FRIENDS OF THE EARTH€¦ · water pollution, wildlife habitat destruction and damage to our...

FRIENDS EARTHOF T

HE

www.foe.org | Volume 37, Number 2 | Summer 2007 N E W S M A G A Z I N E

Greenwashing, Whitewashing

andPseudo Environmentalism

OUR SUMMER NEWSMAGAZINEfeature article describes recentattempts the government, privateindustry and others have made toportray their wares as “green” orenvironmentally sound when in factthey are often harmful, or worse,result in a 180-degree turn from theintended positive objective. As activestewards of the environment it isour responsibility to discern thewell-intentioned and honest figuresfrom those hoping to capture sup-port through deceit.

With both the House and Senateunder Democratic control after thelast election, we anticipated signifi-cant progress on environmentalmatters. This hope appeared justi-fied when in January the Houseoverwhelmingly passed legislationto eliminate oil company subsidiesand put the money into a cleanenergy fund. However, as we enteredthe summer months, the euphoriasubsided as key Democratic commit-tee chairs produced energy legisla-tion that would actually take a stepbackward.

This is a prime example of thefederal government using a bait andswitch to create the image of posi-tive, “green” legislation that in fact isenvironmentally detrimental. Thissummer Congress debated includingsubsidies for liquid coal in the ener-gy bill. The burning of liquid fuelfrom coal in vehicles releases farmore greenhouse gases than gaso-line. Indeed, using a gallon of liquid

coal would emit twice the green-house gases into the atmosphere.

It is a fundamental mistake topursue a solution to energy inde-pendence that exacerbates globalwarming. We need win-win solu-tions, and right now, our best optionis energy conservation. Any reduc-tion in the use of coal, oil or gashelps solve not only global warming,but also problems such as air andwater pollution, wildlife habitatdestruction and damage to our bod-ies from mercury and smog.

Conservation comes in two forms:one, changing personal habits andbehavior and two, utilizing technolo-gy that gets the desired result withless environmental damage.Examples of the first include walk-ing, biking or using public trans-portation to get around. Examples ofthe second would be using water-conserving showerheads or energy-efficient refrigerators. But it most

certainly is not achieved throughpolicies that propose increased pro-duction of fuels like liquid coal assuggested in early versions of theenergy bill.

In another example of green-washing, some oil companies arenow engaged in heavy advertising toconvince the public that they arereally operating in environmentallysound ways. For example, BritishPetroleum (BP) employs slick publicrelations representatives to create“green” ads to promote its goal ofmoving “beyond petroleum,” yet thecompany still generates an over-whelming majority of its revenuefrom oil and gas. Closer examina-tion of BP’s practices reveals furtherdiscrepancies. BP is preparing to give$500 million to universityresearchers to undertake studies ongenetically engineered biofuels. Farfrom being a no-strings-attachedproposition, this gift would includestipulations that BP will have thepatents on the genetically engi-neered fuels, and thus end up con-trolling the fuels of the future.Furthermore, the consequences ofreleasing genetically modified biofu-els plants into the environment arelargely unknown.

It just goes to show that intoday’s environment of greenwash-ing, whitewashing and pseudo envi-ronmentalism we all need to be con-scious consumers of news and infor-mation.

P R E S I D E N T ’ S C O L U M N ■

2 Friends of the Earth Newsmagazine | Summer 2007

What Does Being Green Mean?

Brent Blackwelder, President

phot

o cr

edit:

Nor

m D

ean

Summer 2007 | Friends of the Earth Newsmagazine 3

C O N T E N T S ■

Friends of the Earth (ISSN: 1054-1829) is published quarterly by Friends of the Earth, 1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite600, Washington, DC 20036-2008, phone 202-783-7400, fax 202-783-0444, e-mail: [email protected], website: www.foe.org.Annual membership dues are $25, which include a subscription to Friends of the Earth. The words “Friends of theEarth” and the FoE logo are exclusive trademarks of Friends of the Earth, all rights reserved. Requests to reprint articlesshould be submitted to Lisa Matthes at [email protected]. Periodicals postage paid at Washington, DC.

Our Mission: Friends of the Earth defends the environment and champions a healthy and just world.Board of DirectorsDan Gabel, Chair; Arlie Schardt, Vice Chair; HarriettCrosby, Secretary; David Zwick, Treasurer; WhiteyBluestein; Jayni Chase; Clarence Ditlow; Michael Herz;Marika Holmgren; Douglas Legum; Russell Long;Garrett Loube; Patricia Matthews; Avis Ogilvy Moore;Charles Moore; Edwardo Lao Rhodes; DoriaSteedman; Rick Taketa.

StaffBrent Blackwelder, PresidentNorman Dean, Executive DirectorElizabeth Bast, International Policy AnalystNick Berning, Press SecretaryMichelle Chan-Fishel, Senior International Policy

AnalystHugh Cheatham, Chief Financial OfficerDanielle Fugere, Regional Program DirectorJosh Hilgart, Field DirectorDavid Hirsch, Program DirectorKate Horner, Program AssociateIan Illuminato, Health & Environment CampaignerRoxanne Lawson, International Policy CampaignerGillian Madill, Human Genetic Engineering

CampaignerMarsha Mather-Thrift, Director of Development &

West Coast OperationsLisa Matthes, Executive Assistant/Publications EditorKate McMahon, Research Assistant/ReceptionistChris Pabon, Director of Foundation Relations &

Planned Gifts Manager Colin Peppard, Transportation Policy CoordinatorErich Pica, Director of Domestic ProgramsTeri Shore, Clean Vessels Campaign DirectorErica Staaterman, Executive/Research AssistantPeter Stocker, Donor Services ManagerDavid Waskow, Director, International ProgramChris Weiss, Director of D.C. Environmental Network

Publications StaffLisa Matthes, EditorDesign by JML Design

Consultants/AdvisorsShems Dunkiel Kassel & Saunders PLLCFred Felleman, SeattleJohn W. JensenDorothee Krahn

Member GroupsArgentina, Australia, Austria,Bangladesh, Belgium, Belgium(Flanders), Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia,Costa Rica, Croatia, Curacao, Cyprus,Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador,England-Wales, Northern Ireland,Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia,

Germany, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti,Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan,Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia,Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Nepal, Netherlands,New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Palestine,Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,Poland, Scotland, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, South Africa,Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland,Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, United States, Uruguay.

AffiliatesAfrica: Earthlife Africa; Australia: Mineral PolicyInstitute; Australia: Rainforest Information Centre;Brazil: Amigos da Terra Amazonia - AmazôniaBrasileira; Brazil: Grupo de Trabalho Amazonico;Canada: Blue Planet Project; Czech Republic: CEEBankwatch; Japan: Peace Boat; Middle East: Friends ofthe Earth Middle East; Netherlands: Action forSolidarity, Equality, Environment and DevelopmentEurope; Netherlands: Stichting De Noordzee (NorthSea Foundation); Netherlands: Corporate EuropeObservatory; Netherlands: Wise Europe; UnitedStates: Corpwatch; United States: International RiversNetwork; United States: Rainforest Action Network

Friends of the Earth is printed with soy ink on 100% recycled paper, 30% post-consumer content. Bleached without chlorine.

Friends ofthe EarthInternational

UNIONBUG

Greenwashing, Whitewashing & Pseudo Environmentalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Learning From the Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Earth Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Is Trade Policy Taking a Green Turn? . . . . . . . . . . . 9

EcoBites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Goldman Environmental Prize . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Exploring Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Shape Up or Ship Out. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Global Warming in the Courts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

No-Nano Guide to Sunscreen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

www.foe.org

Volume 37, Number 2

Summer 2007

Earth Share giving campaigns allow you to designate a donation toFriends of the Earth. Federal employees can donate through theCombined Federal Campaign by marking #12067 on their pledgeforms. To set up an Earth Share campaign at your workplace, contactChirs Pabon at 877-843-8687, ext. 720 or [email protected].

FRIENDS EARTHOF T

HE

N E W S M A G A Z I N E


By Josh Hilgart

NOW THAT THE EMERGING planetaryclimate crisis is becoming manifest,expect nearly everyone seeking cus-tomers or voters to drape them-selves in green. While there are cer-tain to remain a handful of reac-tionaries who will reserve their lastbreath to debase the “tree-huggers,”viability for most on the public stagewill demand acknowledgement ofhuman caused global warming.

Of course, acknowledging pend-ing disaster and talking aboutchange is not proof of conversion orcommitment. Major greenhouse gasemitting industries will surelydeploy campaign cash and PR flacksto spawn and promote dozens ofemerald-tinted corporate and leg-islative initiatives conceived for thepurpose of kicking real reform downthe road. Joining the representativesof industry will be various snake-oilsalesmen, eager to profit from bogusforms of carbon offsets or otherflash-in-the-pan silver bullets.

Finally, there will be a spate ofwell-intentioned, but predictablyinsufficient measures that arederived from compromise and willforestall genuine solutions.

Such roadblocks present us withan enormous challenge. Not onlymust we discern good solutionsfrom the bad and ugly, we mustthen expend time and effort per-suading honest officials and ourown neighbors to reject the decoysand make the hard choices. Makingthese choices could prove as difficultas carrying out their mandates.

To get an idea of what will becoming our way, we need only lookat current examples in which thegovernment, private industry andeven environmental groups, insearch of public relations victories,overplayed the benefits or soft-ped-dled the downsides of some action.

The TXU BuyoutThe most prominent recent exampleof a misleading environmental victo-

ry came with the buyout of TXUEnergy by two private equity firms,Kohlberg Kravis Roberts and TexasPacific. The equity firms, allegedlyconcerned that TXU’s dirty environ-mental reputation posed a commer-cial risk, struck a deal withEnvironmental Defense and NationalResources Defense Council at thetime of the buyout to scrap eight ofTXU’s eleven planned coal-firedpower plants. The story was leakedto the New York Times and subse-quently bandied about the nation asevidence of a new era of industry-activist cooperation. Then, less thantwo months later, the other shoedropped: the Wall Street Journalreported that TXU had been plan-ning for some time to build two tofive of the world’s biggest nuclearreactors – a terrible solution to cut-ting carbon emissions from both acost and safety perspective.

The TXU story is disturbing formany reasons, but two stand out.First, given the longstanding (andthen-unpublicized) plans for theexpensive nuclear power plants, it isreasonable to question the likeli-hood that the eight coal-fired plants“scrapped” in the deal were ever

Greenwashing, Whitewashing and

Pseudo EnvironmentalismPrepare for the age of global warming lip service

Major greenhouse gas emittingindustries will surely deploycampaign cash and PR flacks tospawn and promote dozens ofemerald-tinted corporate andlegislative initiatives conceivedfor the purpose of kicking realreform down the road.


going to be built in the first place(only the three such plants that TXUstill plans to build had reached sub-stantial planning stages). Second,and perhaps more disturbing, thefeel-good story lives on in the newsmedia, which continue to cite posi-tively the TXU example as evidenceof a paradigm shift, without men-tion of the subsequent nuclear baitand switch. Only Friends of the Earthhas stuck with the story, mobilizingactivists in Texas and elsewhere tolobby against the nuclear plants.

The Planktos Carbon OffsetsAnother private-sector example ofdubious environmental victories isan initiative by the companyPlanktos to dump thousands of tonsof iron, reportedly shaved down tonano-sized particles, into the oceanoff the coast of the Galapagos.Planktos – which describes itself as a“for-profit company that generatescarbon offsets” – plans to use theiron to stimulate phytoplanktongrowth, which in turn wouldincrease the ocean’s carbon absorp-tion. The problem here is that thisstrategy is entirely unproven, and

Are You Online?Friends of the Earth is ramping up its e-Environmentalism to give our web-based grassrootsnetwork increasing opportunities to read about ourwork and weigh in on important issues – we want youto join us!

If you aren'talready signed up to get ouremail alerts, thensimply go towww.FOE.orgtoday and dropyour email in thegreen box.

Plug in and keepup today!

(continued on page 6)

www.FOE.org


C O V E R S T O R Y ■

according to some prominent sci-entists, likely to fail. Moreover, noone knows with certainty whatharm the introduction of nano-sizediron particles – or even larger sizedparticles – might cause this ecosys-tem.

