[Nasional-e] Deserts storm

[Ambon]

Duncan Campbell on claims that the US military and oil firms are
disregarding environmental laws

Deserts storm

The Bush administration, the military and the oil industry are cynically
using the events of September 11, 2001, to evade environmental protection
laws and to push through their own agendas, according to leading
environmental lawyers and scientists. The accusations have been muted in a
climate where criticism of the US government has often been portrayed as
unpatriotic, but are finally being made by environmentalists alarmed by the
speed and extent of some of the changes.
A measure exempting the military from environmental laws concerning more
than 300 endangered species is being pushed through as part of the National
Defence Authorisation Act. It has already been passed by the House of
Representatives and is now likely to become law.
The new measure concerns the 25m acres of land controlled by the Department
of Defence. More than 300 species on the endangered lists have habitats on
the country's 425 military installations, and the new legislation exempts
the military from the existing Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act. Environmentalists regard these moves as the government and
military taking advantage of the national mood to roll back protective
measures. The military says the changes are necessary to conduct training so
that troops are properly protected when they go into combat.
The new measures were pushed through after defence officials claimed they
were unable to give their troops proper training in the right conditions
because of environmental regulations protecting endangered animals and
plants. Among the areas cited were the Mojave desert, where marine
commanders say they can train only in the daytime because endangered desert
tortoises might be
 trampled at night. In Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, the military claims
that they have been unable to undertake amphibious landing practice because
of restrictions to protect nesting turtles.
"We have increasingly faced the inescapable fact that more and more training
lands are now unavailable for realistic combat, live-fire training," says
Raymond DuBois, deputy under secretary of defence for installations and
environment. The proposals, he says, "are designed to save the lives of our
young people by preparing them for combat on the first day of battle."
Environmentalists claim that such arguments are being used throughout the
country, even in areas where they thought the case for protection had been
won. This summer the Alaska state legislature passed a bill that will exempt
the Department of Defence from environmental protection laws at its bombing
range in the Eagle River Flats estuary north of Anchorage, in Alaska.
Pamela Miller, of Alaska Community Action on Toxics (Acat), says: "Both on a
federal and a local level, the Department of Defence has been seeking
exemptions. Alaska is the only state in the nation where the DoD has got
such an exemption. They are using as the number one excuse the need for
military preparedness and suggesting that citizens' groups such as ours are
encroaching on their ability to train their troops."
The oil industry and its allies in government have also been accused of
trying to profit from September 11.
 One of the leading critics is a nephew of the late President Kennedy,
Robert F Kennedy Jnr, a senior attorney at Natural Resources Defence
Council. Kennedy said last week: "There is nothing patriotic about handing
over our national heritage to the oil industry for exploitation. But that's
exactly what the White House is asking us to do in the name of national
security . . . The Bush administration's 'drill and burn' energy plan -
hatched in closed-door meetings with Enron and other energy giants - would
pave the way for oil and gas companies to despoil an alarming number of our
last wild places - the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem, Wyoming's Red Desert
and many, many more."
Kennedy added: "Using the tragic events of September 11 as an opportunity to
advance the special interests of the oil industry will not enhance America's
energy security."
 "The oil giants see an opportunity in the terrorist attacks on America and
they're not hesitating to exploit it," wrote John H Adams, president of the
Natural Resources Defence Council, in a letter to supporters. "In the name
of patriotism and energy security they are targeting some of America's most
spectacular wildlands for oil development.
"The Bush administration would have the American people believe that
drilling in Greater Yellowstone, Utah's Bedrock Canyons and the Arctic
Refuge (in Alaska) would reduce dependence on Persian Gulf oil and lower
gasoline prices. Our only hope for energy security lies in dramatically
reducing our consumption of oil."
While individual environmentalists and groups have voiced criticisms of what
is being done, it has been hard for them to be heard. Now a
 changing political climate - partly brought about by the recent emergence
of corporate scandals - is giving a louder voice to the critics and there is
a greater resolve not to allow changes to pass unchallenged.
There are signs that the environmental movement is taking the gloves off in
its campaign. This month the Earth Island Institute placed a whole page ad
in the New York Times attacking the Bush administration for pressing ahead
with the US navy's "sonar bomb" tests, which can kill whales.
"The Bush administration is trying a sneak attack on environmental laws
through the budgeting process," said the ad, which claimed this form of
sonar warfare was a relic of the cold war. "To cite 'national security' as
the excuse to destroy decades of marine mammal conservation is plain
dishonest."

The Guardian Weekly 19-9-2002, page 21