Summer 2004 Newsmagazine Volume 34, Number 2

Breathe atYour

Own Risk:Undoing

30Years of Clean Air Policy

2

P R E S I D E N T ’ S C O L U M N

This year marks Friends ofthe Earth’s 35th anniver-sary. Since our inceptionin 1969, we have devel-oped into a pioneering

international network of activists work-ing on the ground and in the halls ofCongress to affect change on urgentenvironmental issues that impact ourcommunities and our planet.

Our founder David Brower envi-sioned a conservation ethic thatcombined protecting the Earth’s wildplaces to refresh the soul and allowother life on Earth to flourish with adiligent program to restore degradedlands, estuaries and watersheds.Friends of the Earth put this visioninto action early on, playing a keyrole in saving over 200 river valleysfrom destruction, and launching aninternational “Save the Whale” cam-paign, which paved the way to asuccessful whaling ban in 1982. Wealso helped pass laws regulatingharmful strip mining and holding oilcompanies liable for cleaning upspills.

Brower’s environmental visiondidn’t stop at our borders. Wefounded the Friends of the EarthInternational Network, which nowincludes groups in 70 countries andhas grown into a powerful worldwideforce for change. For example, ournetwork has been instrumental inprotecting communities and specialplaces from the Amazon Basin toNepal from the harmful impacts ofdams and oil pipelines.

Indeed, Friends of the Earth andour international network havehelped drive 35 years of environmen-tal progress. Unfortunately, we nowface a presidential administrationcommitted to rolling this progressback. We have spent the past three

years waging an array of defensivebattles against proposals to weakenmany of the laws Friends of theEarth worked to pass.

Despite these challenging times,Friends of the Earth has done morethan play defense. Our imaginativestaff used a scientific analysis-and-exposure approach to reveal illegalgenetically engineered corn in thehuman food supply, highlighting therisks of unregulated biotech crops.Since then, biotechnology giantssuch as Monsanto have not wonapproval to bring any new geneti-cally engineered crops to market.

We have used Freedom ofInformation Act requests to exposeconflicts of interest by former indus-try lobbyists now working as Bushadministration officials at theInterior Department.

And, we have filed groundbreak-ing lawsuits, including one on behalfof our members alleging that twoU.S. government agencies - theOverseas Private InvestmentCorporation and the Export-ImportBank – are illegally funneling bil-lions of taxpayer dollars toward

polluting projects that contribute toglobal climate change.

Friends of the Earth has alsocontinued our pioneering economicswork, including our flagship GreenScissors campaign. This initiativefights federal programs that wastetaxpayer dollars and harm the envi-ronment, and during the past severalyears has cut more than $25 billionin wasteful, environmentally harmfulspending from the federal budget.And recently, we’ve expanded thiscampaign to the state level: duringthe past three years we launchedGreen Scissors campaigns inCalifornia, Maryland and the Districtof Columbia.

As we look ahead, Friends of theEarth will push our creative and pio-neering advocacy at home andabroad. As we embark on new chal-lenges, I would especially like tothank all the members of Friends ofthe Earth whose generous supportenables us to make positive changehappen.

Brent Blackwelder

Friendsof the Earth’s 35th Anniversary

“We have aright to a clean,

healthyenvironment

and ademocratic

global society.”

Summer 2004 • Volume 34, Number 2 3

Table of Contents

Volume 34, Number 2 Summer 2004

Friends of the Earth (ISSN: 1054-1829) is published quarterly by Friends of the Earth, 1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036-2002, phone 202-783-7400,fax 202-783-0444, e-mail: foe@foe.org, Web site: www.foe.org. Annual membership dues are $25, which includes a subscription to Friends of the Earth.

The words “Friends of the Earth” and the FoE logo are exclusive trademarks of Friends ofthe Earth, all rights reserved. Unless otherwise noted, articles may be reprinted without chargeor special permission. Please credit Friends of the Earth and the article author; send us a copy.Friends of the Earth is indexed in the Alternative Press Index. Periodicals postage paid atWashington, DC.

Board of DirectorsAvis Ogilvy Moore, Chair; Dan Gabel, Vice Chair ;Marion Hunt-Badiner, Secretary; David Zwick,Treasurer; Ed Begley, Jr.; Jayni Chase; Harriett Crosby;Clarence Ditlow; Michael Herz; Ann Hoffman; DougLegum; Patricia Matthews; Charles Moore; EdwardoLao Rhodes; Arlie Shardt; Doria Steedman; Rick Taketa;Alicia Wittink

StaffBrent Blackwelder, PresidentNorman Dean, Executive DirectorSandra Adams-Morally, Membership AssociateLisa Archer, Campaigns Coordinator, Health and

Environment ProgramMichelle Chan-Fishel, Program Manager, Green

Investments ProjectHugh Cheatham, Chief Financial OfficerKeira Costic, Publications and Web ManagerLeslie Fields, Director, Global Sustainability InitiativeColleen Freeman, International Policy AnalystRosemary Greenaway, Director, Membership and

MarketingLisa Grob, Executive AssistantVonetta Harris, AccountantDavid Hirsch, Program DirectorYasmeen Hossain, Program AssistantCheryl Johnson, Receptionist/Office AssistantSherri Owens, Office ManagerChris Pabon, Director, Foundation RelationsErich Pica, Director, Economics for the Earth Jon Sohn, Director, International Financial Institutions

Campaign David Waskow, Director, International Program Chris Weiss, Director, D.C. Environmental NetworkSara Zdeb, Legislative Director

Publications StaffKeira Costic, EditorLisa Grob, Assistant EditorDesign by JML Design

FellowMargaret Peloso

Consultants/ AdvisorsLarry BohlenBrian DunkielBill FreeseJohn W. JensenDorothee Krahn

Member GroupsArgentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,Benin, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria,Cameroon, Canada, Chile, Colombia,Costa Rica, Croatia, Curacao, Cyprus,Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, ElSalvador, England-Wales-Northern

Ireland, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary,Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania,Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mali, Malta,Mauritius, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua,Nigeria, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru,Philippines, Poland, Scotland, Sierra Leone, Slovakia,South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden,Switzerland, Togo, Tunisia, Ukraine, United States,Uruguay

AffiliatesAfrica: Earthlife Africa; Australia: Mineral PolicyInstitute; Australia: Rainforest Information Centre;Brazil: Amigos da Terra Amazonia - AmazôniaBrasileira; Brazil: Grupo de Trabalho Amazonico; CzechRepublic: CEE Bankwatch; Japan: Peace Boat; LatinAmerica: REJULADS; Middle East: Friends of theEarth (Israel, Jordan and Palestine); Netherlands: Actionfor Solidarity, Equality, Environment and DevelopmentEurope; Netherlands: Stichting De Noordzee (North SeaFoundation); Netherlands: Corporate EuropeObservatory; United States: International RiversNetwork; United States: Project Underground; UnitedStates: Rainforest Action Network

Changing All the Rules . . . .Pg. 4

Campaign Updates . . . . . . .Pg. 8

State Governments for a Clean Energy Future . . .Pg. 10

The Nobel Prize for the Environment . . . . .Pg. 11

Consumer Tips:Is Lead in Your Drinking Water? . . . . . . . .Pg. 12

Gas Prices Pumping Your Wallet Clean . . . . . . .Pg. 13

Don’t Get Up,Protect the Planet From Your Computer . . . .Pg. 13

Dorothy Gleiser:A Rockhound Who Valued Nature . . . . . . . . .Pg. 14

Battling EnvironmentallyHarmful Spending . . . . . .Pg. 14

Biotech Is Not the Answer . . . . . . . . . . . .Pg. 15

Our Mission:Friends of the Earth defends theenvironment and champions ahealthy and just world.

Friends of the Earth is printed with soy ink on 100% recycled paper, 30% post-consumer content. Bleached without chlorine.

Friends ofthe EarthInternational

UNIONBUG

Earth Share giving campaigns allowyou to designate a donation to Friendsof the Earth. Federal employees candonate through the Combined FederalCampaign by marking #0908 on theirpledge forms. To set up an Earth Sharecampaign at your workplace, contactRosemary Greenaway at 202-222-0722.

By Bruce Barcott

Of the manyenvironmentalchangesbrought aboutby the Bush

White House, none illustratethe administration’s modusoperandi better than the over-haul of new-source review. Thepresident’s legislative initia-tives, such as his energy billand the “Clear Skies” package,have languished on CapitolHill. Nonetheless, the adminis-tration has effected a radicaltransformation of the nation’senvironmental laws – quietlyand subtly, by means of regula-tory changes and bureaucraticdirectives. New-source reviewrepresents the most sweepingchange, and among the leastnoticed.

The overturning of new-source review has beenportrayed by the president andhis advisers as a compromisebetween the twin goals of pre-serving the environment andenabling business. But a care-ful examination of the processthat led to the new policyreveals a very different story,and a different motivation. Theadministration’s real problem with thenew-source review program wasn’tthat it didn’t work. The problem wasthat it was finally about to work alltoo well.

Having long flouted the new-source review law, many of thenation’s biggest power companieswere facing, in the last months of the1990’s, an expensive day of reckon-ing. EPA investigators had caughtthem breaking the law. To make

amends, the power companies wereon the verge of signing agreements toclean up their plants, which wouldhave delivered one of the greatestadvances in clean air in the nation’shistory. Then George W. Bush tookoffice and everything changed.

The 1970 Clean Air Act requiredpower plants and large factories tominimize their emissions of harmfulpollutants and established nationalair-quality standards to be met by

1975. Congress acknowledged,however, that forcing pollutersto retrofit every existing plantimmediately would be tremen-dously costly. So in aconcession to industry, the law-makers applied the toughstandards only to newly builtfacilities.

Seven years passed, andthe national air-quality stan-dards went unmet. Instead ofbuilding new, cleaner plants,many companies simplyupgraded their old, dirty plants.So Congress updated the act in1977, introducing a regulationcalled new-source review(NSR), to bring older plantsinto compliance. Under NSR, acompany could operate an oldfactory as long as it wasn’tsubstantially modified.Eventually, it was assumed, thecompany would have to updateits equipment, at which pointnew-source rules required thecompany to install the bestavailable pollution-controltechnology. The legislators whopassed new-source reviewexpected the law to encourageelectric utilities to replace old,heavily polluting coal-firedplants with cleaner new ones.During the 80’s and 90’s, some

power companies did exactly that. Butmany others retooled plants to keepthem running long past their expectedlife spans, and few were fitted withthe scrubbers and other equipmentrequired under NSR.

The electric industry complainedthat NSR rules were so complicatedand confusing that it was impossiblefor utilities to determine the differ-ence between “routine” maintenance,

4

C O V E R S T O R Y

ChangingAll the Rules

Compared to enforcement of the old new source review –rules to regulate power company pollution – the Bushadministration’s new rules would result in emissionsincreases of 7 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 2.4 milliontons of nitrogen oxides per year by 2020.

Summer 2004 • Volume 34, Number 2 5

which wouldn’t require an upgrade,and a significant “physical change,”which would. An examination of legaldocuments, however, makes it diffi-cult to credit these complaints.Beginning soon after NSR was imple-mented, EPA officials issued frequentletters and bulletins telling powercompanies exactly where the agencywas drawing the line.

In late 1996, officials at the EPAbegan investigating whether powercompanies were complying with theNSR law. In many cases, theyweren’t. Industry records indicatedthat many power plants had upgradedtheir facilities to burn more coal,which required new-source reviewpermits. “We started looking aroundfor the permits,” said Bruce Buckheit,director of the EPA’s air enforcementdivision, “and there weren’t any.”Many of the nation’s biggest energycompanies, EPA officials found, hadupdated their plants without putting inany new pollution controls and wereillegally releasing millions of tons ofharmful pollutants.

During their two-year investiga-tion, EPA officials accumulated adaunting amount of evidence. SylviaLowrance, who was the EPA’s topofficial for enforcement and compli-ance from 1996 to 2002, said, “Thiswas the most significant noncompli-ance pattern EPA had ever found. Itwas the environmental equivalent ofthe tobacco litigation.”

In the summer of 1999, Buckheitand other EPA officials asked execu-tives at the worst-offending powercompanies to come to the agency’sheadquarters in Washington. In aseries of meetings, EPA officials satdown with representatives from eachcompany, one by one, and laid outtheir evidence. “Unless we’re gettingsomething wrong here,” Buckheitrecalled saying, “these are violationsof the law. Y’all want to step up to theplate?” No one did.

Finally, in November 1999, theEPA decided to take the polluters tocourt. The Justice Department, onbehalf of the EPA, announced law-suits against seven electric utilitycompanies in the Midwest and South,charging that their power plants hadbeen illegally releasing enormousamounts of pollutants for 20 years ormore. The companies includedFirstEnergy, American Electric Powerand Cinergy, all headquartered inOhio; Southern Indiana Gas &Electric; Illinois Power; TampaElectric; and Alabama Power andGeorgia Power, two subsidiaries ofthe Atlanta-based Southern Company,the biggest power supplier in theSoutheast. In addition, the EPA put anumber of other utilities on notice,warning them that the JusticeDepartment would come after themnext if they didn’t clean up their acts.

Attorney General Janet Renoannounced the suits herself. “Whenchildren can’t breathe because of pol-lution from a utility plant hundreds of

miles away,” she said, “somethingmust be done.”

Bush Appoints IndustryInsiders to Key PositionsFaced with mounting fines, some ofthe utilities struck bargains with thefederal government. Tampa Electricagreed in February 2000 to spendmore than $1 billion on new pollutioncontrols and pay a $3.5 million civilpenalty. The agreement took 123,000annual tons of pollution out of thesky, and the civil penalty amounted toa little less than 2 percent of TampaElectric’s profits from 1999.

But other industry officials tookan alternate route: they started writingchecks to George W. Bush’s presiden-tial campaign fund. The Bushcampaign had a special title for con-tributors who raised at least $100,000:Pioneers. Among the 213 Pioneersduring the 2000 Bush election cam-paign were FirstEnergy’s president,Anthony Alexander; Reliant Energy’sCEO, Steve Letbetter; and Reliant’schairman, Don Jordan. (MidAmericanEnergy’s CEO, David Sokol, andSouthern Company’s executive vicepresident Dwight Evans have joinedthe elite rank for the 2004 re-electioncampaign.) Each of their companieswas either in litigation or under inves-tigation for new-source reviewviolations. Seven other Pioneers werelawyers or lobbyists for companiescharged with NSR violations.

Energy executives understoodwhat strong support of a winning can-didate could mean. Thomas R. Kuhn,president of the Edison ElectricInstitute, the utility trade association,was a 2000 Pioneer and is a Pioneerfor the 2004 campaign as well. OnMay 27, 1999, Kuhn sent energyindustry executives a confidentialmemo, later made public in the courseof a lawsuit, advising them to bundle

(continued on page 6)

“We will pay a terriblepolitical price if we

undercut or walk awayfrom the enforcement

cases,” Whitmanwrote Cheney.

“It will be hard torefute the charge thatwe are deciding not

to enforce the Clean Air Act.”

C O V E R S T O R Y

6

their contributions to the Bush cam-paign under a tracking number to“ensure that our industry is credited”for its generosity.

After Bush eventually emergedas the winner of the 2000 election,industry leaders were upbeat aboutthe prospect of the coming fouryears. The president and the vicepresident, Dick Cheney, were, afterall, oil men.

Bush officials realized that itwould be self-defeating to appoint topublic positions people with outspo-ken views on the environment, sothey found noncombative figuresinstead. They named as head of theEPA Christie Whitman, who wasseen as a moderate when she wasappointed, in part because she hadparticipated in a clean-air lawsuitagainst power companies as governorof New Jersey. Administration offi-cials also knew that overtlyanti-environmental bills stood littlechance of surviving in Congress. Sothey adopted a two-track strategy.Publicly, the president askedCongress to pass major environmen-tal legislation like the Clear SkiesInitiative and a sweeping energy bill.Privately, the president’s politicalappointees at the Department of theInterior, Environmental ProtectionAgency, Department of Agricultureand Office of Management andBudget would carry out those samepolicies less visibly, through closed-door legal settlements and obscurerule changes.

One key element of the strategywas putting the right people inunder-the-radar positions. The Bushadministration appointed officialswho came directly from industry intothese lower rungs of power – deputysecretaries and assistant administra-tors. One such appointee was JeffreyHolmstead, lawyer and lobbyist forgroups like the Alliance forConstructive Air Policy, an electricutility trade group that sought toweaken the Clean Air Act.

Holmstead stepped into the role ofassistant EPA administrator for airand radiation, where he would over-see changes to new-source review.

Bush Fails in CongressA few months after taking office,President Bush directed the JusticeDepartment to review its casesagainst the Southern Company,American Electric and others to seeif the suits against the companies

might be dropped outright. Duringthe same period, Bush appointees atthe EPA disbanded a functional NSRworking group and, led by JeffreyHolmstead, started to rewrite therules.

Energy Department officialstook an unusually active role indrawing up the proposed NSRchanges. In November 2001, DOEofficials circulated their proposedchanges among the EPA staff for

feedback. Officials at the EPA’s AirEnforcement Division were appalled.“The current draft report is highlybiased and loaded with emotionallycharged code words,” EPA officialswrote in an internal memo. “It isdrafted as a prelude to recommenda-tions to vitiate the NSR program.”The EPA memo noted that the report“contains only comments by industryand ignores the comments of allother stakeholders.”

In January 2002, the WhiteHouse suffered a setback. TheJustice Department delivered itsreport on the legality of EPA’s law-suit against the Southern Companyand other NSR violators. The depart-ment found that contrary to theadministration’s hopes, the lawsuitswere legal and warranted. In fact,Justice’s lawyers said they intendedto prosecute the cases “vigorously.”

Shortly thereafter, White Houseofficials decided it was time to trythe Congressional track. On Feb. 14,2002, President Bush unveiled hisClear Skies initiative. The presidentdeclared that his proposed legislation“sets tough new standards to dramat-ically reduce the three mostsignificant forms of pollution frompower plants – sulfur dioxide, nitro-gen oxides and mercury.” It was truethat the new standards, if enforced,would reduce emissions from theircurrent rate – but the president’s for-mulation was somewhat misleading.

Clear Skies was to replace CleanAir Act regulations with a cap-and-trade market system. The key tocap-and-trade lies in the standard –how low it is set and how quickly itshrinks. And when President Bushannounced Clear Skies, the EPA wasalready on track to require deeperreductions in air pollution than hiscap-and-trade proposal would pro-duce. So the air would actually bedirtier under Clear Skies than if thepresident allowed the EPA to enforcethe existing law. Clear Skies allowedmore than twice as much sulfur diox-

C O V E R S T O R Y

The usually staidAmerican LungAssociation, in areport issued with

a coalition ofenvironmental groups,called the rule changes“the most harmful andunlawful air-pollution

initiative everundertaken by the

federal government.”