In a letter to the Independent (UK),twelve members of the NationalOceanography Centre, Southampton,said of the Planktos effort: “[I]t is like-ly that almost all of the CO2 taken upis released back to the atmospherewithin a year. In addition, there is theconsiderable carbon cost of the [fer-tilization] process itself.” They add,“Commercial exploitation of thistechnique could cause substantialharm to the ocean ecosystem andmay even reduce its ability tosequester carbon. Such an assault onthese remote and fragile ecosystemsshould not be done until we canshow there are demonstrable bene-fits that outweigh the costs.”

One additional window opened bythe Planktos example is on the “car-bon offset” industry, itself is a broadtapestry of good and bad science,with no regulation or certification.When one company or individualpays another to offset carbon emis-sions, what legally enforceable expec-tations are there that the companyselling the offsets will engage in tech-niques that have been shown by peer-reviewed scientific study to effectivelyreduce carbon in predictableamounts? The answer is almost

always none, which is why Friends ofthe Earth will be calling for congres-sionally established certification pro-grams for such schemes this year.

Friends of the Earth has alreadycontacted billionaire Sir RichardBranson, whose name and awardprogram for carbon capture innova-tions has been used by Planktos togarner media attention. We urgedhim to guard against those whowould engage in reckless experimen-tation in pursuit of the Bransonprize. We are also supporting theEnvironmental Protection Agency’sengagement of the London DumpingConvention to stop Planktos’ experi-ment near the Galapagos.

BiofuelsMaking fuel out of recently livingorganic material is a very hot area inenergy policy, and one that holdsgreat promise in the next few years.Sadly, policy is already lagging wellbehind the incomplete science,thanks to special interests eager touse the global warming threat topush their “solutions.”

While science is increasingly show-ing that corn ethanol can be a dirty,inefficient and socially and ecological-ly damaging power source, it remainsthe king of the biofuels. And despitethe fact that it also holds limitedpotential for altering carbon emis-sions, it is back in Congress in 2007 –

at the center of the Democrats’energy bill. But if corn ethanol por-tions of the energy bill remain

intact, half of today’s production ofcorn would be required to meetannual ethanol targets in the bill justeight years away.

And corn ethanol is not the onlybad choice out there. Demand forbiofuels made from palm oil isalready leading to mass deforesta-tion, pumping tons of carbon intoour atmosphere while removing fil-ters – trees – that would haveabsorbed future carbon emissions.

Friends of the Earth is optimisticthat there are biofuel solutions outthere that could help us with ourenergy needs, possibly including fuelmade from switchgrass or algae. Butgiven that the biofuels we can massproduce now are not demonstrablycleaner to make or use than fossilfuels – and that the amount of cornrequired to fill a single 25-gallon SUVtank with ethanol could feed a per-son for a year – we think thatresponsible societies should focustoday on other actions we can taketo conserve energy and reduce ourcarbon footprint.

Friends of the Earth has taken aleading role in bringing pressure onlawmakers to enact sensible legisla-tion regarding biofuels, havingalready improved bills movingthrough the Senate on this issue.However, there is much more workto be done before biofuels like corn


C O V E R S T O R Y ■

ethanol receive the scrutiny thatthey warrant on Capitol Hill.

Coal to LiquidToo often, “energy security” is pur-sued by Congress at the expense ofthe environment. The most flagrantexample of this is the push for “coalto liquid” technology.

Because coal is found in abun-dance inside the U.S., this is a popu-lar fuel source for those looking atdisplacing use of oil (not to mentionthe coal companies). In short, coal toliquid is a process by which coal isconverted into a liquid that can beused in automobiles. But the envi-ronmental problems with thisapproach are manifold: the processof conversion requires a great deal ofenergy, boosting greenhouse gasemissions; the final product producesalmost double the amount of green-house gases when it is burned inengines; and coal remains one of themost environmentally disastrous fuelsources to acquire, a process thatresults in mountain top removal,runoff of pollution into streams andrivers, and other forms of habitatdegradation and pollution.

Unfortunately, members of bothparties on Capitol Hill are pushingfor this technology – particularlymembers from coal-producing

states. While the carbon and land-use impacts of coal to liquid arebeyond dispute, the conflation ofenergy independence with energyresponsibility has allowed theadvancement of coal to liquid tech-nology to parade as a sensible alter-native to oil in some circles.

Friends of the Earth has hadmajor successes on Capitol Hill by

mobilizing the public and workingbehind the scenes to slow down theadvancement of coal to liquid to thepoint where there is hope that sup-port for the process will becomepolitically untenable.

What You Can DoThe promotion of flawed and out-right dishonest initiatives to meetgrowing public demand for respon-sible action will continue in

Congress and the media, which putsthe burden of information gatheringand accountability on the citizenryof this nation. Friends of the Earthwill continue to bring the facts toCapitol Hill so that no staff are work-ing in the dark, but we will alsoexpand our public outreach effortsover the next year to ramp up notonly the level of public knowledge,but public action.

If you are not already a part ofour online activist network, sign uptoday – and get your friends onboard too. This is the single mosteffective way for Friends of the Earthto inform the public and get them totake action over the internet or onthe ground.

We also encourage you to talk toyour friends, family and acquain-tances about the information youget from Friends of the Earth andother reliable sources. Word ofmouth is still the most effective wayto get people to listen to ideas andconcerns they have yet to consider.

Finally, if your membership toFriends of the Earth has expired, wehope you decide to renew. The finan-cial support we receive from ourmembers is what allows us toresearch the issues, disseminateinformation, lobby elected officialsand organize our grassroots.

The promotion of flawed andoutright dishonest initiativesto meet growing publicdemand for responsible actionwill continue in Congress andthe media, which puts theburden of informationgathering and accountabilityon the citizenry of this nation.

W H A T Y O U C A N D O ■

TO REMEMBER Friends of the Earthin your estate plans, give this sug-gested wording to your attorney:

“After fulfilling all other specificprovisions, I give, devise andbequeath ____% of the residuary ofmy estate [ or $___] to Friends of the

Earth, a charitable corporation (taxID # 23-7420660) presently havingoffices at 1717 Massachusetts Ave.,NW, Washington DC 20036.”

