Tailings pond north of Syncrude processing facility and upgrader (Courtesy of the Pembina Institute)

The presentation was obtained and released by Postmedia News, owner of several prominent newspapers in Canada.

At Risk: Caribou, Migratory Birds, Public Health, Climate

The report, prepared by Environment Canada, appears to be a smoking gun that removes any last doubt that the Canadian government has been hiding disturbing information about the environmental and health impacts of Canadian tar sands.

It comes on the heels of a public uprising in Canada against the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline to carry tar sands oil to Canada’s coast.

Canada recently announced a one-year delay in reviewing the pipeline in light of the public outcry.

National Wildlife magazine recently published an excellent feature on the wildlife impacts of mining tar sands to produce oil (tons of sand and many barrels of clean water are needed to produce one barrel of tar sands oil).

What is particularly disturbing about this secret report is that the oil industry’s super-sized influence with Prime Minister Harper and the Albertan government has apparently seeped deeply into the workings of Environment Canada, the government agency entrusted with “protecting the environment” and “conserving the country’s natural heritage.”

In the report, Environment Canada sums up its role in the tar sands debate as follows:

“Environment Canada’s objective is to provide assurance that the oil sands are being developed in an environmentally-responsible manner through discharging of legislative duties.”

Translation: Our job is to tell everyone that things are “OK” even though they are not.

Here are some of the findings of the secret report:

“Oil sands development will put pressure on vulnerable species (e.g., woodland caribou).”

“Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada’s largest, is downstream from the oil sands, and is a major migratory bird site.”

“…emissions of air pollutants will increase with increased production. Increased emissions of SOx and NOx may put downwind lakes in Saskatchewan and Alberta at risk of acidification. Particulate matter identified as possible sources of toxins to river and landscape.”

“Between 1990 and 2008, overall oil sands GHG emissions increased by 242%….The oil sands are the fastest-growing source of GHGs [in Canada].”

“Contamination of the Athabasca River is a high-profile concern. Recent studies suggest elevated levels of pollutants near mining sites including hydrocarbons and heavy metals. Raises questions about the possible effects of health and wildlife on downstream communities.”

Read more about how tar sands impacts wildlife and the campaign to stop the Keystone XL pipeline.

The bill heading to the president will likely include the rider that rushes the decision on the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.  So what does this mean for the pipeline?  Speaker Boehner is trying to satisfy Big Oil’s lobbyists and some of the GOP’s top corporate donors by forcing the president to make a hasty decision, but it will backfire.   I am confident that President Obama will stand up to big oil and reject this dangerous and unnecessary pipeline because it is the right thing to do, and that the American public will support him.  Americans understand that it is wrong to play political games and strip families of our right to protect our land and our clean water from foreign oil companies, because you can’t drink oil.

I asked  Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska and Bill McKibben of 350.org, two of the leading fighters to stop this pipeline,  for their reaction today as well. Here is what they wrote me:

Bill McKibben:  ”The administration’s promise to deny this permit, if fulfilled, will be one of the rare pieces of good news for the climate in a year which saw America shatter all records for billion-dollar weather disasters. The president campaigned hard in 2008 on trying to slow the climate crisis, and this would be a strong sign he meant what he said.”

Jane Kleeb: “The pipeline is unnecessary and a scam that would export the oil while burdening our families with all the risks.”

 Prior Update: Tweet from White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer (@pfeiffer44):

Keystone XL Legacy: More Tar Sands Pollution (image courtesy circleofblue.org)

As someone who has testified twice this year in Congress against the pipeline, you might think I should be alarmed about Big Oil’s latest stunt to rush the president’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. I’m not. Here’s why it will backfire.

Of course oil companies want to rush approval of the project. The pipeline means more profits– a lot more.  Not just more oil, but higher prices too (a price tag of $4 billion more every year, according to Transcanada’s analysis). The president has the responsibility to determine whether the pipeline is in the “national interest.” If he says “yes,” then Canadian oil company Transcanada will start taking American families to court to take their land under eminent domain laws.  After Nebraskans rebelled against the original pipeline route, Transcanada announced they will pick a new route.  They still haven’t told us where they will build it.  The ill-conceived rider would essentially be a blank check to route the pipeline where they want without federal oversight.

House Speaker John Boehner, who seems to have trouble saying “no” to oil companies on anything, fell in love with the rider. He threatened to torpedo the payroll tax relief bill for American families unless it includes a rider to rush the pipeline decision in 60 days.

Here’s the catch:  The State Department (which is responsible for doing the required assessments of the Canadian pipeline) had already clearly said that a Congressional order to rush the pipeline is a mandate to kill the pipeline.

Here is what the State Department said:

“Should Congress impose an arbitrary deadline for the permit decision, its actions would not only compromise the process, it would prohibit the Department from acting consistently with National Environmental Policy Act requirements by not allowing sufficient time for the development of this information. In the absence of properly completing the process, the Department would be unable to make a determination to issue a permit for this project.”

This makes sense. If there is one thing we learned from the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf, it is the danger of rushing oversight and trusting oil companies to regulate themselves.  The first Keystone pipeline, which has been in operation for only a year, has already had 14 spills! How can regulators approve a pipeline when the company building it hasn’t decided where it will be routed, whose land they will grab, and which water supplies they will put in harm’s way? And how can anyone say that highly corrosive tar sands oil is safe to transport in pipelines when Congress this week passed a bill requiring the first-ever study of tar sands pipeline safety?

Rally against tar sands in Washington, DC, October 2011

More than 500,000 Americans have already commented against the Keystone XL pipeline. They understand that oil companies don’t build pipelines to change where we get our energy next year or the year after–they build oil pipelines to deepen our addiction for decades to come. We need to set our compass to steer toward cleaner, safer energy sources, not Canadian tar sands, the most toxic and most expensive form of oil on the planet.

Oil companies have plenty of money to spend on the media and politicians to keep up their drumbeat in the coming weeks. Even though we know how this story ends, we don’t intend to let oil companies be the only voices heard on the way there. People who care about the energy future we leave our children and grandchildren now need to mobilize once more.

Update 12/17:  The Obama administration has been confirming to reporters that the payroll tax rider will sink the pipeline. According to a Bloomberg report:

Republican insistence on including a demand to speed a decision on a controversial Canada-to-Texas oil pipeline means it almost certainly will not be built, a senior administration official said. [...]

Obama stands by the State Department’s warning on Monday that a Republican effort to limit the pipeline review to 60 days would violate environmental laws and force it to withhold approval, the senior official said. [...]

The Democratic president can live with the Keystone clause in the tax deal because it does not mandate that he approve the pipeline, only that he make a decision within 60 days on whether or not to allow construction.

The official said the project would now almost surely be killed because Obama has made clear he will not give the go-ahead without time for an adequate review of the health, safety and environmental risks.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)  is calling the pipeline rider a “Pyrrhic victory” for Republicans.

Support National Wildlife Federation’s work on to stop dirty fuels and the Keystone XL pipeline at our Choose Your Cause website.

US Capitol with its power plant in foreground (via Flickr's Matthew Hurst)

Take Action! Call your Senators today.

It must have sounded like a reasonable idea when polluters first pressed the newly elected Congress to come to their aid.  I suppose it sounded something like this:

Congress shouldn’t leave the implementation of the Clean Air Act to the Environmental Protection Agency.  After all, the Environmental Protection Agency’s mission of protecting public health and the environment is inconvenient because we may have to invest in cleaner technologies. By the way, don’t forget the one billion dollars — yes, billion with a “b” — we spent in the last 2 years on campaign contributions and lobbying.  Beating up on EPA will make good political theater — the kids back home will love it.