Summer 2004 • Volume 34, Number 2 7

ide, nearly 70 percent morenitrous oxides and five times asmuch mercury as the Clean AirAct – rigorously enforced –called for.

Because of this discrepancy,the legislation was not greetedwith much enthusiasm inCongress. Clear Skies wasn’thelped by the fact that a formertop EPA official went on ABC’s“This Week” to denounce theproposal two weeks after it wasintroduced. “We can do betterunder current law than whatthey’re putting on the table,”Eric Schaeffer told GeorgeStephanopoulos. Schaeffer, theEPA’s head of civil enforcementfrom 1997 to 2002, who hadworked on the new-sourcereview lawsuits since theirinception. He left the EPA inearly 2002, tired, as he said inhis letter of resignation, of“fighting a White House thatseems determined to weaken therules we are trying to enforce.”

The Clear Skies initiativestalled in Congress. The bill’sprincipal sponsor,Representative Joe Barton, aTexas Republican, formallyintroduced it on the last Friday inJuly 2002, just before the Houseadjourned for summer vacation. Thatfall, an internal EPA analysis foundthat a rival Democratic bill spon-sored by Senator Thomas Carper, aDemocrat from Delaware, wouldreduce more emissions, on an earlierschedule and at the same cost to con-sumers, than the president’s ClearSkies plan. A copy of those findingswas leaked to the media, undermin-ing an already shaky bill. If the Bushadministration was going to bringabout changes, it was becoming clearthat they would have to be doneadministratively.

Meanwhile, the EPA revealed itsoverhaul of the new-source review

rules on Friday, Nov. 22, 2002. Forall the buildup, it was a conspicu-ously low-key debut. President Bushissued no statement about the newguidelines. Christine Whitmandeclined to attend the news confer-ence, which was run by JeffreyHolmstead. Cameras were notallowed at the event, which seemedtimed to hit the weekly news cycle atits Friday night nadir.

The new rules gave utilitiesmuch more maneuverability underNSR, and blunted much of the law’soriginal bite. An official with theNational Association ofManufacturers called the new rules“a refreshingly flexible approach toregulation.” The usually staidAmerican Lung Association, in a

report issued with a coalition ofenvironmental groups, calledthe rule changes “the mostharmful and unlawful air-pollu-tion initiative ever undertakenby the federal government.”

Bush OverpowersEPABush’s EPA appointees left onecrucial detail out of the finalreport. They said they were stillworking on a final revision ofNSR having to do with theoften contested definition of“routine maintenance.” Theagency published its proposedrule in the Federal Register butleft the crucial percentageunspecified.

Nine months later, the otherNSR shoe dropped. By then,Christie Whitman was gone,having announced her resigna-tion in May. She said she wastired of making the New Jersey-to-Washington commute andwanted to spend more timewith her husband.

So it was MarianneHorinko, acting EPA adminis-trator, who announced in

August that the agency had finalizedits rule on routine maintenance.Under the new formula, Horinkosaid, utilities would be allowed tospend up to 20 percent of a generat-ing unit’s replacement cost, per year,without tripping the NSR threshold.

To EPA officials who hadworked on NSR enforcement, whohad pored over documents and knewwhat it cost to repair a generator, thenew threshold was absurd. “What Idon’t understand is why they were sogreedy,” said Eric Schaeffer, the for-mer EPA official. “Five percentwould have been too high, but 20? Idon’t think the industry expected thatin its wildest dreams.”

(continued on page 9)

Our full-page USA Today ad explains that every yearAmerican power plants spew out nearly 50 tons of mer-cury, which causes brain damage in young children anddeveloping fetuses.

C O V E R S T O R Y

8

Victory! Federal JudgeHalts Proposed VermontHighway

Federal District Court Judge WilliamSessions ordered work stopped on theCircumferential Highway (Circ.) in aruling hailed by plaintiffs includingseveral Chittenden County residentsand the Conservation LawFoundation, Friends of the Earth,Sierra Club, and Vermont PublicInterest Research Group, each repre-senting their members who would beharmed by the proposed highway.Judge Sessions ruled that the govern-ment violated the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act and otherlaws in approving and funding seg-ments A-B of the Circ.

The proposed Circ highway wouldextend 16.7 miles from I-89 inWilliston to VT Route 127 inColchester. State officials disclosedlast week that the cost of the projecthas just gone up another $40 million toa grand total of almost $223 million.

Find out more information:http://www.foe.org/new/releases/504circ.html

Victory! Monsanto DropsGM Wheat: “Worldwidevictory for consumers” The world’s biggest seller of geneti-cally modified (GM) seeds quietlyand unexpectedly stated May 10 thatit is stopping all further efforts to

commercialize its controversial GMwheat.

Monsanto started field testing itsGM wheat in 1997. In 2002, itapplied to commercially grow theGM wheat in the United States andCanada. Monsanto’s wheat has beenmodified to resist the company’s ownherbicide, called RoundUp.

However, GM wheat has facedworldwide opposition from farmers,food manufacturers, environmental-ists and consumers. Friends of theEarth is particularly concerned thatgrowing this GM wheat wouldincrease the use of herbicides.

Find out more about geneticallyengineered food: www.foe.org/safefood

Investigative Report on Interior Official’sEthics Violations

On March 17, 2004,the inspector general(IG) at the Departmentof the Interior con-cluded its investigationof Interior DeputySecretary J. StevenGriles.

The report found that Griles didpotentially violate his ethics agree-ment by getting involved in a largeoil and gas project that he formerlyworked on and NationalEnvironmental Strategies currentlyworks on. The report also found that

“he may have used, or appeared touse, his position for the private gainof his former business partner at adinner party.”

In April 2003, Sen. JosephLieberman (D-Conn.), at the urgingof Friends of the Earth, requestedthat the Interior IG investigate allega-tions that Griles continued to meetwith his former energy companyclients and lobby firm, NES. In addi-tion, Griles is still receiving $284,000over four year from NES for the saleof his client base.

To view a copy of the reportvisit: http://www.foe.org/griles.pdf

International NetworkGroups Meet With WorldBank Officials

At the end of April,Friends of the EarthInternational col-leagues from ElSalvador, England,France, Nigeria,Paraguay and TheNetherlands came toWashington, D.C.,for the spring annualmeetings of the

World Bank and InternationalMonetary Fund. Friends of the Earthis calling for an end to World Bankfinancing of oil, mining and gas proj-ects, because these investments fail toalleviate poverty and are plagued bymassive environmental and socialproblems.

Friends of the Earth InternationalChair Ricardo Navarro presentedWorld Bank President JamesWolfensohn with several paintingsbased on drawings by children fromcommunities impacted by oil, gas andmining projects around the world.

I N B R I E F

Campaign Updates

J. Steven Griles

Pho

to C

redi

t:N

ativ

e A

mer

ican

eX

perie

nce

World BankPresident JamesWolfensohn

Pho

to C

redi

t:K

nud

Vöc

king

Summer 2004 • Volume 34, Number 2 9

The World Bank is currently con-sidering whether to adopt a numberof sweeping reforms for the oil, gasand mining sectors. Its decision isexpected later this summer.

Victory! Federal OfficialsReject FEC’s Attempt toImpose Restrictions onAdvocacy GroupsFederal officials rejected anattempted proposal from the FederalElection Commission (FEC) threaten-ing the First Amendment rights ofenvironmental groups and otheradvocacy organizations. The FEC’srecently released “Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking” would have imposedsweeping restrictions on the activitiesof charitable, educational and advo-cacy groups across the politicalspectrum.

The proposal covered non-profit,educational groups such as the SierraClub, the National Rifle Associationand the NAACP. Overnight, the rulewould have reclassified many ofthese groups as political committees,subjecting them to the same strictcontribution limits that federal candi-dates and Political ActionCommittees must follow.

Friends of the Earth would like tothank all of you who sent letters tothe FEC and members of Congressthrough our online action center:www.foe.org/action

Controversial NinthCircuit Court NomineeFaces Resistance onCapitol HillWilliam G. Myers, former solicitor atthe Department of the Interior, faced

tough opposition on Capitol Hillwhen the Senate Judiciary Committeenarrowly approved him by a 10 to 9party line vote.

The vote drew strong words fromSen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), rankingminority chair of the committee, whosaid, “He has a consistent record ofusing whatever position and authorityhe had to fight for corporate interestsat the expense of the environmentand of the interests of the Americanpeople in environmental protections.”

President Bush nominated Myersin May 2004, but his nomination washeld up after Friends of the Earth andPublic Employees for EnvironmentalResponsibility filed a claim with theOffice of Government Ethics allegingthat he had violated his ethics agree-ment by continuing to meet with hisformer employer and clients. Myersawaits a vote on the Senate floor. ■

I N B R I E F

The framework of new-sourcereview would remain, but the newrules set thresholds so high thatstricter pollution-control require-ments would almost never come intoeffect. “It’s a moron test for powercompanies,” said Frank O’Donnell,executive director of the Clean AirTrust, a nonprofit watchdog group.“It’s such a huge loophole that only amoron would trip over it and becomesubject to NSR requirements.”

A report from the AmericanLung Association and various envi-ronmental groups estimated thatcompared with enforcement of theold NSR rules, the new rules wouldresult in emissions increases of 7 mil-

lion tons of sulfur dioxide and 2.4million tons of nitrogen oxides peryear by 2020. Had the new rules beenin effect before 1999, the lawsuitsthat the Justice Department filedagainst the power companies wouldhave been impossible: nearly everyillegal action the power companieswere accused of back then wouldhave been legal under the new rules.

The announcement of the 20 per-cent limit had a devastating effect onthe EPA’s enforcement division.“Under the new rules,” BruceBuckheit said, “almost everything weworked to achieve is wiped out.” Twomonths later, in November 2003, J. P.Suarez, the Bush-appointed E.P.A.assistant administrator for enforce-

ment, informed agency enforcementstaff members that investigations into70 companies suspected of violationsof the Clean Air Act would be aban-doned. Around that time, somelongtime EPA officials decidedthey’d had enough of the Bushadministration’s attacks on the CleanAir Act. Bruce Buckheit and RichBiondi, Buckheit’s deputy, tookretirement buyouts and left theagency. “I left because I wanted tomake a difference,” Biondi said.“And it became clear that that wasgoing to be difficult at the EPA.” ■

© 2004, Bruce Barcott. From TheNew York Times Magazine. Reprintedby permission.

(continued from page 7)

10

By Chris Weiss

The United States reliesheavily on coal, nuclearpower and natural gas togenerate electricity.Worsening air pollution,

skyrocketing childhood asthma ratesand rising carbon dioxide emissionsthat contribute to disastrous atmos-pheric warming are some of theby-products of this dependence.

Fortunately, America has devel-oped new, cleaner technologies to meetthe energy needs and expectations ofits consumers. Clean, renewable energysources such as wind, solar, geothermaland bioenergy – energy from plantsand clean plant wastes – could signifi-cantly decrease our dependence onfossil fuels while at the same timeimprove the condition of our environ-ment. The bad news is that renewableenergy sources like wind and solar areonly a negligible part of our nation’senergy portfolio.

States Rise to theChallengeNot surprisingly it has been the stategovernments, not federal, that haverisen to the challenge and created amechanism for bringing clean energyto more and more American house-holds. This mechanism, called arenewable portfolio standard (RPS),creates a requirement that a certain per-centage of a state’s energy come fromclean, renewable sources like wind andsolar, and be gradually phased in over aprescribed period of time.

Already 13 states includingArizona, California, Connecticut, Iowa,

Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota,Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsinhave all implemented one form oranother of a renewable energy standard.Texas adopted a renewable energy stan-dard, signed into law by then-GovernorGeorge W. Bush in 1999 that has sig-nificantly exceeded expectations.Instead of the required 400 megawatts(MW) of “new” renewable generatingcapacity required by the statute by theend of 2002, Texas has installed morethan 900 MW.

Campaign Launch inNation’s CapitalMaryland and the District of Columbiacould be added to the list of cleanenergy jurisdictions soon. Marylandrecently passed RPS legislation withstrong support in both houses of thelegislature. The bill is waiting forGovernor Erlich’s signature. And, inour nation’s capital, clean energy legis-lators Phil Mendelson and Sharon

Ambrose recently introduced RPS leg-islation.

The D.C. Environmental Network,spearheaded by Friends of the Earth,has taken a leadership role in pushingto pass this legislation and bring cleanenergy to the District. In coordinationwith the Union of ConcernedScientists, D.C. Chapter of the SierraClub, Chesapeake Climate ActionNetwork and over 100 faith, health,civic and environmental organizations,we created D.C. Citizens United forClean Energy. This coalition’s primaryobjective is to help pass the recentlyintroduced RPS legislation, whichwould phase in 11 percent renewableenergies, primarily wind and solar,within the next 20 years.

For More Information on theRenewable Portfolio Standard

(RPS) Campaign in the District go towww.foe.org

Take Action! Send a letter toPresident Bush calling for a

national RPS at www.foe.org/action ■

State Governments for a Clean Energy Future

C L E A N E N E R G Y

With the Bush administration only concerned with passing a dirty, hugely expensive energybill, 13 states have had to take matters into their own hands to support clean energy.

Summer 2004 • Volume 34, Number 2 11

The Nobel Prize for the EnvironmentBy Lisa Grob

The GoldmanEnvironmental Prize iscelebrating its 15thanniversary this year. Asurvey of past recipients

revealed that their combined work hasbenefited an estimated 102 millionpeople worldwide.

Friends of the Earth nominatedtwo of the six Goldman prize winnersthis year, Rudolf Amenga-Etego ofAccra, Ghana and Manana Kochladzeof Tbilisi, Georgia.

Rudolf, founder and campaigncoordinator for the National CoalitionAgainst the Privatization of Water, isleading the effort to secure safe,affordable drinking water for theworld’s poor. Manana, founder of theenvironmental watchdog group GreenAlternative, is directing one of themost important environmental cam-paigns in Georgia’s recent history,protecting local villagers and the envi-ronment from being steamrolled by theworld’s biggest oil export pipeline.

Access to Water isPricelessIn 2001 the Ghanaian government,heavily in debt to the World Bank andInternational Monetary Fund (IMF),raised water rates by 95 percent. Today,many Ghanaians spend 10 to 20 per-cent of their income on drinking water.Three out of four Ghanaians live inpoverty and nearly 80 percent have noaccess to clean, piped water – a crisislinked to 70 percent of all disease inthe country.

Visionary public interest lawyerRudolf has gained international recog-nition for suspending a major waterprivatization project in Ghana backedby the World Bank. The devastatingplan would further impede access to

clean drinking water, a crisis linked tohigh rates of disease in low-incomecommunities. The privatization wouldalso place an especially harsh burdenon Ghanaian girls, whose school worksuffers because they literally shoulderthe responsibility of providing waterfor their families. The World Bank isnow placing renewed pressure on thegovernment to re-package the project.

Rudolf has a clear vision for equi-table distribution, “Water should beregarded as a social service with gov-ernment bearing the primaryresponsibility for its provision. Thisprimary responsibility may beexpressed through decentralized publicmanagement with clear social serviceobjectives anchored on the principle ofequity.”

Oil ProfiteeringBritish Petroleum is leading an interna-tional consortium, which includesCalifornia-based Unocal, for the con-struction of the $3 billionBaku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan project that wouldestablish the largest pipeline in theworld, crossing through Georgia, acountry mired in poverty and politicalinstability since gaining independencefrom Russia in 1991. For the UnitedStates, the pipeline is a way to tap oil

reserves in former Soviet states whilebypassing Iran and Russia. But theroute would run through a national parkand pristine mountain gorge, home toGeorgia’s commercially prized mineralwater and one of the few successfulenterprises in Georgia’s economy.

“Our society is poor and tradi-tional, and was completely unpreparedfor this,” said Manana. “Now, sud-denly, a big multinational companycomes in, handing out jobs and bigsums of money to a few people, andall kinds of new problems seem togrow out of thin air.”

Manana’s formidable scientifictraining has helped block the construc-tion of an oil terminal and a coalpower station, secure fair compensa-tion for local villagers whose landwould be affected by development, andestablish a monitoring and grievanceprocess to hold BP and the govern-ment accountable.

More InformationThe Goldman Prize offers environ-mental heroes the recognition,visibility and credibility their effortsdeserve. Visit www.goldmanprize.org formore information. ■

G O L D M A N P R I Z E

Rudolf Amenga-Etego speaks to the LocalAction Committee of Sukuru, a poor neigh-borhood in Accra, Ghana, on moresustainable water management practices.

Pho

to c

redi

t:W

ill P

arrin

ello

Manana Kochladze speaks to villagers at ameeting on the $3 billion Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Friends of the Earth hasworked with Manana to force project-delaysand additional studies.

Pho

to c

redi

t:M

anan

a K

ochl

adze

12

C L E A N W A T E R

By Chris Weiss

Lead in drinking waterremains a major con-cern for consumers,especially those liv-ing in older

neighborhoods. Recent news sto-ries on high levels of lead inWashington, D.C. drinking watersupplies have heightened publicawareness of the poisoned drink-ing water supply and theimportance of water testing.

Lead can occur in drinkingwater either by contamination of thesource water supply or by corrosion oflead from plumbing or fixtures. Whilelead-containing plumbing materialswill usually develop a hard white coat-ing or “scale” over time fromsubstances such as calcium carbonateor lime, which minimizes further cor-rosion of the pipe, any change to theincoming water quality can potentiallydisturb this scale and expose the pipe tothe corrosive effects of water. Drinkingwater may not always be a source oflead, which can also be found else-where in paints used in older homes oron some older metal playground equip-ment.

Determining if Lead is aProblem in Your WaterWhile the 1996 revisions to the SafeDrinking Water Act significantlychanged the lead requirements formaterials used in residential plumbing,older fixtures and lead water lines arestill in service in many communities.For those living in older homes, it isimportant to determine if the home hasa lead service line – the water line that

connects a home to the community’swater system. ● If the home has a basement, locate

the place where the water linecomes in through the wall or floor.Is the pipe thick in appearance anda light gray in color? If so, theservice line may be lead.

● The local water department caninspect the line to determine itsmaterial makeup; they can alsocheck their records to confirm ifthe home is connected to the com-munity’s distribution system by alead service line.

● In some communities, there aretwo parts to the service line – thefirst connecting the city’s distribu-tion pipe to the water shutoff at thecurb; the second connecting thehomeowner’s plumbing system tothe shutoff. Depending on how theordinance reads in a particularcommunity, the portion betweenthe curb shutoff and the house maybe the homeowner’s responsibilityto maintain.

In addition to lead service lines, faucetsor lead-based solder (used to join cop-per tubing) can also contribute smallamounts of lead into drinking water,

especially those produced before1998. As a result, some individu-als who don’t have lead servicelines can still have unsafe levelsof lead in their drinking water.

If consumers are concernedabout lead in drinking water, theyshould consider having a lead testperformed on the tap water todetermine lead content. Localwater utilities, state and localhealth departments, and universityextension offices usually have alist of labs in each state that areapproved to perform drinking

water testing for residents. If the leadcontent exceeds this level, optionsinclude:● Having the lead service line

replaced ● Using a home water treatment

product certified for lead reduction(if the lead content is below 150ppb)

● Using certified bottled waterBoiling water is not an effective meansof reducing lead, and may in fact con-centrate the lead. Hot water lines aremost susceptible to lead leaching andshould not be used as a source of waterfor drinking or cooking when lead isdetected.

If a consumer chooses to use ahome water treatment device, use andmaintenance are key factors to makingsure contaminants such as lead arebeing reduced from their incomingwater supply if present. Most impor-tantly, consumers should seek outproducts that meet the stringent stan-dards provided by independent,third-party certification. Consumerscan search certified product listings atwww.nsfconsumer.org. ■

Consumer Tips: Is Lead in Your Drinking Water?

Lead in drinking water can result in delays in physical andmental development for babies and children.

Summer 2004 • Volume 34, Number 2 13

W H A T Y O U C A N D O

Gas Prices Pumping Your Wallet Clean

With gas prices atrecord highs andsummer vacationjust around thecorner it’s time to

learn how to save at the pump.Simple ways to protect your walletwhile also protecting the environmentare listed below.

Clean Out Your Car. If it’ssnowing out, most likely you won’tneed the golf clubs you’ve been stor-ing in your trunk, and if it’s 100degrees you probably won’t needthose skis either. The more weightyou haul, the more gas you use.

Take Care of Your Car.Keep the tires inflated properly.Underinflated tires waste fuel and wearout the tire tread. Also, check tires reg-ularly for alignment and balance andchange oil and filters on schedule.

Don’t Be a Loner. Take a train,subway, bus or organize a carpool.These are some of the easiest ways tosave gas and pollute less.

Forget the Low-Carb Fad.Ride your bike to work or to runerrands. If you do this, maybe youcan eat that bagel you’ve been crav-ing the past couple months.

Too Many SpeedingTickets? The faster you drive, themore gas you use. Driving at 55 mphrather than 65 mph can improve yourfuel economy by two miles per gal-lon.

Tighten the Gas Cap. Makesure it’s on securely. Buy a new oneif your current cap doesn’t fit snugly.Gas easily evaporates from the tank ifit has an escape.

Buy a Fuel-Efficient Car.When pricing cars, factor in long-term fuel costs. Keep in mind thatsunroofs add to wind resistance, low-ering the mileage per gallon. ■

Don’t Get Up, Protect the Planet From Your Computer

You can be part of thesolution right fromyour computer! HelpFriends of the Earthraise the funds needed

to protect your right to a clean,healthy environment and a democraticglobal society.

A Fish with a MissionAre you one of the millions of peoplethat use eBay? Do you find yourselfselling items from time to time oreven on a regular basis? In that case,you could help Friends of the Earthwith a mere stroke of your keyboard.MissionFish (www.missionfish.org) haspartnered with eBay so that you cansell items and donate the proceeds,anywhere from 10 percent to 100 per-

cent. MissionFish collects the dona-tion from the seller, and sends us themoney. Next time you are sellingsomething, think about usingMissionFish to donate part of yourproceeds to Friends of the Earth.

Put Your Vote to WorkThis month on-line voting has begunamong Working Assets customers toaward 50 groups a combined dona-tions pool. If you are a member ofWorking Assets, please consider vot-ing for Friends of the Earth. The morevotes a group receives, the more fundsthey receive. Voting can be doneonline at www.workingassets.com/voting.

If you are not already a member,please consider joining the WorkingAssets family. By just ‘rounding up’

your phone bill each month a fewpennies, you can make an extremelylarge difference for groups likeFriends of the Earth.

Our Action Center and E-NewsletterDon’t forget to sign up for our e-mailnewsletter to receive up-to-date infor-mation about the issues you careabout. Visit our online action centerwww.foe.org/action to sign up, take partin actions to protect the environmentand even register to vote.

And, remember to vote yourenvironmental values in every elec-tion at every level – local, state andnational. Ask your neighbors if theyare registered to vote too. ■

14

I N A P P R E C I A T I O N

G R E E N S C I S S O R S

Dorothy would never havedescribed herself as an“activist.” But for herentire life she was an“enthusiast.” Her passion

was her love of nature in all its forms.A long time supporter of Friends of theEarth, Dorothy Gleiser passed away lastsummer at the age of 90.

Raised on a farm, she had a life-long relationship with the natural world.She loved gardening. But geology washer real love. She was an amateur rock collector who loved nothing morethan taking treks in the midwest andsouthwest looking for specimens.

Throughout her life she found thatshe could find and see little until sheleft the highways and hiked into thewoods and fields. She would travel welloff the beaten path, looking at undis-

turbed land, as well as outcroppings,road cuts, and even mines. Taking theroad less traveled, she created an exten-

sive collection that might rival the gemand mineral collection at theSmithsonian Institute.

Dorothy would open her home andcollection to school children and col-lege students to introduce them to thewonders of the natural world. Dorothyhoped others would be able to do a bet-ter job of protecting it in the future.After providing for family members,she thoughtfully left a portion of herestate to Friends of the Earth. Thebequest was unrestricted, trustingFriends of the Earth to use it where theneed was the greatest.

Dorothy did something very spe-cial. She made an ultimate gift tobenefit those she would never know.For all of us, a special thanks toDorothy Gleiser. We will remember herfor a long time to come. ■

Dorothy Gleiser: A Rockhound Who Valued Nature

Battling Environmentally Harmful Spending

As the federal budgetdeficit spirals out ofcontrol, policy makersare looking for places tocut spending. Working

with fiscally conservative groups,Friends of the Earth is offering politi-cians answers by identifying tens ofbillions of dollars in environmentallyharmful and wasteful projects that mustbe eliminated from the federal budget.

Common-Sense SpendingAdvice to CongressIn April, the Green Scissors Campaign,lead by Friends of the Earth, releasedthe Green Scissors 2004 report. Thereport highlighted five high-priorityprojects, from the more than 50 proj-

ects highlighted in previous reports, tobe targeted for elimination. To date,members of Congress have introducedlegislation to eliminate or reform threeof the five highlighted projects. Theintroduced pieces of legislation wouldeliminate a special tax treatment forsport utility vehicles, stop new roadbuilding in the Tongass National Forestin Alaska and end a wasteful tax breakfor oil and gas development.

A Fair and Balanced Lookat Transportation SpendingIn June, continuing our partnershipwith fiscal conservatives, Friends ofthe Earth and Taxpayers for CommonSense released the new edition ofRoad to Ruin. Road to Ruin highlights

27 federal road and highway projectsthat would cost more than $24 billionto build. These highways will paveover forest and farmland, disrupt com-munities, while failing to addresstraffic congestion and sprawl.

The Road to Ruin report is beingreleased in time to impact the nationaldebate over federal transportation pol-icy. There is legislation currentlybefore Congress that would provide atleast $270 billion for transportationprojects, 80 percent of which wouldbenefit highways.

The Green Scissors 2004report can be viewed at

www.greenscissors.org. The Road to Ruinreport can be viewed atwww.foe.org/camps/eco ■

We would like to thank Dorothy Gleiser forremembering Friends of the Earth in herestate plans.

Summer 2004 • Volume 34, Number 2 15

E N G I N E E R E D F O O D S : O U R O P I N I O N

By Brent Blackwelder

Recently USA Today askedFriends of the Earth to writean Op-Ed to inform the publicof our stance on geneticallyengineered food. We’vereprinted the article below.

Most of uswould liketo seecrops andfarming

techniques developed to feedthe world, reduce pesticideuse and provide health bene-fits. So far, the biotech foodcrops on the market todayhave failed to do thesethings, according to a newreport by the UnitedNations’ Food andAgricultural Organization(FAO). However, the reportconcludes that in the future,if the right investments andregulations were put intoplace, biotech could help.That’s a big “if.”

Contrast the report’sfindings with the views ofprominent hunger-reliefgroups. In Britain, the direc-tors of Oxfam, Christian Aid,Save the Children and Action Aidhave warned that claims that geneti-cally engineered foods will feed theworld are “misleading and fail toaddress the complexities of povertyreduction.” They are concerned thathunger is not due to a shortage offood, but to a lack of money to buyor grow it. Biotechnology would notchange underlying social and eco-nomic policies and, therefore, it isunlikely the right investment.

The FAO report says that “therehave been no verifiable reports… ofsignificant health or environmentalharm.” But harm is difficult to deter-mine when proper regulations and thefunds needed to evaluate these cropsare not even available in the UnitedStates. Through their lobbying,biotech companies have preventedthe Food and Drug Administrationfrom adopting an independentapproval process, and the companies

have succeeded in gettingmore than $190 million oftaxpayer money a year tosubsidize the development oftheir products. Only 2% ofthese federal research fundsare dedicated to evaluatingpotential harm.

Genetically engineeredfoods that inherently requiremore complex evaluationsare not adequately regulatedtoday in the richest countryin the world. So it is notclear why the FAO thinksthey might be adequatelyregulated elsewhere.

Ultimately, it is up to theleaders of nations that arefacing famine or malnutri-tion to decide what cropsand technologies to embrace.To the extent that people inwealthier nations want tohelp, we should provide thepoor with options that solvethese problems without cre-ating new ones.

Reprinted with permissionfrom USA TODAY. ■

Biotech Is Not the Answer

We invite you to send commentsand suggestions about our news-magazine to:

Letters to the Editor, Keira CosticFriends of the Earth1717 Massachusetts Ave, NW,Suite 600Washington, DC 20036-2002or kcostic@foe.org

Letters to the Editor

PERIODICALS

POSTAGE PAID AT

WASHINGTON, DCAND ADDITIONAL

MAILING OFFICESSummer 2004, Volume 34, No. 2

1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 600Washington, DC 20036-2002

Friends of the Earth willhost its annual boardmeeting, Monday, June28, at 1 p.m., in theWashington, DC office.

Avis Ogilvy Moore is running uncon-tested for an open slot on Friends ofthe Earth’s board of directors.Members may cast votes at the annualmeeting. If you would like to attend,contact Lisa Grob at lgrob@foe.org orby phone, 202-222-0744. Membersmay also vote by proxy ballot for thecandidates or for write-in candidates.

To do so, copy or clip the mailinglabel from this newsmagazine andmail your vote to Board Election,Friends of the Earth, 1717Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite600, Washington, DC, 20036 or fax202-783-0444.

Avis Ogilvy Moore is a CharterMember of Friends of the Earth. In1972, Avis co-founded and chairedthe New York Branch of Friends ofthe Earth. Avis is a former ResearchAssociate at the University of

PennsylvaniaMedical Schooland has served onthe board ofnumerous institu-tions such asSierra Club’s Atlantic Chapter,Louisiana Landmark Society andZero Population Growth’s New Yorkchapter. Avis is currently serving asthe chair of Friends of the Earth’sboard of directors. ■

Board Member Up for Re-election This Summer

Estate planning experts suggest reviewing your will about every three years, when you retire or celebrate anew birth. As a service to our members, Friends of the Earth is offering a free and concise booklet on tips to consider inpreparing or updating your will.

As you think about your will, please consider remembering Friends of the Earth in your plans. Help to leave this worldan even better place for our children and our children’s children.

❑ Please send me a free copy of How to Make a Will That Works.❑ I’d like to learn more about how to include Friends of the Earth in my estate plans. Please send me the appropriate

wording to bring to my attorney.❑ I have already included Friends of the Earth in my estate plans.

NAME (PLEASE PRINT)

ADDRESS

CITY STATE ZIP

PHONE

E-MAIL

Or call Rosemary Greenaway toll-free at 877-843-8687 x722 or e-mail rgreenaway@foe.org.

We Don’t Inherit the Earth from Our Parents……We Borrow It from Our Children.

Avis Ogilvy Moore,Charter member ofFriends of the Earth