Frances Beinecke's Blog: Saving Wildlife and Wild Places

Four Women Who Inspire Action and Conscience in Copenhagen

2009-12-17T15:51:19Z

With the international climate talks drawing representatives from 192 nations and attracting more than 110 world leaders, there are a lot of impressive people gathering in Copenhagen. But this week I have been particularly inspired by four powerful women--women who are pointing the way toward a more sustainable future for all of us.

The first was Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, the former prime minister of Norway and a leading voice on sustainable development for two decades. A physician by training, Brundtland also headed the World Health Organization, and she has sought to balance human health and prosperity with the limits of the planet.

I first met Brundtland two years ago at the climate talks in Bali where she was serving--as she is now--as one of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s special envoys on climate. I have also worked with her on the Aspen Institute Commission on Arctic Climate Change, and in each setting, I am inspired by her. She is a straight shooter, a knowledgeable leader, and an individual clearly committed to the planet and to her people.

I have also been lucky enough to see Dr. Jane Goodall here in Copenhagen. Renowned primatologist and U.N. Messenger of Peace, Goodall has touched so many through her work as an educator and communicator of the plight of our closest relatives--the chimpanzees.

Clear cutting in the chimps’ habitat and other tropical rainforests is responsible for 15 percent of all global warming emissions. Goodall and I both spoke Wednesday night at a gala at the Royal Danish Theater honoring activists who have worked to preserve those forests from exploitation and destruction.

"I love the forest," said Goodall, who at one point treated the audience of several hundred to her imitation of a primate calling through the trees. Being in the forest and understanding its mystery, she said, "Is to come very close to some great spiritual power." We're in danger of losing access to that, she said. "We're destroying our planet. It seems to me we've lost our wisdom." We need Goodall to remind us of that wisdom.

We also need the energy of the next generation, and Jessy Tolkan embodies that vitality. Tolkan is the executive director of the youth organization Energy Action, and she fully grasps the fact that the future of her generation is at stake, and that if we don’t take climate action, she and her peers will pay the price.

Tolkan brings a much needed urgency to these climate talks. She knows that what we do in the next couple of years will decide the fate of her generation, and she isn’t afraid to speak her mind. I saw her powerful and heartfelt message transform a room full of environmental professionals meeting with Vice President Al Gore on Tuesday. She is calling on our leaders to have what she has: political courage.

Maya Lin is another woman of courage. Lin, an artist and architect--and NRDC trustee-- is fearless in the way she expresses loss and mourning in her work. Her latest memorial is a multi-sited series called “What Is Missing,” and here in Copenhagen, she unveiled a new installment called, “Unchopping a Tree,” a video inspired by a W.S. Merwin poem that poses the question: how would we feel if clear cutting and deforestation came to the city parks we love best.

Lin debuted the piece here at the climate talks, because she wants to emphasize that preventing deforestation prevents global warming. But like all good art, it doesn’t just relay a message--it speaks to the heart and soul. The piece, she explained, is “about scale, abundance, the sound of the common songbird, oxygen, the ocean, the visibility of the stars at night. It reveals things that are disappearing that you might not realize are disappearing."

I am inspired by Lin’s powerful artistic expression, just as I am inspired by all four of these extraordinary women. Whether it is the voice of the leader, activist, scientist or artist, each one speaks with authority and passion, and we are lucky they are raising their voices in the name of the planet and its climate. We need them now more than ever.

Copenhagen Could Generate a Real Commitment to Slowing Deforestation

2009-12-04T17:00:46Z

When I attended the climate talks in Bali in 2007, I realized that while the stage-crafted plenary sessions on emissions targets are a critical part of these negotiations, the quieter, sideline debates over specific details like financing or verifying reductions are just as important.

I expect the same will be true in Copenhagen. Negotiators will reach agreement on several key issues, and in turn, these agreements will become the building blocks of the final international treaty that will be signed in the coming months.

I believe one of those agreements will be about how to solve the crisis of deforestation--the source of 15 percent of the world’s global warming pollution. There are huge swaths of tropical forest in Africa, Asia, and South America that could continue to act as critical carbon sinks--but only if the financial incentives and the market values shift toward preserving forests rather than depleting them.

It is likely that in Copenhagen the international community will commit to reducing the rate of deforestation by a specific amount, possibly 50 percent by 2020.

Why do I think this agreement will be reached? There is strong political momentum behind stopping deforestation.

Most nations view it as a win-win strategy that solves a number of additional problems, such as poverty, poor water quality, and social unrest. It is also thought to be a reasonably low-cost approach to reducing emissions. After all, some of the key drivers of deforestation--soy farms, cattle ranches, and palm oil plantations--don’t have a high financial rate of return, so it is possible to incentivize people to shift to other economic opportunities that protect forests.

But there is something even more powerful behind the political momentum: this initiative has been led primarily by developing nations.

The Coalition for Rainforest Nations, initiated by Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, has pushed hard for this. And it changes the nature of the conversation when the developing nations shape the debate instead of having the developed world telling them what to do.

Indeed, Brazil and Indonesia--both of which have already lost record amounts of tropical rainforest--have committed to reducing their rates of deforestation. Brazil has backed that up with a clear target to curb deforestation rates, its own resources for an “Amazon Fund,” and concrete actions to reach the target (including addressing illegal logging). These steps have already had a noticeable impact on the country’s deforestation rate, which has seen a very dramatic reduction.

Copenhagen will give Brazil and other nations a chance to translate those domestic commitments into an international agreement, and hopefully other nations will follow suit and use the talks to present their own plans to reduce deforestation.

It is true that when you get 192 countries together in one place, there is bound to be disagreement. But when it comes to deforestation, the differences of opinion are actually narrower than on other issues such as verifying emission reductions, and thus easier to reconcile. For instance, negotiators will have to hash out the scope of deforestation funding--what portion should go to nations preventing deforestation and what should go to those trying to increase forest coverage.

But even as we resolve the final details, we already agree on a number of strategies that we know can help prevent the loss of more tropical forests. Deforestation is a complex social issue, and different sets of tools work in different nation, but we have enough tools in hand now to begin fighting this crisis.

That’s something we can all agree on.

Tell Your Senators to Save Our National Parks from Global Warming

2009-10-07T17:21:08Z

I still remember my first visit to a national park. I was nine years old, and my family traveled to the Grand Tetons in Wyoming. For a child from Northern New Jersey, it was a revelation. I was stunned by the scale of everything: the open sky, the unending pine forests, and the peaks that towered over Jackson Lake. I spent most of my time in the saddle--like many young girls, I was horse crazy back then--and fell thoroughly in love with the wild western landscape. That's me in the photo.

I recently shared those memories with Channel 13, New York's local PBS station, for a video accompanying Ken Burns' fantastic documentary series, The National Parks: America's Best Idea.

I am sure many of you can recall your first visit to a national park, or perhaps a beloved hike, climb, or sunset viewpoint. Burns' documentary does a great job of illustrating how deeply the park system has become embedded in our personal, family, and national traditions.

But despite our country's valiant efforts to protect these iconic lands, the parks are now facing the most powerful threat in their history--more potent even than industrial development, states-rights advocates, or Teddy Roosevelt's original opponents.

That force is global warming. And unlike mining, drilling, or grazing, it does not observe National Park Service boundaries. It undermines every landscape in its path.

A new report released by NRDC and the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization called Parks in Peril details the ways climate change is altering the seasons, wildlife habitat, and flower-filled meadows we thought were preserved forever. It identifies the 25 most imperiled parks, and says that Glacier National Park could lose all its glaciers, Joshua Tree National Park all its Joshua trees, and Saguaro National Park all is saguaros.

The report also describes how my beloved Grand Tetons is threatened. Already, as a result of warming, its glaciers are melting, its snowpack is diminishing, and its breathtaking stands of aspen trees are dying off in something called "sudden aspen decline." The park now looks different from the one I saw when I returned at 14 for camp.

We don't have to let these treasures go. If we take steps now to curb our global warming pollution, we can preserve the values and natural resources that make our parks unique.

Back in 1916, Congress passed the National Park Service Organic Act to create the agency charged with protecting the parks.

Now it is time for Congress to pass a clean energy and climate law in order to safeguard our parks--and all our lands--from global warming. The House passed just such a law in June, and now the Senate is debating its version.

This Senate bill has many foes in the oil and gas industry, and passing it will require Americans to speak up in the name of our natural heritage.

Ken Burns' documentary reveals that we have an admirable history of doing just that. The series celebrates not just the beauty of the parks, but also the spirit which inspired their creation: the distinctly American idea that these places should be preserved, not for the elite or for private industry, but for everyone.

Generations of dedicated Americans fought to carve these parks into being. Yes, the effort started with the likes of John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt (see my recent post about his new biography), but it also included ordinary citizens who did the hard work of surveying, writing letters, and calling on their lawmakers to protect precious wildlands.

We need to show the same vision for preserving great landscapes. We need to be fired up by the same passion for wilderness and natural beauty. And we need to feel the same impatience to get the job done.

We need to tell our senators to pass a climate bill now, so we can preserve our national parks for generations to come.

Bringing the Arctic and the Rainforest to New York's Climate Week

2009-09-22T16:22:32Z

Climate Week has begun, and I am already inspired by the sense of momentum. From the U.N. Secretary General's Summit on Climate Change on Tuesday to the G20 Summit in Pittsburg at the end of the week, world leaders are turning their attention to the crisis of global warming and positioning themselves for the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December.

My NRDC colleagues and I will be spending the week pushing the United States to take a leadership role in slashing carbon pollution, but we will also be advocating for the landscapes already ravaged by climate change.

On Tuesday, I have the honor of speaking at the United Nations with His Serene Highness Prince Albert II of Monaco. We will call on the international community to protect the canary in the coal mine of the climate crisis: the Arctic.

Long before newly emboldened droughts and wildfires brought climate change to our backyards, the distant North was taking the brunt of global warming, and its melting ice and imperiled wildlife have called the world's attention to the severity of this calamity.

But even as we finally listen to what the Arctic is telling us and strive to limit global warming pollution around the world, we must also act to protect the ecosystem itself.

A few years ago, I went to the Explorers Club in New York and saw the sledge that Admiral Peary used to reach the North Pole. If Perry used that sledge today, he would fall into the ocean--there simply isn't enough sea ice to make the journey on a dogsled.

Just last week, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that summer sea ice declined by about 540,000 square miles below the 1979-2000 average. That is more than the size of Texas, California, Florida and Indiana. The retreating ice means disaster for animals like polar bears and walrus that need ice platforms from which to feed and rest.

But it also means that a region protected for millennia by ice will be suddenly available for oil drilling, fishing, shipping, and other industrial development. There is currently no system in place to effectively manage and police the impending gold rush.

If we introduce unchecked industrial development to an Arctic already made vulnerable by climate change, we may never be able to restore the ecosystem that holds back sea-level rise for the entire globe.

We don't have to let it get that far. We can sustain the Arctic's long-term health by acting today. I am a member of the Aspen Institute Commission on Arctic Climate Change--a partnership between the Aspen Institute and the Prince Albert II of Monaco Foundation--and we are drafting guidelines for managing new human activity in the Arctic in a way that does not push this already severely stressed region over the brink. I will share some of these ideas at the United Nations.

While HSH the Prince and I promote solutions for the Arctic, other advocates will spend Climate Week calling for stronger protections for the Earth's rainforests.