Political theater has now become a messy political spectacle in the Senate that shows why Congress should stick to legislation and why our Constitution vests in the president the responsibility to ensure that laws such as the Clean Air Act are “faithfully executed.”  Polluters are in such a rush to hamstring the Environmental Protection Agency that they couldn’t bother with hearings and a full debate.  Instead, they want to add their ideas to any legislation that already has bipartisan support and is moving — in this case, the Small Business bill currently being acted on in the Senate.

Senators today will choose whether to let the Environmental Protection Agency do its job. Alternatively, they can take up the cause of special interests by voting for the amendment to block EPA from fully implementing the Clean Air Act and addressing carbon pollution from smokestacks and tailpipes.  Did I say “the amendment?”  Oops.  That would be four different amendments to interfere with EPA in different ways. Looks like with all the different interests that have a stake in how the Clean Air Act is implemented — oil companies, coal companies, manufacturers, the Farm Bureau — it’s not so simple for Congress to take over the regulatory process itself.

Oil companies, which can currently spew unlimited amounts of carbon pollution from their refineries, went to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican from Kentucky, and asked him to advance a plan that would get straight to the heart of the matter — an amendment that would erases science and essentially declare that climate change isn’t happening.  If climate change doesn’t exist, it’s not a threat to public health or wildlife, and EPA can’t require big polluters to reduce emissions.

I know Congress generates alot of hot air, but I didn’t know they could change the laws of physics and chemistry with a good old fashioned federal proclamation:

• Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is advancing his own plan to help his home-state coal industry.  His amendment would issue a “stop work” order for EPA for two  years.  Coal companies know that once passed, “temporary” stop work orders easily become perpetual, as happened for more than a decade as auto makers successfully blocked efforts to improve fuel economy standards with the same delays added to bills year after year.
• Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) continues to work on a more nuanced amendment that also has some form of a 2-year delay as she tries to figure out how to help manufacturers.
• Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) has his own formula for steering EPA, with a particular emphasis on agricultural interests.

While these special interest measures collide on the Senate floor, constituents back home are looking at all of them with disgust.  Voters didn’t go to the polls last year worried that our air is too clean or our water too safe to drink. To the contrary, a recent poll confirms that 77% of Americans, including 61% of Republicans, believe that “Congress should let the EPA do its job.” Only 18% believe that “Congress should block the EPA from updating pollution safeguards.” There has already been a backlash against similar polluter-backed efforts in the House.

As they witness the mess polluters have created for them, perhaps Congress will now have a little more respect for EPA’s 40-year track record of carefully studying issues, weighing all the evidence, and issuing prudent regulations that have dramatically reduced air pollution while promoting economic growth.  Over the past forty years, since the Clean Air Act was enacted and subsequently amended with overwhelming bipartisan support, EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act has spurred $2 trillion in annual economic benefits, largely by stopping lung disease and other health threats before they happen.  The benefits have outweighed the costs of installing cleaner technologies by more than 30 to 1.

I am hopeful that enough Senators will look at this mess and vote to let EPA do its job that each of these measures will fail today. But polluters aren’t done, and Big Oil has alot more money to spend on campaign cash and lobbying.  So we must all keep up the fight and let Congress know we are watching.  And we need the help of President Obama, who has been disappointingly silent on these attacks.

Call your Senators today and tell them to let the Environmental Protection Agency do its job.

Pennsylvanians Protest Rep. Thompson's Anti-Environmental Votes

Oil companies and other polluters have once again convinced a new crop of political leaders to take a crowbar to the nation’s environmental laws and try to wedge open a few new loopholes.

It first happened in 1995.  Congress’ attack on the Environmental Protection Agency and their efforts to add anti-environmental riders to budget bills became a central issue as President Clinton vetoed the bills, leading to the last government shut down (and Republican losses in the 1996 elections).

Fast forward to 2011.  The new GOP majority in the House is traveling down the same path, loading up their 2011 spending bill with assaults on the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act that amount to the largest assault on America’s bi-partisan legacy of environmental and wildlife safeguards in history.

Who are the House leaders making these decisions?  Meet Ed Whitfield (R-Kentucky), the new chair of a key congressional subcommittee on energy, who explained to the National Journal why Republicans are trying to block EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act:

“This is a much broader issue than the health of the American people and lungs and emphysema; it’s how can we balance that in the global marketplace for jobs.”

Rep. Whitfield’s premise that Americans must sacrifice our children’s lungs in order to protect jobs points to the huge gulf between the extreme views of some GOP House leaders and the American public.  The polluter bailouts nestled in the 2011 budget bill have become a liability for the House GOP.  The attacks on the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are starting to expose the hidden agenda of members like Rep. Whitfield, and they are now a barometer of the extreme political agenda that is being advanced under the guise of deficit reduction.

Public Backlash to Attacks on Environment

The sneak attacks have also created a backlash among the public (not surprising, since 3-out-of-4 voters support the EPA setting tougher standards on pollutants such as mercury, smog and carbon dioxide).  After the vote, House members returned home for the recess, where they have faced tough questions from angry constituents.

Here’s a local press report of a town hall meeting held by Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH), who recently won back his seat in New Hampshire’s second district:

“About 50 people crowded into the Salem Town Hall to hear from the Republican congressman, who took questions on illegal immigration, the national debt, health care, education, and other topics. But climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases dominated most of the discussion…”

Not many of Rep. Bass’ colleagues were as willing to have public meetings during this recess, but that didn’t stop concerned constituents from turning up at their offices.  A few that are being reported by local news stations and creating buzz include constituents of Representatives Glenn Thompson and Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania and Steve Stivers in Ohio.

Congress’ attacks on the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Acts have also rallied a broad cross-section of civic leaders across the nation who are speaking out, including:

• Doctors and nurses
• Hunters and anglers
• Churches and religious leaders
• Workers and labor unions
• Business groups and small businesses
• State and local officials
• Scientists
• State Wildlife Conservation Groups and National Environmental groups

Hopeful Signs?

A piece of good news comes from the same House GOP leaders who initially opened the door to adding polluter favors to the budget bill.  A temporary 2-week extension offered Friday night is a clean bill without any of the oilmarks included one week ago.  While this is good news, it is a baby step and may be a fleeting victory.  The House GOP leaders are still threatening a showdown with the Senate and President Obama, and they have not given any sign that, as the additional 2 weeks expire, they will back away from the extreme and reckless bill they recently passed.

It’s still not clear where this showdown is headed when any short-term extension expires.  President Obama promised a veto of the House budget bill passed last week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) got it right when he said this week:

“We believe that the hundreds of riders and legislative matters [added to the House CR] are strictly the worst kind of politics. How do they expect us to agree to any of that? And we’re not going to. … The CR is to deal with funding for our government, not all these other goodies they think are cute at this time.”

House GOP leaders have proven with the 2-week extension that they are capable of leaving the polluter favors and oilmarks out of the spending bill.  They would be wise to do so.

Editorial Boards and Opinion Leaders Speak Out

The backlash against the extreme environmental attacks in the budget bill have also attracted the attention of editorial boards and opinion leaders across the nation.  Rob Perks at NRDC has been tracking these stories on his blog, which you can read here.  I have captured a sampling of media below.

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA) Editorial:  Pollution pinata: Budget cutting becomes an excuse for EPA attacks

But for a sense of spending cuts made solely for political sake, nothing quite beats the attack on the environment in this spending bill. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were assaulted repeatedly. Much of it took the form of stripping the Environmental Protection Agency of its enforcement powers to protect the health and well-being of the American people.

