LABOR AND SUSTAINABILITY CANDIDATES QUESTIONNAIRE

GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

WARS FOR OIL:  The United States is waging costly and bloody wars for gas and oil in Afghanistan and Iraq, which are causing thousands to be maimed and killed on both sides, including the sons and daughters of American working families who are the victims of the poverty draft.  Plus, the continued use of hydrocarbons is causing the planet’s warming with dire consequences.  In addition to the suffering and loss of lives caused by these armed conflicts, $5.6 billion is being squandered every month. These funds could be used to subsidize renewable energy.  For instance, it takes an investment of $166 million to get a 5,000-acre wind farm with 67 turbines up & running.  For a manufacturing facility to produce 400 megawatts worth of solar voltaic roofing panels requires an outlay of $1 billion.

Do you support an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan to bring the troops home now as well as an end to all conflicts over petroleum?  Are you for using war expenditures for conversion to a sustainable economy?

ZERO GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS:  The carbon dioxide concentrations that contribute to global warming have risen to 381 ppmv, with 2005 registering one of the largest increases on record—a rise of 2.6 ppmv.  Recent years have, on average, recorded double the rate of increase from just 30 years ago.  This indicates that business is proceeding as usual with virtually nothing being done on the federal level to stop the phenomenal increase of greenhouse gases due to the burning of fossil fuels.  Given the long life-spans of CO2 (Over 100 years) and other GHGs, even if we were to stabilize atmospheric concentrations tomorrow, they would continue to work against us.

Do you support legislation mandating Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions From All Sources A.S.A.P.?  What do you think of the Pavley Law in California, which mandates a 20% reduction in GHG emissions overall by 2020?

RATIFICATION OF THE KYOTO PROTOCOL:  Recognizing the inadequacies of the Kyoto Protocol given that it calls for only a 7% reduction in carbon dioxide concentrations below 1990 levels by 2012 when the IPCC calls for an 80% reduction and the treaty encourages controversial carbon-trading schemes, some progress might be registered in this country in mitigating climate change if the United States joined the world and became a signatory.

Do you support the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol as a first step in climate change abatement on the federal level?

CONVERSION TO WIND & SOLAR POWER:  With scientists telling us we have only a decade before Earth’s climate system reaches a dangerous tipping point, it is clear we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels and get wind farms and solar parks up and running on a massive scale in the Prairie States, Great Plains and Southwest where those resources are most plentiful.

What immediate measures would you take to achieve this goal and how would you ensure a just transition for oil, gas, nuclear, electrical utility, auto and transport workers and their families as the conversion to clean, non-nuclear renewable energy is made?

STATEWIDE ENERGY BALLOT INITIATIVE:  Humanity is facing a crisis of enormous magnitude, which will affect generations to come, yet we have little say in the state’s energy policies such as from what sources our power is derived.  The people of Colorado voted recently for more wind power in a state referendum.

Do you support a ballot initiative that would give Minnesotans the right to vote on which energy sources are used?

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF ELECTRICAL UTILITIES:  Many people feel that the big power companies like Xcel are not being run responsibly with the public interest or the health of the environment in mind when you consider their continued commitment to using dirty coal and dangerous nuclear power.

Do you support the public ownership of the electrical utilities so they can be run for the benefit of people and the state’s ecosystems?

100% CLEAN MASS TRANSIT:  Only 2% of our national transportation system is mass transit.  There are still too many motor vehicles on the streets and highways emitting greenhouse gases, ground-level ozone & VOCs that contribute to smog and acid-rain.  Vast amounts of non-renewable resources go into the production of private automobiles, too many of which cause horrible traffic congestion.  Even city buses, that run mostly on dirty diesel fuel, emit large quantities of particulate matter, contributing to childhood asthma, cancer and cardio-pulmonary problems that lead to thousands of premature deaths annually.  Currently, the nation’s poorest families spend more than 40% of their take-home pay on transportation.  Transport must be made more convenient, affordable and equitable as well as ecological.     

To stop global warming, clean up our air and relieve traffic congestion, do you support 100% clean mass transit

powered by renewable wind and solar energy that is more accessible to the poor?

