Category Archives: News

Rep. Ehlers and the Environment

photo of vern ehlers

Grand Rapids area Representative Vernon Ehlers has a reputation in West Michigan and beyond for being “friendly” to the environment and even being an “environmentalist.” This is often asserted as fact with little explanation, leaving Ehlers’ constituents with no real means of evaluating the claim. We decided that it would be appropriate to look into the claims and evaluate how Ehlers has voted and why he votes as he does.

We found that throughout his career in the federal and state government, Ehlers has generally supported “pro-environment” legislation. Moreover, Ehlers identifies some environmental causes among his “Key Issues” on his website. However, while Ehlers record is better than that of many of his Republican Party colleagues, there is area for improvement. Ehlers has received mixed rankings from environmental groups for his voting record and has consistently supported trade agreements with limited environmental protections.

Christianity, Republicans, and the Environment

Representative Ehlers advocates that Christians have a responsibility to the environment. In the late 1970s, Vern Ehlers–then a Professor of Physics at Grand Rapids’ Calvin College–participated in a research project focusing on “Christian Stewardship and the Natural Resources” undertaken by the Calvin Center for Christian Scholarship. The research was conducted with a number of Christian scholars and was ultimately published in 1980 in a book titled Earthkeeping that outlines the obligation of Christians to “care for the creation.” The book was updated in the 1990s and published as Earthkeeping in the Nineties: Stewardship of Creation with Ehlers working on the revision while campaigning for the Michigan legislature.

Ehlers also contributed to a 1998 book titled Caring for Creation: Responsible Stewardship of God’s Handiwork in which he authored an essay titled “Christians, Politics, and the Environment.” One can read the brief essay as a summary of Ehlers’ view on the relationship between Christianity and the environment. Ehlers asserts, “we have a major responsibility not only to use the resources of the earth but also to maintain and preserve them as we till and keep the Lord’s garden.” In the essay, Ehlers uses phrases like “our degradation of the environment” and “our ecological crisis” to acknowledge the seriousness of the environmental crisis and to place blame for it on humans–and Christians who have failed to be good stewards.

Ehlers addresses problems in some religious responses to the environmental crisis. He criticizes the idea of a “number one” religion that teaches people to look out only for themselves, saying that this attitude is thankfully passing. He critiques the idea of “scientism,” which is often articulated by people who believe that no matter how humans treat the Earth science will have an answer. Ehlers also rejects the idea of “environmental pantheism” that “sees god in everything, and as a result it sees God in nothing.” Ehlers cites the Gaia hypothesis that believes that regards Earth itself as a god. Ehlers argues that proponents of this vision believe only in a philosophy of no harm towards the Earth and asserts, “we have no further responsibility in terms of dominion or using the earth’s resources to meet the needs of the people on this earth.” Moving beyond problematic religious attitudes, Ehlers also asserts that many people negate their Christian responsibility by failing to hold a long-term view (Ehlers argues that “we have as great a responsibility to future generations as we do to the current generations”) and believing that there is an unlimited supply of natural resources.

Ehlers argues that not only do Christians have a responsibility to see dominion as service, but that this service can be manifested in political activity. Ehlers outlines how he believes that this political activity can be successful, articulating components that are required in “any good political action plan”–whether environmental or not. Ehlers begins by stating that people must “Be Well Educated,” particularly when it comes to being able to articulate and counter-argue against opposing view points. People must also “Understand the Complexity of the Issue and the Legislator’s Task,” becoming aware of the legislative process. Activists must also “Work with Others” if they wish to be something other than “one citizen coming in to complain about an issue,” with Ehlers placing emphasis on building alliances with non-traditional allies. One must also “Be Politically Active” with Ehlers arguing that people should not only vote in elections but also be active in volunteering for and contributing financially to political campaigns. A strategy must also “Be Effective” with Ehlers specifically citing the actions of the environmental group Greenpeace as being “outrageous” and capturing the attention of the press, but with their effectiveness being “among the lowest of the various environmental groups.” Finally, Ehlers tells citizen activists to “Be Sympathetic” and understand the difficulties–from public scrutiny to eighty-hour workweeks–faced by legislators.

In addition to advocating for Christian responsibility towards the environment, Ehlers has also rejected the notion that Republicans are “anti-environment.” In the Spring 2005 issue of Ej Magazine, Ehlers was one of the Republicans cited in an article titled “Conservatives for Conservation: Environment-minded Republicans kick start Roosevelt’s forgotten legacy.” In the article, Ehlers is quoted saying that “I think it’s a false juxtaposition to say that Democrats are environmentally-friendly and Republicans are not” before going on to state “I’m from the tradition of (Theodore) Roosevelt, but I take it a step further in not just dealing with conservation, but with pollution, invasive species and energy, and I do it out of my concern for the environment and my religious commitment to protect it.” In the past, Ehlers has received awards from Republicans for Environmental Protection on whose honorary board he serves. Republicans for Environmental Protection exists to “to resurrect the GOP’s great conservation tradition and to restore natural resource conservation and sound environmental protection as fundamental elements of the Republican Party’s vision for America.” It acts on this mission by endorsing Republican candidates, rating candidates, issue advocacy, and supporting candidates.

Endorsements and Voting Record

Representative Ehlers has a long history of receiving praise from environmental groups in Michigan and beyond. In the last election, Ehlers was endorsed by the League of Conservation Voters. This praise has occasionally translated into financial support for his campaign, such as a 1995 contribution by the League of Conservation Voters PAC. In the past, Ehlers has received several awards from environmental groups, including an “Outstanding Elected Public Official” award from the West Michigan Environmental Action Council in 1986, a “Legislative Conservationist of the Year” award from Michigan United Conservation Clubs in 1988, a “Michigan Environmental Legislator of the Year” award from Michigan Environmental Defense in 1990, a “Congressional Leadership Award” from the National Council on Science and the Environment in 2003, and the 2006 “Helen & William Milliken Distinguished Service Award” from the Michigan Environmental Council.

Moving into his voting record, Ehlers has a consistent record of supporting pro-environment legislation. Various ratings by groups such as Environment Michigan (69%) and Republicans for Environmental Protection (71%) have given Ehlers a moderate rating on the environment. An evaluation by Project Vote Smart found that Ehlers’ voting record is consistent with addition environmental groups, including the League of Conservation Voters (75%) and the American Wilderness Association (66%). In 2006, Ehlers voted in favor of many of the “Key Votes” on the environment identified by the League of Conservation Voters. In his most recent term, Ehlers has been given a 69% rating for his votes in support of the environment. In the past, Ehlers has voted to begin implementing the Kyoto Protocol, recognizing the importance that he has given to global warming (it is worth noting that in a 2006 candidate debate Ehlers said global warming might “help” some areas). Summaries of Ehlers’ voting record on the environment in the 109th session (2) and 110th can be found online.

Some key votes on the environment by Ehlers over the past year (as identified by the League of Conservation Voters) are representative of how he tends to vote on environmental issues:

08/04/07 – Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 – YES – An energy tax bill including provisions aimed at reducing oil and gas tax subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency, and hybrid vehicles.

08/04/07 – New Direction for Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act – YES – The House energy bill required utilities to produce 15% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2015 along with incentives for energy efficiency. Environmental Defense criticized the bill saying it will “cut 0% below current levels.” On this vote, Ehlers rejected an amendment designed to facilitate liquid coal and oil drilling. He supported an amendment that requires utilities to generate 15% of their electricity from renewable sources.

06/27/07 – Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations, FY 2008 – NO – Ehlers voted against this bill appropriating money $27.6 billion for the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and related agencies. Ehlers supported amendments to the bill designed to prohibit pursuing oil shale reserves on public land, prohibit funding of roads in the Tongass National Forest, prohibited the EPA from implementing rules designed to weaken the Clean Air Act, prevented the Interior Department from issuing new leases to offshore natural gas development, and requiring a national intelligence estimate on global warming to be submitted to Congress.

Ehlers has also used his position in Congress to argue for the environment in a capacity beyond voting for legislation. He serves on several committees that address environmental issues, including the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, the House Committee on Science and Technology, and the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Ehlers has also called publicly for dramatic increases in fuel efficiency and has called for an increase in sustainable energy research and production. Ehlers has also been in the media recently opposing plans to divert water from Michigan. Ehlers has also worked to create further collaboration on protecting the Great Lakes and has introduced legislation on the issue.