The range and destructiveness of these assaults were breathtaking. They include provisions to curtail the scientific study of climate change, blocking the EPA from protecting wetlands and streams from harmful dumping, stopping the EPA from dumping waste from mountain top removal in stream valleys, and, that old GOP favorite, barring the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

The National Wildlife Federation called the spending bill a “pollution pinata.” It identified 14 egregious examples of environmentally damaging amendments for which the total budget savings was zero (although many of them will end up costing the nation money by endangering public health). It also noted that an amendment that would have eliminated billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies was defeated. So much for this being all about the deficit.

New York Times: Why Wouldn’t the Tea Party Shut It Down?

Look to Washington for the bigger story. As The Los Angeles Times recently reported, Koch Industries and its employees form the largest bloc of oil and gas industry donors to members of the new House Energy and Commerce Committee, topping even Exxon Mobil. And what do they get for that largess? As a down payment, the House budget bill not only reduces financing for the Environmental Protection Agency but also prohibits its regulation of greenhouse gases.  Here again, the dollars that will be saved are minute in terms of the federal deficit, but the payoff to Koch interests from a weakened E.P.A. is priceless.

USA Today Editorial

If [entitlement] costs are contained, there will be no need to live with dirtier air or other cuts rooted more in ideology or corporate self-interest than in governance that is effective, affordable and responsibly financed.

Times-Picayune (LA), House Republicans are cutting a lot more than the deficit

Last November Americans demanded that Congress take immediate action to shrink fish and wildlife populations, speed the end of duck hunting, reduce the safety of our drinking water, destroy more wetlands, dirty the air we breathe, increase the rate of sea level rise swamping our coast- and protect profits for oil companies.

Didn’t know that?

Then you haven’t been listening to Republicans like our own Steve Scalise (R-Jefferson) and Tea Partiers who now control the House of Representatives. All those changes are included in the budget resolution they sent to the Senate last week.

Patriot-News (PA) Editorial:

“The BP oil spill, the worst in America’s offshore drilling history, is not even a year old. Only weeks ago, lawmakers demanded more accountability in drilling and oversight. Now Republicans see no issue chopping away at that oversight.”

Albany Times Union Editorial:  An Assault on the Environment

The new House Republican majority likes to say that the American people spoke last year. If the GOP’s spending bill is any indication, it seems the American people are clamoring for more mercury in their fish, oil on their coasts and pollution in their drinking water. Those would be just some of the environmental highlights of a House spending bill to keep the government running through Sept. 30. Or perhaps anti-environmental highlights would be more apt. Anti-health, too.

Detroit Free Press Editorial:  U.S. House Republicans swing a dangerous budget ax

The budget passed by U.S. House Republicans — it got zero Democratic votes — early last Saturday morning is rash and dangerous. Designed to get the country through until Oct. 1, the House resolution slashes programs in midstream and ties the hands of several departments, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency.

New York Times Editorial: The Dirty Energy Party

Yet even this retailored approach is sure to whip the Republicans into a fresh frenzy of opposition. They have already made clear their determination to cut off financing and otherwise undermine the Environmental Protection Agency, which plans to regulate carbon emissions from power plants and other industrial sources using its authority under the Clean Air Act.

But basic scientific research? Energy efficiency? Cleaner fuels? The House Republican budget resolution gives the back of its hand to even these worthy and unobjectionable strategies, which until now have enjoyed reliable bipartisan support.

Concord Monitor (NH) Editorial: A Vote for the Environment is a Vote for N.H.

Generations of 2nd District congressmen (including Bass himself, in an earlier congressional tenure) have consistently argued that representing New Hampshire means looking out for the environment. In this case, the health of Bass’s constituents could be improved by better regulation of aging power plants to the west. The health of everyone’s constituents will be improved by more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. And, of course, there is an economic component to that environmentalism too: New Hampshire’s tourism and recreation industries depend on climate protection.

Raleigh News & Observer Editorial (NC): Mercury Rising

In one of history’s sorrier twists, Republicans in the U.S. House are down on the Environmental Protection Agency, way down. This week they’re trying to gut its powers to regulate pollutants in the air, on farmland and in water. Yet the national movement to protect our environment had its roots in the heyday of Republican Theodore Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon helped create the EPA. So why all the animosity now? Overreaching regulations that stifle business, agency opponents say. However, the EPA generally proposes rules that are required by law – and common sense. The more we know about ill-health in humans and ill-effects on the natural world, the more obvious it is that industrial processes must be regulated for the common good. Some pollution is inevitable, but the government is right to put a lid on it.

Wisconsin State Journal: Lawmakers should reject cuts to EPA

To ensure that the health and environment of Wisconsin’s families are protected, Wisconsin’s members of Congress should reject the funding cuts, and instead stand up for cleaner air, cleaner water, and preserving our environment.

Providence Journal (RI) Editorial:  EPA Under Attack

Republicans in Congress, and some Democrats, are bent on blocking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from curbing greenhouse gases. For that matter, they would be happy to have the agency stand back in a number of areas, from safer toxic coal-ash disposal to improving the efficiency of industrial boilers and solid-waste incinerators. One reason they give is that regulation is bad for business. The main source they cite: senior business executives desirous of maximum short-term corporate profits, and thus maximum compensation for the execs. The other aspects of the equation — public health and welfare — are rarely mentioned. Indeed, the long-term health of the U.S. economy stands to benefit greatly from a shift to cleaner and more efficient energy.

St. Petersburg Times (FL) Editorial: Serving Ideology, Not Voters

The House plan also takes aim at specific regulations that Republicans find politically objectionable. For example, it bars the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing limits on carbon dioxide pollution. Like a tea party manifesto, the plan strips funding from federal regulatory agencies that protect workers, food safety and the environment.

Battle Creek Enquirer , Stop Attack on Clean Air, Water

What do clean water and clean air have to do with the budget? Absolutely nothing – the budget deficit is being used as cover to mount a reckless and irresponsible sneak attack on the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act that endangers the air we breathe, the water we drink and the wildlife and lands we cherish.

South County Independent (RI): Don’t Water Down Clean Air Act

Some members of Congress have launched a stealth attack on one of the most important laws protecting our health and our children’s future by adding amendments to the Continuing Resolution – a stop-gap measure to keep the government running through the end of this fiscal year – that would roll back portions of the Clean Air Act.

Miami Herald, Fouling the Clean Air Act

Largely hidden in its attack on the federal budget, the House of Representatives has approved a key Republican campaign promise to big business: Protecting it from what the new majority argues are the handcuffs of environmental safeguards. The Republicans would cuff the Environmental Protection Agency instead.

The Colorado Independent, Gardner Hammers on EPA Re Clean Air Act But Poll Says Voters in CD4 Want More Regulations

U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., helped lead last week’s GOP onslaught against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, despite polling in his congressional district showing two-thirds of his constituents feel “Congress should let the EPA do its job.”

The Tennessean: Air Standards Have Saved Lives for Decades

Having personally experienced a child struggling for breath during an asthma attack, I can assure you little else matters when children’s health is at risk. This is why I’m so offended by a number of professional politicians’ attempts to undermine life-saving protective health standards enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Concord Monitor (NH): An assault on our air, water

Passed under cover of night on Saturday, this bill endangers the health of New Hampshire’s children, elderly citizens and other vulnerable populations by blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job and cleaning up coal-fired power plants and other large sources of dangerous carbon dioxide pollution. It also cuts the EPA’s overall budget by the largest percentage in 30 years, severely threatening the agency’s ability to ensure that all New Hampshire residents have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.

AlterNet, Get Ready: The GOP Has Declared War on the Environment

Republicans are trying to take down the EPA and with it environmental regulation that seeks to protect our air, water, food and health.

Des Moines Register (IA):  Budget Deficits and the Environment

H.R. 1 cuts the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by almost a third and hamstrings the EPA’s ability to protect the environment and Americans’ health. For example, the measure prevents the EPA from protecting communities from mercury, lead, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from cement plants, leaving thousands of children exposed and at risk of asthma, slowed brain development and other neurological disorders. The EPA safeguard that the measure blocks would have reduced mercury pollution by more than 90 percent and saved 2,500 lives each year.

Chicago Tribute Local (Libertyville, IL), Dold Out of Touch on Environmental Issues in the 10th Congressional District Illinois

Salem News (OR), Editorial Backlash to Republican Budget Attack on EPA Health Protections

US Capitol with its power plant in foreground (via Flickr's Matthew Hurst)

White House Remains Silent on Clean Air, Clean Water Attacks

The new GOP majority in Congress promised to reduce the deficit, but failed to mention they would give polluters free reign to replace Pork Barrel spending with Oil Barrel favors.  In a week-long marathon of votes, the House spending bill to keep the government running in 2011 became a polluter piñata.  Oil companies and other corporate polluters looked on gleefully as their allies in Congress took beating sticks to the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.  Polluters rejoiced further when the House defeated the one oil amendment that actually would have made a dent in the deficit by removing billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies for oil companies.  In this budget charade, the target became polluter regulators, not polluter subsidies.  This extreme and reckless bill amounts to the largest assault on America’s bi-partisan legacy of environmental and wildlife safeguards in history. The bill was passed by the House on a vote of 235-189, largely along party lines.  No Democrats supported the bill and only 3 Republicans voted against it.  Click here to see how members voted.

Earmarks Give Way to Oilmarks

An oilmark is a congressional prohibition added to a spending bill that prevents government regulators and watchdogs from ensuring that corporate polluters comply with specific environmental laws. Oilmarks are measures to handcuff regulators, forcing them to look the other way as polluters endanger the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the lands and waters that nurture fish and wildlife. As with earmarks, oilmarks are usually attached to spending bills to avoid a full debate on the environmental consequences and instead protect an unpopular measure as part of a bigger bill that must be signed into law.

The House voted to add oilmark after oilmark to the spending bill, all without adding a single penny in savings to the bottom line budget.  In all, 14 of the 51 amendments voted onto the bill were oilmarks seeking to impose politics over science and common sense public health protections.

One of the oilmarks (amendment #533) was offered by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who is on the threshold of joining Big Oil’s Million Dollar Club with $993,000 in reported contributions from the oil industry over his career, according to Opensecrets.org.  His amendment would push aside federal regulators to allow Shell Oil to rush forward with ”exploratory drilling” in the Chuckchi and Beaufort Seas off of Alaska’s coast.  These seas are one of the last undamaged ocean frontiers, home to polar bears and other Arctic wildlife and marine life.

Does this sound familiar?  You may recall that “exploratory” drilling was the reassuring term used by BP for the Deepwater Horizon before it dumped millions of gallons of toxic crude into the Gulf, with devastating impacts on wildlife.  Did we learn nothing from the disaster?  According to the Commission that investigated the disaster, the spill was caused in large part “by failures of government to provide effective regulatory oversight of offshore drilling.” Having failed to implement the Commission’s recommendations, the House is rushing instead to move in the other direction and open an Alaska-sized loophole in the Clean Air Act and send a clear and intimidating signal to oil regulators that they will be punished by Congress for doing their job. His amendment passed with support of 230 Republicans and 13 Democrats (218 votes are needed to pass).  Click here to see how members voted.

Other oilmarks added to the bill with only a few minutes of debate are detailed at the end of this posting.  Koch Industries, a large oil refining company that gave more campaign cash to House members than any other oil company this past election, will be one of the largest beneficiaries of weakened pollution standards.  Not surprisingly, Americans for Prosperity, a Koch-founded advocacy group,  lobbied Congress to support many of these amendments.

Oilmarks added to the bill would:

• Allow 5,000 additional tons of hazardous air pollution and mercury emissions.
• Block new health standards to reduce soot pollution that is particularly harmful to the lungs of our children.
• Block funding for climate change science and sensible regulations to start reducing carbon dioxide pollution from oil refineries and power plants.
• Block science-based restoration of the Chesapeake Bay, Klamath Basin, San Francisco Bay Delta, and Florida waters.
• Block new rules and guidance to prevent hazardous coal ash from entering water supplies as happened in the 2008 Tennessee disaster.
• Block new guidance and rules to protect stream valleys and wetlands from dumping of waste from mountain top removal and other sources.
• Block implementation of the Equal Access to Justice Act, enacted by President Reagan.

The total budget savings for these 14 oilmarks was ZERO dollars.  Not one dime was shaved from the deficit that was ostensibly the purpose of this bill.  To the contrary, they will drive up health care costs and put people out of work.  The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful and most thoroughly studied pieces of legislation in history, preventing lung diseases such as asthma and delivering $2 trillion in health benefits while making American industry a leader in environmental technology industries that employ 1.7 million Americans.

Preserving Oil Company Subsidies

While adding all kinds of oilmarks to the spending bill, the House rejected the one amendment, offered by Rep. Markey (D-Mass.), that would have eliminated billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies.  Closing a royalty payment loophole for oil companies operating in the Gulf of Mexico could save taxpayers $53 billion in the coming years, but the amendment (#27) was defeated 251-174. 226 Republicans and 25 Democrats voted to protect these subsidies.  Click here to see how members voted.

The Crushing Weight of Polluter Money in Washington

Not long ago, our government reflected Americans’ strong environmental values. When Congress updated the Clean Air Act in 1990 to protect thousands of lives and curb acid rain, the House passed the legislation with an overwhelming vote of 401-25.  Today, we instead face bold and unprecedented assaults from Congress seeking to roll back America’s legacy of environmental safeguards. As soon as the dust settled on the 2010 elections, GOP House leaders sent a letter to oil companies and 150 other businesses and trade associations asking what regulations they wanted scaled back.  What has changed? In 1990, major polluters made $20 million in campaign contributions. Since that time, polluters have used their profits to pour more and more money into buying access and influence in Washington.  Corporate polluters have spent more than a billion dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying in the past two years alone.

White House Silent

Fortunately, the voting public still strongly supports America’s environmental laws. A  recent poll confirms that 77% of Americans, including 61% of Republicans, believe that “Congress should let the EPA do its job.”  This attack can be turned back if the public finds out what is happening.  It’s up to all of us to spread the word and make sure everyone knows what’s at stake.  But it is troubling that President Obama hasn’t  yet said anything about this assault on America’s bedrock environmental laws. Importantly, President Obama has threatened to veto the spending bill.   But the president is missing an important opportunity to educate the public about the benefits of the Clean Water Act , the Clean Air Act, and the wildlife programs that create jobs and protect our Great Outdoors throughout America. We will continue to see more of these hidden polluters attacks on other pieces of legislation until they are brought from the backrooms of Congress into the light, and nobody has a brighter flashlight than the president.