For more information, contact Chris Pabon at 866-441-7292 [email protected]

Leave a Legacy of Blue Skies, Clean Air and Spectacular Wildflowers

phot

o cr

edit:

Eric

a S

taat

erm

an


G O O D B U S I N E S S ■

By Erica Staaterman

LUNDBERG FAMILY FARMS beganproduction in 1937, when Albert andFrances Lundberg moved fromNebraska to California. Albert hadwitnessed the dramatic results ofpoor soil management during theDust Bowl, so when he relocated toCalifornia he committed himself tofarming organically, ensuring theutmost respect for the land.

Lundberg Family Farms grows andlabels two types of GMO-free rice:“certified organic” and “eco-farmed.”The organic rice is grown under thepolicies of the California CertifiedOrganic Farmers Program, whichmeans that no synthetic fertilizers,

pesticides or herbicides are used.“Eco-farmed” is a less stringent clas-sification: minimal amounts of syn-thetic fertilizers, pesticides and her-bicides are used only when neces-sary. The natural soil enrichment,planting and harvesting techniquesemployed for “eco-farmed” rice arethe same as those used for organicrice in order to minimize the needfor chemical treatments. About 55percent of the Lundberg rice crop isclassified as “eco-farmed” and 45percent is organic.

In order to enrich the soil organi-cally, nitrogen-fixing crops cover theland in wintertime and fields lie fal-low every few years to let the soilreplenish itself naturally. For weedcontrol and pest management, fieldsare flooded when the seed is sown –also a necessary process for growingrice. After harvesting the rice at itsfullest maturity, the leftover straw isnot burned but is incorporated backinto the soil and decomposedthroughout the winter by waterfowland other organisms. In storage,Lundberg organic rice is not fumi-gated, but is kept in an airtight,

chilled container. Insects areremoved with a vacuum fan ratherthan chemicals. The Lundberg familyalso prides itself on its water conser-vation – typically using 25 percentless water than its rice-growingcompetitors.

Albert’s four sons, Eldon, Wendell,Harlan and Homer, have continuedtheir father’s organic farming tech-niques for the past 65 years. In addi-tion to their farms, Lundberg FamilyFarms has a dryer, mill and rice cakeproduction facility, as well as a pack-aging and processing plant. Thisinfrastructure allows the family toown and operate the entire businessand ensure that their products areproduced as sustainably as possible.In fact, on May 21, 2007, LundbergFamily Farms installed its secondsolar array as part of their effort toproduce their own energy!

Please visit www.lundberg.com tolearn more about their farmingpractices and about where you canbuy this delicious rice.

W H A T Y O U C A N D O ■

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH is a memberof Earth Share, a nationwide net-work of America’s leading nonprofitenvironmental and conservationorganizations that works to promoteenvironmental education and chari-table giving through workplace giv-ing campaigns. If your employer par-ticipates in the federal government’sCombined Federal Campaign, UnitedWay or other workplace giving cam-

paigns, you can donate a portion ofyour salary to Friends of the Earththrough payroll deduction.

For more information and to findout if Earth Share participates at yourworkplace, visit www.earthshare.org.Friends of the Earth’s CFC designa-tion number is 12067.

For other questions, contact ChrisPabon at (877) 843-8687, ext. 720, [email protected]

Learning from the Land

‘Tis the Season for Workplace Giving!


By David Waskow

FOR YEARS, FRIENDS OF THE EARTHhas been at the forefront of a broadmovement to reshape trade agree-ments so that they support, ratherthan undermine, environmental pro-tection. In recent months, we havefocused our efforts on the most criti-cal concerns in current trade deals,such as the rampant trade in illegal-ly logged timber – an issue that wascompounded by the Bush adminis-tration’s decision to push for a freetrade deal with Peru, one of theworst global offenders in the illegaltimber trade.

Earlier this summer, the politicallandscape of trade agreements shift-ed in important ways. In response topressure from senior Democraticleadership in Congress, the Bushadministration agreed to a set ofnew guidelines for trade agreementswith Peru and Panama that the Bushadministration wants to pushthrough Congress in comingmonths.

These trade policy guidelinesmark an important step forward byrequiring countries to raise someenvironmental standards to theinternational level. But the guide-lines agreed on by senior Democratsand the White House still fail to rem-edy some of the critical flaws in thegeneral model used to negotiatetrade agreements – especially thetrade rules that allow foreign com-panies to challenge environmentallaws. The final text laid out in thePeru and Panama trade deals will bethe next opportunity to judgewhether the revised trade policyguidelines hold water or whether yet

again environmental concernshave been set aside.

Key Elements of theNew GuidelinesFor a number of years, environmen-tal groups have criticized the U.S.model for trade agreements becauseit only requires countries to enforcetheir own, already existing domesticlaws. Countries were not required toenforce international environmentalstandards like those on trading ofillegally-logged timber from protect-ed species such as mahogany. Underthe new guidelines, countriesbelonging to a set of seven interna-tional environmental treaties willhave to enforce those agreements,including rules that address criticalissues such as endangered speciesprotection, ozone-depleting sub-stances and marine pollution.

The new guidelines also address anumber of important timber-relatedissues in the agreement with Peru,where illegal logging has decimatedlarge parts of the Peruvian Amazonrainforest. Under the guidelines, theU.S. Customs Service will have theauthority to ensure that protectedtree species such as mahogany areaccompanied by certification thatproves that they were logged legally.Peru will also have to improve its for-est management laws. While limitedto Peru at the moment, these kindsof provisions could be included infuture agreements with other coun-tries, particularly ones where illegallogging is a significant problem.

But the new guidelines for tradedeals don’t fix some critically impor-tant problems in the U.S. trademodel. For years, environmental

groups have raised concerns aboutthe investor rights provisions thatgive foreign companies the right tocircumvent our court system andchallenge environmental laws andregulations before international tri-bunals. The companies can demandcompensation if they believe envi-ronmental or public health lawshave hurt their business interests invarious ways. Already, Canada andMexico have lost internationalinvestor lawsuits involving haz-ardous waste issues before tribunalsestablished under the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement.And the U.S. is facing a host of suitson issues stretching from restric-tions on timber trade to mining reg-ulations on lands near sacred NativeAmerican sites. Yet these investorrights rules continue to appear inour trade agreements.

The new guidelines did not tacklethese threats to our public interestenvironmental protections. At theend of June, the so-called “fast track”negotiating authority granted toPresident Bush by Congress in 2002expired. In any consideration ofgranting new negotiating authorityto the president, it will be critical toensure that environmental laws andour justice system are clearly pro-tected from trade lawsuits.

T R A D E ■

Is Trade Policy Taking a Green Turn?


I N B R I E F ■

Lake Berryessa – a Victoryfor our Public Lands!Lake Berryessa is nestled betweenthe hills of the Napa County LakeDistrict in Northern California. Partof an 80,000 acre federal recreationarea, the lake suffered from an inva-sion of private vacation trailers, jet-skiers and weekend vacationers inmotor boats. The private trailers pol-luted the land and water andblocked public access to the lake,while the weekend partiers in motorboats and on jetskis were costingNapa County law enforcement mil-lions of dollars.

Local group Berryessa Trails andConservation came to Friends of theEarth’s Bluewater team for help inprotecting the lake and the sur-rounding environment throughenhancing accessibility, environmen-tal education and conservation proj-ects to create nature-based recre-ational facilities at Lake Berryessa.

Bluewater generated thousandsof public comments to the Bureau ofReclamation, easily outnumberingthe pro-vacation trailer group thathad dominated public land at thelake for more than 40 years. “This isa little, forgotten area of NapaCounty, that had 1,300 private vaca-tion trailers on public land,” said

Carol Kunze of Berryessa Trails andConservation. “There are less than500 permanent homes in the area,so the locals fighting for publicaccess and the health of the lakewere outnumbered by the vacation-ers. It was important for the federalgovernment to see that there wasbroad support for these initiatives.”

The six-year process bore fruit lastsummer with a decision to removeall private trailers and to broadenrecreational activity at the lake toinclude hiking, biking, paddling andother forms of nature-based recre-ation. Furthermore, two no-motorzones were created, ensuring quiet,safe enjoyment of the outdoors.

Climate Crisis ConferenceThis past April, Friends of the Earthspearheaded a conference designed todiscuss the imminent danger climatechange poses for the world’s poorestpeople. The meeting brought togetherinternational development, religious,human rights and environmentalleaders from around the globe andwas attended by over 200 people.

Most developing nations – saveperhaps China and India – con-tribute very little to global warmingyet suffer disproportionately from

storms and flooding, droughts, dropsin food production, water scarcityand disease.

Following the conference, severalparticipants joined a discussion atFriends of the Earth headquarterswhere they formed a network inter-ested in addressing issues at theintersection of international devel-opment and climate change. Thegroup agreed that climate change isa driver of global poverty and thatresponsibility for mitigating andadapting to climate change shouldbe equitable and borne by countriessuch as the U.S., which creates nearly25 percent of the world’s greenhousegas emissions.

Activists “Step It Up” onClimate ChangeOn April 14, 2007, activists made

history by participating in the mosteffective day on record for globalwarming protests and rallies in theU.S. More than 1,400 events madeup the 2007 Step It Up campaign,organized and launched by environ-mental author Bill McKibben (“DeepEconomy”) and his students fromMiddlebury College in Vermont.

In D.C., more than 1,000 peopleattended a rally on the lawn of

EcoBites


E C O B I T E S ■

the U.S. Capitol where Friends of theEarth president Brent Blackweldergave the opening remarks. Hischarged call for action on climatechange urged people to look toplaces like California where electrici-ty use per capita is half of what it isin the nation’s capital and to cutwasteful electricity use and unsus-tainable transportation practices.

Photos of the 1,400 events areposted on the website at www.stepitup2007.org.

Plug and Play in SanFrancisco BayThe ports of San Francisco andOakland will soon be a little cleaner,thanks to the advocacy of Friends ofthe Earth and other environmentaljustice groups. A regional air pollu-tion agency has agreed to fund theinstallation of shorepower systemsso cruise and container ships canturn off their polluting diesel enginesand plug into the electric grid whiledocked. Ships need power while atthe dock to run pumps, lights, refrig-eration, air conditioning and otheroperations. But the deadly diesel

exhaust from the growing number ofships entering the ports threatensthe lives of people living in the area.Connecting to the electrical grid canreduce air emissions by 90 percent,while slashing greenhouse gases byabout 50 percent. The Port of SanFrancisco was awarded $1.9 million toretrofit its main cruise terminal withelectrical power lines to allow cruiseships to plug in within one year. ThePort of Oakland received $250,000 todemonstrate how a shoreside gener-ator running on natural gas can pro-vide cleaner power than unregulatedengines burning bunker fuel onboard container ships. AmericanPresident Lines and Wittmar ColdIroning are partnering with the portin the pilot project.

phot

o cr

edit:

Nor

m D

ean

A W A R D S ■

By: Chris Pabon

IN APRIL, FRIENDS OF THE EARTHheld two successful events to honorthe recipients of the 2007 GoldmanEnvironmental Prize.

The Goldman Environmental Prizeis the world’s largest prize for grass-roots environmentalists. Awardedannually since 1990, the prize hasbeen presented to 119 people from70 countries. Each of the winners,chosen from six continental regions,receives $125,000. These individualsdemonstrate exceptional courageand commitment, often working atgreat risk to protect our environ-ment, and ultimately, life on Earth.They are extraordinary people whoaccomplish extraordinary things.

On April 21, we held a highly suc-cessful Goldman Prize pre-receptionat Aquarium of the Bay in San

Francisco that we co-sponsored withthe Rose Foundation and GlobalCommunity Monitor. Friends of theEarth Board member and BluewaterNetwork Founder Russell Long gave apresentation to 170 attendees aboutFriends of the Earth and the impor-tance of dialogue and relationshipswith international activists.

