----- Original Message ----- From: Hal Leyshon To: sldrty-l at igc.topica.com Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 8:04 AM Subject: [SLDRTY-L]: help debate within AFL on ANWR
The following comments are taken from a discussion on a list for AFL-CIO central labor councils. I'd appreciate any assistance with arguments, facts, etc. that might help deepen the debate.
In Solidarity, Hal Leyshon, President Washington-Orange Labor Council (VT), AFL-CIO ----------------------
I am the President of the Anchorage Central Labor Council (Alaska’s largest city) and an environmentalist. I was born and raised in Southern California and have lived in Alaska for the last 25 years. I feel a tremendous amount of frustration with the environmental activities and legislators who continue to misrepresent the issue of oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This area represents just a drop in the bucket when it comes to wilderness area in Alaska. Given the tremendous opportunity for oil development and the minor environmental impact it would have, it does not seem to me to be in the best interest of Alaskans and/or Americans to deny access for responsible oil exploration. We Alaskans have done a very good job ensuring that our water and land is being properly protected. The Exxon Valdez oil spill is a horrible reminder of what happens if we do not keep the industry’s feet to the fire. Prior to the oil spill in 1988, the Alaskan labor community was working with the environmental community to strengthen regulations and enforcement of environmental concerns, not just on the tankers while in Alaskan waters, but also along the pipeline corridor. Since the Exxon Valdez oil spill Alaskan’s have DEMANDED hyper-vigilance from the oil industry regarding environmental protections. I am proud of the job we do taking the industry to task if they become sloppy in this area. We have passed strong laws for Whistle Blower Protection, substantially increased the inspectors on the pipeline, and established excellent “spill response” escort vessels for all tankers while in vulnerable Alaskan waters, just to give a few examples. We do not believe in jobs at all costs. But we do believe in jobs and providing badly needed energy to Americans if done so in a responsible manner. THE OIL IN ANWR CAN BE DEVELOPED IN AN ENVIORONMENTALLY SOUND MANNER. ALASKA WOULD HAVE IT NO OTHER WAY. I believe opponents to ANWR oil exploration who live in the lower 48 states are well intentioned but basically very misinformed on this issue. Alaskans support ANWR exploration by an overwhelming percentage. Of course, as Alaskans we see the Caribou cows and calves grazing beside the pipeline. We understand what a small area we are dealing with in relation to the vastness of Alaska. We also see the invisible footprint left from many drilling pads that have ceased to produce at varies locations at Prudhoe Bay (right next to ANWR). I don’t think I have seen one accurate piece of photographic or video footage on the news of ANWAR. Typically they show photos of the magnificent Brooks Range, which is literally hundreds of miles away from the mud flats of the ANWAR costal plain, where development is being proposed. I my opinion, anyone who thinks they are saving the great Alaskan pristine wilderness by opposing oil development in ANWR is either misinformed, an environmental zealot or just kidding themselves. Thanks for listening to this concerned Alaskan. -----Original Message----- From: CLC [mailto:wovtclc at workingfamilies.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 10:13 AM To: Union Cities Subject: Re: Labor/Environment Coalitions At 11:19 AM 7/19/01 -0400, you wrote regarding environmental-labor coalitions.
Up to now our Labor Council (Washington-Orange in Vermont) has sought and had good working relations with environmental activists without being in a formal coalition. We have, for example, invited them to co-sponsor our coming Labor Day weekend event, and participated in joint meetings and actions for Global Justice/Fairness.
However, I find this message regarding environmental-labor coalitions to be quite ironic following yesterday's Boston Globe article which alleges some very troubling new positions to have been taken by the AFL-CIO: AFL-CIO backs plan to drill oil By Robert Schlesinger, Globe Staff, 8/1/2001 WASHINGTON - On the eve of consideration by the House, President Bush's energy legislation received new fuel from an unlikely source yesterday when the AFL-CIO endorsed the president's plan to open a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration. ''The AFL-CIO has long supported the development of appropriate energy sources to meet the needs of the nation and the concerns of consumers, as long as the environment is protected,'' wrote William Samuel, director of the union's department of legislation, in a letter to House members. ''At our 1993 convention, delegates adopted a resolution that, in part, called on the country to `explore the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge for oil with safeguards to protect the environment.' The entire policy ... remains in effect.'' The Teamsters Union and building and seafarers unions had vocally supported the Arctic drilling provision previously, but the AFL-CIO had remained neutral. The Service Employees International Union opposes opening the section to drilling. Ordinarily, the AFL-CIO takes no position when member unions do not agree. The House is expected to start considering the plan today, with the effort to remove the Arctic drilling provision as one of two highly contentious issues. The AFL-CIO also supported the GOP plan on the other flashpoint issue, how much to raise federal fuel efficiency standards for automobiles. ''Because of their discriminatory impact on domestic production, such proposals could have a serious, negative effect on US production and employment,'' Samuel wrote. Addressing the oil drilling proposal, Representative James V. Hansen, Republican of Utah and chairman of the House Resources committee, said, ''This endorsement just underscores what we have been saying all along: This energy bill is good for American workers, it's good for American jobs, it's good for America's economy.'' Ken Lisaius, White House spokesman, said the proposal ''shows that the president's energy plan is not about partisan politics, but about the future of our country.'' The Teamsters had for several days been quietly saying that they had 40 Democratic votes in favor of drilling, which could be enough to offset expected losses among moderate Republicans. ''This sinks us,'' one environmental activist said. Phil Clapp of the National Environmental Trust said: ''This administration may very well have just outsmarted itself. I seriously doubt you can pass in the House a bill that opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and does nothing about fuel efficiency standards. If you do both of those things and it's an unvarnished version of the Bush energy plan, you are very likely to have a coalition of House moderate Republicans and Democrats voting against passing the bill.'' -------- Hoping that this is an example of journalistic error. Certainly, Union Cities Labor councils understand that a revitalized labor movement needs to be part of a broad social movement for justice - including environmental justice. If we are seen as a "special interest," we can kiss all of our efforts and hopes for rebuilding union power goodbye.
In Solidarity, Hal Leyshon, President Washington-Orange Labor Council (VT), AFL-CIO
==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxirK.a2koOS Or send an email To: sldrty-l-unsubscribe at igc.topica.com This email was sent to: debsian at pacbell.net
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================