There are many reasons to preserve tropical rainforests, but climate change may have risen to the top of the list. These forests sequester about 20 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and yet they are being destroyed on such a grand scale that deforestation accounts for about 17 percent of all carbon emissions--more than the entire transportation sector.

Halting deforestation is one of the most effective things the international community can do to stop global warming. And so rainforest advocates are using the spotlight on Climate Week to draw attention to the urgent need for forest protections in all climate treaties.

NRDC, for instance, partnered with the Prince's Rainforest Project, founded by Prince Charles. The project has made brief film clips of famous people--Harrison Ford, the Dalai Lama, Daniel Craig--and not so famous--young children, students --introducing themselves as rainforest advocates. To add your name to this effort to protect the rainforests, go here and send an SOS to world leaders. I did, and I even participated in a film clip, alongside a rather large frog.

The frog's presence--and even a cameo appearance by Kermit the Frog --adds welcome levity to a grave topic.

As we find ourselves in the midst of Climate Week, with just two months to go before the Copenhagen negotiations, and yet still no firm climate commitment from the United States in hand, a little laughter is a welcome thing indeed.

My Summer Reading: Public Lands and the Next Generation of Roosevelts

2009-08-28T18:19:55Z

Like many Americans in summertime, I escaped the city this August and sought refuge in the natural world. For me, it was the shady woods and cool mountain lakes of the Adirondacks, but thanks to our nation's long history of conservation, Americans have thousands of public lands destinations to choose from.

It is easy to take our remarkable natural heritage for granted. After all, we have 58 national parks, 155 national forests, almost 700 wilderness areas, and countless state and city parks.

But this August, I read two things--a Teddy Roosevelt biography called The Wilderness Warrior (read a review here) and a report called Great Outdoors America--that helped me realize that while these lands may be set aside on paper, their health and vitality are not guaranteed.

Every generation of Americans has a responsibility to preserve our public land for our children and grandchildren. And every generation of American leaders has to show the way. We can start by creating an affirmative, sweeping vision of what we want our national heritage to become.

Douglas Brinkley's biography of Roosevelt reminded me that our first wilderness treasures were not preserved by accident. They gained protection thanks to the dogged agenda of a bold leader.

Roosevelt was a hunter, of course, but he was also a naturalist who admired Darwin and knew the taxonomy and classification of the many birds and mammals he encountered. He also had a prescient grasp of the fact that healthy habitat leads to healthy wildlife.

This is what inspired Roosevelt to begin the great American tradition of setting wild landscapes aside for the benefit of animals and the enjoyment of human beings.

Our country has built on his legacy, but the Great Outdoors America report reveals that just because Roosevelt and his followers created parks doesn't mean we can rest on their laurels.

Great Outdoors America was generated by a bipartisan group of conservation and recreation experts led by Senators Lamar Alexander and Jeff Bingaman. The group was charged with assessing the health of our wild and recreational lands.

Their conclusion? Though we have inherited a wealth of open space, we are not adequately protecting our public lands in the face of climate change, booming development, or public health crises like childhood obesity.

Take, for example, the fact that the Land and Water Conservation Fund--the congressionally mandated pool of money for public lands--has never been fully funded. Indeed, its budget has fallen woefully short by hundreds of millions of dollars.

According to the report, we can revive our commitment by fully funding a comprehensive program that links local and federal, public and private efforts to protect public lands and by aggressively promoting recreation and outdoor education for America's youth--to inspire the next Roosevelts.

In this time of daunting economic challenges, there are many demands on federal funds. But keep in mind that public lands make our communities livable and generate billions in tourist dollars. They also sustain the vein of wild, rugged adventure that runs through our national character.

Roosevelt exemplified that spirit, but we can carry it into the 21st century.

Every time we visit a national monument or walk through an urban park, we are benefiting from the hard work of citizens who came before us, people who took the trouble to set these lands aside and care for them over the years. We should pass the same privilege on to our children and grandchildren.

My favorite time in the Adirondacks this August was when my husband and I were joined by our three daughters. Sharing time as a family in the woods--far from the distractions of Blackberries and Facebook--is something I will always remember. I hope that my daughters' children will still have access to healthy wild refuges to do the same.

The New Tar Sands Oil Pipeline: A Junkie's Last Fix

2009-08-25T17:01:53Z

Having recently returned from the extensive tar sands oil fields of Alberta, I was alarmed to learn that our State Department just approved a new pipeline for funneling tar sands fuel straight into the U.S. Midwest. This decision locks us into years of reliance on a dirty fuel--one that has no place in the clean energy future the Obama administration is trying to build.

Al Gore has said, "Junkies find veins in their toes when the veins in their arms collapse. Developing tars sands is the equivalent." It is our last desperate effort to feed our oil addiction, no matter how dangerous the process is.

If that is the case, then this pipeline is the equivalent of a junkie sneaking drugs into rehab.

Why? Because sooner rather than later, America is going to pass a national climate law that will favor low-carbon fuels over polluting tar sands oil. But oil companies are betting on the fact that if their pipeline is already in place before these new provisions take affect, the U.S. will keep buying their dirty tar sands fuel.

The companies are focused on their best interests, not ours: This pipeline may be good for their bottom line, but it will damage our environment and constrain our economic growth.

Not only do the tar sands fields devour massive amounts of boreal forest and fresh water, but they also consume enormous amounts of energy. Tar sands operations use enough natural gas every day to heat more than 3 million homes.

This is why producing tar sands oil releases 3 times as much global warming pollution as conventional oil--which is already a dirty climate culprit.

As I wrote in a recent post, I was astonished to see for myself just how destructive the process of preparing tar sands oil is. But what really struck me as I flew over the rapidly growing oil sands fields was the realization that we don't need to do any of this.

We have cleaner, more sustainable options for powering our cars. Instead of demolishing the boreal forest and spewing greenhouse gas emissions into the air, we can improve the fuel efficiency of our cars and shift to plug-in hybrids.

These cleaner technologies will create 3 to 4 times as many jobs as the oil industry and will put America at the forefront of the global energy market.

This is the future we should be building. Rather than laying pipeline for outdated, polluting fuels, we should be constructing the infrastructure of the 21st century--wind farms, solar plants, and the transmissions lines that will power our cars with clean energy and employ workers here in America.

We need to get this clean energy future started now--for the health of the planet and the health of our economy. We can do that by passing a comprehensive clean energy and climate bill to give companies the signal they need to invest in low-carbon technologies.

Traveling around Fort McMurray, I could see that every major energy company has a stake in the tar sands business. Tar sands production is a long-term investment. It is capital intensive because it requires so much expensive infrastructure. Even though oil prices dipped this year, oil companies are not reevaluating their stake in tar sands. They are simply using the slow time to renegotiate labor contracts and prepare for the next wave of growth. Alberta produces 1.3 million barrels of tar sands fuel a day but expects to produce from four times to five times that amount in the next 10 to 20 years.

Imagine if all that investment and all those workers were focused on making more efficient cars, building hybrid batteries, and developing renewable energy instead? Then the pipeline the State Department just approved would run dry.

Obama’s View from Yellowstone: Pines Killed by Climate-Fueled Beetles

2009-08-14T20:02:56Z

President Obama heads Saturday to Yellowstone National Park, where he and his family join the millions of Americans who thrill each year to the sulfureous steam of Old Faithful, the wild domains of bison and elk and the summer splendor of the Rocky Mountains.

Sadly, though, they'll also witness firsthand the domestic ravages of global warming. This widening scourge is taking a devastating toll on our country's first, oldest and most beloved national park, one more reason why the Senate should pass legislation aimed at curbing climate change and the destruction it wreaks.

The victim this time is the whitebark pine, the signature species of the northern Rockies ridge line and a foundational tree critical to the high mountain habitat of red squirrels, elk and grizzly bears.

A slow-growing species that lives for centuries, the whitebark pine is often the only tree hardy enough to withstand the frigid winters and harsh winds several thousand feet high in the Rockies. These majestic trees help to shelter smaller plants, stabilize vulnerable mountaintop soil, moderate snowmelt runoff, ensure steady stream flow in summer and produce a super-sized pine nut that's essential food for wildlife.

After anchoring the Rocky Mountain high country for thousands of years, the whitebark pine is threatened with extinction by a modern ill. The greenhouse gases that are heating our planet have warmed the northern Rockies just enough to allow the native mountain pine beetles to flourish at high elevations where few could thrive before now.

As a result, whitebark pine trees are under siege by these ravenous beetles. Right now as much as 70 percent of these ancient trees are already dead in parts of Montana, Wyoming and Idaho.

The First Family will see this ongoing disaster in the form of lifeless trunks gone grey where green and healthy spires once reached for the skies.

Wildfires and disease are playing a role. Scientists and foresters, though, say the trees could largely withstand those pressures if they were not weakened and further attacked by the beetle onslaught.

Global warming is changing climate patterns around the world. The Rocky Mountains are not immune, nor, as it turns out, is Yellowstone National Park. It has taken its place alongside the melting Arctic ice caps, sprawling African deserts, warming Caribbean waters and the increasingly violent storms they breed in the unholy parade of environmental catastrophe passing by our very eyes.

The Senate has the opportunity, and the obligation, to stand up to this unfolding calamity and stem the reach of its disastrous tide.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed earlier this summer by the House will help create 1.7 million jobs in promising new areas that will help us build more efficient homes, work places and automobiles. It will help make our country more secure by reducing our reliance on foreign oil. And it will push back against the greenhouse emissions we know are heating our planet, disrupting climate patterns and destroying the very ecosystems upon which our very survival depends.

In 1872, just seven years after the Civil War, our Congress established Yellowstone National Park as the first such delineation of public lands in our country -- indeed, the first anywhere in the world. From that inspired decision has grown a network of nearly 400 national parks for Americans to enjoy, a proud and rich legacy President Obama honors with his Yellowstone visit on Saturday.

As the rest of us ponder these national treasures, and the collective good they provide, let us remember, as well, the duty we have to preserve for future generations what others of vision protected for us. Together, we can turn back global climate change, safeguard our natural heritage and leave behind a brighter future for our children.

America's Other Foreign Oil: Seeing Canada's Tar Sands Up Close

2009-07-30T18:39:11Z

Most Americans recognize that our love affair with the automobile--and the oil addiction that comes with it--has implications for our foreign policy and military commitments in the Middle East. What is less well understood are the environmental and human consequences of feeding our insatiable appetite with fuel from closer to home: Canada.

America accounts for 75 percent of Canada's tar sands oil exports. So last week I traveled to Alberta to see first-hand the tar sands oil production operations in Fort McMurray.

I came to Fort McMurray from a meeting in Winnipeg about how climate change is altering the Arctic, so I was highly sensitized already to the impact of U.S. energy policies on Canada's Arctic. But here was my chance to see what those same policies were doing to the boreal forest, a huge swath of green that stretches across Canada from the Pacific to the Atlantic and overlays Alberta's tar sands.

What Looks Vast At First Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

What struck me most visiting the tar sands oil operations is the SCALE.

When I flew in from the south, I passed over undulating spruce fir forests, a sea of green, interspersed with glimmers of blue rivers, streams, ponds, and wetlands as far as the eye can see. Then stretching to the north, east, and west, the green abruptly vanishes, replaced with a scarred industrial landscape. (See some powerful photos in this National Geographic feature.)

From the air, giant trucks hauling dirt seemed like toy trucks in a sand box. But when you stand next to them in the maintenance shop, they are colossal, as tall as a four- or five-story building.

Not only does the whole process move huge amounts of sand, but it also consumes enormous volumes of heated water to separate the oil from the sand. All that water gets pulled out of the Athabasca River, which flows right through the center of all of this.

That heated water is then dumped into an ever-increasing number of so-called tailing ponds--which are really the size of lakes--to begin a process of settling out the clay and sand and recycling the water to be used again.

The scale of even just one of these facilities is massive. We visited Suncor, the oldest operator in the region. Down on the ground, their operations seemed vast, but in a subsequent flyover, we realized what we saw on land was just the tip of the iceberg.

And the facilities we saw are just a small glimpse at what is planned. In a visit to the Mikisew Cree First Nation's Government and Industry Relations Committee, we saw a map of tar sands leases granted so far by the Alberta government. It was mind blowing. Suncors' facility was a small square on a vast checkerboard of multi-colored leases showing you what is to come.

Government Asleep at the Wheel

The map hinted at another tar sands reality: oversight from the federal and provincial governments is woefully inadequate.

Certainly this is true in the environmental arena. We are accustomed to the federal government issuing standards and regulations, and then enforcing them. I came to understand through conversations with colleagues from the Pembina Institute, journalists who had studied the issue, representatives of First Nations, and local government officials in Fort McMurray that this just doesn't seem to exist. There are plenty of working groups and collaborative committees on air and water, but actual independent review and monitoring seem sorely lacking.

We Must Treat the Addiction at Its Source: America

Throughout my travels in Fort McMurray, I couldn't escape the awareness that we in the United States are totally culpable for this. Tar sands oil is only economically viable because America has a huge appetite for oil. The operations that we visited are the industry's response to servicing that addiction.

Because all commodities are global these days, perhaps oil most of all, it's easy for us to fill the tank and not think about where the oil comes from. After the Iraq War, we gave it more thought, and some believe that obtaining a generous supply from Canada is a more secure way to go. But from an environmental perspective there are three serious consequences which make this strategy untenable:

Tar sands oil development devours critical landscapes. The boreal forest is a carbon sink, a repository of biodiversity, and a reservoir of water and fiber. And yet a huge swath of forest in Alberta and potentially Saskatchewan will disappear as a result of our oil addiction. Perhaps some areas will be replanted, but the natural function of these forests in their current state will not be revived, and the entire concept of a wild boreal forest will be lost.
The scale of these industrial activities will significantly damage air and water quality in the region, and thus endanger human health. Already large quantities of diesel, particulates, and PAH emissions have been recorded. Yet monitoring is currently minimal and the cumulative impacts of the scale of future operations is unknown.
Tar sands oil production releases 3 times the amount of carbon than lighter crude. While I was in Alberta, the provincial government released two tar sands reports to great media fanfare. The reports claimed that the greenhouse gas emissions of the best tar sands operations are only slightly worse than the dirtiest conventional fuels coming from Nigeria and Venezuela. You know you are fighting an uphill battle when these are the most positive findings you can generate. (See my colleagues' in depth analysis of the studies here.)

Cleaner, More Sustainable Options Exist

Developing tar sands oil will not take us down a sustainable or climate friendly pathway. We have cleaner, more sustainable options for powering our cars. Instead of devouring the boreal forest and spewing greenhouse gas emissions into the air, we can improve the fuel efficiency of our cars and shift to plug-in hybrids.

So how do we get there?

We start with those of us in the United States really understanding where our addiction takes us. NRDC will continue our work to make that more broadly known.

We also need to develop a transportation policy that addresses the consequences of that addiction. That includes fuel efficient cars, increased public transit options, smarter growth requiring less car travel, and cleaner, low-carbon fuels. NRDC is trying to advance all of these solutions through the Senate climate bill, transportation legislation, and policies in many states including New York, California, and Illinois.

And finally, Canada needs stronger environmental and global warming policies too. Their need for a sound energy policy is as great as ours. We are truly symbiotic in our energy relationship, and NRDC will look for opportunities to promote cleaner policies in Canada with colleagues such as Canada's Environmental Defence and Pembina.

Tales from the Arctic and Obama’s Polar Bear Decision

2009-05-12T19:40:00Z

Last Friday, two intrepid explorers finished their trek across some of Greenland's most remote territory. The travelers, Larry Lunt, a member of NRDC's Global Leadership Council, and Alain Hubert, the founder of the International Polar Foundation, set out on this expedition not only for the time-honored reasons of adventure and challenge, but also to draw attention to how much the Arctic is already transformed by global warming.

Read their dispatches and trace their journey at OnEarth Magazine's site.

I deeply admire Larry and Alain's fortitude. Like the vast majority of the world's population, I have never been to Greenland myself. But I've come close. Last summer, as a member of the Aspen Institute's Commission on Arctic Climate Change I got to travel by boat through the Arctic Ocean east of Greenland.

I was struck by what a profoundly harsh environment it is. It is a world of white, steel gray and blue, with very little of the familiar green plant life that orients us humans. Yet the Svalbard archipelago I circled has long been a jumping off point for polar exploration. We met a man who was trying to kayak to the North Pole, and I had newfound admiration for the conditions these explorers endure.

That is what Larry and Alain faced in order to tell the story of Arctic melt, and I am deeply grateful. Yet as they join the ranks of illustrious polar explorers, they are facing a dramatically new terrain.

A few years ago, I spoke at the Explorers' Club in New York City, and I saw the dog sledge that Admiral Peary used to cross the frozen ice on his way to the North Pole 100 years ago. Today, thanks to global warming, he would need a boat to get there.

