Mason Students Support Historic Environmental Legislation

By Allison Rutledge

March 1, 2010

An edited version of this article was published in Broadside, George Mason University's student newspaper on 3/01/10

Over the past month, members of Mason's Environmental Action Group (EAG) have been working hard to help pass legislation to protect streams and mountains in the commonwealth. In particular, one bill, the “Stream Saver" bill would stop coal companies from dumping surface mining waste in streams, effectively ending mountaintop removal in Virginia.

The EAG is familiar with the environmental destruction caused by the extraction of coal. Last October, five EAG members traveled to the coal fields of West Virginia for the annual Mountain Justice Fall Summit. The students witnessed the impacts of mountaintop removal, the predominate type of surface mining in Appalachia. Mountaintop removal is the practice of leveling the tops of mountains through massive explosions and dumping the resulting debris in the adjacent valleys, a common location for streams. The waste pollutes the watersheds, decreases biodiversity, and deprives Virginia residents of clean drinking water. This type of mining has already destroyed 67 Virginian mountains. A 2001 assessment by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that the waste from mountaintop removal mining has affected 151 miles of streams in Virginia. Many more miles of streams have been destroyed since 2001 and, according to the EAG, will continue to be destroyed if action is not taken. The Stream Saver bill would stop this practice.

Mason students Emily Miles and Jason Von Kundra traveled to Richmond on January 18th to voice their opinions to their legislators regarding various environmental bills, including the Stream Saver bill formally known as Senate Bill 564. The students met with four state senators and two legislative aides to ask for their support. They met Senator Chap Petersen, who represents the district where Mason’s Fairfax campus stands. According to Von Kundra, “Senator Peterson seemed sincerely interested in everything we discussed. He admitted he was not familiar with mountaintop removal coal mining which prevented him from taking a stance on the issue. A documentary film about mountaintop removal, Coal Country, explains the issue well and has made a big impact on me. Other members of the EAG and I plan on giving the film to Petersen in the near future.” The two students also met Senator Ticer, the patron of the bill, and Senator Whipple, a co-patron.

Von Kundra went to Richmond again on Thursday, February 11th, for a hearing on the Stream Saver bill. Senator Petersen described the hearing as “one of the largest public hearings in the history of the State Capitol.” The hearing room, an overflow room, and the halls surrounding each were packed with people. During the nearly three hour hearing, both supporters and opponents were given the chance to voice their opinions to the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee.

To protect their interests, one coal company bussed over a hundred coal workers to speak against the bill at the hearing. Most of the bill’s opponents came in defense of jobs in the coal industry, although this bill only applies to surface mining which, because of its highly mechanized nature, employs far less workers than traditional underground mining. In Virginia, surface mining represents approximately 30% of the total coal industry. Tommy Hudson of the Virginia Coal Association gave the jobs breakdown at the hearing: of the 4,797 coal mining jobs in the commonwealth, 1,433 are related to surface mining.

The supporters of the bill spoke of environmental, economic, and social injustice caused by mountaintop removal; they see this bill as a solution to those problems. Residents from Southwest Virginia, where mountaintop removal is currently taking place, came to protect their communities including the streams and mountains. Kathy Selvage, a Wise County native and co-founder of the Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards brought water from her tap that had been polluted by mountaintop removal; she urged legislators to support the bill. Another Southwest Virginia resident described the nearly constant blasting from the explosives used to break up the top of the mountains before dumping the debris in the streams. This blasting occurs dangerously close to homes, keeping people up at night and endangering lives.

Both sides received 45 minutes to present their case.

Following the hearing, members of the EAG collected photo petitions to send to Senator Petersen, in order to show him that Mason students support the bill. This past Friday they wandered the JC with cameras and signs that read “Save Our Mountains and Streams, Support SB 564” and “Not One More Mile!” taking pictures of anyone that wanted to send a message to their elected official. Before snapping a picture of a Mason student holding one of the signs, Gopi Raghu, an electrical engineering major, explained that “Not One More Mile!” means the polluting of Virginian streams must stop now.

On Monday, February 15th, the Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee choose to "leave the bill in committee" and postpone the voting of the bill to next year. This is the first time such legislation has been considered in the Virginia General Assembly. The fact that legislation to stop mountaintop removal was considered this year makes this is a historic time for preservation of our natural resources. Opponents of mountaintop removal are pleased with the momentum gained from this bill: support from numerous senators, a productive public hearing, and more attention to the issue. Mason students are proud to be part of the effort.