JOBS AND SUSTAINABILITY

APOLLO ALLIANCE TEN-POINT PLAN:  Job growth in Minnesota is stagnating.  Between 2000 and 2004, 51,900 jobs were lost in manufacturing alone with a 5% annual average unemployment rate.  The Apollo Alliance promotes a Ten-Point Plan for Good Jobs & Energy Independence.  It includes:  1) Improved automotive technology & hybrid cars for greater fuel efficiency & reduced GHG emissions.  2) Investment in more energy-efficient factories through retrofits that will save jobs.  3) Construction of more high-performance, green buildings to save on operating costs.  4) Production of energy-efficient appliances to satisfy consumer demand.  5) Modernization of the electrical infrastructure by installing scrubbers, capturing carbon and cogenerating & transmitting renewable energy.  6) Expansion of renewable energy development by diversifying in solar, biomass & wind.  7) Improved transportation options by investing in multimodal networks including bicycle, bus and rail transit, both inner city & regional.  8) Revitalization of urban centers & infrastructures with improved green planning.  9) Development of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology.  10)  Preservation of regulatory protections for worker health & safety and the environment.

Do you agree that the Apollo Alliance program for jobs and energy is worth adopting?

CLEAN EDGE ACT:  This legislation, which is being introduced into Congress by Senators Reid, Clinton, Cantwell & Stabenow, promises to create 530,000 jobs at sustainable wages to maintain working families in a $49 billion program for clean energy that is designed to pay for itself.

Do you support the Clean EDGE Act?  What measures would you take to achieve greater employment in a more sustainable economy?

THE IMPACTS OF GLOBALIZATION ON THE DOMESTIC ECONOMY:  Those who raise the “Jobs vs. the Environment” debate fail to see that jobs are being lost not to environmental regulations but to globalization.  Workers at Tonka Toys & Cornelius Steel lost their good-paying jobs because production was outsourced to Mexico & China.  Once pushed out of industry, skilled workers in the U.S. must seek employment in the service area at low wages and few benefits.  In nearly every country, there is a labor surplus that functions as a contingent work force, living under tremendous fear & insecurity.  Many emigrate from poor to rich countries in an attempt to improve their lot.  The blame for the general situation does not lie with Third World nations or the influx of immigrant workers.  Rather, it is trade rules which leave less developed nations without the ability to protect themselves from worker exploitation, the destruction of subsistence agriculture & environmental degradation.  For that reason, it is important that fair employment practices, guarantees to ensure local food production and environmental protections be embedded into all trade agreements.

How would you go about achieving that?

SAVING THE FORD PLANT:  To save the 1,885 hourly & salaried jobs at the Ford Plant, United Auto Workers Local 879 is conducting a study for conversion of the TCAP, which already runs on clean, renewable hydropower.  By having negotiated sustainability into their collective bargaining agreements over the years, the auto workers have already made the plant function in a more environmentally friendly manner.  For example, the water used is cleaner when it is returned to the river, there are no foul emissions from the factory’s smoke stacks and the waste stream has been reduced by recycling parts packaging.  The more ecological the plant has become, the safer and healthier it is to labor in for the workers and live near for the residents.  The union local has consciously linked the clean power the plant runs on to cleaner practices in the production process.  That is why many people feel that the plant should remain open and be converted to some sort of green manufacturing operation that would produce either clean mass transit or wind turbines.

What steps do you plan to take to assist in converting the Ford Plant to green manufacturing?

TRADE ADJUSTMENT ACT:  This legislation was designed to assist workers whose jobs have been sent offshore.

Would you favor something similar to assist workers in making the conversion to a sustainable economy?

DEFINING A JUST TRANSITION:  The principle of a just transition is based on the belief that a healthy economy and a clean environment can and should coexist.  The process of achieving this vision should be a fair one that does not cost workers or community residents their health, environment, jobs or economic assets.  Any losses, therefore, should be fairly compensated.  The practice of a just transition means that the people who are most affected by pollution--the frontline workers and fenceline communities—should be in the leadership of crafting policy and have a say in what solutions are chosen, including health & safety measures on the job.  To facilitate a just transition from the current economy and environment to a sustainable and fair economy and environment certain things must be guaranteed such as worker compensation, retraining and relocation, if necessary, community redevelopment to make the infrastructure more environmentally friendly, an equitable transportation system, clean-up of our air, soil, water, workplaces and neighborhoods and the proper maintenance of our health.