Why We Need Arctic Dispatches

A monumental and potentially catastrophic change is happening in the North, and yet most of us have no idea what it looks like or what it means for our lives down here. Larry and Alain are helping bring that back home to us.

We need to hear what they have to say now more than ever. Decisions are being made today that simultaneously set the course for the Arctic's future yet ignore the reality of the Arctic present.

Just look at the Obama administration's decision last week to retain a controversial Bush-era ruling related to protecting polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. The ruling means that federal agencies must exclude the effects of global warming pollution on polar bears when there are drafting their protection plans. Yet government scientists agree that global warming is a primary threat to these bears!

Working to Prevent an Arctic Gold Rush

It is because of this kind of dissonance in decision making that the Aspen Institute convened the Commission on Arctic Climate Change. The commission is trying to create a conservation and governance structure for the region as a whole.

We need a comprehensive approach, especially since eight different nations have Arctic territory, and each one of them is eager to lay claim to the oil, gas, fish, and shipping routes that have been uncovered by global warming's melting ice.

To protect the increasingly fragile Arctic environment, the Aspen Commission is looking at three issues:

Protecting the living resources, including the fish and wildlife
Establishing criteria for industrial activity
Identifying what kind of governance regime will work best

This past spring, Dr. Gro Harlem Bruntland joined the commission. I met Bruntland at the international climate negotiations in Bali last year, and I have great respect for her. She was the Special Envoy on Climate Change to the United Nations Secretary General and the former Norwegian Prime Minister. I am confident she can help integrate the latest climate science with real-world governance.

I just hope we put these better management plans in place as soon as possible. If we don't, the explorers who follow in Larry and Alain path will confront a terribly altered Arctic environment.

Take Action During a Bad Week for Polar Bears

2009-03-27T15:52:45Z

It's been a hard week for polar bears. Last Wednesday, the New York Times reported that scientists and officials from the five Arctic nations concluded that climate change is "the most important long-term threat" to the bears. Now the U.S. Minerals Management Service is considering the approval of oil and gas leases in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Seas-- also known as the Polar Bear Seas.

These two developments remind us--as if we needed another reminder--of the precarious state of our Northern ecosystem. I saw it for myself when I traveled by boat through the Svalbard archipelago in the high Norwegian Arctic.

I will never forget passing a polar bear stuck on an island, stranded because the sea ice had receded so far from shore. I knew the bear would not eat until the winter--it simply couldn't hunt without the ice. The climate scientists onboard the ship made it clear that with summer sea ice melting at such alarming rates, the bear we saw stranded was just one of many.

Before the ice melts for good, we've got to do two things: 1) We have to create national and international programs for curbing global warming, and 2) We have to establish an international regime for managing the Artic Ocean. If we don't protect the last undeveloped ocean on Earth, it will go the way of all the other oceans.

Jane Lubchenco, Obama's choice for undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere, will be an important voice in this, but the challenge is that the United States is just one piece of the Arctic puzzle. We need all the Arctic nations to come together before it is too late. Later in the spring, I will be attending a meeting of the Aspen Institute's Arctic Commission in an ongoing effort to build that consensus.

In the meantime, there is something you can do.

Please click here to take action right away and tell the Obama administration you don't support the Minerals Management Service giveaway of Arctic wilderness to oil and gas giants. If approved, an invasion of oil rigs could decimate the heart of critical habitat for polar bears and other Arctic wildlife.
One-fifth of the world's polar bear population, along with walruses, whales and other marine mammals, depend on this fragile Arctic ecosystem for their survival.
An oil spill would be devastating for these animals, which are already threatened by global warming, habitat loss, and existing oil development. It's unconscionable to allow oil and gas leasing in this imperiled habitat when scientists fear the extinction of Alaska's polar bears by 2050.

The deadline for comments is March 30th, so please act now and urge the Obama administration to cancel any new oil and gas leasing in America's Arctic.

Environmental Champion Robert Redford Wins New Award

2009-03-10T20:05:50Z

NRDC Trustee Robert Redford has received the new LEAF award from Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment. The award honors Lifetime Environmental Achievement in the Fine Arts, and I think Redford is great inaugural recipient.

Robert Redford has been an anchor for NRDC for over 30 years. Way back in 1974, he turned the premiere of All the President's Men into a benefit for NRDC. It was a huge, sold-out success, both for Redford's film and for our fledging non-profit that welcomed the support.

Since then, Redford has been an insightful, informed, and dedicated NRDC member. He has been our voice to the public and helped mobilize our activists to send millions of messages to lawmakers on behalf of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other irreplaceable wildlands. His commitment to public lands, particularly in Utah, the state he loves so much, was absolutely critical to NRDC's success in beating back the egregious practices of the Bush administration.

But as the LEAF award demonstrates, Redford doesn't limit his passion for the environment to advocacy. He channels it through his artwork as well. From The Milagro Beanfield Wars to A River Runs through It and the Horse Whisperer, Redford's films are infused with the beauty and power of the natural world.

Redford has wisely urged NRDC to better communicate our work through visual imagery as well. He has guided us in using photography, video, and film to illustrate the splendor of the places we strive to protect.

A few years ago, NRDC decided to honor Redford in our own way. We named our Southern California office the Robert Redford Building. When the space was opened in 2003, it was the greenest office in the world. I am happy to say it didn't stay that way: other buildings have since been built following equally rigorous design standards. To me, that makes at an even better tribute to Redford: it is a green place that inspires others to protect our natural resources.

What a Difference Six Weeks Makes: A Roundup of Obama's Green Progress

2009-03-02T17:17:58Z

People often ask me these days what it is like to advocate for environmental protections under the Obama administration. My answer is simple: it is a tremendous relief. It has only been six weeks since President Obama took office, but already the landscape has changed dramatically.