Hope for a Climate Bill

By Nya Jackson
March 1, 2010



With the likelihood of the passage of a healthcare bill before the November elections looking bleak, Democrats in Congress are increasingly turning their attention to the passage of a climate bill. The Washington Post recently reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called on Senator John Kerry (D-MA) to produce a new climate bill as soon as possible. Kerry is working with Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (I-CT) to draft a bill that can attract bipartisan support. “Finally some good news,” was the response of Jason Von Kundra, co-chair of Mason's Environmental Action Group, when he heard of Reid’s call for a climate bill. Von Kundra’s reaction represents the sentiment of many Mason students to the prospect of a climate bill in the near future.
 

“The majority leader is deadly serious about making progress this year on climate and energy reform," Kerry said in a statement to reporters recently. It’s great that the majority leader is deeply involved in the process of getting a climate bill drafted, but Colin Bennett of Mason's Office of Sustainability wants to know if Republicans are in support of the bill. “Passing a climate bill will require the Senate to come together as a whole, to draft a bill that protects the environment, while also taking our economy into consideration. The Democrats can't do it alone,” said Bennett. Looking back on the well-publicized health-care fight, Republican support for this bill will prove crucial.

Jeremy Symons, senior vice president of the National Wildlife Federation, reported to the Washington Post that the only way to create a bipartisan coalition is to seek Republican input on the bill early in the process to “create the overall architecture of legislation, not waiting until after the bill is drafted and looking for what concessions or what changes need to be made to round up three Republican votes.” Biology student Jose Gayoso regards bi-partisan support from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources as the first test to whether climate legislation will pass this year. “If the bill doesn’t originate from this committee, whose members are regarded as having expertise on the issue, and can’t receive bi-partisan support within the committee it’s unlikely to have success in the Senate as a whole” said Gayoso. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, will be a crucial vote for this bill.

Not only does Senate Majority Leader Reid’s push for a climate bill give environmentalists, public health advocates, and other supporters of climate legislation reason for hope, but President Obama is also committed to the issue. Last December, at the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen the President pledged climate action in the U.S. including creating a system to cap U.S. greenhouse gas levels and helping to mobilize $100 billion in annual funding from developed countries by 2020 to help poorer nations. Although winning Republican support for a climate bill might require adding provisions favored by the oil industries, or scaling back the legislation's scope, Von Kundra believes that the U.S. needs to demonstrate progress to maintain international credibility and he's hopeful that, “November elections, the recent U.S. pledges in Copenhagen, and pressure from Reid and Obama will result in a climate bill this year”.

The Fight to Stop Mountaintop Removal Continues

By attending Week in Washington, Mason students will join over a hundred people living in areas impacted by mountaintop removal to urge federal legislators to stop destroying our mountains, streams, and communities. Organized by the Alliance for Appalachia, the fifth annual Week in Washington is an event with one clear message: stop mountaintop removal by passing the Clean Water Protection Act.

Mountaintop removal coal mining blasts the tops of mountains with explosives and dumps waste into nearby valleys, burying and polluting streams. This practice devastates the region’s ecology and communities. Constant blasting, increased flooding, and polluted tap water has driven residents in the coalfields to cry out, ‘enough is enough, this must stop’. Emily Miles and Jason Von Kundra, two students registered to attend, look forward to the opportunity to speak with their legislators alongside other supporters of the Clean Water Protection Act.

Anyone interested in protecting our nation’s mountains and streams is encouraged to read more about the event at www.ilovemountains.org/wiw and contact Jvonkund@gmu.edu to connect with Mason students who are attending the event.