Oilmarks in the GOP House Spending Bill

[Note: The exact text of amendments can be found in one of two Congressional Record files here and here by searching on the name of the sponsor; similarly, a GOP summary of all 500+ amendments that were filed can be found here; only a portion of the amendments were debated and only 51 were approved by recorded vote.]

Putting Polluter Soot Ahead of Our Children’s Lungs

An oilmark added by the House would force EPA to ignore recent scientific studiesconfirming that specific air pollutants — coarse particles, or soot – penetrate deeply into our lungs and trigger asthma attacks in young children.  The oilmark, sponsored by Rep. Noem (R-SD), would put a halt to the scientific process established by the Clean Air Act to update the health standards for soot based on the latest science and studies.   The standards are the basis of pollution control requirements that oil refiners and other major emitters must adhere to.  Here is the text of Rep. Noem’s oilmark (Amendment #563), which passed by a vote of 255-168. Click here to see how members voted.

No funds made available by this Act may be used to modify the national primary ambient air quality standard or the national secondary ambient air quality standard applicable to coarse particulate matter under section 109 of the Clean Air Act.

Thousands of Pounds of Mercury and 5,000 Tons of Hazardous Air Pollutants – Seriously?

Another oilmark amendment added to the budget bill would prevent EPA from enforcing a rule that reduces emissions of toxins including mercury, which is an acute threat to fish, wildlife and our health.  According to the amendment (#165), sponsored by Rep. Carter (R-TX), ”None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the rule entitled ‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants [the cement production industry],’” which is the third-largest industrial source of toxic mercury emissions.  The amendment  passed 250-177.  Click here to see how members voted. The American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association and other public health groups wrote a letter to Congress opposing the amendment.  Here’s an excerpt:

As the American Academy of Pediatrics notes, “mercury in all of its forms is toxic to the fetus and children, and efforts should be made to reduce exposure to the extent possible to pregnant women and children as well as the general population.” Cement plants are the third-largest source of human-caused mercury emissions; rolling back mercury standards for such plants would be a step in exactly the wrong direction. Under the standards, which the Environmental Protection Agency issued in final form in September 2010, cement plants emissions of mercury and other pollutants would fall dramatically, reducing mercury pollution by 16,400 pounds, other hazardous air pollutants by 5,200 tons, and acid gases by 5,900 tons. In addition, EPA calculates that the standards would greatly reduce fine particulate pollution from cement plants, preventing up to 2,500 premature deaths annually and saving up to $18 billion in human health costs.

Clean Water Act Under Attack

One of the most far-reaching oilmarks in the bill was included in the underlying bill unveiled by GOP leaders last week.  A letter from 45 of National Wildlife Federation’s state affiliates opposing the spending bill explains:

One rider in the bill explicitly extends loopholes in the Clean Water Act that jeopardize drinking water for 117 million Americans and handed over 20 million acres of wetlands and prime wildlife habitat to polluters and developers. The CR bans the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from working to close these loopholes, which threaten wetlands such as those in the Prairie Pothole Region—the breeding grounds for the majority of North America’s ducks.

Additional oilmarks that have been added to the spending bill and undermine the Clean Water Act include the following:

• Endangering the Chesapeake Bay:Amendment #467, sponsored by Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA), would block efforts to clean the Chesapeake Bay just as progress is finally being made around the region.  The amendment bars funds for the promulgation, development and implementation of measures that govern the amount of allowable pollution in waters that feed the bay (TMDLs).  It passed 230-195.  Click here to see how members voted.
• Dumping Waste from Mountain Top Removal in Stream Valleys: Amendment #109, sponsored by Rep. Griffith (R-VA), would block EPA from using its funding to implement or enforce new guidance for the review of water pollution from proposed coal-mining projects, including mountain-top removal mining. It passed 235-185.  Click here to see how members voted.
• Endangering Florida Waters: Amendment #13, sponsored by Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Florida), would stop EPA from implementing and enforcing new water quality standards for Florida’s lakes and flowing waters, which were issued in November. This amendment would stop public education to help protect Florida’s waters from excess pollution from sewage, manure and fertilizer.  It passed 237-189.  Click here to see how members voted.
• Blocking Klamath Salmon Restoration:Amendment #296, sponsored by Rep. McClintock (R-CA), would prohibit use of funds to complete the Klamath Dam Removal and Sedimentation Study that is needed to, as the Sacramento Bee writes in an editorial, “reopen hundreds of miles of spawning habitat for endangered coho salmon, the largest salmon restoration project on the West Coast; assure water and reduced-rate electricity for farmers on a federal irrigation project; remove four PacifiCorp dams; and allow Indians tribes to buy back some land.” It passed narrowly by a 215-210 vote.  Click here to see how members voted.
• Endangering the San Francisco Bay Delta: A measure included in the underlying bill would overrule the biological opinions of scientists on California’s incredible San Francisco Bay Delta.  The measure would instead further subsidizes corporate special interests and jeopardizes the existence of salmon and Delta smelt and the health of the entire Bay ecosystem, which is reliant on its life-giving water supply.
• Blocking Hazardous Coal Ash Rules:Amendment #217, sponsored by Rep. McKinley (R-WV) ,would restrict EPA’s authority to implement strong, national safeguards on coal ash. Coal ash is a dangerous hazardous waste that has been insufficiently regulated, as evidenced by the 2008 disaster in Tennessee that blocked a tributary of the Tennessee river with more than a billion gallons.  Coal ash is generated by burning coal for energy, and it contains many hazardous metals and chemicals like arsenic and lead. EPA has the authority and responsibility to put in place common-sense rules that protect human health and the environment by controlling the disposal of coal ash to protect communities from dangerous pollution. The amendment passed 239 – 183, and you can click here to see how members voted.
• EPA Blocked from Protecting Wetlands and Streams from Harmful Dumping: Amendment #216 ,sponsored by Rep. McKinley (R-WV), would block EPA from protecting wetlands, streams and rivers from being destroyed by dumping fill and dredge material.  It would stop EPA from administering or enforcing section 404 (c) of the Clean Water Act, which requires EPA to deny the dumping of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States (including wetlands) whenever it determines, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, that the dumping would have an unacceptable adverse impact on fisheries, wildlife, municipal water supplies, or recreational areas. It passed 240-182.  Click here to see how members voted.

Climate Change:  “Stop Work” and Science Blindfolds

A series of oilmark amendments have been included in the bill that pull the plug on scientific exploration of climate change and prudent efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

• Blindfold on International Climate Science:  Amendment #149, sponsored by Rep. Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri), prohibits funding for the Nobel-Prize-Winning international science panel (the IPCC) that was launched by President George H.W. Bush to encourage the world’s best scientists to advance our understanding of how pollution is contributing to the planet’s increasingly chaotic climate.  It passed 244-179. Click here to see how members voted.
• “Stop Work” Order on Reducing Carbon Dioxide and other Greenhouse Gases:Amendment #466, sponsored by Rep. Poe (R-Texas), would bar EPA from beginning to regulate carbon dioxide pollution and other greenhouse gas emissions from refineries and other major sources, as currently required by the Clean Air Act and a Supreme Court order.  It would ensure that more dangerous pollution is dumped into the air and that U.S. companies fall behind in the global competition for clean energy markets. The amendment states that:  “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to implement, administer, or enforce any statutory or regulatory requirement pertaining to emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, or perfluorocarbons from stationary sources that is issued or becomes applicable or effective after January 1, 2011.”  It passed 249-177.  Click here to see how members voted.
• Blindfold on NOAA Climate Science:  Amendment #495, sponsored by Rep. Hall (R-Texas), eliminates the NOAA National Climate Service, a climate science program designed to provide scientific assistance to farmers, fishery managers, water managers and transportation managers. It passed 233-187.  Click here to see how members voted.
• Gag Order for America’s Negotiating Team: Amendment #204, sponsored by Rep. Scalise (R-Louisiana), eliminates funding for the State Department’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, the main negotiator responsible for the United States at international treaty negotiations, and a positive force for getting other nations to reduce their pollution that affects the security of the United States.  It passed 249-179. Click here to see how members voted.

