders if there's "some secret ideal between the federal government and the supranational oil corporations." Cory says: "This rush program to complete the leasing and the giveaway of outer continental shelf public lands is a direct attempt to thwart the will of Congress."
The effects of massive oil development are not even known. An Environmental Impact Statement admits "We cannot predict in truly quantitative manner what the impacts of offshore drilling will be in newly opened areas." More accidents are certain. The platform that polluted Santa Barbara beaches is still leaking and even tiny amounts of petroleum can have profound effects on marine ecology. Air pollution will increase from more refineries, and-of course-drilling rigs themselves are ugly. Ecologists think that individual states should be able to decide how (and whether) to develop offshore oil.
SUPERTANKER PORTS: GONE TODAY, HERE TOMORROW
It was a classic bit of public relations finagling: Standard Oil of California announced that it was postponing-indefinitely-plans for a supertanker port in the southern part of the state. "Too expensive," they said. But Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio) then proclaimed its intention to build a similar facility off Estero Point or in Los Angeles harbor. Sohio doesn't sell its oil in California, but does own a good deal of Alaska's North Slope petroleum, and supposedly needs the port to get the crude to market.
F.O.E. opposes the plan as being wasteful and dangerous. The oil will first go by pipeline across Alaska's delicate tundra and rivers, then by supertanker from Valdez - a tiny, stormy harbor down the coast to southern California (where the oil is not needed), and then again by conduit across the United States to the Midwest. The danger of spills is great, and the overall cost is high. It'd make much more sense to bring the crude directly to the Midwest through Canada, by pipe or train.
Residents of southern California have already marshaled opposition to supertanker ports groups such as GOO (Get Oil Out) are leading the battle. It seems that some folks still prefer clean beaches to full gas tanks.
THE LAW OF THE SEAS
The Law of the Seas Conference in Geneva 'has ended with a damp fizzle. Although experts like Jacques Cousteau have warned that the seas are being destroyed by pollution and over-fishing, most nations continue to plunder while they can.
The conference's participants couldn't agree on any substantive issues raised at the meeting. Coastal states and countries want 200mile offshore fishing limits, but land bound nations do not. Oil exporters don't want regulations on supertankers and ecological hazards, but importers do. And no one could agree on who should exploit the oceans' untapped mineral resources, or how it should be done. Everyone, it seems, wants the wealth but nobody wants the responsibility. The best the conference could do was-yep, that's right-call for another conference.
|
|
|
|