Friday, 31 Oct 2003

The Ghost of Climate Change Future

Defeat on Climate Change Bill Masks Subtle Victory, Supporters Say

As expected, a proposal to establish mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions was rejected yesterday by the U.S. Senate in a 55-43 vote. Still, supporters of the bill, which was sponsored by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), were generally pleased with the outcome: Crossing party lines, six Republicans backed the bill, as did several Democrats from major industrial and coal-producing states, who typically oppose such caps. The vote represented the first time that members of Congress have been called upon to take a position on global warming since President Bush took office -- but, apparently, it won't be the last. Sounding distinctly like California Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger, McCain said, "I want to assure my colleagues we will be back."

Good Witches of the North

Canadian High Court Upholds "Polluter Pays" Principle

While the "polluter pays" principle struggles here in the U.S., our neighbors to the north have resoundingly reaffirmed it. In a unanimous decision, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled yesterday that companies that pollute must pay for the damage they cause. The case in question concerned Imperial Oil, which, in 1998, was ordered by the Quebec Ministry of the Environment to clean up pollution that had leaked from company storage tanks to contaminate the ground beneath 20 homes. Jerry DeMarco, managing lawyer for the Sierra Legal Defense Fund, called the ruling against Imperial and in favor of the polluter-pays principle "one of the great environmental law victories in Canadian history." If the court had ruled otherwise, some 30,000 sites in Canada could have remained contaminated.

Gory Larson

An Ecologist Focuses on Forest Health for the Good of Seattle's Water

Andrew Larson is going to be a zombie for Halloween, but he won't need any makeup -- his hectic schedule is sufficient to give him that ghoulish, living-dead look. Larson works for Seattle Public Utilities in the Forest Ecology Group, which helps manage the city's watershed. On top of that, he's immersed in graduate studies in forest ecosystem analysis at the University of Washington. And, whenever he gets the chance, he ventures into the wooded watershed for fieldwork. Those forest forays are what he craves most, whether he's recording plant species in sample plots, checking up on restoration-work contractors to make sure they're thinning the right trees, or marveling at a surprise finding of enormous noble firs. Follow Larson, this week's Grist diarist, through five busy, forest-focused days -- only on the Grist Magazine website.

Green Gobblin'

California Fires Could Trigger Massive Changes in Forest Management

The devastating forest fires raging across Southern California this week could initiate a change in environmental policy as sweeping -- but probably not as desirable -- as those ushered in by the Exxon Valdez oil spill and the Three Mile Island nuclear disaster. Forest-management experts say blame for the fires is widespread, but the most recent act of neglect lies at the door of the Bush administration: While (successfully) pushing its Healthy Forests initiative as a way to prevent forest fires, the White House simultaneously denied an emergency request by Gov. Gray Davis (D) for $430 million to remove dead trees from fire-prone areas. The rejection was issued Oct. 24, six months after the request was made -- and just hours before the area burst into flames. Now, with two of the region's most popular destinations threatened by fire, public sentiment could veer sharply toward more logging and less faith in environmental groups, which sometimes oppose thinning projects.

Senate Chainsaw Massacre

Senate Passes Healthy Forests Initiative

Meanwhile, forest management in the rest of the U.S. is set to change, too, with yesterday's 80-14 Senate vote in favor of a compromise version of President Bush's Healthy Forests initiative. Although the vote was somewhat influenced by the fires in California, its effect will be felt well beyond the Golden State, on as many as 20 million acres of federal land. The bill will now go into conference with the House, which has already passed similar legislation. Among the chief differences between the two bills: The House version does not say where the logging should take place, whereas the Senate bill mandates that half of all thinning projects be conducted in the "wildland-urban interface" to reduce the risk of fires near residential areas. The Senate version also provides for more judicial discretion over proposed thinning projects. Even with these measures, though, many environmentalists feel that the bill is a gift to the logging industry and an attempt to gag public input about federal land management.