Federal Agency Environmental Compliance

Amendment #195, sponsored by Rep. Lummis (R-WY), would block implementation of the Equal Access to Justice Act, which was signed into law by President Reagan.  The law, which gives people the right to recoup attorney fees if they prevail in court, has helped to ensure that federal agencies are held accountable for violations of environmental, health and safety laws.  It passed 232-197.  Click here to see how members voted.

Oversized Budget Hatchet Jeopardizes Successful Wildlife Programs

While ignoring opportunities to cut billions in oil company subsidies, the House spending bill also makes dramatic and oversized funding cuts in programs that have been incredibly successful in protecting wildlife and America’s Great Outdoors.  Read more about these cuts here.  Unlike the oilmarks listed above, the spending cuts  affect the government’s bottom line and are part of the budget debate.  However, keep in mind that over the past 30 years, America’ investment in parks, wildlife, clean water, and clean air has fallen from 1.7% of federal spending to 0.6% of federal spending. Yet a disproportionately large share of the proposed cuts come from the Department of Interior and EPA.  Although programs implemented by Department of Interior and EPA are a small sliver of federal spending, they currently deliver a big payoff in the form of 3 million jobs in communities throughout America.

The spending bill would:

• Eliminate funding for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, which is the nation’s premier program for keeping species off the endangered species list by supporting non-regulatory, state-based conservation efforts to keep common species common. This program leverages more than $100 million per year in state and private dollars, and directly supports jobs in virtually all states.
• Eliminate funding for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, a key program for conserving waterfowl and other migratory bird habitat through providing a catalyst for leveraging non-Federal funding and fostering public and private sector partnerships. Through the work of more than 4,000 partners, this program has leveraged over $2 billion in matching funds affecting 25 million acres, and fostered public and private sector cooperation for migratory bird conservation, flood control, erosion control, and water quality. Hunters depend on this program to ensure healthy populations of waterfowl, which in turn is essential for sustaining strong local economies especially in rural communities.
• Cut funding to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) by 90%. LWCF, which is funded by oil royalties and helps expand national parks, protects hunting and fishing areas, and funds local projects like city parks and playing fields.  LWCF has provided crucial funding for some of America’s most amazing places throughout the nation, from Yellowstone National Park to the Appalachian National Scenic Trail to Gettysburg National Military Park.

Urgent Action! Please Speak up for Wildlife Now!

Help stop dangerous legislation that slashes critical funding for agencies that defend our nation’s wildlife. Call your U.S. Representative and tell them to “Vote No on the Continuing Resolution.”

The Clean Air and Clean Water Acts protect the great outdoors for our children and future generations.

The nation’s budget deficit needs to be addressed with responsible and transparent solutions.  Republican leaders of the House Appropriations Committee have instead decided to exploit the budget crisis to pursue a hidden agenda long sought by some of the nation’s biggest polluters.

Buried in the Continuing Resolution (CR) spending plan released by Rep. Hal Rogers (R-Kentucky), Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, are two attacks on the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act that have nothing to do with saving money.  The budget deficit is being used as cover to mount a reckless and irresponsible attack on the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act that endangers the air we breathe, the water we drink and the wildlife and lands we cherish.

Clean Water Act Loopholes

The proposed legislation protects recent loopholes in the implementation of the Clean Water Act that jeopardize the drinking water for 117 million Americans and have opened 20 million acres of wetlands and prime wildlife habitat to polluters and developers.  The CR bans the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from working to close these loopholes, which put at risk wetlands such as those in the Prairie Pothole Region, breeding grounds for 50-75 percent of North America’s duck population.  A coalition of America’s leading sportsmen and conservation organizations representing millions of members have urged EPA to restore the Clean Water Act’s longstanding protections for the wetlands, streams, lakes and headwaters that are vital for drinking water and wildlife but have been left vulnerable to pollution and destruction.

Clean Air Act: A Blindfold and Gag Order for EPA

The CR’s Clean Air Act prohibitions would place an unprecedented blindfold and gag order on the Environmental Protection Agency.  It requires EPA to turn a blind eye to carbon dioxide pollution from smokestacks, in defiance of the Clean Air Act, a Supreme Court order and sound science.  EPA would be prohibited from assisting states in their efforts to reduce emissions.  The ban will encourage industry to install old, highly polluting technologies even when newer, cleaner alternatives exist.

EPA’s responsible enforcement and updating of the Clean Air Act are a big part of the legislation’s 40-year successful track record protecting public health and wildlife from pollution.

The Clean Air Act:

• protects our lungs from soot and smog;
• helps keep our kids from developing asthma;
• keeps toxins like mercury out of rivers and the fish we eat;
• scales back the damage from acid rain; and
• saves lives.

But contrary to what polluters would have us believe, the Clean Air Act’s work is not done.  Toxic controls have been lax for too long and are only now being updated.  7 million kids still suffer from asthma, with more kids succumbing every day.  And polluters are not held accountable for the carbon dioxide pollution dumped into our atmosphere from smokestacks.

Where Did These Attacks on the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act Come From?

In addition to the attacks on the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, the CR has a number of other provisions to reduce protections for wildlife and wild places.  But where did these attacks originate?

Voters didn’t go to the polls worried that our air is too clean or the water we drink too safe.  To the contrary, a recent poll confirms that 77% of Americans, including 61% of Republicans, believe that “Congress should let the EPA do its job.” Only 18% believe that “Congress should block the EPA from updating pollution safeguards.” Gallup had previously noted that 4 out of 5 Americans are personally worried about pollution of drinking water, rivers, lakes and reservoirs.

While Americans everywhere want our environmental laws enforced, some of the biggest polluters and their lobbyists in Washington have been pushing to roll them back.  Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to oil companies and 150 other businesses and trade associations asking what regulations they wanted scaled back.  Not surprisingly, environmental safeguards were near the top of the list.

Dramatic Budget Cuts

The CR included budget cuts that need a thoughtful debate, but the House leaders are hoping to rush their bill to a vote just days after announcing it.  The $3.6 billion in annual government subsidies to oil and gas companies that President Obama proposes eliminating are noticeably absent from the House CR.  And yet their budget knives appear to have been especially sharp in cutting down the Department of Interior and Environmental Protection Agency.

Keep in mind that over the past 30 years, America’ investment in parks, wildlife, clean water, and clean air has fallen from 1.7% of federal spending to 0.6% of federal spending. This includes the full budget for the Department of Interior and EPA.  Although programs implemented by Department of Interior and EPA are a small sliver of federal spending, they currently deliver a big payoff in the form of 3 million jobs in communities throughout America.

According to summaries posted by the House Appropriations Committee, the CR legislation would include dramatic cuts of $4.4 billion to the budgets for Interior and EPA.  That includes a $393 million cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which helps expand national parks, protects hunting and fishing areas, and funds local projects like city parks and playing fields.  LWCF has provided crucial funding for some of America’s most amazing places throughout the nation, from Yellowstone National Park to the Appalachian National Scenic Trail to Gettysburg National Military Park. The CR also includes a crippling 29% cut to the Environmental Protection Agency.