The Debate is Over: Climate Change is Here

By Emily Miles
February 25, 2010

With all of the nonsense portrayed in the media over climate change lately, it is hardly a wonder that there is still a significant minority of Americans that do not believe in its existence. Yet, with the average American generating about 5 tons of carbon dioxide each year, it is only common sense that humans should and do in fact have such a large-scale impact as to affect the earth’s natural processes. Science can only agree with this. For example, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), comprised of over 750 of the world’s top climatologists, says that climate change is now “unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level, and we humans are the cause.” The IPCC also states that “the warming trend over the last 50 years (1955 to 2005) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.” As human industrialism and population growth has especially increased over the past 55 years, this is compelling evidence that humans are the root of this current climate crisis. Even worse, our destructive behaviors are causing a synergistic effect to occur. With increases in oceanic acidification, oceans are now giving off carbon dioxide rather than absorbing it like it has done in the past. As tundra thaws, global warming will be further increased as sequestered green house gases trapped within the soil are released. And remember, it is a scientist’s duty to be skeptical. Yet, according to a 2008 poll by academics of the University of Illinois, 97 percent of all climatologists agree that climate change is man-made. The evidence is clear, climate change exists, and action must be taken now.

Climate change is not only an environmental issue, but it is also, and more importantly, an ethical issue. This crisis will drastically affect humans on a global scale and will hit developing countries the hardest. By the end of this century, according to a University of Washington study led by David Battisti, about half of the world could face severe food shortages. Severe droughts in many areas could affect water supplies, while many areas such as the Middle East already suffer from an insufficient amount of water. The Pentagon has even declared climate change an issue of national security, and, according to its public report called An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implication for United States National Security, “Violence and disruption stemming from the stresses created by abrupt changes in the climate pose a different kind of threat to national security than we are accustomed to today. Military confrontation may be triggered by a desperate need for natural resources such as energy, food and water… conflicts over land and water use are likely to become more severe—and more violent.” This general instability on the planet caused by climate change could cause millions of deaths worldwide and keep us from realizing our dreams of reaching world peace. By continuing to ignore the effects of our environmental actions, we will not only hurting the planet, but we will also be hurting ourselves and our fellow human beings.

Feds Aim to Cut Greenhouse Gas Pollution 28% by 2020

By Colin Bennett
January 29, 2010

According a statement released by the White House, President Obama has directed all federal agencies to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 28 percent by 2020. Considering the U.S. government is the largest consumer of energy in the country, the results of the cuts have the potential to be significant. In 2008, the combined total spent on electricity and fuel by all federal departments and agencies was over $24.5 billion. If the Feds reach their target they claim that they will save a "cumulative total of $8 to $11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020." According to the White House, the savings is equal to more than 200 million barrels of oil and taking 17 million cars off the road for one year.

“As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” said President Obama. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift Federal energy expenses away from oil and towards local, clean energy.”

President Obama hopes that Reducing and reporting GHG pollution "will ensure that the Federal Government leads by example in building the clean energy economy." Although specific on how the reduction goals will be met are sparse, the White House claims that "Actions taken under this Executive Order will spur clean energy investments that create new private-sector jobs, drive long-term savings, build local market capacity, and foster innovation and entrepreneurship in clean energy industries."

Of the few examples that they do provide, installing solar panels tops the list, although there is no mention of whether or not President Obama will replace the solar panels that Jimmy Carter put on the White House in the seventies (that were subsequently taken down by Ronald Regan). Other examples of emission reducing practices the Feds plan to employ include "tapping landfills for renewable energy, putting energy management systems in Federal buildings, and replacing older vehicles with more fuel efficient hybrid models."

Reactions from most environmental groups have yet to come out but Jason Von Kundra, Co-chair of Mason's Environmental Action Group has a lot to say about the president's goal. "The executive order is merely a baby step toward building the clean energy economy. To establish energy independence, mitigate the impact of climate change, and create new jobs, greater reduction commitments are necessary on the national level. This low reduction effecting only the federal government has a high baseline of 2008 emissions, an inadequate reduction for 2020, and lacks any commitment for 2050." Von Kundra also states that, "According to the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2007 assessment, an 80%-95% reduction of GHG concentration by the year 2050 is needed to stay below 450ppm, which is still dangerously too high if we want to stabilize the climate. I appreciate Obama’s step in the right direction, but I’m holding my applause until I hear a commitment to carbon neutrality that will truly lead the way to a clean energy economy."

Federal efforts to reduce pollution can be tracked at the White House's Council of Environmental Quality website at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq.

Note: This piece has been edited since its original posting. Jason Von Kundra's quote "This low reduction effecting only the federal government has a high baseline of 2008 emissions, an inadequate reduction for 2010, and lacks any commitment for 2050" was corrected to say 2020 instead of 2010. The remainder of the piece is untouched.