Friends Of The Earth

May/June 1976

One of the world's most effective environmental group is San Francisco-based FRIENDS OF THE EARTH. Although FOE publishes Not Man Apart -a monthly tabloid magazine packed with authenticated, hard-to-find facts that every concerned citizens needs-far too few of MOTHER's readers regularly see a copy of NMA. We are therefore quite pleased that FOE's staff has agreed to write a regular FRIENDS OF THE EARTH column for THE MOTHER EARTH NEWS (restricted).

SUPERSONIC ALBATROSS RIDES AGAIN

The United States' supersonic transport (SST) program was killed in 1971, and environmentalists everywhere lauded the event as a major victory. Concern over the Big Bird's sonic booms, potential damage to the stratosphere's ozone layer, gluttonous fuel consumption, and questionable economic impact all combined to convince Congress, in March of that year, to drop all federal funding behind the development and construction of the plane. But . . . .

Today, the SST issue has risen ghostlike to haunt Americans once again. Last fall, England and France formally requested permission to fly their own supersonic craft-the Concorde-into Kennedy and Dulles airports. And early this year, after listening to endless hours of testimony and reading reams of written material on the subject, Secretary of Transportation William Coleman announced his decision: Concorde would be allowed to operate two round trips a day out of each of the American airports, for a "trial period" of sixteen months.

Even the staunchest critics of supersonic flight were surprised by the overwhelmingly negative response to the Secretary's statement. Lawsuits were filed almost before the ink was dry on Mr. Coleman's speech. Bills to ban landings at Kennedy International Airport were submitted to both the New York and New Jersey legislatures. And demonstrators, to underscore their feelings, staged two "drive-ins" that clogged traffic around Kennedy.

Meanwhile, spokesmen for Air France and British Airways insisted that the matter was settled, and that they'd begin flights on schedule. But the plane's opponents threatened to stage a sit-in on the runways, if necessary, to discourage the landings. So airline representatives, fearing that widespread publicity from such an event would tarnish their image, backed off from their original timetable and declared that they'd abide by the courts' decisions.

As the situation stands now, it's difficult to imagine the European SST ever landing at Kennedy . . . but Dulles, which is operated by the federal government, may prove to be a different story. Nearby residents appear to be united in their opposition to the Concorde, but-unfortunately-such local citizens, even when tightly banded together, stand little chance of winning in any showdown with the bureaucrats of the U.S. government.

1976: THE YEAR FOR REFORM OF U.S. FORESTRY LAWS

As you read this, there is virtually no operable law governing forestry practices on public lands . . . but legislators are now (finally) scurrying to fill the void.

Much of the sudden interest in the issue comes as a result of a lawsuit filed last year which successfully challenged clear-cutting in national forests as illegal under the Forest Service Organic Act of 1897. The law states that the Service may sell for cutting "old, dead, or mature" trees. Clear-cutting-which involves leveling every tree of every size in an area (from seedlings on up)-obviously isn't what the Organic Act's authors had in mind.

You can be sure that several bills (each offering a different "solution" to the problem) will be proposed in Congress before the sawdust settles. Nevertheless, conservation groups are already lining up behind just one: Senate bill 2926, which has been introduced by Senator Jennings Randolph (D-W. Va.).

The measure-which could go a long way toward reversing the current trend of converting our national forests into commercial tree farms-would [1] limit clear-cut areas to 25 acres (past operations in some parts of the Pacific Northwest have laid waste to hundreds of acres at a time), [2] ban the use of DDT and other chlorinated-hydrocarbon pesticides in national forests, [3] order the Secretary of Agriculture to write specific guidelines (such as "stay away from stream banks", "avoid erosion-prone areas", etc.) under which cutting would be allowed, [4] discourage "type conversion" (the practice of replacing natural species with "introduced" species), and [5] encourage "all-age" over "even-age" management (which means the USFS would be required to favor development of forests containing mixed stands of young, old, and "in between" trees, rather than planting-and harvesting-entire tracts of same-age timber all at once).

The legislative battle is just beginning, and we don't even know yet which bill the Administration will support (although we suspect that it will be a much milder one than the Randolph proposal). We'll do our best to keep you up-to-date, though . . . just stay tuned.

UNEP THREATENED BY REDUCTION OF U.S. SUPPORT

One of the good things Richard Nixon did as President (there were a few) was to commit the U.S. to providing substantial support for the United Nations Environment Programme. But now Dr. Kissinger's State Department-on the verge of backing down on that promise-is thus jeopardizing UNEP's ability to do its genuinely crucial job of fostering environmental cooperation between nations.

It's much too early to judge whether the young organization will be able to tackle the assigned task successfully anyway, but one thing is certain: Everyone will suffer if this country cuts UNEP off at the pocketbook before the group so much as has a chance to begin work.

DOW IN THE DELTA

Dow Chemical (the company that brought you napalm) has a new idea: It wants to build a gigantic chemical plant on the headwaters of San Francisco Bay!

Dow apparently thinks it would be economically inefficient to cart new oil from the Alaska Pipeline all the way down to the company's processing plants in the South, because the naphtha and other industrial chemicals produced there would then have to be shipped back across the country to California (where the market for such products is strongest). So . . . the company has set its sights for plant construction on a relatively unspoiled agricultural area in the Sacramento River Delta.

Needless to say, local residents and Bay Area environmental groups are plenty unhappy over the idea. They've gone to court to stop the project, and Friends of the Earth is leading their side of the fray. If you'd like to help and have some spare change, we'd be grateful for any contributions (they're tax deductible) that would help us pay legal expenses. Just send your donation-clearly marked "for the Dow Fund"-to Friends of the Earth Foundation, 529 Commercial, San Francisco, Calif. 94111.

THREE GENERAL ELECTRIC ENGINEERS JOIN NUCLEAR OPPOSITION

Three top-level engineers from the nuclear division of General Electric Corporation recently resigned, calling fission power "a technological monster that threatens all future generations" and pledging to work for passage of California's nuclear initiative (which, as we discussed in this column in MOTHER NO. 33, would require utility companies to prove -to the satisfaction of the state legislature-nuclear energy's safety, reliability, and economic feasibility).

The resignations shook the atomic industry to its foundations. The engineers-Dale Bridenbaugh, Richard Hubbard, and Gregory Minor (highly regarded employees who had worked for GE for 22, 16, and 16 years respectively)-were immediately whisked to Washington to share their knowledge and concerns with Congress' Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. And several state legislatures invited the trio to come testify before a number of other boards and committees.

The "GE Three" related a number of reasons for their decisions to quit. Among them were last year's fire at the Browns Ferry reactor in Alabama (which came within a whisker of causing a catastrophic accident), and the all-too-possible application of "peacetime" nuclear technology to military purposes (one instance cited was the detonation in India a few months back of an atomic bomb made with materials that came from a nuclear plant supposedly designed to generate electricity).

Other professionals have left the industry in the past, of course, but most of those individuals were scientists (which, to many people, brands them as "eccentrics" who can't be fully believed). When nuclear engineers say fission energy is unsafe, however, we suspect (and sincerely hope) that a lot of folks who previously shut their ears to dissent will begin to listen at last.

COALITION PUSHES SOIL REFORM PROGRAM

We've seen a lot of statistics in our day, but this one tops 'em all: Before Europeans colonized Noah America, this continent's topsoil averaged three feet in depth. Today's average is six inches . . . and the figure continues to decline every year.

Armed with those facts and hundreds more, a group of environmentalists and organic farmers has drafted a National Soil Recovery Program and submitted it to both the Republican and Democratic parties for possible inclusion in their respective election-year platforms. The Program's major thrust is simple and straightforward: Commit the United States to the goal of returning agricultural wastes to the land. The practice would begin a long-overdue replenishment of the soil . . . and, at the same time, reduce pollution problems by making productive use of materials that are now dumped willy-nilly into streams and oceans, where they cause serious ecological damage.

CONGRESS CONSIDERS TOXIC SUBSTANCES BILL

Every year, thousands of new chemicals are developed and introduced into the marketplace . . . and from there, of course, they eventually make their ways into our environment (that means water, soil, air, vegetation, fish, wildlife, and you and me, folks). And every once in a while, one or more of those new substances turns out to be a real lulu that causes cancer or other serious diseases.

Critics have long held that control of such materials is inadequate, and Congress is now considering proposals aimed at correcting the situation. Senate bill 776, the Toxic Substances Control Act, would give the Environmental Protection Agency regulatory power over all chemicals used in industrial and consumer products (the only exceptions would be food additives and pesticides, which are already screened under other laws).

The legislation would grant the EPA the right to require testing of all substances (both old and new) at the expense of the manufacturers, and would also dictate that industries report to EPA the amounts and types of chemicals they are producing. In addition, the Agency would be empowered to place an outright ban on any material it deemed harmful.

The House's Toxic Substances Control Act (H.R. 10318) is considerably weaker than its Senate counterpart, but Representatives Bob Eckhard (D-Tex.) and William Brodhead (D-Mich.) are spearheading efforts to strengthen the bill in committee.

There's considerable corporate resistance to both measures, of course, and two major opponents are the Manufacturers' Chemical Association and our old familiar foe, Dow Chemical Company. Letters to your Congressmen, urging support of a strong and enforceable toxic substances control law, would surely help to offset the industry's powerful lobbying efforts.