What's At Stake: Clean Air and Public Health in our Highest Courts on December 10

December 09, 2013

800px-US_Supreme_CourtThis Tuesday, December 10, our nation's highest courts will hear two landmark Clean Air Act cases that have big implications for public health. First and foremost, the Supreme Court will hear arguments Tuesday on the Environmental Protection Agency's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

Back in 2011, EPA unveiled this update of a critical public health protection that would reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, dangerous pollutants that form soot and smog and contribute to poor air quality days and respiratory illnesses affecting millions of Americans. They call this the Cross State Air Pollution Rule because it curbs the millions of tons of air pollution that travel downwind and across state lines each year. Pollution doesn't stop at state lines.

Unfortunately, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals handed down an extremely controversial divided ruling in August of 2012 that struck this rule.

The EPA and a coalition of environmental and public health organizations - including the Sierra Club - sought review by the Supreme Court, and on June 24, 2013, the Court agreed to hear the case.  Briefs submitted by the EPA, our coalition of the American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and many others make the case that the DC Circuit's ruling is unfounded, contrary to the Clean Air Act, based on a misunderstanding of interstate pollution, and seriously jeopardizes the ability of downwind states and the EPA to protect millions of people from dangerous ozone and particulate matter pollution.

The benefits of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule are remarkable. According to the EPA, this standard would prevent up to 34,000 deaths annually, would prevent 1.8 million days of missed work/school annually, and would provide $120-280 billion in benefits every year at a cost of only $1.8 billion in the first year, and roughly $1 billion a year thereafter. The benefits-to-cost ratio is about 100 to 1!

What's more, for many downwind areas, 75 percent or more of local air pollution comes from upwind states. In parts of Connecticut, more than 90 percent of ozone pollution is due to pollutants flowing in from other states. Without this cross-state protection, these states simply cannot resolve their air quality problems, putting the health of their citizens at grave risk.

Industries and states and many others are standing together calling for implementation of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Just today, underscoring the urgency of the problem, governors of eight Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states petitioned EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to reduce air pollution blowing into the region from nine Midwestern and Appalachian states.

The second major public health protection coming before a court this week is the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. Coal plants are the largest source of mercury pollution in the U.S., so of course the industry is challenging this standard that requires them to stop dumping so much mercury into our air and water.

Mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that can damage the brain and nervous system. Mercury is of special concern to women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, since exposure to mercury can cause developmental problems, learning disabilities, and delayed onset of walking and talking in babies and infants.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hold oral argument on December 10 regarding these challenges by industry to this critical public health mercury standard.

Make no mistake about it - this Tuesday, December 10, is a big day for clean air and public health in our nation's highest courts, and there are tens of thousands of lives on the line.  

-- Mary Anne Hitt, Beyond Coal Campaign Director

LA Times Gets It Wrong on Renewables Grid Impacts

December 06, 2013

WindEvan Halper's December 2 article in the Los Angeles Times, "Power Struggle: Green energy versus a grid that's not ready" perpetuates the false narrative that renewable energy increases the risk of blackouts, when in fact the problem is centralized fossil fuel nonrenewable generation.

A more accurate, but perhaps less sensational, story would detail California's national leadership in reliably increasing the use of renewables -- like solar and wind energy. A recent report by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation and the California Independent System Operator, two entities charged with ensuring grid reliability, highlights the many solutions the state is already adopting to address concerns raised by Mr. Hapler.

For example, despite Mr. Halper's claim that "nobody can say for certain when the wind will blow or the sun will shine," the potential grid impacts arising from the variability of wind and solar energy are being addressed through improved forecasting and new regional partnerships that better leverage the geographic diversity of wind and solar resources, reducing overall variability in the energy system.

Continue reading "LA Times Gets It Wrong on Renewables Grid Impacts " »

Proposed Colorado Air Quality Standards Need to be Stronger

December 04, 2013

Fracking-Weld-County-COFracking in Weld County Colorado, northeast of Denver along Colorado's Front Range. Photo by Shane Davis.

By Catherine Collentine, Sierra Club Beyond Natural Gas Colorado Campaign Representative

Successful ballot measures in Colorado to ban or place moratoriums on hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") built momentum to get methane emissions regulated in new statewide air-quality standards released in late November. In last month's elections, all four of the local ballot initiatives to halt or ban fracking in Colorado communities passed. Industry outspent community activists 40 to 1, but the people of this state got their message across loud and clear that they don't want fracking near their homes, schools, or communities.

These big wins were followed by the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission proposing a set of emissions standards that would, if enacted, lead to a significant reduction in emissions of ozone-inducing methane and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) -- chemicals which form ground-level ozone (commonly known as smog) -- and emissions from natural gas drilling and fracking operations in the state.

While these rules are a step in the right direction to regulate the natural gas industry and would make Colorado the first state in the nation to regulate methane emissions, more action is needed. Colorado is out of compliance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) air-quality standards along the population centers of the Front Range, where four out of five Coloradans live. (Colorado's population is about 5.2 million; more than 4 million live along the Front Range.)

The serious health effects of poor air quality are borne by citizens, especially young children and the elderly who suffer from asthma and other upper respiratory ailments. The natural gas industry is exempt from significant federal environmental regulations including the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Through exemptions and lack of regulation, natural gas operations have been allowed to expand without safeguards for public health and the environment. The Air Quality Control Commission rules are necessary to slow this out-of-control polluting by drilling operations.

The proposed rules provide a promising start to significantly reducing methane and other pollutants from Colorado's oil and gas operations, but they must be strengthened further before they are finalized. A final rule must ensure that local control is given to communities to determine if they want destructive fracking in their backyards. The rules must address both the health and climate impacts of drilling and fracking, and require state-of-the-art technology to maximize emission reductions and tighten the timeline for leak detection and repair provisions.

This is our opportunity to hold the natural gas industry accountable to our citizens, communities, and the health of our environment. We look forward to making sure that all voices are heard, especially people facing the prospect of drilling near their homes and neighborhood schools, and those whose health and quality of life are at stake. We will work with the Air Quality Control Commission and the administration of Governor Hickenlooper -- as well as with other stakeholders in this process -- to push for the highest air-quality standards possible.

 

Learn more about the dangers of fracking and the Sierra Club's Beyond Natural Gas campaign.

The Sierra Club Sponsors and Participates in the Americas Latino Festival

November 27, 2013

The Boulder, CO, Event Attracted Artists and Activists from Throughout the US and Abroad

(Versión en español)

On a cool November morning in Boulder, CO, we all were seated on this packed shuttle bus and decided to start introducing ourselves to each other. Soon I realized I was surrounded by loads of talent from many parts of the US and the world.

And my realization was reinforced when a gentleman seated a couple of rows ahead of me said, “I am Homero Aridjis, pleased to meet you.” Aridjis is Mexico’s most relevant poet, author of more than 50 books, and leader of the Group of 100, perhaps Latin America’s most influential environmental organization.

I got up and introduced myself shaking his hand in admiration. After all, my first assignment for the Sierra Club back in 2001 was to write a column for don Homero about the terrible effects of NAFTA’s Chapter 11 in Mexico. Little did I know that the circle was going to be completed on a rocking bus on our way to Boulder’s Municipal Library.

We finally arrived at our destination to attend the kick-off ceremony of the event that had attracted us all, the Americas Latino Festival, the first Latino arts and cultural event inspired by social and environmental justice and by everyone’s right to enjoy a healthy environment.

Image-page+6
I attended representing the Sierra Club, one of the main sponsors, to make two presentations: the first one regarding climate change and environmental justice in the Latino community, and the second about the strengthening of democracy, and voter participation and protection.

I first shared the stage with Adrianna Quintero, founder and executive director of NRDC’s Latino Outreach Program, and Paty Romero Lankao, a sociologist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

IMG_2626
From left to right, organizer Irene Vilar, presenters Adrianna Quintero, Pati Romero Lankao and Javier Sierra (Photo: ALF)

My presentation dealt with the environmental paradox facing Latinos. On one hand, we Latinos are much more aware than the population in general of the dangers of the climate crisis and the need to open the gates to a prosperous, clean energy economy; and on the other, we disproportionally suffer the consequences of environmental degradation and pollution.

I made extensive use of the findings of the landmark National Survey on Latinos and the Environment conducted last year by the Sierra Club and NCLR. The study revealed that 92 percent of Latinos believe climate change is either taking place (77%) or will happen in the near future (15%). The same percentage believes we all have the responsibility to take care of God’s creation on earth.

Latinos, however, do suffer a daily, toxic bombardment with devastating consequences. Forty-three percent of us live or work dangerously close to a toxic site, such as a coal-burning plant, a refinery, an incinerator or an agricultural field. Almost half said at least one member of their family suffers from asthma and more than 40 percent said at least one family member has cancer. This happens among the community with the nation’s lowest healthcare insurance enrollment rates.

Then I indicated that without the Latino vote, which has proven to be crucial in the last two presidential elections, the progressive movement, including the environmental community, would fail to attain its lofty goals. And finally I explained how the Sierra Club has been reaching out to Latinos to be an integral part of the conservation movement and of the fight against pollution and polluters.

On my second presentation, I shared the panel with some very relevant Latino civil society leaders, such as María Echaveste, former presidential advisor to Bill Clinton and current policy and program development director at the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social Policy, UC Berkeley; Héctor Sánchez, executive director of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement; Ben Monterroso, national executive director of Mi Familia Vota, and Marcos Vilar, national field director of Mi Familia Vota.

The panel’s main focus was continuing the national Latino organization’s efforts to promote voter participation among Latinos, especially in off-years, such as the upcoming 2014 campaign. The panelists also dealt with the dangers of voter ID laws, which are designed to suppress the minority vote, especially the Latino one.

Of special concern was the Supreme Court decision earlier in the year that gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the most effective instrument to protect the franchise in the country’s history. I emphasized that in the months that followed the decision, many states across he country moved to restrict the minority vote.
 
In general, the festival succeeded in attracting personalities in the arts, political activism and the environmental movement to confront problems and challenges from a unique artistic and cultural point of view. The combination worked, thanks to participants like the ones mentioned above and many more, such as:
•    Writer Junot Díaz, winner of the Pulitzer Prize in fiction and witness to the Caribbean diaspora to the US.
•    Writer Laura Esquivel, author of “Like Water for Chocolate.”
•    Journalist Ray Suarez, a 14-year PBS veteran and current anchor of Al Jazeera’s “Inside Story.”
•    Spanish artist Lorenzo Durán Silva, whose intricate leave cuttings depicting nature subjects has astonished art critics around the world.
•    Guillermo Gómez Peña, Chicano poet, actor and political activist.
•    Dafnis Prieto, percussionist, composer and current MacArthur Fellow, and many more.

The Americas Latino Festival has broken ground in the cultural, political and environmental arena, not only for Latinos but for the rest of the country as well. Let’s hope this is only the beginning.

Javier Sierra is a Sierra Club columnist, @javier_SC

Let's Give Thanks for Wild Salmon, Not Frankenfish

November 26, 2013

 Larry-Peterson
Upper Skagit Tribe fisheries technician Larry Peterson shows tribal youth how to prepare Chinook salmon for cooking. (Photo credit: Kari Neumeyer, NWIFC)


By Elisabeth Keating, Seattle-based writer and former Communications Chair of the Sierra Club's Washington State Chapter.

My family didn't eat any fish at Thanksgiving. But in fact, fish have been an intrinsic component of our nation's Thanksgiving feast from the start. After a Native American from the Patuxet tribe named Squanto taught the pilgrims to fish and harvest corn, the pilgrims teamed up with him in 1621 to plan a celebratory meal that probably included Atlantic salmon.

We've come a long way since 1621.

The FDA is now on the cusp of approving the first genetically modified animal: a genetically modified salmon that is part eel and includes antifreeze in its DNA so it can grow all year long. I wonder how John Smith would have reacted at that first Thanksgiving if Squanto had dumped some fish on the table and said, "We didn't actually catch this fish. We made it out of an eel, and threw in some antifreeze. Enjoy!"

In all seriousness:

Given that salmon is a keystone species that is intrinsic to Northwest tribal culture, identity and economic survival, it's hard to understand why the FDA hasn't considered any economic or cultural input from the tribes in its evaluation.

As I learned this fall from Anne Mosness, a wild salmon advocate who served on the steering committee of the failed Initiative 522 movement to label genetically modified food in Washington State, the U.S. FDA hasn't run rigorous testing on the fish from either the standpoint of its safety for human consumption or its potential effect on the wild salmon population if it escapes open pens and enters the environment.

Continue reading "Let's Give Thanks for Wild Salmon, Not Frankenfish" »

Borderlands Activist Wins National Outdoor Book Award

November 25, 2013

Krista-SchlyerPhoto by Chris Linder

The National Outdoor Book Awards has named Continental Divide: Wildlife, People, and the Border Wall, by photographer, writer, and borderlands activist Krista Schlyer, as the winner of the 2013 award for Nature and the Environment.

Continental-Divide

When Schlyer learned that hundreds of miles of border walls recently built along the U.S.-Mexico border were causing damage to sensitive wildlands and wildlife, she took notice. More important, she took photographs. These photos, along with a well-researched narrative of the wild places of the borderlands, fill the 292 colorful pages of Continental Divide.

Javelina-at-border-wall

"This is groundbreaking work," says National Outdoor Book Awards Chair Ron Watters. "The effects of the border wall on the environment have been left out of the national discourse, but Krista casts a bright light on this forgotten part of the debate."

Prairie-dog

"Krista's writing and photography raise awareness about threats to land, air, water, and wildlife in our borderlands," says Dan Millis, leader of the Sierra Club's Borderlands Team and Conservation Program Coordinator for the Grand Canyon (Arizona) Chapter. "Continental Divide is engaging, stunningly beautiful, and has a tremendous impact on us, the audience. For years, Krista has been a steadfast and powerful advocate for borderlands conservation, and she has helped Sierra Club bring the work of the Borderlands Team to a whole new level."

Saguaro-cactus

Continue reading "Borderlands Activist Wins National Outdoor Book Award" »

Club Mobilizes Support for Strong Power Plant Pollution Safeguards

November 23, 2013

Rally-at-Chicago-hearing

Between mid-October and the second week of November, the EPA held 11 public listening sessions across the country to solicit feedback, ideas, and input from the public about the best Clean Air Act approaches to reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants -- the nation's largest stationary source of carbon pollution, responsible for about one third of all greenhouse gas pollution in the United States.

Rally-at-Chicago-hearing

Doing what it does best -- mobilizing grassroots support -- the Sierra Club answered the bell for the listening sessions. Club activists and supporters packed conference rooms, raised the roof at rallies and hearings, and submitted comments online, sending EPA a loud and clear message that Americans want the strongest possible safeguards against industrial carbon pollution from power plants.

San-Francisco-rally

In Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Lexana (Kansas), New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C., more than 3,000 Sierra Club members and coalition supporters turned out for the listening sessions, organized and participated in rallies, and generated media attention.

Dallas-rally

Over 2,000 people, including nearly 1,200 Sierra Club members and supporters, gave testimony supporting strong new carbon-pollution guidelines. By contrast, a total of 375 people testified in opposition. Below, Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Club's Beyond Coal campaign, on the bus from Indianapolis to the Chicago hearing.

En-route-to-Chicago

Meanwhile, thanks to the Sierra Club's online organizing efforts, more than 16,000 people took action online, urging the EPA to put forth the strongest possible safeguards.

Rally-at-Denver-hearing

The Sierra Club has compiled a report about the listening sessions, recapping what came down at each location, including details from testimony and a statistical breakdown of how many citizens spoke out for and against strong new guidelines.

Chicago-ralliers

Read and download the report, available in both  high resolution and low resolution.

Chicago-activists

San-Francisco-ralliers

U.S. Military Goes Electric with Innovations in Vehicles and Energy Storage

November 22, 2013

While historically the military has been one of the world's biggest fossil fuel consumers, in recent years it has moved to the front lines of alternative and renewable energy investments. The U.S. Department of Defense has committed to 680 alternative energy projects, driven by the fact that shifting to cleaner fuels not only benefits the environment, but also, ultimately, because it "reduces energy dependency, helps protect service members and costs less money," according to Department of Defense spokesperson Mark Wright.

One of the major goals of the energy projects is to cut down on petroleum use, and one of the ways the military is doing this is through investments in alternative fuel vehicles, such as plug-in electric vehicles and energy storage. And like many military projects that drive technological innovation, the benefits will eventually be shared by everyone.

A recent report by Navigant Research estimates that the U.S. military will more than double its current $435 million spending on alternative fuel vehicles by 2020, mostly through investments in plug-in electric and hybrid-electric vehicles for non-tactical purposes (i.e., vehicles used for administrative or operative support of military functions). Based on interviews with Department of Defense officials and alternative fuel vehicle acquisition policies, Navigant predicts this investment will result in the military acquiring nearly 100,000 electric vehicles within the decade.

Scott Shepard, a lead researcher on the report, said that although "[Department of Defense] investment in [plug-in electric vehicles] will not drive mainstream interest in plug-in electric vehicles," the military investments may well help drive the technology development in advancing plug-in vehicles.

Vehicle-to-grid technology is one of these exciting developments. Some of the military's planned plug-in vehicle fleets will work as part of microgrids through vehicle-to-grid connections. Vehicle-to-grid-enabled plug-in electric vehicles act as energy storage units when plugged in, able to store energy, and then release it to the grid when needed. In Japan, vehicle-to-grid programs are already in place.

In military application, the vehicle-to-grid plug-in electric vehicles would support power security in established microgrids, even during energy instability or emergency situations -- qualities that make such a setup clearly advantageous to the military. Vehicle-to-grid-enabled microgrids are already underway in bases in Hawaii and Colorado, and plans for expansion have been announced.

Outside of microgrids, vehicle-to-grid plug-in electric vehicles can potentially produce revenue from frequency regulation services for larger grids -- a benefit that is "of specific interest to the military," according to Scott Shepard. The military clearly wants to save fuel and money, and electric vehicles and battery storage are a smart way to do that.

For the rest of us, technical and regulatory challenges still prevent mass vehicle-to-grid adoption in the U.S., but the University of Delaware is testing the vehicle-to-grid technology in civilian lifestyles with a fleet of vehicle-to-grid-enabled electric Mini Coopers, and earning nearly $2,000 per vehicle every year for energy storage and grid-balancing services. If the military investments in vehicle-to-grid technology can open the window for public use, the benefits from getting paid to plug in will likely make plug-in electric vehicles more attractive to new car buyers.

Already we're seeing companies take interest in consumer-based energy storage. For example, a rule by the California Public Utilities Commission requires investor-owned utilities to incorporate 1325 MW of electrical energy storage in their systems by 2020-including 200 MW of customer-side storage, which may involve vehicle-to-grid plug-in electric vehicles in the future.

Leandra Cooper is an intern for the Sierra Club's Future Fleet & Electric Vehicles Initiative.

Replacing the San Onofre Nuclear Plant

Can We Afford More Air Pollution, Climate Disruption, and Higher Bills?

San-Onofre-power-plantSan Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

By Matthew Vespa, Senior Attorney, Environmental Law Program

 

This past June, Southern California Edison (“SCE”), one of the largest electric utilities in the nation, announced the permanent retirement of the 2,200 MW San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (“San Onofre”) after significant tube damage was discovered in its steam generators. The unexpected shutdown of San Onofre presents an exciting opportunity for California to demonstrate how it can continue to meet its future energy needs without new fossil fuel plants.

 

Unfortunately, state regulators at the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) are now considering building new gas plants in Southern California to replace San Onofre.  Given the severe impacts of gas plants on public health and the environment, the region’s reduced energy needs, and the availability of clean energy solutions, there is no legitimate basis for the CPUC to approve new gas-fired power plants in response to the San Onofre shutdown.

 

New Gas Plants Are Costly, Increase Air Pollution, and Move Us Backwards On Meeting Our Climate Goals

 

New gas plants are extremely costly and would exacerbate the serious public health impacts already experienced in a region with some of the dirtiest air in the nation. New gas plants would also undermine California’s climate targets by replacing a carbon-free energy source with carbon-intensive generation. Following the shutdown of San Onofre, greenhouse gas pollution from in-state electricity generation rose 35 percent due to increased use of gas-fired power plants.1 

 

Authorizing new gas plants as a permanent replacement solution for San Onofre in lieu of clean energy alternatives would mark a significant and potentially unrecoverable step backward in California’s efforts to combat climate change. As recognized by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, “a transition to zero- and near-zero emission technologies is necessary to meet 2023 and 2032 air quality standards and 2050 climate goals.”

 

We Don’t Have to Choose Between Reliability and Pollution

 

Fortunately, no new gas plants are needed. While one might reflexively assume that retirement of a facility the size of San Onofre would require at least some gas-fired replacement generation, this assumption ignores both the significant progress California has already made in transitioning toward clean energy and the additional potential to accelerate deployment of clean energy resources.

 

Due in part to incorporation of recently adopted building and appliance codes, the latest demand forecast by the California Energy Commission (“CEC”) lowers future projections of energy demand in Southern California by over half the capacity provided by San Onofre. Remaining need resulting from the retirement of San Onofre should be met by properly accounting for anticipated progress in California’s clean energy programs: energy efficiency, distributed (rooftop and small scale) solar, energy storage, and demand response (incentivized changes in energy use by consumers from their regular usage pattern). To the extent that need still remains, it can be filled with additional targeted deployment of these resources.