America’s Non-Partisan Environmental Stewardship at Risk

The Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act were written 40 years ago by Republicans and Democrats working together to protect public health and our environment.  These pieces of legislation have been implemented with bipartisan support for decades.  We can’t afford to be silent while polluters advance their agenda through Congress under the guise of budget cuts.  We need to speak up and demand a transparent budget debate that focuses on moving our economy forward, not rolling back America’s environmental protections.

Here is the text of the two provisions, which can be found on page 276 of the CR:

SEC. 1746. None of the funds made available to the Environmental Protection Agency by this division or any other Act may be expended for purposes of enforcing or promulgating any regulation (other than with respect to section 202 of the Clean Air Act) or order, taking action relating to, or denying approval of state implementation plans or permits because of the emissions of greenhouse gases due to concerns regarding possible climate change.

12 SEC. 1747. None of the funds made available by this division or any other Act may be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to implement, administer, or enforce a change to a rule or guidance document pertaining to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 18 seq.).

Speak up for Wildlife

Call your U.S. Representative and tell them to “Vote No on the Continuing Resolution.”

I love photographing wildlife, and sometimes I find opportunities to take pics when I’m not expecting it. I find it frustrating, even agonizing, when I see a wildlife photo opportunity and don’t have my camera.  Of course, my family feels just the opposite (Oh no, dad is grabbing his camera, grab a book…).

For once, it all came together nicely over the holidays as the family visited grandma and grandpa’s farm in Tennessee.  We were all pleasantly surprised to have a white Christmas with fresh snow falling on Christmas day.  The following day, with the kids working their way through their presents, I realized I had my camera, new snow, and nothing but time. With the backyard bird feeders doing a brisk business, I made my way outside.

Two Tufted Titmice (Photo credit: Jeremy Symons)

I first shot some film of the birds on the feeders, particularly a red-bellied woodpecker that would periodically dart in, grab a seed, and dart back to the trees. After a while standing and shooting pictures from a position near the house, I decided to try a different vantage. I grabbed a step-stool to use as a chair and camp out by a holly tree that the birds were using as a staging ground between the woods and the feeders. I wanted to get the sun out of my face and to my back, and I hoped that the snow-tinged green holly tree would provide a more natural and colorful backdrop to the birds. But I also knew that it could be a long wait before I could get the right shot. With the sun at my back and a good deal of patience, the move was rewarded as the birds resumed their busy route to and from the tree. You can see at left a picture of a pair of tufted titmice that briefly shared a branch together.

A few things were challenging about this shoot. My perch was a good distance away to avoid spooking the birds, but I could compensate for that with my versatile 18-200 mm lens. The hardest thing about photographing the birds in the holly tree was rapid focusing. The birds would rarely land for more than a few seconds. Although I had my camera bag and gear, I didn’t have a tripod, and so I used a fast shutter speed (1/400, f9) to help minimize any blur from movement of the birds or my hand.  Auto-focus was out of the question with the small birds darting between the leaves. My solution on that was to be patient and shoot a lot of film, knowing some wouldn’t be sharp because I’m not the world’s fastest focuser.

The hardest thing for me in selecting which picture to showcase from a day like this is to impartially observe the pictures as they appear on my computer screen, as opposed to what I imagined the picture would look like when I was shooting. The picture of the titmice surprised me, but what I liked first and foremost was that both birds have sunshine on them. Many pictures of birds that could have been great were only so-so because they were shaded from the sun by the holly leaves. But I also like the composition of the two birds with the snow-tinged holly leaves clustered between them.

Red-Bellied Woodpecker (Photo credit: Jeremy Symons)

Here’s what I don’t like about this picture: I had the wrong angle on this particular branch and caught the house in the background. Most of the pictures I took had a neutral sky for background and were toward the center of the tree. When I selected my seat, I didn’t anticipate shooting this particular branch. That is a mistake I should learn from. Wildlife don’t always fit the painting you have in mind.  I shot this picture in RAW, which was a first for me, and I used some processing to try and dampen the brightness of the white background.

I avoided this mistake regarding background when I took the woodpecker picture (see right) at the feeder earlier in the day. After shooting into the washed-out sky for a number of pictures, I changed my position so the distant holly tree provided a blurred green background.

It took awhile to catch the woodpecker, who would wait 5 minutes or more between visits to the feeder. I used a rapid shooting mode when he appeared. What I love about this picture are the small bits of ice clinging to the woodpecker’s beak, which brings forth the winter setting that otherwise would been lost. But I lost most of the sunlight from this angle.

I later found out that my wife grabbed a camera and snapped a picture of me (below).

The photographer gets photographed.

Any thoughts or tips you have are welcome.

Aerial shot of Alberta tar sands taken during NWF flyover (Photo Credit: Jeremy Symons/NWF)

It’s an old story: oil companies increase gas prices and their profits soar. But rarely do we get an inside view of how they manipulate markets to drive up prices, and even rarer still an opportunity to stop it from happening.

This time, Big Oil has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar as they scheme to hike America’s oil bill by $4 billion every year.

This time, we have the industry documents that prove it.

As featured in the Washington Post today, there is growing opposition to the Keystone pipeline that would carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada to the coastal refineries of Texas.

National Wildlife Federation has recently exposed industry documents that prove that the massive oil pipeline from Canada to the Texas coast is little more than a shell game designed to reduce Canadian oil supplies in America’s Midwest and increase prices by as much as 15 cents a gallon.

Brant Olson of Rainforest Action Network first uncovered the documents (check out Brant’s work shining a light on the banks financing tar sands development here).

TransCanada, the company building the pipeline, laid out the scheme in an analysis (PDF) they presented to the Canadian government designed to highlight the benefits of the pipeline to Canadian oil producers. Ever since TransCanada shifted their attention to the U.S. permitting process, TransCanada and their Washington lobbyists have buried the analysis and been singing a different tune to the Obama administration and Congress.

Here’s how the pipeline scheme would really work:

Step 1: Divert Canadian Oil from the Midwest to Texas — TransCanada is trying to overcome what they call an “oversupply” of Canadian oil to America’s Midwest, which is currently the destination of most Canadian tar sands oil. This leads to cheaper oil prices (the oil companies call it a price “discount”), and Canada’s oil producers don’t like it. They are working with Valero and other oil companies to build the Keystone XL pipeline as a bypass around the Midwest, diverting as much as 500,000 barrels of Canadian oil daily to the port refineries in Texas. Nobody can say where it will go from there. America is increasingly becoming the “middle man” in the global oil trade – we import vast amounts of crude oil, refine it, and increasingly export refined oil products like gasoline and diesel to foreign destinations including Mexico, South America, Europe, and China. 72% of these exports originate in Texas and Gulf Coast refineries, where exports have doubled in the past 5 years.

Step 2: Increase Oil Prices to the Midwest — As Canadian oil imports are shifted from the Midwest to Texas, oil supplies to Midwest refiners will decline. According to TransCanada’s analysis: “Midwest demand for Canadian heavy crude would exceed the available supply and the market price …would be approximately $6.55 per barrel above the 2008 price.” $6.55 per barrel is roughly equal to 15 cents per gallon.

The total drain on America’s economy and pocket books could total $3.9 billion annually. Here’s what TransCanada wrote to Canada’s National Energy Board:

“The resultant increase in the price of heavy crude is estimated to provide an increase in annual revenue to the Canadian producing industry in 2013 of US $2 billion to US $3.9 billion.”

The states on the shortest end of the Keystone dipstick are: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. These are the states in the “PADD II” oil district highlighted in TransCanada’s analysis. These states already pay some of the highest prices in the nation for gasoline. On any given day, people in Chicago are likely to pay 30 cents per gallon more at the pump than people in Houston.

A false pretense

So here’s the bottom line if the Keystone XL pipeline is built: Canadian oil producers get a huge profit windfall, and America gets higher gas prices as well as the pollution from refineries and any pipeline spills.

Conveniently overlooking their own analysis, TransCanada is marketing the pipeline under the pretense that it would significantly reduce America’s dependence on oil from other nations. But there is already more than enough pipeline capacity between Canada and the Midwest to handle whatever oil Canada might produce, even allowing for significant increases in oil production. The U.S. Department of Energy commented on the pipeline that:

“available pipeline capacity for the delivery of crude oil from Alberta to the U.S. exceeds available production now and will continue to do so for some years.”

Simply changing the route of oil we are already getting doesn’t reduce our oil independence, and moving oil from the Midwest to a leading export center isn’t going to keep more oil in America.

What we will get, however, is a dangerous 1,700 pipeline from an industry with a bleak safety track record. In the Great Plains, opposition to the pipeline route has been increasing. TransCanada hasn’t made many friends by intimidating landowners with letters threatening to take their land. Nebraska Republican Senator Mike Johanns and others have raised doubts about the pipeline route, questioning what happens to the vital Ogallala Aquifer and other water resources in the event of a spill such as the one that dumped 800,000 gallons last year into the Kalamazoo River system.

Photo credit: Pembina Institute

The Alberta oil industry is also receiving increased global scrutiny over the reckless environmental destruction resulting from the sands production process. Squeezing oil out of sands requires vast amounts of energy, land and clean water: it takes four tons of sand strip-mined from what once was a vibrant forest wilderness, and at least 3 barrels of clean water to make one barrel of oil. The process leaves behind toxic lakes that will kill any birds that land on them, suffering a fate as bad as any suffered by the wildlife in the Gulf after the Deepwater Horizons disaster. The scale of the devastation in Alberta defies the imagination, and you can get a birds-eye view from a recent visit I made with NWF Board Director Gloria Reuben and others by clicking here.

In addition to the impacts on the forests and waters of Canada, tar sands oil are one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet, with dramatically higher carbon dioxide emissions from tar sands production compared to conventional oil. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the pipeline project and warned that increased greenhouse gases from the tar sands oil production, compared to conventional oil sources, would be equivalent to building 7 coal-fired power plants. Last year, more than 50 members of Congress raised concerns that increasing our dependence on tar sands oil takes America in the “wrong direction” and away from a clean energy economy.

Alberta has been fighting back, going as far as running an ad in U.S. papers with the headline urging Americans to embrace the pipeline like “a cup of sugar” from your neighbor.

Of course, after picking our pockets for billions of dollars, why not share a little sugar?

The President’s decision

The final decision on this pipeline rests with President Obama. A Presidential Permit is needed for TransCanada to begin construction. About 100,000 people have already asked President Obama to deny the pipeline permit. The decision has so far been left to the State Department, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton created a stir when she indicated in October she may support the pipeline, saying:

“We’re either going to be dependent on dirty oil from the Gulf or dirty oil from Canada.”

As the stakes get higher and higher for our economy and environment, National Wildlife Federation and others are asking the White House to step in and oversee this decision. Sen. Johanns tells the Washington Post:

“When I think of the State Department I think of many things they do well. But I would tell you, siting pipelines is not anything I would think of when I think of State Department expertise.”

The president should take this opportunity to protect Americans from Big Oil’s price gauging and step up for clean energy.

Speak up now

Urge President Obama and the U.S. State Department to keep dangerous tar sands oil pipelines out of of America’s Heartland.

Learn more

Read National Wildlife Federation’s report on the Keystone XL pipeline: “Staying Hooked on a Dirty Fuel: Why Canadian Tar Sands are a Bad Bet for the United States.”

The spill response plan for the site of the Deepwater Horizon explosion certifies that “BP Exploration & Production Inc have the capability to respond to the appropriate worst-case spill scenario” – which BP claimed would be a maximum spill of 162,000 gallons per day. Now, we know that the rupture is spewing more than 200,000 gallons per day into the Gulf — exceeding the “worst-case scenario” provided to regulators, and five times larger than originally revealed.

After a similarly unrelenting spill from an oil rig near Australia last year, oil companies went before Congress and promised that this couldn’t happen here in America. In September, David Rainey of BP testified before the Senate that their offshore technology was “safe and reliable.” He pledged that “any release from our operations is unacceptable.” Eight months later, the Coast Guard has set the ocean on fire in an unsuccessful bid to stop the spread of BP’s oil in the Gulf.

For the past two years, oil companies have been pouring tens of millions of dollars into an advertising campaign touting “advanced” drilling technology. You’ve seen the ads. Their message on coastal drilling: “Increasing our energy while decreasing our impact.” These same oil companies have deployed more than 700 lobbyists in Washington to make sure politicians parrot their oil lullaby as the stall congressional action on safer energy alternatives and provide lax oversight of drilling operations offshore and onshore.

The oil companies have had almost everything on their side – money, power, influence. Everything, that is, except reality.

For the latest on the Gulf Coast Oil Spill and how you can help, visit NWF.org/OilSpill.

Photo via Flickr’s SkyTruth

Oil rig off the Louisiana coast, May 2010 (NWF staff photo)

We can’t afford to wait to invest in better ways to power our future and to protect the planet. But oil companies are fighting back with an all-out advertising campaign to stall progress and keep America’s energy policy stuck in the status quo.

Here are five things you should know about the campaign:

1. The scare campaign is bankrolled by Big Oil. The oil industry has launched a desperate media blitz attacking President Obama’s energy plan – the same oil companies that made $155 billion in profits in 2007 (far more than the President’s plan to spur clean energy investments would cost).
2. Our dependency on fossil fuels is stalling America’s economy. We’re already spending more than $400 million every day on foreign oil. If we don’t act now, the Energy Dept. says America’s energy bill will increase by $420 billion annually within the next five years. That amounts to $3,500 every year for every family in the nation.
3. Clean energy creates jobs. Clean energy solutions are economic solutions. The clean energy and energy efficiency industries in America already employ 3.7 million people, and we’ve only scratched the surface of its potential.
4. Clean energy delivers better energy choices. The more we invest in technologies that harness renewable energy and use energy more efficiently, the cheaper these technologies become. Renewable technologies are following a “learning curve” similar to computers and other modern technologies that get cheaper and more powerful as manufacturers innovate. For example, the cost of solar technologies has been reduced by 90% in the last two decades.
5. Investing in a clean energy future is the only affordable path for America. According to a detailed technology analysis by McKinsey & Company, the United States can reduce global warming pollution by 30% through investments that, in their entirety, save as much money through lower energy bills as they cost. And let’s not ignore the rising cost of inaction. Electric power companies right now are trying to raise electricity rates across the country because of the high cost of coal – for example, as much as a 50% increase over the next three years for parts of Ohio, West Virginia and the Midwest.

We need new energy policies to spur investment at the scale needed to break our dependency on fossil fuels. At the heart of any energy plan, we must hold energy companies accountable to limit and reduce their global warming pollution. Most global warming pollution comes from oil and coal. Placing enforceable limits on global warming pollution will immediately drive private investment in renewable energy technologies as well as efficient technologies that use energy smarter.