January, 28 2010, 03:51pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Christopher Lancette, The Wilderness Society (202) 429-2692
Shannon Andrea, National Parks Conservation Association, (202) 454-3371
Kelly Trout, Friends of the Earth, (202) 222-0722
Jessica Brand, Defenders of Wildlife, (202) 772-0239
Congress Should End Tax Breaks for Polluters, Invest in Green Economy
Conservationists, public interest groups call on Congress to cut $20 billion in wasteful spending
WASHINGTON
As President Obama calls for fiscal restraint in domestic
spending, a coalition of conservation and wildlife organizations echoed
the call and released a "Green Budget" report today outlining what
Congress can do to create jobs while strengthening key environmental
programs -- including cutting wasteful spending by nearly $20 billion
per year. (Click here to see a short video about the need to invest in a green economy, find full report, obtain photos, etc.)
"We heard President Obama and we recognize the need for the federal
government to tighten its belt, which is why we're calling on Congress
and the administration to eliminate wasteful spending," said William H.
Meadows, president of The Wilderness Society - one of 34 organizations
that sent 2011 spending recommendations to Congress in the form of its
"Green Budget". "The president and Congress have some tough decisions
to make but we believe sound economic and environmental policy go
hand-in-hand. So while frugality is key, we must continue to invest in
the kind of environmental initiatives that create jobs and protect our
natural resources."
The wide-ranging spending cuts indentified would save billions of
dollars per year by ending tax breaks and other giveaways to the oil
and gas industry and other big polluters that are enjoying
record-breaking profits. For example, closing the loophole that lets
big corporations write off oil and gas production would save $13.3
billion over nine years. Cutting taxpayer subsidies for dangerous and
expensive new nuclear technologies would save more than $220 million in
2011 alone. Congress could also save billions in subsidies to corporate
agribusinesses that destroy land and pollute our water and instead
invest in cost-effective programs like conservation, nutrition and
deficit reduction. The savings outlined in the Green Budget are just a
sampling of the ways our tax dollars subsidize pollution and could
instead be invested in environmental protection and clean, renewable
energy.
"Last September, President Obama pledged to end subsidies to fossil
fuels," said Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica. "The Green
Budget provides him a way to start delivering on that promise. There's
no reason billions of our taxpayer dollars should be going to
ExxonMobil and other polluting corporations. Eliminating these
giveaways will unleash resources we can use to build clean energy jobs
and a stable, healthy future for our country."
The organizations producing the Green Budget believe the money saved
by eliminating wasteful spending can be used to invest in creating a
green economy - one that creates jobs and protects natural resources.
Their plan details what federal agency funding is needed to sustain
clean air and water, protect lands, oceans and wildlife, and solve
energy and transportation problems. They're also quick to remind
Congress and the administration of the vital economic role public lands
play in the economy: The Outdoor Industry Foundation estimates that
outdoor recreation -- hunting, fishing, hiking, skiing, and similar
activities -- contribute $730 billion annually to the U.S. economy and
supports 6.5 million jobs across the country. A study by the National
Parks and Conservation Association, meanwhile, found that $13 billion
flows annually into gateway towns, creating 250,000 private sector jobs.
Key recommendations from the Green Budget:
Lands and Wildlife: After years of budget cuts, more funds are
needed to aid the National Wildlife Refuge System, National Park
System, National Forests and land managed by the Bureau of Land
Management. All are faced with critical backlogs on projects needed to
preserve and maintain existing sites and stop environmental damage
they're experiencing.
"We look to Congress and the Administration to provide funding for
our national parks and public lands that the American people deserve,"
said National Parks Conservation Association President Tom Kiernan,
whose organization estimates that every federal dollar invested in
national parks generates at least four dollars economic value to the
public. "By investing in our national parks and public lands, we can
improve the experiences of visitors, benefit local economies, and
protect our national heritage for our children and grandchildren."
Defenders of Wildlife President Rodger Schlickeisen shared that sentiment.
"Wildlife refuges provide around $1.7 billion in revenue annually,
thanks to the 40 million people who visit these spots each year" he
said. "Protecting these treasures is not only vital to our natural
heritage, it is a sound economic investment that creates jobs and
stimulates local economies."
Oceans: Congress should invest in our oceans including supporting
programs that protect our coasts, responsibly manage fisheries,
conserve marine wildlife, sustain coastal economies and observe and
predict climate change. Additionally, Congress should support the Ocean
Policy Task Force President Obama formed in June 2009 to develop a
national ocean policy and coastal and marine spatial planning
framework. That plan will develop recommendations for better managing
U.S. oceans, which are now under the domain of 140 laws and implemented
by 20 federal agencies.
Health, Air & Water: Congress should strengthen the
Environmental Protection Agency's ability to reduce toxins in our air
and water. Regulatory programs should be enhanced, and investments in
the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund should be
increased.
Education: Congress should support greater environmental education
efforts. "As America moves toward a clean energy economy, Congress must
make significant investments in environmental and sustainability
education," said Patrick Fitzgerald, director of education advocacy at
the National Wildlife Federation. "By better educating our citizens and
workforce, we will create the human capital America needs to strengthen
our economy, achieve energy independence, and secure a clean energy
future."
Energy: Congress should invest in programs that can increase the
amount of energy generated by wind and solar technologies. It should
also continue to prioritize the Building Technologies Program that
yields great energy savings from a variety of energy efficient building
techniques. Congress should also expand the scope of the Energy
Efficient and Conservation Block Grant Program, which encourages states
and large communities to invest in initiatives such as retrofitting
existing buildings and facilities with energy efficient technologies.
"We need to put our fiscal house in order to remain the world's
leading economy," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural
Resources Defense Council. "We also need to lead, not lag, in
developing the clean energy and conservation technologies that will
strengthen our economy at home, make us more competitive abroad and
position American workers for success in the fast-growing global market
for wind, solar and other renewable power sources. The Green Budget
supports these vital goals by increasing investment in environmental
priorities while marking wasteful programs that should be cut or
eliminated to save taxpayers money. It strikes the right balance. It
deserves our support."
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular