Category Archives: Environment

Was the Judge who Threw Out Initiative-297 Really Unbiased?

Posted on June 13th, 2006 | Comments Off on Was the Judge who Threw Out Initiative-297 Really Unbiased?

US District Judge Alan McDonald in Yakima yesterday threw out I-297 . I-297 was passed by Washington voters in 2004 to require that current radioactive and toxic waste at Hanford be cleanup before new waste is brought in.

But is there more to the story than just the ruling on the law? Just what is the background of Judge Alan Angus McDonald – a Reagan appointee to the Federal District Court in Yakima.

The Seattle Times in a March 12, 2003 article reported that McDonald withdraw from a 13 year old lawsuit regarding downwind radiation from Hanford because of a conflict of interest. The reason was , “Old McDonald had a farm” I kid you not.
According to the Seattle Times:

In October 1999, McDonald and his partners in Chiawana Orchards bought land in Ringold, Franklin County, across the Columbia River from Hanford.

In May 2001, McDonald and his partners applied to Northwest Farm Credit Services in Pasco for a $12 million line of credit, using the land as collateral and signing statements that the orchard was free of radiation contamination.

To make such a statement “requires a core conviction by Judge McDonald that no long-lasting contamination of the properties will ever be proved,” Seattle attorney Tom Foulds wrote late last year in his motion to recuse.

“By definition, this is a prejudgment concerning one of the critical issues in the case.” Judicial conduct codes call for judges to recuse themselves from cases if they could reasonably be perceived by the public to be lacking in impartiality or if they have a direct financial interest in a case.

Likewise in this case one could argue that if McDonald supported the state’s position it would be some type of acknowledgement, that leaks through groudwater or the air of radioactive waste was a potential problem. By defering to the Federal Government, saying they have jurisdiction over radioactive waste at Hanford, it by default accepts the Federal Government’s position that they have everything under control and that it is OK to bring more radioactive waste into Washington state before they clean up the current toxic and radioactive leaks.

Hanford, which is in the Tri-Cities area of eastern Washington State was the site where plutonium was made for the bomb that was used on Nagasaki, Japan at the end of WWII. At that time radioactive waste was dumped in unlined trenches in the desert land and little effort was made to control radioactive emissions from the smokestacks.

Articles printed in scientific journals noted the presence of increased amounts of radioactive materials traveling down the Columbia River and showing up at the mouth of the Columbia River. Weapons grade Plutonium was made for many years at Hanford.

The High Country News on 2/16/2004 in an article on jurisdiction shopping for anti-environmental judges, in addition noted the following about cases handled by Judge Alan Angus McDonald:

1991 — when a worker at the federal Hanford nuclear-weapons site complained he was harassed for raising safety concerns, McDonald ruled that federal law doesn’t protect whistle-blowers at federal nuclear sites
1993 — in a massive case in which thousands of downwind residents exposed to radioactive releases from Hanford sued Hanford contractors, ruled the contractors did not have to pay for medical tests (appeals court disagreed) 1994 — ordered that a scientific review finding flaws in the government’s assessment of Hanford’s downwind radioactivity should not be available to the public (another judge disagreed and made the criticism public, nine years later)
1996 — ruled that uranium tailings are not covered by the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations (appeals court agreed)
1998 and 1999 — in two sweeping rulings, dismissed most of the health-related claims of about 5,500Hanford downwinders against Hanford contractors, and rejected 17 scientific experts the downwinders wanted to testify (appeals court reinstated all the claims and the experts in 2002)
2000 — reporter Karen Dorn Steele of the Spokesman-Review revealed that for years, Judge McDonald had been passing racist notes (including insults to “greasers” and blacks) back and forth with his courtroom deputy while court was in session; fellow judges in the judicial council of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reprimanded McDonald for conduct that “could reasonably be interpreted as reflecting bias”

Justice Alan McDonald was first appointed to the Federal Court by President Ronald Reagan.

Comments Off on Was the Judge who Threw Out Initiative-297 Really Unbiased?

Posted in Energy, Environment, Initiatives

Tagged ,

Washington State Initiative 297 Overturned – Here Comes the Nuclear Waste Again!

Posted on June 13th, 2006 | 1 comment

Yesterday the US District Court completely threw out the Hanford nuclear waste cleanup initiative – Initiative 297 in its entirety. Voters passed Initiative 297 in November 2004 by the largest margin ever of Washington voters, according to the Seattle PI. I-297 passed by a vote of 1,812,581 votes to 810,795 votes, or 69.09% yes to 30.91% no .

Initiative 297 was passed by Washington State voters to prohibit the Federal Government from shipping more nuclear waste to Hanford until it cleaned up the present contamination there according to existing Federal and state environmental cleanup standards.

What is disturbing about this case of judicial activism if I ever saw one is that US District Judge Alan McDonald in Yakima threw out the whole initiative. As noted in the Settle PI, “Last July, Washington’s Supreme Court ruled that parts of the initiative, sponsored by Hanford watchdog group Heart of America Northwest, could stand even if a federal judge finds other parts are unconstitutional. McDonald, however, struck it down in its entirety.”

The result is that the Federal Court is saying that states have no rights in determining the future health and safety of their citizens. It is saying that states can not put any demands on the Federal Government, even if the Federal Government’s actions put them at severe risk.

As a reminder of what citizens voted for , here is the ballot summary of I-297:

“This measure would establish additional requirements for regulating “mixed waste”(radioactive and nonradioactive hazardous substances) sites, such as the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. The measure would set standards for cleanup and granting permits, would prohibit waste disposal in unlined soil trenches, and require cleanup of tank leaks. Permits would not allow adding more wastes to facilities until existing contamination was cleaned up. Additional public participation would be provided and enforcement through citizen lawsuits would be authorized.”

This is pretty radical, right – the state saying that nuclear waste disposal can not be permitted in unlined soil trenches and that leaks of radioactive and toxic material must be cleaned up. And how about saying before you can bring more wastes into the state you must cleanup existing waste, pretty radical.

But Judge McDonald threw everything out – even though Hanford is listed as the US’s most contaminated nuclear waste site and a radioactive plume of waste is heading towards the Columbia River!

By the way Judge Alan McDonald was appointed by Ronald Reagan to the US District Court.

Secretary of State’s website – Initiative 297 text
Eric Pryne in Seattle Times “Federal Judge strikes down Hanford nuclear waste initiative.”
Shannon Dininny in Seattle PI Judge strikes down voters’ ban on Hanford waste shipments.

1 Comment

Posted in Elections, Energy, Environment, Initiatives

Tagged , , ,

South Dakota Shows Washington State the Progressive Use of the Initiative and Referendum Process

Posted on June 1st, 2006 | 1 comment

Here in Washington State there have been a spate of liberal moaners complaining about conservatives putting initiatives and referendums on the ballot. One of the most recent is an attempt by conservative churches and a for profit ballot initiative promoter to get signatures for Referendum 65. Referendum 65 is an attempt to repeal a recently passed state law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. The group opposed to R-65 is Washington Won’t Discriminate.

In South Dakota, citizens have shown why there is a need for the initiative and referendum process as a safeguard and that it can also work for progressives. The South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families has turned in over 38,416 signatures, more than 20,000 over the minimum 16,278 needed, to place HB 1215 on the November ballot. HB 1215 would have banned all abortions, even in cases of rape and incest. To learn more about their campaign and to make a contribution contact Focus: South Dakota

South Dakota shows us why the initiative and referendum process is needed and that progressives need to get involved in the issues, rather than bemoan the process. You can either let conservatives dominate the ballot or progressives can push their own measures and have the conservatives on the defensive. Recently progressives have been on the defense because they have not been using the initiative process as much to promote progressive causes. As a result they have had to spend a lot of their time and money trying to ward off conservative attacks from bad initiatives.

South Dakota was the first state to adopt the initiative and referendum process. They did so in 1898. Since then they have enacted 17 initiatives and rejected 31. Their first successful initiative dealt with a state primary system. In 1980 they rejected an initiative that would have banned the Legislature from changing any voter passed initiative. Initiatives that passed included voter approval of nuclear waste disposal compacts, banning corporate hog farms, and prohibiting mourning dove hunting.

Washington first enacted its initiative and referendum process in 1912. Of 912 initiatives to the people filed through last year, 125 have made it onto the ballot. 63 have passed and 62 have failed. Of 354 initiatives to the legislature filed, 28 were certified. 18 passed and 13 failed. The following history is from the national Initiative and Referendum Institute’s website.

In 1907 the state’s organized labor and farm groups cooperated with the Direct Legislation League in deluging the legislature with petitions calling for statewide I&R. Soon after, the I&R bill introduced by State Rep. Glenn N. Ranck of Vancouver passed the lower house 66 to 26, but the state senate defeated it 25 to 15. An I&R supporter noted that “just two forces” opposed I&R: “special privileged corporation interests and the organized liquor traffic,” the latter because it feared voters would enact a Prohibition initiative.

The state Federation of Labor, whose president was Charles Case, and the state Grange, whose “master” (i.e., president) was C. B. Kegley, formed a Joint Legislative Committee that finally got the I&R amendment through both houses of the legislature in 1911. However, the version passed by the legislature did not allow voters to initiate state constitutional amendments, because certain state senators, with the active support of Governor Hay, insisted that an amendment receive at least 60 percent of all votes cast in a general election in order to pass. The pro-I&R committee refused to accept this compromise, and over 70 years later, there is still no provision for initiatives to amend the state constitution in Washington. Voters ratified the legislature’s I&R bill by a five to two margin in 1912, and in the same election, George Cotterill was elected mayor of Seattle.

While by no means complete, the Initiative and Referendum Institute notes some major legislation enacted in Washington by the initiative process, including statewide prohibition (later repealed), establishing a redistricting commission, establishing Public Utility Districts, setting up the statewide civil service system, requiring that drunk drivers take a breath test, setting a retailer interest rate lid, requiring shorelines management, and requiring that toxic waste cleanup be paid for by polluters.

Others not mentioned in the above list include requiring voter approval before bonds can be issued for large public power projects, establishing a state Presidential primary, the blanket primary system (recently overturned by the courts), permanent voter registration, non-partisan school elections, authorizing joint tenancy in property, providing for Daylight Savings Time, setting up campaign financial disclosure requirements, removing the sales tax on food, increasing the state’s minimum wage, reducing school class size, increasing teachers’ pay, requiring hazardous waste cleanup at Hanford and doing performance audits.

A more complete list of these can be seen at the Washington Secretary of State’s links for initiatives to the people.and initiatives to the legislature that have been approved. The point here is that lots of quality and needed legislation that we take for granted only came about because of the initiative process. While we bemoan conservative efforts to reduce taxes and cut services and protections, that is to be expected. But lots of progressive issues have also gone to the voters. The voters ultimately decide. But if we don’t put progressive issues before the voters, we concede the playing field to our opponents.

On the issue of abortion, Washington state voters re-affirmed a woman’s right to choose in this state with passage of Initiative 120 in 1991. The initiative effort at the time was controversial because it was not like in South Dakota where rights had been repealed by the Legislature. Here it was a conscious decision to have voters affirm that this was what they wanted. It was a calculated risk of putting the issue to the voters at that time. It was successful after a hard fought campaign but it did part of what initiatives do – they educate voters as to the issues and let them make a choice. They set the political debate.

The ballot title for I-120 was very direct “Shall state abortion laws be revised, including declaring a woman’s right to choose physician performed abortion prior to fetal viability?” The vote outcome showed a divided state then but the initiative passed. Some 756,653 voted to approve the measure; some 752,354 voted to not approve. The percentages are 50.01% to 49.86%.

Progressives prevailed partly because they set up what was to be voted on, rather than letting conservatives define the issues and strategy. That is what we need to do more of. Just as we can not ignore the Washington State Legislature and only respond to oppose bills we don’t like; we can not ignore the initiative process and only get active when there is something we oppose.

We need to be actively promoting legislation both in the Legislature and by initiative. Efforts by the environmental community in the Legislature with proactive bills being passed for the last 2 years shows that success is possible. This year’s effort to get Initiative 937 on the ballot also represents a proactive stance. Initiative 937 promotes the use of renewable energy and decreases our dependence on foreign oil. We need to help insure its success by helping it meet its signature deadline. Help out by contacting the campaign at Yes on 937 They need help collecting signatures and also contributions to fund their efforts.

1 Comment

Posted in Elections, Environment, Initiatives, Washington State Legislature

Tagged , ,

The Solution to Global Warming – Just Call it "Life"

Posted on May 26th, 2006 | 2 comments

The latest attempt by the conservatives and corporate interests is to mimic a proven tactic from the Bush and Rove notebook of deceit. Remember when they tried to solve the Hanford radioactive waste problem in Washington State. Simple, just rename toxic waste as non-toxic and you no longer have a problem.

Its a variation of the Healthy Forests Initiative – read timber cutting and Clear Skys Initiative -read reduce air pollution restrictions. Its called branding.

Others call it framing.

Well it seems the Competitive Enterprise Institute also likes these ideas of Bush and Rove.. You may have seen the two ads they have just started running on TV. The latest corporate solution to solve the global warming problem is to rename it. Don’t call CO2 a pollutant. Call it life. I kid you not. They will just advertize the problem away.

Watch the ads for yourself. Unfortunately they are right. Global pollution and global warming from CO2 will be your future life all right if they get their way.

Here’s the first ad:

“There’s something in this picture you can’t see.
Its essential to life.
We breathe it out. Plants breathe it in. It comes from animal life, the oceans, the earth and the fuels we find it in.
It’s called CO2 . The fuels that produce it have freed us from a world of backbreaking labor, lighting up our lives, allowing us to create and move the things we need, the people we love.
Now some politicians want to label carbon dioxide a pollutant.
Imagine if they succeed.
What would our lives be like then
Carbon dioxide, they call it pollution, we call it life.”

My version:

There’s something in this picture you can’t see.
It’s essential to corporations.
They gather it in. It’s called wealth and power.
Now corporations want to accumulate as much as they can.
They want you to believe global warming is a myth.
They’ll tell you again and again.
Imagine if they succeed
What would our lives be like then?
Global warming, they call it a myth.
We call it greed.

Plug – Get more informed on this issue – Watch “An Inconvenient Truth“

2 Comments

Posted in Economy, Environment

Tagged , ,

Gore Invites Himself to the White House. Will Bush Accept?

Posted on May 23rd, 2006 | Comments Off on Gore Invites Himself to the White House. Will Bush Accept?

I doubt it because the guy has already made up his mind on global warming. The AP yesterday said Bush “doubts” he will watch Gore’s movie. That’s what he said on Monday and he probably won’t change his mind. Bush is really pretty busy still trying to figure out how he should respond to Hurricane Katrina. And after that there’s what to eat for lunch.

Today Gore said Bush should watch the documentary he has produced. The documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, opens Wednesday at selected theaters across the country. It opens in Seattle, Washington on June 2nd at the Guild and Pacific Palace Theaters. (Click here for other locations and times.)

Gore offered to personally come to the White House and view the movie with Bush. Maybe even shake hands and ask how the brush clearing is going on Bush’s ranch. Maybe talk a little baseball.

But unfortunately Gore has already blown any chance of that by saying

“The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he has today again expressed personal doubt that is true”

Oops Al, you don’t question the President or say things that are not nice.

No, I don’t think Bush will accept Gore’s invitation. Besides it’s against protocol. The President runs this old country and he invites you to the White House. How gauche of Gore. You don’t invite yourself to some else’s house. Bush might have to worry about the guy not leaving because Al is certain to start talking about global warming at some point. And he might want to keep on talking. Too much talking – that would cause a ruckus, of course.

No, Bush has it all figured out.

“New technologies will change how we live and how we drive our cars, which all will have the beneficial effect of improving the environment,” Bush said. “And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment.”

Yes Pollyanna George has it all figured out. He saves time for important things by not reading or watching movies coming from dubious characters like Gore.

Gore said the causes of global warming should not be ignored.

“Why should we set aside the global scientific consensus,” Gore said, his voice rising with emotion. “Is it because Exxon Mobil wants us to set it aside? Why should we set aside the conclusion of scientists in the United States, including the National Academy of Sciences, and around the world including the 11 most important national academies of science on the globe and substitute for their view the view of Exxon Mobil. Why?”

Good question.

Comments Off on Gore Invites Himself to the White House. Will Bush Accept?

Posted in Environment

Tagged , , ,

Washington State Attorney General’s Office Responds to Not Joining Other States on Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit

Posted on May 21st, 2006 | Comments Off on Washington State Attorney General’s Office Responds to Not Joining Other States on Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit

Seems the Washington State Attorney General’s Office is eager to get their spin out on why they did not join the California lawsuit challenging the weak fuel efficiency standards proposed by the Bush Administration for light trucks and SUV’s. When I received their response I was not surprised that they really did not seem to comprehend the need for Washington state to be a leader on this issue.

Washington State last year passed ESHB 1397 – the Clean Car Act – patterned after California’s. Instead of joining with other states that have passed Clean Car Legislation to help reduce global warming, Attorney General Rob McKenna has decided to sit on the sidelines and not participate.

The issue of reducing global warming and reducing oil consumption which contributes to global warming requires aggressive action, not excuses.

My previous posts on this issue started with “Missing in Action – Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna , and four updates , here, here, here, and here.

The AG’s Office says they are involved and reference a case regarding the EPA saying it was not going to regulate CO2 emissions as a pollutant from cars. The interesting point here is that this lawsuit was initiated by Attorney General Rob McKenna’s predecessor Christine Gregoire in 2003 before McKenna took office.

While I attacked Rob McKenna for his lack of leadership in this area I must also, if he has correctly stated it, say that he shares this lack of action with the Governor’s Office. McKenna belongs to the Republican Party which has not shown any initiative over many years in dealing with increasing fuel efficiency standards, beside Bush’s token effort this year.

But the Seattle Times, in an editorial today, entitled “Democrats on Energy, Still a Zero”, points out that nationally the Democratic Plan on Energy released last week, was just as silent on raising fuel efficiency standards, in this instance as a way of saving energy.

The Seattle Times attributes the Democrats timidity to the influence of states with automotive workers and unions. The irony is that with rising gasoline prices, foreign carmakers that emphasized fuel efficiency, with hybrid cars like the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid, are busy selling lots of cars.

Whether its reducing global warming or saving energy, both political parties need to be more aggressive on pursuing real solutions to real problems. This includes making serious efforts to increase Federal fuel efficiency standards to both decrease global warming and save energy.

Below is the response I received from the Washington State Attorney General’s Office.

Dear Mr. Zemke,
Thank you for your inquiry regarding the state of Washington’s decision not to intervene in Cal. et al. v. NHTSA, challenging the federal fuel efficiency standards published in April 2006. The state of Washington, including the Attorney General’s Office, is concerned about the impacts of climate change and supports the states in their efforts to urge federal agencies to fully consider the environmental impacts of CO2 emissions from cars.
In fact, Washington is currently involved in another key case – led by the state of Massachusetts -which we believe more directly addresses concerns about the regulation of CO2 emissions from cars. Last month in Mass. v. EPA, the states, including Washington, asked the Supreme Court to review EPA’s decision not to regulate CO2 emissions from cars as an air pollutant. View the cert petition here.
When this office was asked to consider joining the suit against NHTSA, Attorney General McKenna authorized review of the case and directed that our agency clients be consulted. The main claims of the states’ case relate to whether NHTSA complied with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Washington State Attorney General’s office, Governor Gregoire, Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and the Washington State Department of Ecology carefully evaluated the request to join the lawsuit. Based on a variety of factors -including Washingnto’s involvement in Mass. v. EPA- we jointly concluded that this is not a case that Washington should join at this time.
The Attorney General’s office is frequently asked to join lawsuits and file “friend of the court” briefs in support of parties to lawsuits. We evaluate such requests carefully and make decisions based on a variety of factors, including:
· Our ability, in the time provided, to fully consider the legal merit of the claims and the impact of the arguments being advanced on the interests of the state of Washington and its agencies;
· The role and timing of the requested participation;
· The best use of the legal resources of the office; and
· Which states may be most familiar with the legal issues and arguments.
Multi-state litigation presents unique challenges, both substantively and procedurally. Decisions to join a lawsuit or file a brief are made for a variety of reasons, and decisions not to participate should not be construed as taking a formal position on the issues in that case.
To provide further background, there are three multi-state lawsuits currently dealing with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Two are related to cars and one is related to power plants.
The two related to cars are:
· The Massachusetts-led case related to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA’s) authority to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA)(United States Supreme Court); and
· The California-led case challenging the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration fuel efficiency (CAFÉ) standards that were just adopted (Ninth Circuit).
The third case deals with the validity of newly updated New Source Performance standards (NSPS) that EPA adopted for emissions from power plants. This is the New York case you reference in your blog.
Here’s a quick description of the state’s involvement in each of those cases:
(1) Mass. et al. v. EPA re: EPA authority to adopt CO2 emission standards for cars. On Oct. 23, 2003, Washington joined a number of states and environmental organizations that filed a Petition for Review under Section 202 of the federal CAA challenging EPA’s refusal to regulate CO2 and other motor vehicle emissions that contribute to global warming. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ three judge panel issued its decision on July 15, 2005, denying the petition. The states, including Washington, filed a Petition for Certiorari on April 7, 2006, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
(2) Cal. et al. v. NHTSA re: the CAFE rule, alleging that the standards rule should not have been adopted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) without preparation of an environmental impact statement because the rule’s impacts are significant.
The 52-page statement you reference presents an argument that states are preempted from setting their own vehicle emission standards for CO2. However, the rule is about NHTSA, a federal agency, setting fuel efficiency standards for cars, not about whether states can adopt their own standards. Thus, we do not consider the reference to preemption of state law to be relevant to the challenged rulemaking action and understand that it will not be a main focus of the challenging states’ case.
3) New York et al. v. EPA re: EPA regulation of power plant emissions including CO2. We considered joining this case when it was filed last month, but after careful evaluation and because of its relationship to Mass. v. EPA, we opted to wait and monitor the case instead. We determined that if Mass. v. EPA is accepted for review, a decision in that case could resolve a key issue in New York’s power plant case. We continue to evaluate whether to intervene in this case before the deadline.
Thank you very much for your letter and please feel free to call or e-mail if you continue to have questions regarding the Attorney General’s Office and the cases in which we are involved.
Sincerely,
Janelle Guthrie, APRDirector of Media RelationsWashington State Attorney General’s Office1125 Washington Street SEPO Box 40100Olympia, WA 98504-0100Phone: (360) 586-0725Cell: (360) 584-3046E-mail: janelleg@atg.wa.govJoin Attorney General Rob McKenna’s Listserv for the latest news from the AG’s office or visit our Web site at http://www.atg.wa.gov/

Comments Off on Washington State Attorney General’s Office Responds to Not Joining Other States on Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit

Posted in Energy, Environment

Tagged ,

"The fish are dying…Kill the fish for California…We want dogs to die"

Posted on May 19th, 2006 | Comments Off on "The fish are dying…Kill the fish for California…We want dogs to die"

A reminder of the scum that was Enron!

Below is my transcription of part of one taped conversation beween traders on Enron’s West Coast Trading desk before Enron collapsed. See below to hear audios and see transcripts of other taped conversations. Thanks to the Snohomish PUD in Washington State for fighting to make these recordings public.

Excerpt from Stupid Enron West Coast Trader Desk Conversation:

I know, me too Sonny, you know see, you should be the Senator or some kind of Congressman there in California because it, it, you know what I hate, Sonny
I hate when people are talking stupid. Ha ha

I do too, heh, heh

What we, because you know the more water…. I don’t think they have much water left, Bonneville doesn’t.

Oh really?

It’s getting hot up here. The thing that saved us is it’s never been hot up here.

Uh, Huh.

It’s fucking 90 degrees up here.

Oh!

So they‘ve got to keep all their power here. Nothing forced them to keep their power here so they said oh, California here you come and –it’s beautiful.

Oh, man.

And so my thing is, is you know these guys are just fucking loving it because they’re just getting paid 250 but we’re like, you’re killing the fish, you know, by sending all this water down there. We’re trying to get the fish agencies to rally around us – to keep the water up here.

Oh, oh you’re literally killing the fish?

Yeah man, you’re taking the water out of the river man, and not covering the eggs. Now, you know, the fish are dying cause, you know

The salmon you mean or what?

The salmon. Yeah. You push that button up here…

Oh yeah you got to go with the tree hugger button …

Yeah, exactly our motto is Do you save the Californians or do you kill… kill the fish for the Californians? That is basically the motto.

Oh yeah, you want to ….you kill the Californians huh?

That’s what I’m pushing for…

Heh, heh

I won’t … you know. Our motto up here is we want the dogs to die.

That’s mean, isn’t it?

No that’s true. But that’s a big conflict is, you know, they think short term to keep the lights on in California. We’ll do anything to keep the lights on in California. We like, even kill the fish? Then the fish people, oh yeah, that’s right. So then we rally around that.

So is that going to work?

Aah trying to …

We’ll find out next week, huh?

Yeah. So this is kind of look … That’s my life man.

Yeah, that sounds exciting.

The above is part of just one taped conversation between traders on Enron’s West Coast Trading desk before Enron collapsed. Some other conversations have gotten a lot of play but I thought this one was of local interest to Washington ratepayers. In total some 24,000 hours of tapes exist. The Snohomish PUD sued to make the tapes available. They are still not all available, and Enron and FERC have opposed making more available.

Senator Maria Cantwell handed out a CD that included this conversation at her press conference last month where she challenged Enron’s paltry compensation proposal on electricity contracts that Enron overcharged the Snohomish Public Utility District. She also argued that all the Enron se tapes need to be made public, not suppressed and hidden away.

Thanks to the Seattle Times you can hear the rest of the above conversation at
http:
//seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001945474_
webenronaudio02.html
There are a number of other audios and transcripts. This one is part of the one that starts “The big conflict is …” near the bottom of the page.

You can also read the posted Seattle Times transcript of this conversation at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/links/enron-240.pdf

 

Comments Off on "The fish are dying…Kill the fish for California…We want dogs to die"

Posted in Energy, Environment

Tagged , ,

Press Release Attorney General Rob McKenna Should Join Federal Lawsuit on Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards

Posted on May 8th, 2006 | Comments Off on Press Release Attorney General Rob McKenna Should Join Federal Lawsuit on Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards

Press Release May 8, 2006
For Immediate Release
For More Information Contact
Steve Zemke 206-999-6095

Why is Attorney General Rob McKenna not Defending Washington’s Clean Car Act?

Is over $36,000 in campaign contributions from automotive interests affecting Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna decision not to join a Federal lawsuit?

Last Tuesday the State of California and 9 other states plus New York City and Washington, DC filed a Federal lawsuit challenging the Bush Administration’s fuel economy standards for SUV’s and light trucks. They alleged that the standards were too weak, were costing consumers money and failed to address global warming and other environmental concerns.

Attached to the regulations issued in March was a 52 page memorandum from the Bush Administration alleging that the Federal Government, not states, have the ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. This is despite the Federal Clean Air Act saying states could choose either Federal clean air standards or California’s.

Here is a lawsuit that follows the intent of Washington’s Clean Car Act passed last year by the Washington State Legislature and which in part is a direct response to President Bush’s challenge to a state’s right to regulate dangerous car emissions. Yet our Attorney General fails to join with other states, which have passed Clean Car Legislation modeled after California’s pioneering legislation, in challenging Washington State’s right to protect its citizens from harmful emissions and global warming

“One has to wonder just whose interests our Attorney General is representing. Is it the citizens of Washington State? Is it laws passed by our state Legislature? Or is it the interest of campaign contributors?” asked Steve Zemke, who writes the MajorityRulesBlog.

Zemke continued, “Is there a desire of the AG not to challenge the policies of the Bush Administration because they are from the same political party? Or is it because the AG doesn’t feel we need to reduce emissions contributing to global warming?”

On Wednesday Steve Zemke e-mailed and called the Attorney General’s office asking for an explanation of why Attorney General Rob McKenna hadn’t joined the lawsuit. Late Friday, after inquiry by the media started, the Attorney General’s Office contacted Steve Zemke of MajorityRulesBlog to say that they would respond to his request for an explanation.

They said there would be a written statement on Monday afternoon explaining Attorney General Rob McKenna’s position. “All the Attorney General has to do is say he is joining the lawsuit,” said Steve Zemke

Resources:

MajorityRulesBlog Missing in Action – Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna
MajorityRulesBlog – Update on Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna Asleep at the Wheel
MajorityRulesBlog 2nd Update – Still Waiting to Hear from Attorney General Rob McKenna
MajorityRules Blog 3rd Update –Washington State Attorney General McKenna Should Join Car Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit

Washington Post – 10 States Sue over Fuel Economy Standards

Oregon Attorney General’s Press Release – Governor, Attorney General Sue Feds over Fuel Efficiency Standards

New York Attorney General Press Release – State and City Sue For Better Fuel Efficiency Standards

Washington’s Clean Car Act HB 1937

Comments Off on Press Release Attorney General Rob McKenna Should Join Federal Lawsuit on Vehicle Fuel Efficiency Standards

Posted in Economy, Energy, Environment

Tagged ,

3rd Update -Washington State Attorney General McKenna Should Join Car Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit.

Posted on May 8th, 2006 | Comments Off on 3rd Update -Washington State Attorney General McKenna Should Join Car Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit.

Last Tuesday the Attorneys General of 10 states filed a Federal lawsuit urging stronger fuel efficiency standards for SUV’s and light trucks. Lead by California, the other states on the lawsuit included Oregon, New York, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Conspiciously absent from the lawsuit was Washington State. Almost all of the states filing the lawsuit have passed Clean Car Legislation patterned after California’s. Washington State passed such legislation last year. The Federal Government when it issued new fuel efficiency standards in March asserted that only the Federal Government, not the states could regulate CO2 emissions.

Majority Rules Blog has posted 3 times in the last week asking the question of why Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna is missing in action in defending Washington’s Clean Car Act. We called the Attorney General’s office and e-mailed the Attorney General’s office asking for an explanation. Finally late Friday we got a call back saying that a formal response was being written and would be reviewed by the Attorney General and available on Monday afternoon.

While we will be interested in seeing what explanation Attorney General Rob McKenna may come up with for not initially joining the lawsuit, we believe that Rob McKenna should act now to join the lawsuit. Washington State needs to join with other states in efforts increase fuel efficiency in new vehicles which will save consumers money, as well as increase efforts to reduce CO2 emissions which are a main contributor to global warming.

Rob McKenna is a Republican Attorney General and had received over $36,000 from automotive interests in his campaign for Attorney General. Republicans as represented by the Bush Administration have long resisted efforts to increase automobile fuel efficiency standards and President Bush has vigorously resisted efforts to reduce global warming by reducing CO2 emissions.

We urge Rob McKenna to step outside the Republican rhetoric if this has affected his decision not to join in efforts of other Attorneys General to increase car fuel efficiency, save consumers money nd reduce global warming. McKenna needs to act in the best interests of Washington State citizens and fight for their needs, not the needs of an intransigent car industry that is fighting needed change.

references:

MajorityRulesBlog Missing in Action – Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna
MajorityRulesBlog – Update on Washington Attorney General Rob McKenna Asleep at the Wheel
MajorityRulesBlog 2nd Update – Still Waiting to Hear from Attorney General Rob McKenna

Comments Off on 3rd Update -Washington State Attorney General McKenna Should Join Car Fuel Efficiency Lawsuit.

Posted in Energy, Environment, Republicans

Tagged ,

2nd Update – Still Waiting to Hear From Attorney General Rob McKenna

Posted on May 5th, 2006 | Comments Off on 2nd Update – Still Waiting to Hear From Attorney General Rob McKenna

Since I both called and e-mailed Attorney General McKenna on Wednesday, I still have not received a reply. My question – Why didn’t Rob McKenna join  the lawsuit filed on May 2, 2006 by California and 9 other states questioning the fuel efficiency standards issued by the Bush Administration?

One issue of particular concern is the 52 page memorandum attached by President Bush to the standards issued at the end of March which challenged the right of states to regulate CO2 emissions. This was saying the Federal Government overrode any standards set by the Clean Car Act HB 1937 passed by the Washington State Legislature.

I speculated it might have something to do with a number of his campaign contributions coming from people who worked in the automotive industry. But maybe its something even more basic. Rob McKenna is a Republican. Republicans in general don’t believe in regulation and support the concept of free enterprise – even when it threatens the lives and health of people in Washington state. Rising gas prices are just part of business as usual. Companies can charge whatever they want. They can make whatever profit they can gouge out of consumers.

Maybe Rob McKenna doesn’t think that we know enough about global warming to act to try to reduce greenhouse gases. That what Bush says and McKenna would be a disloyal Republican to challenge the beliefs of his Commander in Chief. That despite the fact that almost all scientists believe that we are facing a real problem and that it is fair to call it a crisis.

In the preamble to HB 1937 it says:

(2) Air pollution levels routinely measured in the state of Washington continue to harm public health, the environment, and the economy. Air pollution causes or contributes to premature death, cancer, asthma, and heart and lung disease. Over half of the state’s population suffers from one or more medical conditions that make them very vulnerable to air pollution. Air pollution increases pain and suffering for vulnerable individuals. Air pollution imposes several hundred million dollars annually in added health care costs for air pollution-associated death and illness, reducing the quality of life and economic security of the citizens of Washington;
(3) Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources are necessary, and it is equitable to seek such reductions because reductions in greenhouse gas emissions have already been initiated in other sectors such as power generation

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in his press release announcing joining the lawsuit stated:

“At a time when consumers are struggling to pay surging gas prices and the challenge of global climate change has become even more clear, it is unconscionable that the Bush administration is not requiring greater mileage efficiency for light trucks,” said Attorney General Spitzer. “The failure of this Administration to lead on vital environmental issues like this will burden our nation for generations to come.”

Meanwhile Rob McKenna, according to the the Attorney General’s website, is busy monitoring gasoline pricing.

“Recent actions in participation with other state attorneys general The Washington State Attorney General’s Office works in close cooperation with other Western states to review the factors influencing the price of petroleum products in the West. This office has and will continue to work with other state and federal agencies to insure petroleum prices remain competitive.”

In the past several weeks, gasoline prices in Washington have reached record levels. The Attorney General’s Office regularly monitors gasoline pricing to determine whether price increases indicate possible anticompetitive behavior or reflect normal market forces….Current high prices appear to be a reflection of a tight supply/demand balance. Furthermore, all indications are that prices will tend to remain high.

It is instructive to note that while a number of action were taken against oil companies to protect Washington consumers during Gregoire’s tenure, there is a conspicuous absence of action since 2002.

My concern is the role of the Attorney General in protecting Washington citizens from rising gas prices and global warming, issues addressed partially by HB 1937. By all indications we not being represented by Rob McKenna. It appears he is being loyal to the Bush mantra by following the failed policies of President Bush. When the largest oil companies are reporting record profits while consumers are being hit with record gas prices, how is that just “normal market forces”. Our economy and people’s jobs are dependent on a gasoline run car society. What choice do people have?

It would be one thing if oil companies were making profits somewhere in the middle of U.S. companies, but people are feeling real pain. When an oil company like Exxon Mobil breaks a record $36 billion last year, making the most profit of any US company, and sets another record for the first quarter of 2006, exceeding last years 1st quarter, with a profit of $8.4 billion this is I’m supposed to believe according to McKenna, just “normal competition.”

Conoco Philips and Chevron also came in with huge profits.They’re not feeling any pain are they, unless it their aching muscles raking in all the dough Americans are giving them by inflated prices at the gas pumps?

Let’s face it. Rob McKenna is doing the little feel good things with his public service ads promoting himself but he is just another Republican. Republicans represent corporate interests like automotive companies and oil companies, not the average citizen. Two days ago he had posted on the state website that no price gouging was occurring with gasoline prices. Today I can’t find it. Maybe he had to go out and fill up his car.

Comments Off on 2nd Update – Still Waiting to Hear From Attorney General Rob McKenna

Posted in Economy, Energy, Environment

Tagged ,