Back in the long dark days of the Bush administration, NRDC kept what we called the Bush Record. It was a compendium of the many Bush policies that undermined or completely eradicated our nation's environmental safeguards. We posted it online because it had to be updated so often.

Thankfully those days are over. The decisions coming out of Washington now are actually strengthening America's protections for the air, water, and atmosphere that we rely on.

Of course, there will be challenges ahead. Government agencies will make decisions NRDC doesn't agree with, and Congress will still require vigilant watchdogs. But the Obama administration has already taken several bold and affirmative steps to protect public health and the environment, and I think they deserve to be trumpeted. Here is the beginning of what I hope will be a very long list:

January 26, 2009: President Obama directs the EPA to reconsider the agency's decision to deny California's strong limits on global warming pollution from cars, and he calls on the Department of Transportation to raise national fuel efficiency standards.
February 4, 2009: More than 100,000 acres of Utah wilderness win protection from oil and gas drilling after the Department of Interior announced thatit will cancel 77 leases issued under the Bush administration.
February 5, 2009: President Obama signs apresidential memorandum requesting that the Department of Energyset new efficiency standards for common household appliances.This will save in 30 years the amount of energy produced by all the coal-fired power plants in America over a two-year period.
February 6, 2009: The EPA announces itwill reconsider its decision to deny California permission to set standards controlling greenhouse gases from motor vehicles.
February 6, 2009: On instruction from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, the Solicitor General asks the Supreme Court to drop the Bush administration's desperate appeal to resurrect EPA's illegal and harmful power plant mercury rule.
February 10, 2009: Department of Interior Secretary Salazar announces that he is going to make a thorough review of the five-year Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program that was announced in the final days of the Bush administration.
February 10, 2009: Administrator Jackson grants a petition by NRDC to reconsider and "stay" for three months a harmful midnight air pollution rule adopted by the Bush administration in mid-January 2009 that would allow dirty industries to release more pollution.
February 13, 2009: Congress came to an agreement on an economic stimulus package that includes bold investments for renewable power and energy efficiency, including weatherization programs that will save consumers billions while creating up to 90,000 jobs. Repairing our nation's outdated and corroded water and waste systems will also create more than 200,000 jobs and improve the safety of our beaches, streams, and drinking water.
February 17, 2009: EPA Administrator Jackson grants a petition by NRDC, Sierra Club and EDF to reconsider a disputed memo signed by Administrator Johnson in December 2008 that refused to regulate carbon dioxide from new coal-fired power plants. She announced that EPA would convene a public process to review this memo, in what was widely seen as the first step to reversing the Bush policy.
February 20, 2009: The Obama administration puts its support behind an international, legally binding treaty to reduce global mercury pollution. This position--a dramatic change for the stonewalling of the Bush years--influences policy reversals from other nations including China and India. Now more than 140 countries commit to regulating this dangerous neurotoxin.
February 24, 2009: In his first State of the Union address, Obama calls on Congress to pass legislation to cap global warming pollution and drive expansion of renewable energy. He also pledges $15 billion a year to invest in solar, wind, biofuels, and more efficient vehicles, and to put American to work making our homes and buildings more energy efficient.
February 25, 2009: Thousands of acres in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado will be protected from harmful oil shale research and development after Department of Interior Secretary Salazar announces thathe will reverse course on the Bush administration's leasing program.
February 26, 2009: The Obama administration releases a federal budget that is the first in history to make critical investments in our clean energy future and tackle global warming head on. It includes revenue from a cap and invest program to limit global warming pollution, which is forecast to generate $150 billion over 10 years starting in 2012.

This is an impressive list, but it is only the beginning. President Obama initial decisions show that he meant what he said on the campaign trail. He has a bold, ambitious vision to move American to a new clean energy future, and he has a powerful sense that the safeguards protecting our health and environment must be strengthened. But most important, he has the conviction to put those beliefs into action.

Baja, California, Gray Whales, and 11 Million BioGems Messages

2009-02-23T15:58:45Z

Visiting a gray whale nursery in Laguna San Ignacio, Baja, California last week reminded me of one of the fundamental truths about environmental advocacy: it is great to win victories, but then you have to secure them for the long-term.

I loved traveling to the lagoon and watching 300 whales spout, jump, and plunge around me. It was restorative to watch such carefree playfulness. But it was also inspiring because I knew that these whales retained their pristine nursery thanks to NRDC, our Mexican and international partners, and our members and activists.

Back in 2000, we blocked the Mitsubishi Corporation from building the world's largest salt factory on the banks of the lagoon. That was a groundbreaking victory in one of the largest environmental campaigns in history. But it was only the beginning. We knew that without permanent protection for the lands around the lagoon and sustainable economic alternatives for the local communities, the salt works and other industrial and commercial projects would remain a threat. So we made an enduring commitment to the lagoon.

Last week, in between boat rides to see the whales, our group visited a nearby school where NRDC had helped install solar panels so the children would have electricity. We got to meet a class of fifth graders, and even though I don't speak much Spanish, I could tell from their giggles and eager smiles they were happy to have guests. They proudly showed us the computer equipment that NRDC members helped purchase for the school.

The work in the school is part of a larger plan to foster sustainable economic growth in the region. Since 2005, NRDC and our Mexican and international partners have secured permanent protection for almost 250,000 acres of lands around the lagoon through a combination of conservation easements and government safeguards. A portion of the funds to purchase the easements goes into a trust fund for community projects. Raul Lopez, the director of the Ejido Luis Echeverria, told us about an oyster farm (with orders from as far away as Hong Kong) that got support from the fund, as well as a chicken farmer who was able to grow his business from 1,000 chickens to 2,000.

The fight to protect San Ignacio from the salt works was the beginning of NRDC's BioGems Initiative to save wild places and wildlife throughout the Americas with the help of online activists. Since then, more than 400,000 BioGems Defenders have sent 11 million messages to lawmakers, government ministers, and executives on behalf of pristine landscapes.

But we don't just call on BioGems Defenders for the big battles; we ask for their help for the long haul. Five years after our victory over the Mitsubishi salt works, we called on their help and successfully beat back a plan to construct a marina near the mouth of the lagoon with a pier that would have stretched nearly a mile into the ocean, directly in the path of migrating whales. And since then, our members have generously supported our efforts to secure conservation easements around the lagoon.

After three decades as an environmental advocate, I have learned that you can't just slap the label of wilderness on a place and call it saved. Stewardship is constant and requires ongoing vigilance.

That's what we are trying to maintain in Laguna San Ignacio. The fishermen living around the lagoon want both to protect the whales and the land and to provide for their families.

We are working with our partners to help them do that in an economically and environmentally sustainable way. Not just today, but into the future as well.

What Successful Environmental Activism Looks Like: Wild Baby Whales

2009-02-19T16:29:02Z

I spend most of my working hours sitting in meetings in office buildings. But over the past few days, I came face to face with what those meetings can achieve: wild baby gray whales, whales whose last unspoiled nursery was saved by NRDC and our citizen activists.

Every time I go into the field, I am reminded that environmental activism has tangible results--things you can literally touch, like the trunk of a 300-year old tree in a healthy forest or a grizzly bear footprint along a muddy stream. Being within arm's reach of the sleek, rubbery gray whales was a jolt of inspiration: this is what successful conservation feels like.

I felt this revelation in Laguna San Ignacio on the Pacific side of Baja, California--NRDC's first BioGem. Every winter, hundreds of pregnant gray whales swim 4,000 miles from the Arctic to reach this pristine lagoon with its warm tranquil waters that are perfect for giving birth. When we arrived in the remote lagoon (by boat; there is no road access), many of the newborns were honing their swimming skills in preparation for the arduous journey back to Alaska.

On each morning of our trip, we set out from our solar-powered encampment in panga boats, small Mexican fishing vessels that sit close to the water. Not far from the shore, we would stop and watch as mother whales emerged from the sea and started prodding their babies toward our boat. Mysteriously, they seemed as curious about us as we did about them.

When the whales grew closer, the babies started to frolic around the boat. They were like playful puppies, only gentler, without the friskiness. They rose out of the water to greet us, and opened their mouths to show off their baleen-- teeth that resemble toothbrush bristles. What was really magical was when they looked me straight in the eye.

When the mothers decided it was time for a rest, they swam between the boat and their babies, plainly telling us that our visit was over for the time being. I have never communicated so clearly with a wild creature before. It was exhilarating.

Each time our panga headed back to shore, I realized once again that these whales would have lost their nursing grounds if NRDC had not mobilized 1 million people from around the world and stopped Mexico and the Mitsubishi Corporation from building the world's largest salt factory on the banks of the lagoon.

I am proud of that victory, but I am also proud that we continue to collaborate with local communities to promote sustainable economic growth. And together with our Mexican partners, we are racing to buy the development rights to the 1 million acres surrounding the lagoon to put them off-limits to industry forever.

Seeing the long-lasting results of this work--the presence of the playful whales-- energized me. And so I say to every person who cares about the health of the planet, but who can't remember the last time they felt the magic of the natural world firsthand: go outside. Explore a patch of the Earth that you care about. And then take action to preserve it. Because you really can make a difference.

America Can Have Both Utah Wilderness and Affordable Heating Bills

2009-01-12T13:47:30Z

Last month, NRDC Trustee Robert Redford boldly took a stand against the Bush administration's cynical efforts to take Utah landscapes out of public ownership and auction them off to private industry. Redford met with almost uniform praise for championing these wild places that belong to all Americans. But a few industry-funded voices have claimed that Redford's actions constitute a "war on the poor" because they will raise heating bills for low income families.

These allegations are as false as they are cynical. The truth of the matter is that 80 contested oil and gas leases in Utah have nothing to do with the cost of home heating. Here is why:

According to Goldman Sachs, the US natural gas market is expected to be in surplus well through 2012 thanks to new supply coming on line, namely from the Haynesville Shale along the Louisiana/Texas border.
Utah is home to just 2.5 percent of known U.S. natural gas, and therefore will have very little influence on the price of what is already an oversupplied commodity.
Natural gas prices have fallen dramatically this year from $12/MMBtu in June to around $5/MMBtu today, forcing US natural gas drillers to cut expenditures by 20 percent in 2009 and making the notion that these Utah fields would even be developed in the current market highly suspect.
America doesn't have a supply problem; it has a credit problem: since gas companies are forced to borrow at high interest rates, developers are scaling back projects, not looking for new ones.

Then there is the fact that the oil and gas industry already has more leases than it knows what to do with. In the last four years, the BLM has issued more than 25,000 permits to drill, yet companies hold leases to nearly 34 million acres on federal resources that are not in production.

We don't have to choose between protecting places of rare beauty and keeping homes heated at affordable rates. We can do both.

President-elect Obama's plan to weatherize 1 million low-income homes a year will have a far greater and longer lasting impact on heating bills than new drill heads in Utah. Once a house is weatherized, it remains efficient for years to come, but once a landscape is industrialized, it loses its wild character forever.

I have written before about the rare beauty of the Utah landscapes that the Bush administration wants to liquidate. Many of the sites proposed for development are adjacent to natural wonders--places like Arches, Canyonlands, and Dinosaur National Monument.

These places are part of our natural heritage. We are responsible for them. If we fail to protect them--if we say the short-term profit of a few companies is more important than long-term efficiency gains and wilderness values--than they will be gone for good. That is why we are fortunate that Robert Redford is willing to put himself on the line to protect these wild landscapes for all of us.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy