Environment, Energy, and Agriculture: Difference between revisions
add link |
add bold |
||
Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
**[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/2/28/3J0-Resolution_on_Packaging_and_the_Municipal_Solid_Waste_Stream_Exposed.pdf Opposing local, state, and federal waste reduction and mandated recycling laws], including regulations on packaging (such as Styrofoam restrictions), in favor of a "voluntary" approach to waste reduction. | **[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/2/28/3J0-Resolution_on_Packaging_and_the_Municipal_Solid_Waste_Stream_Exposed.pdf Opposing local, state, and federal waste reduction and mandated recycling laws], including regulations on packaging (such as Styrofoam restrictions), in favor of a "voluntary" approach to waste reduction. | ||
**[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/d/df/3H4-Granting_the_Authority_of_Rural_Counties_to_Transition_to_Decentralized_Land_Use_Regulation_Exposed.pdf Eliminating land use and zoning regulations] designed to guide new development, and replacing them with private negotiations. | **[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/d/df/3H4-Granting_the_Authority_of_Rural_Counties_to_Transition_to_Decentralized_Land_Use_Regulation_Exposed.pdf Eliminating land use and zoning regulations] designed to guide new development, and replacing them with private negotiations. | ||
**[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/e/ea/3H3-Environmental_Services_Public-Private_Partnership_Act_Exposed.pdf Privatizing public water and sewer systems] and prohibiting local governments from requiring contractors | **[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/e/ea/3H3-Environmental_Services_Public-Private_Partnership_Act_Exposed.pdf Privatizing public water and sewer systems] and prohibiting local governments from requiring that contractors meet labor and wage standards. | ||
**Undermining environmental regulations through novel, aggressive legal theories that claim regulations limiting pollution, for example, constitute a "taking" of the right to pollute and thus require compensation under the Constitution, through innocuously named bills like: | **Undermining environmental regulations through novel, aggressive legal theories that claim regulations limiting pollution, for example, constitute a "taking" of the right to pollute and thus require compensation under the Constitution, through innocuously named bills like: | ||
***[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/4/47/3G9-The_Private_Property_Protection_Act_Exposed.pdf the "Private Property Protection Act"] and the | ***[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/4/47/3G9-The_Private_Property_Protection_Act_Exposed.pdf the "Private Property Protection Act"] and the | ||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
*Expanding the rights of polluters, and limiting regulation of greenhouses gases and other industrial activities, by: | *Expanding the rights of polluters, and limiting regulation of greenhouses gases and other industrial activities, by: | ||
**[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/f/f3/3H18-Uniform_State_Environmental_Audit_Privilege_Act_Exposed.pdf Protecting polluting corporations from civil and criminal liability] by making a company’s internal audit or assessments of its pollution "privileged" and thus inadmissible in legal proceedings. | **[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/f/f3/3H18-Uniform_State_Environmental_Audit_Privilege_Act_Exposed.pdf Protecting polluting corporations from civil and criminal liability] by making a company’s internal audit or assessments of its pollution "privileged" and thus inadmissible in legal proceedings. (see also [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/d/d3/3H1-Environmental_Audit_Privilege_and_Qualified_Disclosure_Act_Exposed.pdf this bill]). | ||
**[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/9/9a/3J1-Resolution_to_Retain_State_Authority_over_Coal_Ash_as_Non-Hazardous_Waste_Exposed.pdf Opposing uniform rules on hazardous coal combustion waste], in favor of a race-to-the-bottom amongst state rules. | **[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/9/9a/3J1-Resolution_to_Retain_State_Authority_over_Coal_Ash_as_Non-Hazardous_Waste_Exposed.pdf Opposing uniform rules on hazardous coal combustion waste], in favor of a race-to-the-bottom amongst state rules. | ||
**Creating new burdens to | **Creating new burdens for legislators and agencies to pass environmental regulations by: | ||
***[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/3/37/3H2-Environmental_Priorities_Act_Exposed.pdf Establishing a business-dominated panel to "assess" all environmental regulations], using a framework established by a climate change-denier, the "Copenhagen Consensus." | ***[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/3/37/3H2-Environmental_Priorities_Act_Exposed.pdf Establishing a business-dominated panel to "assess" all environmental regulations], using a framework established by a climate change-denier, the "Copenhagen Consensus." | ||
***[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/f/f0/3C2-Conditioning_Regulation_of_Non-Pollutant_Emissions_on_Science_Act_Exposed.pdf Requiring states pass through multiple layers of process before passing environmental regulations], including approval by two five-person panels emphasizing the theoretical "economic" effect of regulations. | ***[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/f/f0/3C2-Conditioning_Regulation_of_Non-Pollutant_Emissions_on_Science_Act_Exposed.pdf Requiring states pass through multiple layers of process before passing environmental regulations], including approval by two five-person panels emphasizing the theoretical "economic" effect of regulations. | ||
**[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/8/86/3K0-Groundwater_Protection_Act_Exposed.pdf Hindering state-level regulation of groundwater contaminants] by establishing EPA standards as a ceiling, rather than a floor, giving an agribusiness-dominated agency a regulatory veto, and adding other burdens. | **[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/8/86/3K0-Groundwater_Protection_Act_Exposed.pdf Hindering state-level regulation of groundwater contaminants] by establishing EPA standards as a ceiling, rather than a floor, giving an agribusiness-dominated agency a regulatory veto, and adding other burdens. | ||
**[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/9/9e/3E11-Resolution_to_Retain_State_Authority_over_Hydraulic_Fracturing_Exposed.pdf Putting the regulation of "fracking" for methane gas in the hands of the states rather than establishing federal safety and | **[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/9/9e/3E11-Resolution_to_Retain_State_Authority_over_Hydraulic_Fracturing_Exposed.pdf Putting the regulation of "fracking" for methane gas in the hands of the states rather than establishing federal safety and environmental standards]. Fracking has been shown to spoil enormous quantities of drinkable water and contaminate nearby wells and watersheds. | ||
** | **Reversing notions of preemption by [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/8/87/3H14-State_Regulatory_Responsibility_Act_Exposed.pdf giving states authority to invalidate any federal law or directive] deemed to violate an expansive conception of state’s rights. | ||
*[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/a/aa/3G0-Eminent_Domain_Authority_for_Federal_Lands_Act_Exposed.pdf Giving states the power to appropriate national parks and other federal public land], possibly to allow greater oil, gas, and coal extraction. | *[http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/a/aa/3G0-Eminent_Domain_Authority_for_Federal_Lands_Act_Exposed.pdf Giving states the power to appropriate national parks and other federal public land], possibly to allow greater oil, gas, and coal extraction. | ||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
<h3>Some of this Corporate Agenda Has Already Become Law</h3> | <h3>Some of this Corporate Agenda Has Already Become Law</h3> | ||
[[Image:Wisconsin.png|left|90px]]Wisconsin Governor and ALEC alumni Scott Walker included language in the 2011 budget bill designed to end mandatory recycling programs for Wisconsin communities. More than 1,000 municipalities in Wisconsin rely on a small landfill tax to fund local recycling programs. Walker wanted to use the money collected from the landfill tax for a new, privatized economic development agency. The proposal outraged county leaders and administrators as well as Republican legislators. Republican State Rep. John Nygren questioned whether the budget measure would really save money in the long run, when balanced with the increased cost of maintaining and building expensive new landfills. The Governor’s actions made no financial sense, but they did comport with ALEC’s [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/2/28/3J0-Resolution_on_Packaging_and_the_Municipal_Solid_Waste_Stream_Exposed.pdf Resolution on Packaging and the Municipal Solid Waste Stream], which criticizes "interfering government mandates” and promotes a free market approach to waste removal and recycling. In the end, cost-effective recycling prevailed in Wisconsin. Learn more here (Link to Mary’s Wisconsin article). | [[Image:Wisconsin.png|left|90px]]'''Wisconsin Governor and ALEC alumni Scott Walker included language in the 2011 budget bill designed to end mandatory recycling programs for Wisconsin communities.''' More than 1,000 municipalities in Wisconsin rely on a small landfill tax to fund local recycling programs. Walker wanted to use the money collected from the landfill tax for a new, privatized economic development agency. The proposal outraged county leaders and administrators as well as Republican legislators. Republican State Rep. John Nygren questioned whether the budget measure would really save money in the long run, when balanced with the increased cost of maintaining and building expensive new landfills. '''The Governor’s actions made no financial sense, but they did comport with ALEC’s [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/2/28/3J0-Resolution_on_Packaging_and_the_Municipal_Solid_Waste_Stream_Exposed.pdf Resolution on Packaging and the Municipal Solid Waste Stream], which criticizes "interfering government mandates” and promotes a free market approach to waste removal and recycling.''' In the end, cost-effective recycling prevailed in Wisconsin. Learn more here (Link to Mary’s Wisconsin article). | ||
|} | |} | ||
| style="border:1px solid transparent;" | | | style="border:1px solid transparent;" | | ||
Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
<h3>Eliminating Democratic Land Use Controls</h3> | <h3>Eliminating Democratic Land Use Controls</h3> | ||
[[Image:Family.png|right|90px]] One model bill from ALEC's member corporations would repeal ALL land use planning and zoning for rural counties by both county and state governments. Under this bill, property could be used for any purpose, without regard for single-family, agricultural, or industrial zoning, or environmental land use restrictions. | [[Image:Family.png|right|90px]] '''One model bill from ALEC's member corporations would repeal ALL land use planning and zoning for rural counties by both county and state governments. Under this bill, property could be used for any purpose, without regard for single-family, agricultural, or industrial zoning, or environmental land use restrictions.''' | ||
This would prevent a local government from controlling development, from choosing to support small businesses rather than big-box retailers, from limiting certain businesses -- like nude bars -- near residences or schools, and would prevent local governments from keeping polluting industries out of their community. | This would prevent a local government from controlling development, from choosing to support small businesses rather than big-box retailers, from limiting certain businesses -- like nude bars -- near residences or schools, and would prevent local governments from keeping polluting industries out of their community. | ||