A week later, Friends of the Earthand the Center for InternationalEnvironmental Law hosted a joint

reception in Washington, D.C. for thewinners. Both groups are among avery small circle of organizationswho nominate people for the prize.The reception was attended by 80people – among them ambassadors,Friends of the Earth members, andFriends of the Earth Board and fea-tured locally produced food and bev-erages. Several of the award winnersgave speeches.

Reception Honors Environmental Prize Winners

phot

o cr

edit:

Lis

a M

atth

es


M E M B E R P R O F I L E ■

By Lisa Matthes

THE FIRST TIME H. ROBERT KREARsaw the snow-covered Rockies fromthe plains east of Denver he knew hewas looking at a virtual mountainparadise. Fresh from the woods ofthe Appalachian Mountains inPennsylvania, 20-year old Krear wasembarking on a World War II mili-tary call to duty. As a member of the10th Mountain Infantry DivisionKrear endured severe alpine trainingin one of the coldest wintersColorado has ever had – sleeping outin the snow, sometimes in -40° F, andtraining at altitudes of up to 14,000feet. Krear recalls waking up onemorning to the sound of treebranches cracking under the weightof the snow. But despite the frostyconditions there was nowhere elsein the Service these alpine troopswould have wanted to be.

Besides the atypical training con-ditions, this band of men wasextraordinary in another way –many of the officers had been skicoaches to the men while in collegeand as a result they were closer thanthe average infantry. This was one ofthe reasons the 10th MountainDivision excelled in combat in theItalian mountains; another beingtheir astonishing physical fitness.

It was there, at Camp Hale, CO,that Krear first ran across Friends ofthe Earth founder David Brower.Brower was a captain on the battal-ion staff and the two shared in thealpine training and combat experi-ence in Italy. It was only after the warthat Krear learned of Brower’s back-ground and interest in wildernessconservation, and he reflects that ina sense, Brower became a distant

mentor, albeit an unknowing one. Infact, Krear became a Friends of theEarth member when Brower found-ed it in 1969.

Through the mountain experi-ences of his home and in the war,Krear cultivated a desire to preservewilderness and the wildlife therein.His personal commitment mirroredconservation groups nationwidethat were recognizing the destruc-tion of the pristine arctic terrain inAlaska by rampant commercializa-tion. The only exception was thenortheast corner of the Alaskan arc-tic and it was apparent that some-thing had to be done very quickly topreserve that area.

In 1953, famous wildlife biologistDr. Olaus Murie was selected toinvestigate an area of the northeastAlaskan lands and asked Krear tojoin him based on his education inforestry and zoology and experiencein ecological research with the U.S.Forest Service and Fish & Wildlife

Service. As a veteran of the alpine,Krear was in his element as theOlaus Murie Arctic Brooks RangeExpedition of 1956 investigated theSheenjek Valley on the south side ofthe mountain range. The team offive held the same goal of preservingwhat wilderness remained in Alaskaand recognized what privilege it wasto be there, amongst the barrenground grizzlies, caribou, lynx, Dallsheep, willow ptarmigan and count-less other creatures of the arctic. TheExpedition ended up being a majorcontributor to the establishment ofthe Arctic National Wildlife Refuge(ANWR).

And to this day Krear is still work-ing in the name of preservation andconservation. In his recently-pub-lished book, “Four Seasons North:Exploration and Research in theArctic and Subarctic,”* he not onlytakes the reader on a fantastic jour-ney from pole to pole, following hisecological research, but also eluci-dates on the threats still looming onthe horizon for fur seals and seaotters.

Krear was recently recognized forhis contribution to conservationwhen the Alaska Wilderness Leagueasked him to speak about ANWR andoffer his support of the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act ata rally in Washington, D.C. lastspring. The bill would once and forall preserve the integrity of this pris-tine, irreplaceable wilderness.

*“Four Seasons North: Explorationand Research in the Arctic andSubarctic” is available throughVantage Press.

Exploring Conservation: Dr. H. Robert Krear


H E A L T H Y O C E A N S ■

By Teri Shore

IN MARCH OF 2000, BluewaterNetwork (now a division of Friendsof the Earth), submitted a petitionon behalf of 53 organizations, askingthe Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) to assess and regulatepollution from cruise ships. Afterwaiting more than seven years forthe federal government to respondby creating nation-wide regulationand monitoring of cruise ship pollu-tion, Friends of the Earth filed a law-suit against the EPA this past May.

The world’s oceans are sufferingand until the EPA responds to thedemand for regulation, they willremain at risk. The lawsuit demandsthat the EPA assess the volume ofcruise ship dumping and the harm itcauses, as well as devise recommen-dations on how to reduce theamount of sewage, graywater, haz-ardous wastes and garbage dis-charged in bays, harbors and coastalwaters.

“Since this petition was first filedseven years ago, we’ve seen tremen-dous growth both in the cruise shipindustry and in the research thatshows the impacts from cruise shipson our nation’s waters,” saidProfessor Michael J. Robinson-Dorn,who prepared the case for Friends ofthe Earth. He is director of the Kathyand Steve Berman EnvironmentalLaw Clinic at the University ofWashington in Seattle. “Yet, the EPAhas chosen to do nothing inresponse.”

Calls for a national regime for reg-ulating cruise ship dumping havealso been made by the U.S.Commission on Ocean Policy and thePew Oceans Commission.

The cruise industry has expandedby a whopping 107 percent overthe past 10 years and in 2007roughly 100 cruise vesselswill carry more than 12million passengersthrough North Americanwaters. Yet despite thisgrowth, our laws protect-ing ocean waters from pollu-tion by dumping and contami-nation are stagnant.

Under current law, cruise shipsare allowed to dump untreatedsewage and other wastes directlyinto the ocean. Sewage containsfecal coli form, nutrients, viruses,bacteria and other contaminantsthat can harm human health by sul-lying beaches and other recreationareas, disrupt the food chain bykilling shellfish beds and fisheriesand destroy the environmentthrough toxic algae blooms and theacidification of waterways. Equallyunsavory graywater – wastewatergenerated from domestic processessuch as washing dishes, laundry andbathing – contains fecal coli form,metals, hormones and other con-taminants.

Oily bilge water – water stored inthe hull of the ship to maintainequilibrium in stormy weather – canbe discharged if treated, but all themajor cruise lines have been fined

Shape Up or Ship Out: Friends of the Earth Cruise Ship Pollution LawsuitDemands Action from Environmental Regulators

Reefs at Risk!Coral reefs support extraordi-nary biodiversity. They are hometo over 4,000 species of fishes aswell as crustaceans, mollusks

and sea turtles, amongstother organisms.

Governments world-wide have takenmeasures to protectcoral reefs becauseof the vast biodiver-

sity that they sup-port. However, our

nation’s very own FloridaKeys National Sanctuary, hometo the third-largest coral barrierreef in the world, is at risk dueto pollution. As cruise shipsdump sewage they release highlevels of nitrates and phos-phates into the water which cancause algae blooms that smoth-er and kill corals. This in turndecreases the biodiversity of theplants and animals that rely onthe corals. Removing nitrogenand phosphorous from waste-water requires technology that,at present, is lacking fromsewage treatment facilities onboard cruise ships. A scientificpanel commissioned by thecruise industry recommended asewage discharge ban withinfour nautical miles of any coralreef. At this time, however, nei-ther the cruise industry nor theEPA has agreed to adopt suchcoral-saving policies.



H E A L T H Y O C E A N S ■

G L O B A L W A R M I N G ■

EPA Taken To Task in LandmarkSupreme Court RulingBy Danielle Fugere

IN A STUNNING DEFEAT for the Bushadministration the Supreme Courtrecently ruled that theEnvironmental Protection Agency(EPA) has the power to regulategreenhouse gas pollution from auto-mobiles. In a lawsuit brought byFriends of the Earth and others, theCourt rejected more than a dozenexcuses offered by EPA for its contin-ued refusal to regulate greenhousegas emissions, including its claim ofscientific uncertainty about globalwarming.

The decision is a major victory forthe environmental movement. EPAmust now regulate greenhousegases from motor vehicles unless itcan prove either that there is no linkbetween global warming and green-house gases or that such gases donot endanger the public health orwelfare. Given the overwhelming sci-entific consensus that global warm-ing is caused by greenhouse gasemissions and that global warmingthreatens the health of the planetand its inhabitants, it will now be

nearly impossible for EPA to avoiddoing its job.

Securing this victory signals theadvent of change in global warmingpolicies. For instance, EPA has finallyagreed to hold hearings onCalifornia’s landmark greenhousegas reduction law for automobiles,after ignoring the request for morethan a year and a half.

This case also grants states andother groups impacted by globalwarming standing to bring theirclaims to court, thus paving the pathfor future judicial successes.

The Court rejected EPA’s argu-ments that it could not remedy thesituation because emissions fromdeveloping nations like China will atsome point offset our domesticreductions. The Court found thatreducing domestic automobile emis-sions would reduce an enormousquantity of carbon dioxide. Based onevidence presented to the Court, theU.S. transportation sector emittedmore than 1.7 billion metric tons ofcarbon dioxide into the atmospherein 1999 alone, accounting for morethan 6 percent of worldwide carbondioxide emissions.

for bypassing treatment systemsand dumping untreated bilge water.

In addition, luxury liners spew arange of pollutants into the air thatcan lead to acid rain and contribute toglobal warming. They can also spreadinvasive species by dumping untreat-ed ballast water in coastal zones.

A typical one-week voyage with3,000 people on board generates

about 210,000 gallons of sewage, 1million gallons of graywater and37,000 gallons of oily bilge waterfrom the bottom of the ship.

Cruise ships can discharge rawsewage at a distance of three milesfrom shore, while treated sewageand oily bilge water can be releasedinto harbors, estuaries and coastalwaters without monitoring – so it is

unknown whether wastewater iseven meeting treated dischargestandards when dumped. Graywatercan be discharged anywhere withoutany treatment. In contrast, discharg-ing sewage on land requires federalpermits and daily reporting on thelevels of pollutants released in dis-posal.


H E A L T H A L E R T ■

By Ian Illuminato

SUMMER IS A TIME FOR FUN – escap-ing the house and going to thebeach or pool or enjoying a sunnyday in the park. Yet while the sun’srays can put a smile on your face,without protection, they can alsolead to skin cancer and other dis-eases. Unfortunately the most com-mon protection from overexposureto the sun – sunscreen – presents itsown health safety hurdles.

Some sunscreen manufacturers areintroducing possibly dangerousnanoparticles into their products.These particles are effective at blockingharmful radiation from the sun butthey can also potentially wreak havocon your body when absorbed throughthe skin, penetrating organs and othervulnerable areas of the body.

Skin cancer is the most commontype of cancer in the United States;an estimated 40 to 50 percent ofAmericans who live to the age of 65will have skin cancer at least once.So while nanoparticles might bedangerous, it would be unwise tostop using sunscreen all together.

The key to safe sunscreen use is tofind out what is in the products youuse and to ensure that they arenanoparticle-free.

Friends of the Earth wants to helpyou avoid sunscreens that may com-promise you and your family’shealth. That’s why we have releaseda consumer guide to nano sun-screens. We surveyed more than 150sunscreen manufacturers to discernwhether their products containnanoparticles and what safety test-ing they have carried out. TheFriends of the Earth Guide to NanoSunscreens, available on our websiteat www.foe.org/Sunscreen_Report, ranksbrands along a color-coded scale,from Green (Nano-Free) to Yellow(May Contain ManufacturedNanoparticles) to Red (ContainsManufactured Nanoparticles),

depending on manufacturers’ pub-lished policies and the informationwe received from our survey.

The Royal Society and theAcademy of Engineering (UK) havewarned governments that nanopar-ticles should be treated as newchemicals, and sunscreens and cos-metics containing nanoparticlesshould be subject to rigorous safetytesting prior to commercial release.However, sunscreen and cosmeticsmanufacturers in the United Statesare not required to identify nanopar-ticle ingredients on product labels orto conduct new safety tests. Our gov-ernment has yet to establish soundregulation to protect consumersfrom risky nanotechnology and untilit does, consumers should be wary.

The No-Nano Guide to Sunscreen

Nanotechnology ExposedNanotechnology is a new science involving the manipulation of materi-als at the scale of atoms and molecules. The unit of measurement for thenanoscale is a nanometer (nm), which is one billionth of a meter –extremely tiny stuff. By way of comparison, a human hair cell is a whop-ping 80,000 nm wide.

However, “nano” does not simply mean tiny; rather, it is best under-stood to mean fundamentally different: materials engineered or manu-factured to the nano-scale exhibit different essential physical, biologicaland chemical properties from their bulk material counterparts. Forexample, when a material is engineered to the nanometer-level itbecomes much more reactive due to its exponentially-increased relativesurface area. Nanomaterials can also have very different and unpre-dictable optical, magnetic and electric properties, in part because quan-tum physics effects come into play at the nano-scale.

Sunscreens and cosmetics are only the tip of the experimental icebergfor this new science. Nanotechnology is increasingly used in a wide varietyof applications including food production and food packaging. And thetechnology could potentially further affect our lives – from crippling oursecurity and privacy with the creation of never-before-seen weapons andsurveillance systems to altering the fabric of the clothes we wear and cre-ating batteries from viruses constructed at the nano-scale. For more infor-mation on nanotechnology visit www.foe.org and http://nano.foe.org.au/.


PERIODICALS POSTAGE PAID ATWASHINGTON, DCAND ADDITIONALMAILING OFFICESSummer 2007 | Volume 37, Number 2

1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 600Washington, DC 20036-2008

H E A L T H A L E R T ■

A copy of the latest Financial Report and Registration filed by this organization may be obtained by contacting us at Friends of the Earth, 1717 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 600, Washington DC 20036-2008. Toll-freenumber: 877-843-8687. Or, for residents of the following states, by contacting any of the state agencies: CALIFORNIA – A copy of the Official Financial Statement may be obtained from the Attorney General’s Registryof Charitable Trusts, Department of Justice, P.O. Box 903447, Sacramento, CA 94203-4470 or by calling 916-445-2021. FLORIDA - A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION MAY BEOBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING TOLL-FREE, WITHIN THE STATE, 1-800-435-7352. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATIONBY THE STATE. Florida registration # CH960. KANSAS Annual financial report is filed with Secretary of State #258-204-7. MARYLAND For the cost of copies and postage: Office of the Secretary of State, State House,Annapolis, MD 21401. MICHIGAN MICS 10926. MISSISSIPPI – The official registration and financial information of Friends of the Earth, Inc. may be obtained from the Mississippi Secretary of State’s office by calling1-888-236-6167. Registration by the Secretary of State does not imply endorsement by the Secretary of State. NEW JERSEY INFORMATION FILED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCERNING THIS CHARITABLESOLICITATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY BY CALLING 973-504-6215. REGISTRATION WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSE-MENT. NEW YORK Office of the Attorney General, Department of Law, Charities Bureau, 120 Broadway, New York, NY 10271. NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS ORGANIZATION AND ACOPY OF ITS LICENSE ARE AVAILABLE FROM THE STATE SOLICITATION LICENSING BRANCH AT 1-888-830-4989. THE LICENSE IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT BY THE STATE. PENNSYLVANIA – The official regis-tration and financial information of Friends of the Earth may be obtained from Pennsylvania Department of State by calling toll-free within the state 1-800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement. UTAH –Permit #C495. VIRGINIA State Division of Consumer Affairs, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, P.O. Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23218; 1-800-552-9963. WASHINGTON - Charities Division, Office of theSecretary of the State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504-0422; 1-800-332-4483. WEST VIRGINIA West Virginia residents may obtain a summary of the registration and financial documents from the Secretaryof State, State Capitol, Charleston, WV 25305. Registration does not imply endorsement.

In the absence of government regu-lation, safety testing and comprehen-sive product labeling, our guide canhelp you make smart choices.

The Friends of the Earth guide is acomprehensive resource. However,there’s also a quick visual test you canuse to find out if your sunscreen hasthe potential to contain nanoparticles.Before you head pool-side, take note ofwhether the sunscreen you’re rubbingon appears white or is instead trans-parent. If you’re getting the usualsnowman glaze, then keep rubbing.But if your sunscreen is transparent,you are most likely using lotion thatcontains potentially toxic nanoparti-cles. Sunscreen manufacturers areincreasingly using this unregulatednanotechnology to reduce the size oftitanium dioxide (TiO2) and zinc oxide(ZO), which makes these active, sun-blocking ingredients clear instead ofsolid. While perhaps visually preferable

to smears of white lotion across yourface, the mostly aesthetical benefits ofnanoparticle sunscreen do not out-weigh the potential health risksinvolved in their use.

Nanoparticles were once assumed tobe ‘benign’ and their inclusion in prod-ucts such as cosmetics and sunscreensconsidered safe. But scientific researchhas now shown that many types ofnanoparticles can be toxic to humantissue and cell structure. Scientists havefound that some consequences of theuse of nanoparticles can includeincreased oxidative stress, whichreduces a cell’s reproductive capabili-ties, DNA mutation and even cell death,which equates to a full out attack onthe body. Furthermore, titanium dioxidenanoparticles used in sunscreen havebeen demonstrated to catalyze the for-mation of free radicals in skin cells,which can cause damage to DNA.

Choosing between protecting yourskin from cancer and protecting your

body from unknown harms fromnanoparticles shouldn’t be a choiceyou have to make. And it isn’t – as longas you stay informed. So until govern-ment safeguards are in place to moni-tor nanotechnology’s risks, you can relyon Friends of the Earth’s guide to avoidnano sunscreen.

Cultivate Consumer PowerContact the sunscreen companies yel-low-listed in our guide as well as thosenot listed at all and demand full dis-closure of whether they use nanoparti-cles and what safety precautions andtesting they perform. And ask thosecompanies red-listed to discontinuetheir use of this potentially harmfultechnology.

You might also want to check outFriends of the Earth’s reportNanomaterials, Sunscreens andCosmetics: Small Ingredients, Big Risks,which you can download on our web-site at www.foe.org/Nanomaterials.

(continued from page 15)

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH€¦ · water pollution, wildlife habitat destruction and damage to our...

Documents

Transcript of FRIENDS OF THE EARTH€¦ · water pollution, wildlife habitat destruction and damage to our...