Contradictions

To be sure, Ehlers does have a fairly impressive record on the environment–especially when compared to many of his Republican colleagues. However, there are two key areas–trade and war–on which Ehlers’ actions undercut his pro-environment reputation.

On trade, Ehlers has supported most major neo-liberal trade agreements. These votes include support the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and the Peru Free Trade Agreement (Peru FTA) that had environmental agreements based on the model that exists within the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). These provisions have been criticized extensively by environmentalists, especially for provisions that allow environmental regulations to be challenged in front of secret tribunals as “barriers to trade.” Ehlers also supported GATT, an agreement that led to the formation of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO has allowed for a similar weakening of some U.S. environmental laws.

Ehlers has been a consistent supporter of the Iraq War since the lead-up to the war in 2002. Opponents of the war raised concerns about the environmental impact of the war before the invasion, and unfortunately, much of what they warned about came true. Environmental degradation and the destruction of public health systems exacerbated civilian suffering and damage to Iraq’s environment will continue to affect the country. Even before the most recent invasion, the environmental legacy of the 1991 Gulf War had drawn attention. During that war, Iraq set fire to oil wells and released water into the ocean and desert animal and plant life was damaged due to the movement of troops and heavy equipment. There are also persistent concerns about the impact of depleted uranium (DU) weapons and the low-level radioactive dust present in the desert. During the 1991 war, 640,000 pounds of depleted uranium weapons were used and the weapons were extensively used in 2003. DU is a waste product of the process used to enrich uranium ore and has been used in weapons because it is dense and offers armor piercing capabilities.

Ehlers has also occasionally voted contrary to the environmental movement. An example would be his support of the Healthy Forests Act, which was designed by the Bush administration to “thin” forests in order to reduce the chance of forest fires. It was criticized by a number of environmental groups including the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society saying that it had more to do with opening federally manage forests to logging than with preventing forest fires.

Ehlers has also supported nuclear energy.

Solidarity Protest with Farm Workers Planned at Burger King

photo from a ciw protest at burger king

Tomorrow, a protest is planned outside of a Burger King restaurant in downtown Grand Rapids in solidarity with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) protest at Burger King’s corporate headquarters. The CIW’s efforts targeting Burger King and the solidarity protest in Grand Rapids are part of an ongoing effort by the CIW to improve conditions for farm workers picking tomatoes in Florida. Previously the CIW won concessions from Taco Bell and McDonalds including agreements to pay more for tomatoes. In advance of the protest, Burger King has gained some attention in the media–including in the Grand Rapids Press–for its efforts to undercut the agreements. This strategy reportedly includes a public relations effort designed to convince the public that farm workers are well paid along with an effort to pressure growers not to cooperate with McDonald’s and Taco Bell.

The statement announcing the protest in Grand Rapids states:

“The Coalition of Immokolee Workers is staging a protest at Burger King’s headquarters in Miami, Florida on November 30. Here in Grand Rapids we are committed to supporting their fight for a living wage and will be holding a solidarity protest at the downtown Grand Rapids Burger King ( 410 Pearl St NW, Grand Rapids, MI). It will begin at 4:00 sharp and last for about two hours. Please bring signs, bullhorns, and get ready to make some noise for justice! Here are some:

* Tomato pickers make, on average, $10,000 a year

* Pickers are paid virtually the same per-bucket piece rate (about 45 cents per 32 lb bucket) today as they were in 1980. At this rate, workers have to pick 25 TONS of tomatoes just to earn minimum wage in a typical 10-hr day.

* Farmworkers in Florida have no right to overtime pay and no right to organize or bargain collectively. In the most extreme cases, farmworkers face conditions of modern-day slavery.

BUT, remember that people like us can and have made a difference. Both Taco Bell and McDonalds have agreed to the CIW’s requests after pressure from their customers. Let’s tell Burger King how much justice means so us!”

In the Grand Rapids area, there is a history of organizing in solidarity with the CIW. At Grand Valley State University (GVSU) during the campaign against Taco Bell, the campus’ chapter of Students Against Sweatshops was active from 2002 through the end in 2005.

A video providing a short overview of the campaign nationally and its future was recently produced by the CIW:

Film and Panel Discussion address Native American Genocide

The Grand Valley State University (GVSU) School of Social Work and the Native American Student Association hosted a screening of the newly released documentary, The Canary Effect last night in Grand Rapids. This documentary, produced by Bastard Fairy films, is a powerful critique of the genocidal policies that Euro-Americans have committed against Native North Americans. The documentary deals with the various the various forms of genocide as have been defined by the 1948 Genocide Convention, policies like outright extermination policies, forced removal from Native land, government boarding schools, and the ongoing consequences of these policies – alcoholism, poverty, and suicide. The film features several scholars, such as Charles Abourezk, Troy Johnson, and Ward Churchill, the last of whom was mentioned by one of the panelists as being a controversial figure even in the Native community.

Following the documentary, there was a panel of several area Native Americans, including Dr. Simone Jonaitis with GVSU, Shannon Martin, Lee Sprague, Roger Williams and Ben Williams. Levi Rickert moderated the panel and posed several questions. The first question asked the panelist for general reactions to the film. Several of the panelists said it was very painful to watch, but that it provided important information on the history of what has been done to Native people. Lee Sprague said that it speaks to the fact that we are still an occupied people. “I always tell people that I reside from the territories currently occupied by the state of Michigan.” Shannon Martin said she knew “what was coming next in terms of the conquest, forced relocation, to boarding schools to substance abuse, or what we call weapons of mass destruction.” She also said, “It is important that these truths are taught and that we unlearned what we have been taught.” Dr. Jonaitis said, “for me what was so painful was to be able to put names and faces of people that I know that are in my family that these policies have affected.” All of the panelists agreed that showing this kind of film is necessary for all people if any real healing is to take place.

The next question asked was “are we victims?” Ben Williams said, “we are not playing victims, we are suffering from the post traumatic effects of the history of what has been done to us. Every day we are being exposed to what the US has done to us.” Shannon Martin said, “what we are doing is truth telling to promote what really happened to us. In many ways looking at this history is another way of acknowledging what happened to our ancestors. I have family who were subjected to the Mt. Pleasant boarding school. For my grandmother to not be able to share her language with her daughter…. we are not victims, we are survivors.” Lee Sprague says that when he was younger he had a great deal of anger directed at white people. “I had to make a choice of what to do with my anger. I don’t know that we are the biggest victims, we have to get there together. We all have a responsibility of being human.”

Levi Rickert then asked, “What are the strengths of Native communities?” Shannon Martin responded first by saying, “it’s our resiliency and adaptability. Our people adapted when they were forcibly removed. We used whatever we can to adapt and that is one of our strengths. We use the materials around us to survive. Also, our humor is our strength. Our humor is not well known since there is this stereotype of natives being a stoic people.” Ben Williams said, “despite hundreds of years in attempting to assimilate us, we still have our teachings, our ceremonies and that many of us still practice the belief in the seventh generation.” Roger Williams added that “another strength is the land, what we call mother…we actually look upon you all as renters.”

The fourth question posed to the panel was “What does the future hold for our people?” Lee Sprague responded that it is “something we need to figure out together. I think we are seeing the beginning. Our people are starting to come back home. How are we going receive them? These are generational stories that are playing out and we need to continue that.” Ben Williams thinks, “it depends on what new fights are ahead of us. You look at the Grand Rapids Public School closing of our charter school or the state taking away funding. These are the fights that will probably determine our future.” Shannon Martin felt that “there needs to be quite a bit of healing in our own communities first. Until we do that our people are going to be slaves to neo-colonial thought and systems that enslave us. We need to talk about our clan practices. We don’t need to promote a nuclear family model. My family goes all the way to the tip of South America. Our language will play a big role in this, so we need to save our languages.” Dr. Jonaitis emphasized the importance of language as well, “it will help us to understand ourselves better. This land is also important and particularly in Michigan the preservation of water is critical.” Roger Williams stated, “when White people realize that the government policies are destroying the earth that will be a turning point. Our prophecy says that White people will look to us for teachings on how to live with the earth.” Lee Sprague also mentioned the importance of water for the future. “It is so screwed up when you have 20% of the world’s fresh water and our economy is bankrupt, as is our culture. We have holidays devoted to consumerism. It is all a symptom of the sickness of our society.”

The last question from the moderator asked, “What can non-Indians do to support the Indian community?” Roger Williams emphasized “something as simple as getting our curriculum to tell the truth. Look at what is still being taught about our history in schools and get that changed.” Dr. Jonaitis continued on that theme by saying “we all have been educated in a euro-centric way. How do we want our children to see the world? We have to tell our stories through a variety of lenses. We are all responsible to listen to each other and our stories.” Shannon Martin felt that “we need to find alliances. We need to have Native people in different capacities, as teachers, academics, writers, etc. We need Native people in all these fields. Ben Williams said, “re-educate yourselves. Make sure your kids are not being taught these same lies. We need to work against celebrating things like Columbus Day. I hope to have a rally next year against Columbus Day. We need to take on other issues like the use of Native mascots.” Lee Sprague concluded by making the observation, “Native people are not in the science fiction literature, meaning we are not part of the future of this country. So, we need to make sure that we are part of the future of this country in whatever way we can.”

Report Ranks State Government’s on Online Disclosure

A new report by Good Jobs First–a “policy resource center” promoting government and corporate accountability–has evaluated the quantity and quality of state government’s online disclosure of economic development subsidies, procurement contracts, and lobbying. The report–titled “The State of State Disclosure“–concludes that while state governments are improving transparency via the Internet, they are still not taking advantage of the full capacity of the Internet. Specifically, reporting for lobbying and procurement contracts is typically above disclosure of corporate tax breaks and other economic developments.

This is certainly true here in Michigan according to the report’s evaluation of Michigan’s reporting. Michigan’s lobbying disclosure is given an 89% rating (out of a maximum of 100%), the highest ranking received. The report states that Michigan has “a comprehensive and easy-to-use database” with the only weakness being its inability to search by year. In the area of contracting, Michigan was ranked 67% for its contracting disclosure through the Michigan Department of Management and Budget. The disclosure received good ratings for providing exact dollar amounts, being prominently linked, and disclosing all sectors. The state lost points for only allowing users to search by name and not making copies of the full contract available. Michigan received its worst ranking for disclosing subsidies, receiving a 0% rating because it “does not systematically disclose company-specific subsidy information to the public.”

Obama and Edwards Only Candidates to Answer Questionnaire on Government Reform

Yesterday, the Midwest Democracy Network–a nonpartisan alliance of 20 civic and public interest groups in the Midwest–released former U.S. Senator John Edwards’ and U.S. Senator Barrack Obama’s responses to a questionnaire on federal political and government reform issues. The questionnaire was sent to all Democratic and Republican Party presidential candidates, but the two Democrats were the only ones that responded. Regarding the limited participation in their questionnaire, the Midwest Democracy Network issued a statement saying that:

“Unfortunately, the vast majority of the presidential candidates chose not to address voters’ concerns about the health and direction of American democracy. Their silence is disappointing, and, of course, the American people have every reason to feel let down and badly treated.”

In their responses, Edwards and Obama took a number of positions calling for a variety of electoral reforms. Both candidates said that they would strengthen the public financing system for presidential elections and both said that they would be willing to accept public funds for their campaign if their Republican challenger did. They also both support voluntary financing of Congressional races and electronic filing for campaign finance data in Senate races. In addition, the candidates support stronger limits to prevent the so-called “Revolving Door” where administration officials move into lobbying jobs after leaving government. They also both support a variety of reforms designed to make voting easier, more effective, and less corruptible.

Michigan members of the Midwest Democracy Network include Common Cause Michigan, the League of Women Voters, and the Michigan Campaign Finance Network.

Rise in Hate Crimes against Latinos Coincides with Rise in Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric

When the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) released its 2006 hate crime statistics last week, there was a trend that did not receive much attention in the media–an increase in hate crimes directed at Latinos. While reminding readers that hate crimes statistics are highly unreliable, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has pointed out that hate crimes against Latinos have grown by 35% from 2003 to 2006. In California, where there is the largest Latino population in the United States, the crimes have doubled.