Without zoning laws, neighbors who were concerned about a particular property would have to bring individual lawsuits to protect their rights against nuisances like smells or pollution from factory farms. They would not be able to act democratically to set rules for zoning in their towns. Land use could only be restricted by contracts -- but not restricted in perpetuity -- which would require individuals to spend their own money to protect community interests, thereby putting community growth in the hands of the wealthy few. | Without zoning laws, neighbors who were concerned about a particular property would have to bring individual lawsuits to protect their rights against nuisances like smells or pollution from factory farms. They would not be able to act democratically to set rules for zoning in their towns. Land use could only be restricted by contracts -- but not restricted in perpetuity -- which would require individuals to spend their own money to protect community interests, thereby putting community growth in the hands of the wealthy few. | ||
'''Is a local legislator who was elected to represent YOU actually protecting the interests of corporations instead of YOU and YOUR FAMILY?''' | '''Is a local legislator who was elected to represent YOU actually protecting the interests of corporations instead of YOU and YOUR FAMILY?''' | ||
----- | ----- | ||
<h3>Protecting Factory Farming from Regulation</h3> | <h3>Protecting Factory Farming from Regulation</h3> | ||
One of the lesser publicized ventures of Koch Industries was its large-scale confined animal feed operations (CAFOs). At one point, Koch Beef Company was one of the largest cattle feeders in the U.S. When it sought to increase one of its already huge operations by 20,000 head of cattle, workers living a few hundred feet away expressed concerns for their health, and neighbors complained about an exponential increase in smell from Koch’s CAFO. But Koch persuaded friendly state regulators that the neighbors' concerns lacked “technical merit”-- although it ultimately divested the feed lots, while maintaining its Matador Cattle Company and grazing operations near Yellowstone National Park, along with other agricultural operations. | '''One of the lesser publicized ventures of Koch Industries was its large-scale confined animal feed operations (CAFOs). At one point, Koch Beef Company was one of the largest cattle feeders in the U.S.''' When it sought to increase one of its already huge operations by 20,000 head of cattle, workers living a few hundred feet away expressed concerns for their health, and neighbors complained about an exponential increase in smell from Koch’s CAFO. But Koch persuaded friendly state regulators that the neighbors' concerns lacked “technical merit”-- although it ultimately divested the feed lots, while maintaining its Matador Cattle Company and grazing operations near Yellowstone National Park, along with other agricultural operations. | ||
Is ALEC interested in protecting CAFOs? You bet. One of its bills, the “Right to | '''Is ALEC interested in protecting CAFOs? You bet. One of its bills, the [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/a/af/3A8-Right_to_Farm_Act_Exposed.pdf “Right to Farm Act,”] would bar any lawsuits by neighbors claiming nuisance from any activities that are typical in farming, including industrial agriculture. If this bill passed, it would likely benefit ALEC's agribusinesses members.''' | ||
----- | ----- | ||
<h3>Prohibiting Local Efforts to Ensure Safe Agricultural Practices</h3> | <h3>Prohibiting Local Efforts to Ensure Safe Agricultural Practices</h3> | ||
Another [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/f/f0/3A9-State_Pesticide_Preemption_Act_Exposed.pdf model bill] from ALEC's member corporations prohibits local, city or county governments from limiting pesticide use, requiring that communities do whatever officials in the state capitol decide to allow in distant towns. [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/8/3A3-Biotechnology_State_Uniformity_Resolution_Exposed.pdf Another bill] places the same restrictions on local efforts to restrict bio-engineered and GMO crops. If these model bills become law, local governments would be prohibited from responding to their community's concerns about pesticide use or the dangers of GMO crops. ALEC allegedly supports "federalism," or state's rights -- a theory premised on the idea that state government can better represent and respond to local interests than a more centralized federal government. But ALEC apparently does not apply this logic to relations between local and state government. <div> | '''Another [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/f/f0/3A9-State_Pesticide_Preemption_Act_Exposed.pdf model bill] from ALEC's member corporations prohibits local, city or county governments from limiting pesticide use, requiring that communities do whatever officials in the state capitol decide to allow in distant towns.''' [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/8/3A3-Biotechnology_State_Uniformity_Resolution_Exposed.pdf Another bill] places the same restrictions on local efforts to restrict bio-engineered and GMO crops. If these model bills become law, local governments would be prohibited from responding to their community's concerns about pesticide use or the dangers of GMO crops. '''ALEC allegedly supports "federalism," or state's rights -- a theory premised on the idea that state government can better represent and respond to local interests than a more centralized federal government. But ALEC apparently does not apply this logic to relations between local and state government.''' <div> | ||
{{Helpful Resources}} | {{Helpful Resources}} | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 23:02, 6 July 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|