That is why Montana’s entire congressional delegation has lined up in support of the North Fork Watershed Protection Act, a bill that will permanently protect the American side of the North Fork watershed from new energy development. Well done to the conservationists, hunters and community members who made it possible. NWF has worked on this issue and is fully supportive of the effort.

Representative Steve Daines (R) stated,

“As a fifth generation Montana sportsman, I know how special the treasure state is. Our state’s rivers and mountains and our outdoor heritage are an important part of every Montanan’s way of life and play an important role in our state’s economy. It’s important that we work together to protect these valuable resources.”

Senator Max Baucus (D) said,

“All you have to do is look one ridgeline over to know how close the North Fork has to being ruined,” Baucus said. “Just last week, the Kootenai River was declared one of America’s most endangered rivers because of heavy metal runoff from Canadian mines into Montana. The only reason we know about that pollution is because of research the Congress has funded comparing the Kootenai to the North Fork. I am pressing our Canadian neighbors to apply the lessons of the Flathead to the Kootenai.”

Isn’t it nice when Republicans and Democrats can agree on something?

The politics of protection

So, based on what Senator Baucus and Representative Daines have said about the Flathead River, let’s take a look at another great Montana river, the Tongue River and see if it meets their criteria for protection.

• The watershed must be important to Montana’s outdoor heritage
• The watershed must be important to Montana’s economy
• The watershed must be under grave and imminent threat from mining.

Is the Tongue River important to Montana’s economy? Yes. The Tongue River watershed provides irrigation for hundreds of farmers and ranchers in southeastern Montana contributing over $22 million per year in gross revenue that in turn will contribute billions of dollars to Montana’s economy in the coming decades. Think I’m exaggerating? Check out this extremely detailed Agriculture in the Tongue River Basin paper put out by Montana State University’s Agricultural Economics Department.

Is the Tongue River under threat from energy development including oil, gas and mining? Yes. The Tongue River watershed will be the dumping ground for one of the largest proposed coal mines in the country (Otter Creek coal mine) and is already impaired by coalbed methane water discharge and coal mining from the Decker and Spring Creek coal mines.

The Tongue River has met all three criteria: it is important for outdoor recreation, hunting and wildlife; it is important to our economy; and it is under threat from mining.

Seems to me that Senator Baucus, Representative Daines and Senator Tester should be all in favor of protecting the Tongue River in the same manner that they are working to protect the North Fork of the Flathead. If they didn’t, it might seem inconsistent, unfair and hypocritical? No wait, it isn’t that it might seem that way, it is that way.

It will come as no surprise to you that not one politician that I am aware of, has ever come out in favor of protecting the Tongue River from mining pollution.

But besides Mayor Joe, there has been silence on protection of the Tongue River watershed. Well maybe not silence. Our Congressional delegation actually encourages the energy development that will end up hurting the region’s sustainable agricultural and hunting economies.

So, why does the Flathead River get protected and the Tongue River get the pollution?

This question has been raised over and over because those of us who live, work, play and hunt in southeastern Montana know how special it is. And, I’ll admit, we tend to have a chip on our shoulders about the perception that eastern Montana is not the “true Montana.” That Montana is only about the majestic mountains and snow caps and trout streams.

(Shhh..don’t tell anyone but the first 10 miles of the Tongue River below the dam has some great trout fishing. Sorry KVD)

My own bias is that if you want to see Montana and literally walk in the footsteps of Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse and Custer, see the biggest bull elk you’ll ever see and float down a river that is the best kept secret in the state, come to southeastern Montana.

So what is it?

Is it possible that it is because the people that rely on the Tongue River, the farmers, ranchers and Cheyennes, aren’t rich and politically powerful? Is it because some people in western Montana don’t think eastern Montana is worth saving or maybe they think that a majority of people in eastern Montana want the development (which isn’t true but understandable considering the media doesn’t seem to want to cover the local public opposition to the mine and railroad)?

Is it because raising food isn’t as important to politicians as digging coal?

And while I’m at it…

Why is a multinational coal company who plans to seize land from Montana citizens for their railroad and then mine and ship coal overseas more important than people who live there?

I want to know.

Take Action! Call your Senators today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Wildlife Federation President & CEO Larry Schweiger is set to testify before the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee today. Here’s what Larry wrote on his blog yesterday previewing the hearing:

I’ll be testifying in front of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on the need to safeguard wildlife and natural resources and the essential services they provide to every American from the disastrous effects of climate change. See my testimony in support of natural resources adaptation funding in the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.

And today Sen. Jeff Bingaman introduced legislation, co-sponsored by Sens. Baucus, Whitehouse, and Udall, called the “Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act” that calls for dedicated funding for natural resources and wildlife safeguards.

With the momentum we’re gaining on these fronts and the findings from the CNN poll released today that 60% of Americans support cap and trade climate legislation, we are now in our best position ever to win on natural resources safeguards and federal climate legislation.

You can read Larry’s opening statement here (PDF). We’ll have more details on the hearing later in the day!

Tomorrow I’ll be testifying in front of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on the need to safeguard wildlife and natural resources and the essential services they provide to every American from the disastrous effects of climate change. See my testimony in support of natural resources adaptation funding in the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act.

And today Sen. Jeff Bingaman introduced legislation, co-sponsored by Sens. Baucus, Whitehouse, and Udall, called the “Natural Resources Climate Adaptation Act” that calls for dedicated funding for natural resources and wildlife safeguards.

With the momentum we’re gaining on these fronts and the findings from the CNN poll released today that 60% of Americans support cap and trade climate legislation, we are now in our best position ever to win on natural resources safeguards and federal climate legislation.

The first is from NWF President and CEO Larry Schweiger. It was originally addressed to NWF board members, staff and supporters, but it seems appropriate here.

When I returned to National Wildlife Federation three years ago, we were all alarmed by what was happening around us.  The conservation movement was mired in scores of defensive battles to prevent rollback of the bedrock laws that have protected our wildlife and our environment. As we were fighting those important battles, the greatest single threat to wildlife and our children’s future was being ignored and neglected by politicians everywhere.

That issue is global warming.  Scientists’ warnings – and the warning signs we began to witness in the natural world – were being ignored by politicians and the media.  Global warming still had the baggage of multi-million dollar misinformation campaigns from oil companies and other polluters  that were casting this as a partisan issue.

There are some who will question our support of the Lieberman-Warner bill until we get all the changes we would want to make it a perfect bill.  I welcome the questioning because it means that the dialogue about global warming has risen to a new level.  People are angry that we have gone so long without acting.  They should be.  I am angry too.

However, we also need to listen carefully to what scientists are telling us about solving this problem.  We are facing a planetary crisis with a firm deadline and there is no time for delay.  Every day we wait, the risks grow and action becomes more difficult.  Why?  Our emissions are going up when they need to be going down.  According to the Bush Administration, our emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States will actually increase by one-third by the year 2030 if we don’t turn things around fast.

Scientists are warning us that we must act within the next few years to cut our emissions by two percent every year.  We need to hit that pivot point – the time when our emissions go down instead of up, as soon as possible. We need strong legislation that reduces global warming pollution and we need it now.

That’s why I am optimistic about America’s Climate Security Act.  Unlike past votes in Congress for measures that would have merely stopped emissions from growing, this bill actually puts us quickly on the downward trajectory of cutting emissions from large emitters by two percent per year from current levels.   And, it is the first bill to include all large emitters, not just power plants.

What’s more, this is the first legislation with specific measures to address impacts on consumers, particularly low- and middle-income families.  The bill devotes an estimated $350 billion through the year 2030 from polluter payments to help consumers reduce their energy consumption through efficiency.  We need to make sure legislation does not put the burden on those least able to carry it.  And we need to make sure that everyone has access to the economic opportunity created by this clean energy revolution.

The bill also includes essential provisions for protecting America’s fish and wildlife, great waters, and other natural resources from the climate changes that can no longer be avoided.  Healthy wetlands and other habitat are critical for wildlife and serve to protect our communities from the impacts of storms, droughts and other climate extremes brought on by global warming.  A rapidly changing climate is adding additional pressures to ecosystems already stressed by development, pollution and invasive species.   The Lieberman-Warner bill requires polluters to pay into a fund that devotes more than $160 billion through the year 2030 to protecting wildlife and America’s great waters.

Despite the many benefits of this bill, National Wildlife Federation has been seeking improvements. Some we have achieved, such as stronger goals in the coming fifteen years for reducing pollution.  We must get moving quickly, and not postpone the heavy lifting decades into the future.

National Wildlife Federation has fought hard for many of the strongest pieces of the bill and worked with the sponsors to improve this bill at each stage of the process.  And we have done it by building support and encouraging leaders like Senators Lieberman and Warner to step forward.

I am convinced that we will not meet the urgency of the climate crisis if we allow criticism to block progress.  We must focus on what unites us and not on what divides us.  By acting now we can re-adjust our aim as we go forward.  It is easier to turn the wheel of a car that is rolling than one that is sitting still.  Movement begets movement.

Additionally, getting a Senate vote on a substantive global warming bill will help raise the profile of the issue nationally as voters turn their attention to what candidates are saying about global warming.  As long as there is no action on global warming, it is very difficult to tell where candidates stand on this issue.  The climate crisis must become one of the top tier issues for Americans in this presidential campaign.

Read the full letter here.

The second,  is from seven environmental groups, to the Members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  The seven groups signed onto the letter are:  National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, National Environmental Trust, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, Union of Concerned Scientists and The Wilderness Society.  This letter shows the strong support the bill has.

Dear Members of the Environment and Public Works Committee,

We are writing to highlight the mounting urgency of action on global warming and
encourage prompt action by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. A
new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences warns that the global
buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has accelerated unexpectedly rapidly in
this decade. Similarly, recent evidence from the Arctic demonstrates that the greenhouse
gases already in the atmosphere are changing our climate far more rapidly than scientists
have predicted.

These and other findings underscore the need for prompt action to reduce the pollution
that is causing global warming. Time is running out for effective action, and we need to
get started now. The Department of Energy is forecasting that U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions will increase by more than 30% by 2030 without action. The longer we delay
action, the greater the impacts and risks, and the more dramatically we will have to cut
emissions in future years to achieve the same results.

Consequently, we applaud Senators Lieberman and Warner for their leadership and the
subcommittee for debating S. 2191 with the goal of reporting a bill to the full committee.
We further applaud Chairman Boxer for seeking to expeditiously report a bill out of the
full committee this fall. We would also like to thank Senator Baucus for his expressed
support of S. 2191.

We acknowledge and thank the sponsors for making important improvements in the bill
from their August outline. We also thank Senators Sanders and Lautenberg and other
members of the subcommittee and committee who are working to strengthen the bill as it
moves through the process.

It is vitally important that the Senate have a full and open debate on global warming
action. We therefore ask all members of the Environment and Public Works Committee
and its subcommittee of jurisdiction to work together to deliver a strong, bipartisan bill to
the full Senate this year.

Read the full letter here.