The SPLC links this increase in anti-immigrant rhetoric in recent years, much of which has sought to dehumanize Latinos as “invaders,” “criminals,” or “cockroaches.” According to the Center, “the perpetrators range from racist skinheads to rogue Border Patrol agents to otherwise everyday citizens.”

Noteworthy Articles

The following articles of interest were published elsewhere on the web today:

Previously archived links are available on the news links page or on Media Mouse’s del.icio.us page. To recommend links, tag them with “mediamouserecommended” on del.icio.us or contact us via email.

FCC Trying to Loosen Media Ownership Regulations

stop big media graphic

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is attempting to loosen media ownership rules by offering a proposal to weaken the FCC’s ban on cross-ownership. Under rule changes being proposed by the FCC, media companies in the nation’s top 20 markets would be allowed to own a newspaper and television or radio station, something that is currently not allowed. The proposal is opposed by two FCC commissioners but is favored by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin and has been endorsed by billionaires with financial interests in the media industry including Rupert Murdoch and Samuel Zell.

Martin is attempting to alter a 1975 ruling by the FCC that prohibits a company from owning a newspaper and television station in the same market. In 2003 then chairman Michael Powell proposed a similar rule change, although they were defeated in Court and by Congress. The public watchdog Common Cause has said that Martin’s change are “eerily similar” to the proposed 2003 changes despite widespread public–and ultimately legal–opposition. Martin’s changes would allow a media company to own both a newspaper and either a radio or television station in the country’s twenty largest markets, which account for more than 43% of U.S. households.

Martin has rushed a vote on the issue–scheduling a vote on December 18–despite the fact that the FCC has not reviewed recommendations from 44 outside organizations. The FCC has also not finished a study on how the rule change would affect local media ownership. The December 18 hearing allowed only 19 days for public comment with a public comment period that ends on December 11. Free Press’s Stopbigmedia.com coalition is calling on people to write letters opposing the FCC’s proposed change and calling for greater Congressional oversight of the FCC.

According to the media activist group Free Press, Martin’s “relatively minor” rule changes are anything but minor. In a report titled “Devil in the Details: 10 Facts Kevin Martin Doesn’t Want You to Know About his New Media Ownership Rules” the organization outlines ten key areas left out of Martin’s push for the rule change. These include:

“FACT #1: Martin’s ‘modest’ proposal is corporate welfare for Big Media. Martin’s plan would unleash a buying spree in the top 20 markets, making it easier for companies like Belo, News Corp. and Tribune Co. to push out independent, local owners.

FACT #2: Loopholes open the door to cross-ownership in any market. Under Martin’s loose standards, cross-ownership waivers could be approved in hundreds of smaller cities and towns.

FACT #3: Loopholes allow newspapers to own TV stations of any size. The same technicalities could permit top-rated stations in any market to combine with major newspapers.

FACT #4: FCC history shows weak standards won’t protect the public. The current rules forbid cross-ownership, but the FCC hasn’t denied any temporary waiver request in years.

FACT #5: Cross-ownership doesn’t create more local news. The latest studies — using the FCC’s own data — show that markets with cross-ownership produce less total local news, as one dominant company crowds out the competition.

FACT #6: Cross-ownership won’t solve newspapers’ financial woes. Claims that the newspaper industry is about to “wither and die” are greatly exaggerated, and no evidence shows that cross-ownership would make things better.

FACT # 7: The Internet is an opportunity, not a death sentence. Mergers and consolidation are not the answer to the financial problems of the traditional media.

FACT #8: Martin’s plan would harm minority media owners. Nearly half of the nation’s minority-owned TV stations are lower-rated outlets in the top 20 markets, making them a target for Big Media takeovers.

FACT # 9: A broken and corrupt process creates bad policies. The FCC’s lack of transparency, flawed research and secret timetable have tossed aside basic fairness and accountability in the rush to change media ownership rules.

FACT # 10: The public doesn’t want more media consolidation. Martin’s actions ignore the millions of Americans — and 99 percent of the comments in the FCC docket — who oppose letting a few media giants swallow up more local media.”

Martin’s push for more consolidation comes despite the fact that there is a significant lack of diversity of media ownership in the United States. Women and people of color comprise two-thirds of the population but own only one-sixth of commercial radio and TV stations. Free Press further document this in a report titled “Out of the Picture 2007: Minority & Female TV Ownership in the United States.” The organization has also argued that cross-ownership would produce less local news leading “other stations in the market to collectively curtail their news output by about 25 percent.”

In West Michigan, the Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy (GRIID)–a part of Media Mouse–maintains an online resource called “Who Owns the Local Media in Grand Rapids.” GRIID has documented that media companies such as Clear Channel, Regent Broadcasting, Gannett, and LIN TV own much of the local media. Independent media sources are rare and the concerns raised above about diversity of media ownership by Free Press are very real in Grand Rapids.

Press Conference Announces New “No Coal” Campaign

clean energy now logo

At the offices of the West Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC) a new statewide coalition of groups came together on Tuesday to announce a campaign to stop the construction of several new coal-powered power plants that are being proposed in Michigan. This coalition is calling itself Clean Energy Now and consists of Clean Water Action, the Ecology Center, Environment Michigan, Grand Traverse Band of Chippewa Indians, Michigan Interfaith Power and Light, Michigan Land Use Institute, Michigan League of Conservation Voters, Midland Cares, Progress Michigan, Sierra Club, TART Trails Inc., and WMEAC.

Representatives from four of the groups spoke at WMEAC, which was in conjunction with eight other press conferences being held all across the state. Jan O’Connell with the Sierra Club spoke first and stated, “We are launching Clean Energy Now to oppose the proposal to start new coal plants in Michigan. At least 7 companies have proposed new coal burning plants.” O’Connell referred to a map that shows where existing and proposed coal plants are in the state. She states that coal plants will keep Michigan dependent on outside energy. This issue is currently before the state legislature and it could be voted on before the Christmas break. A new website www.nocoalrush.com was also launched to allow people to contact legislators and support the position put forth by the coalition.

Mary Mehan from Michigan Interfaith Power and Light said, “We don’t want lobbyist to determine the outcome of this policy.” She laid out the five main talking points of the new coalition that would provide for a sound energy plan:

1. Enact a strong renewable energy standard that requires energy providers to generate 20% of their electric power from renewable sources by 2020.

2. Enact strong statewide utility funded energy efficiency programs that result in at least 1% energy savings per year.

3. Protect consumers from having to absorb the skyrocketing future costs of coal burning.

4. Implement a long-term energy plan that guarantees energy efficiency and renewable energy are used before any more outdated coal plants are built.

5. Develop new standards for controlling the emissions of CO2.

Karel Rogers with WMEAC spoke next and said, “coal plants are not a 21st century investment. Michigan’s energy needs are dropping, while new plants are being proposed.” She emphasizes that renewable energy investment will create jobs and cites examples in Pennsylvania and Colorado. She also sourced a study done by the Blue Green Alliance on renewable energy and job creation.

Marta Johnson with Clean Water Action spoke last and said, “This moratorium on coal will contribute to reducing global warming, which means we protect the Great Lakes.” She said that coal production contributes to asthma, impacts air and water quality and increases the presence of mercury in the water.

The only news media present besides Media Mouse was WGVU radio. Several people asked questions related to the issue of job creation from investing in renewable energy. When asked if any of the current legislators have signed on to the Clean Energy Now campaign, the response was that some have informally. There are however, planned lobby days on November 28 and December 5.

The question was also raised about how much money have companies seeking to build new coal-fired power plants given to lobby the state legislature, no one present seemed to know. According to the Michigan Campaign Finance Network’s Top 200 Lobbyist report for Summer 2007, the four companies that have proposed coal plants – Northern Michigan University (#106 – $33,816), Wolverine Power (#80 – $40,701), Consumers Energy (#19 – $109,329) and L.S. Power (#72 – $45,462) -are in the top 106 of the Lobbyist list.

Another question that was posed to the group was “if the coal lobbyists are successful and approve the plant construction, does Clean Energy Now have any contingency plans to prevent the companies with moving forward?” The response was that the coalition was just focusing on the current legislative push and that they hoped to pressure the state to not grant the companies licenses to build the 4-7 possible coal-fired power plants.

Michigan DEQ Cleanup Programs Face Funding Shortage

michigan deq logo

Tuesday at the Women’s City Club in downtown Grand Rapids, local environmental and progressive groups–Clean Water Action, the Dwight Lydell Chapter of the Izaak Walton League, the West Michigan Sierra Club, Republicans for Environmental Protection, and Progressive and Friends of North Kent County–sponsored a presentation by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The DEQ’s presentation was titled “Outta Sight!–Outta Mind!–Outta Money! Trouble Brewing Underground as Funding Levels Dwindle for Michigan’s Cleanup Program” and addressed the lack of funding for the DEQ’s cleanup programs.

The presentation consisted primarily of a PowerPoint presentation by Sharon Goble, who is a Part 213 Program Specialist in the Remediation and Redevelopment Division. Goble began by telling the audience that Michigan is second to the bottom for conservation spending per capita in the United States at $25. Not surprisingly, the DEQ will soon be out of money for cleanup projects and “Brownfield” development (previously developed sites that appear contaminated), despite the fact that nearly half of Michigan’s population lives within half a mile of a contaminated site. Much of this contamination is due to Michigan’s industrial legacy–a legacy that has left tens of thousands of contaminated sites with hundreds discovered each year.

According to Goble, her division of the DEQ is a “safety net” for contamination not covered elsewhere. Her division’s work is split into two areas–”remediation” and “redevelopment.” Remediation includes drum removals, tank removals, abating imminent fire/vapor/explosion hazards, emergency spill response, demolition, and alternate water provisions. The redevelopment portion of her work includes facilitating redevelopment of Brownfield sites in order to build a stronger economy. This work is spread across five program areas–the Michigan Contaminated Site Cleanup Program, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program, the Federal Superfund Program, a Brownfield redevelopment program, and the State Owned Sites Cleanup program. Through her division’s work, there have been 12,000 leaking tanks closed, $32 million spent from state funds used to conduct cleanup operations at 59 Superfund sites, and $95 awarded to 228 Brownfield redevelopment projects.

Despite what she termed the “successes” of the DEQ’s work, her division might lose the majority of its funding. To maintain the current level of work $95 million is needed annually (excluding the tank program, which needs an additional $177 million). With current funding levels and sources, by the beginning of the 2008 Fiscal Year (September 2008), her division will have a substantial shortfall. One-time funding and grants for her division have been depleted and other sources–including the 7/8ths of a cent Refined Petroleum Fund Fee on gasoline purchases–will only account for $14 million in continued funding. If the money is not somehow appropriated, the immediate consequences will be that no new projects will be undertaken, they will be unable to address emergency needs, and existing projects will be scaled back.

The $95 million cited by Goble includes $60 million for projects focused on sites that are critical threats to public health or natural resources, $25 million for staffing, and $10 million for Brownfield grants and loans. Her division’s tank program will required an additional $177 million per year with $140 million going towards newly reported releases, $25 million towards cleaning up orphaned sites where there is no liable party (ex: an abandoned gas station), and $12 million for program administration. Goble argued that this $177 million is urgently needed as Michigan has 21,000 confirmed releases (leaks) with 9,000 that have gone unaddressed. Because of its history with the auto industry, Michigan is third in the nation for the number of unaddressed releases. The top three states–Michigan, Florida, and California account for one third of all unaddressed sites in the United States. This includes 835 in the nine county that constitutes the DEQ’s Grand Rapids District.

Susan Erickson of the DEQ’s Environmental Stewardship Grants and Loans Unit argued that her area–slated to receive $10 million under the amount proposed by Goble–will otherwise run out of grant funding within a year and loan funding within two years. Her program offers low-interest grants and loans for the development of Brownfield sites with grants up to $1 million and loans up to $1 million (with no payment or interest for the first five years, and two percent each year after on the 15 year loan). Erickson said that the program discourages sprawl by encouraging development at sites already connected to the transportation and utility infrastructure, spurs private investment, and has created 12,000 permanent jobs.