 

If necessary, transmission improvements can also reduce the need for new gas-fired generation in the LA Basin. For example, the Mesa Loop-In project proposed by SCE to upgrade an existing substation would reduce generation need in the LA Basin by 1,200 MW –- the equivalent of two new mid-size gas plants.

 

A preliminary decision by the CPUC to approve new gas plants to replace San Onofre is expected in January. Contact the CPUC today and tell them not to replace San Onofre with new dirty gas plants.  Gas plants will make our air and climate worse and just aren’t needed.

 

For more information on San Onofre and evidence highlighting the lack of need for new gas plants as replacement capacity, read the following Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on the San Onofre Nuclear Plant.

 

 


1 California Air Resources Board, 2208-2012 Emissions for Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting Summary (Nov. 4, 2013) (showing increase in in-state greenhouse gas emissions from 30,732,214 metric tons in 2011 to 41,610,182 in 2012 and attributing change to increase in use of natural gas as fuel due to decrease in hydroelectric generation and loss of San Onofre), available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/reported-data/2008-2012-ghg-emissions-summary.pdf.

 

2 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (Dec. 2012), p. 1‑20, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/2012aqmp/Final/Chapters.pdf.

Gray Wolves Need Our Support -- Now

November 18, 2013

Gray-Wolf

By David Scott, Sierra Club President

As many readers of this blog are well aware, in June the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed removing the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the list of threatened and endangered species. The proposal would strip Endangered Species Act protections from wolves across nearly the entire continental U.S., despite the fact that few, if any, wolves are left in the vast majority of their former range.

Four public hearings on the proposed delisting were scheduled for earlier this fall, but three of them -- in Sacramento, Albuquerque, and Denver -- were canceled due to the federal government shutdown. At the hearing that did take place, on September 30 in Washington, D.C., several Sierra Club activists were among the 73 citizens who spoke out against delisting (only three spoke in favor), and Sierra Club Legislative Director Debbie Sease spoke at a pre-hearing rally.

Despite cancellation of the official hearings, in early October hundreds of wolf supporters held citizens hearings in Albuquerque and Denver. In Albuquerque alone, 300 people showed up for a "Save the Lobo" rally and unofficial hearing where activists recorded video testimony to be delivered after the shutdown. (Americans for Prosperity, funded by the Koch brothers, attempted to hold an event next door to the Save the Lobo rally, but only about 30 people showed up.)

Four make-up hearings on the gray wolf delisting have now been scheduled, and three are taking place this week, in Denver, Albuquerque, and Sacramento. A fourth and final hearing will take place in Pinetop, Arizona, on December 3.

Denver -- Tuesday, November 19, from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Paramount Theatre, 1621 Glenarm Place, Denver, CO 80202; (303) 405–1245

Albuquerque -- Wednesday, November 20, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. at the Embassy Suites, Sandia Room, 1000 Woodward Place NE, Albuquerque, NM 87102; (505) 245–7100

Sacramento -- Friday, November 22, from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. the Marriot Courtyard Sacramento Cal Expo, Golden State Ballroom, 1782 Tribute Road, Sacramento, CA 95815; (916) 929–7900

Pinetop, AZ -- Tuesday, December 3, from 6 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Hon-Dah Conference Center, 777 Highway 260, Pinetop, AZ 85935 (3 miles outside of Pinetop at the Junction of Hwy 260 and Hwy 73); (928) 369–7625

I urge all who care about giving gray wolves a fighting chance of continuing their comeback to attend one of the hearings in person and speak out. And if you cannot attend a hearing, please take action here. The deadline for submitting public comments is December 17.

Continue reading "Gray Wolves Need Our Support -- Now" »


User comments or postings reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. The Sierra Club accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (but not the obligation) to delete postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.

Up to Top

Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter RSS Feed



Sierra Club Main | Contact Us | Terms and Conditions of Use | Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Rights | Website Help

Sierra Club® and "Explore, enjoy and protect the planet"® are registered trademarks of the Sierra Club. © 2013 Sierra Club.
The Sierra Club Seal is a registered copyright, service mark, and trademark of the Sierra Club.