Do you agree with this definition of a just transition and if so, how would you achieve these goals?

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR CANDIDATES

GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY

INTEGRATED COAL GASIFICATION, COMBINED CYCLE (IGCC):  Coal mining continues to kill miners, and ruthless mountaintop mining of coal is destroying rivers, streams and entire ecosystems.  Coal slurry and slag heaps are causing further sulfide pollution of our soil and water while the burning of coal steadily increases global warming as it pollutes our air.  Coal gasification may increase efficiency up to 50% and have lower emissions than pulverized coal-burning plants.  However, mercury produced by both types of power plants is still highly toxic, and carbon sequestration is still a serious problem considering the possibility that it could belch out of its underground storage caverns in one gigantic plume, which could suffocate all life in the vicinity and cause CO2 concentrations to spike.  Carbon dioxide is often injected into older oil fields to drive out the remaining petroleum.  In an experiment conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy at the Frio Brine Formation in Texas, scientists discovered that the deep burial of carbon dioxide led to the acidification of the brine, releasing metals such as iron and manganese and dissolving large amounts of carbonate minerals.  This loss of carbonates caused pores and fractures in the rock that could lead to the release of CO2 as well as fouled brine into our aquifers that supply drinking water.  Plus, the acid mix (pH of vinegar) that occurred could eat through the cement seals that plug abandoned oil and gas wells, 2.5 million of which are located throughout the U.S.

Given the environmental and health impacts of using coal to generate electricity and the risks involved with carbon sequestration, what is your position on the ICGG plant that is projected for Hoyt Lakes?

DM&E COAL RAIL LINE:  The transport of coal exposes communities to dust in the ambient air as it blows off the open cars, which is harmful to people’s pulmonary health.  The DM&E Railroad wants to run 34 or more mile-long coal trains per day from the Powder River Basin through our region, putting 56 communities at risk.  Its trains will also be hauling many hazardous chemicals.  The carrier’s safety record is abominable having an accident rate 7.5 times higher than the national average.  For instance, in July 2004, a train derailed, spilling 45,000 gallons of ethanol and causing the evacuation of Balaton, MN.  DM&E plans to use continuous welded rail, which expands and contracts as temperatures fluctuate making for deformed rails that lift from their bed—the perfect formula for disastrous derailments.  With a dodgy credit history, DM&E has applied for a no-collateral, $2.5 billion, taxpayer-funded loan from the Federal Railroad Administration to finance this boondoggle.  Indigenous people in the region as well as the City of Rochester and the Mayo Clinic have spoken out against this scheme that means more dirty coal burned in Midwestern and Eastern power plants.

Where do you stand on the DM&E coal rail line?

ETHANOL PRODUCTION:  Minnesota has required gas stations to sell only ethanol-blended gasoline since 1997.  However, there are many problems with its production and use, which make it unsustainable.  The corn from which ethanol is derived erodes the soil 12 times faster than it can be reformed.  The chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides required to grow the grain pollute our ground water, causing serious health problems.  The run-off of nitrogen and phosphorus leads to nutrient overloading that has created a Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico.  Irrigating corn on the Great Plains mines groundwater 25% faster than the natural recharge rate, thus overpumping our aquifers.  Burning corn takes food out of the mouth’s of the world’s hungry at a time when global grain production is experiencing shortfalls due to climate change.  Ethanol plants emit toxic air pollutants, including six volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and particulate matter. Plus, CO2 is generated by the drying process.  Corn ethanol is not efficient because it requires 29% more fossil fuel energy to make than it actually produces.  For every gallon of ethanol produced there are 12 gallons of waste water that must be treated, requiring more energy.  Billions of taxpayers’ money subsidize the ethanol industry most of which goes to large producers such as Archer Daniels Midland with little benefiting small farmers.  Because grain alcohol is a hydrocarbon, it still emits carbon dioxide when burned, thereby contributing to global warming. 

Should we continue with the subsidized burning of food when it is obviously not a renewable source of energy or sustainable on any level?

PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF ELECTRICAL UTILITIES:  To generate electricity, Xcel Energy and other huge power companies are committed to the burning of more filthy coal, which is a major contributor to global warming, toxic mercury pollution and acid rain.  In addition, Xcel is guilty of dumping clean wind power because it does not want to invest in the needed grids to deliver it to customers who have requested it.  The Big Stone II expansion, proposed by Otter Tail Power, is an example of the utility giants continued objective to provide power with dirty energy because it is cheap and profitable rather than to give us renewable energy.  Many Minnesotans and Dakotans are opposed to that project and want more wind power.  There is clearly a conflict between the wishes of the populace and the utilities.

To ensure that the electrical utilities are run in the interests of the people and the region’s ecosystems, do you support their public ownership?

PRESERVATION OF ANWR:  The shutdown of the Prudhoe Bay oil field due to BP’s failure to maintain the pipeline is providing further justification for oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).  This delicate tundra ecosystem and the indigenous people who depend upon it for their subsistence are already experiencing the detrimental impacts of a warming climate.  It is certain that subjecting ANWR to the ravages of the petroleum industry will ensure its total destruction. 

Do you support the continued preservation of ANWR as one of the world’s largest intact wilderness areas?

OFFSHORE GAS & OIL DRILLING:  The U.S. House of Representatives has just lifted the 25-year moratorium on offshore oil drilling putting our coastal wetlands, estuaries, beaches and marine ecosystems at risk.  In addition, it has opened up new expanses in the Gulf of Mexico, which is already suffering the deleterious effects of widespread oil and gas drilling.

Do you favor the reversal of this harmful policy by maintaining the moratorium on offshore drilling?

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS:  Nuclear power is inherently dangerous in terms of the routine radioactive emissions that are released, the risk of catastrophic accidents and the long-term problem of storing radioactive wastes that will affect many generations for millennia to come.  Exposure to radioactivity at any level is carcinogenic and threatens the stability of the human gene pool.  There are no safe levels, yet the Bush Administration supports the nuclear power industry in building more of these dangerous power stations.  Some propose that expanding the use of nukes is a viable means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, yet CO2 is produced in every step of the nuclear fuel cycle—mining, refining and transporting the uranium, building the power stations, containing and storing the radioactive wastes and decommissioning the plants.  They are no more carbon-neutral than they are safe. 

To ensure the health and safety of life on the planet, do you support the shutdown of all nuclear power plants, including those at Prairie Island and Monticello?

THE PROTECTION OF MINNESOTA’S NATURAL HERITAGE

SULFIDE MINING ON THE IRON RANGE:  The state legislature along with the MPCA and DNR has been fast-tracking the permitting process for heavy and precious metal mining in the Arrowhead Region.  They have been relaxing and foregoing environmental standards in order to ease the way for companies like Polymet Mining of Canada to set up shop with three more similar ventures in the pipeline.  Mining in sulfide-rich areas such as the Iron Range produces sulfuric acid that can leak into nearby wells, streams and lakes.  Acid-mine drainage can also cause the leaching of heavy metals and mercury, transforming it into its more toxic  organic form of methyl mercury.  This will further pollute the lakes and streams of Northern Minnesota and Canada and endanger the health of our children.  PolyMet plans to contain the toxins and acids in lined pools in the ground.  If those go bad or the pool overflows, the results could be catastrophic.  The company want to locate its operation on top of 1200 acres of wetlands and has chose the town of Floodwood as a replacement site much to the upset of its residents and the farmers whose hayfields will be flooded.  The smoke emitted from the ore refinement process will pollute the air of the BWCA.  There is growing opposition among working people to sulfide mining on the Iron Range.  Labor World, the organ of the Duluth AFL-CIO Central Labor Body, ran an editorial in its August 30^th issue opposing the construction of the PolyMet mine because of these environmental concerns which will affect future generations to come.  Although the industry may provide a few jobs for twenty to thirty years, these companies will be gone once the minerals are exhausted, leaving even more degraded ecosystems for our children and grandchildren to cope with.

In order to provide employment on the Iron Range, do you support the Earth-friendly manufacture of wind turbines or other green technologies and products as an alternative to toxic sulfide mining?

PEAT STRIP MINING IN THE BIG BOG:  The Canadian transnational, Berger, Ltd., has been given carte blanche by the DNR, the Koochiching County Commissioners and other state officials to mine peat in the Big Bog of the Pine Island State Forest.  At taxpayers’ expense, the state has graciously built disruptive roads and dug harmful drainage ditches so that Berger can vacuum up free of charge all of the peat moss it can truck away over the next 30 to 50 years to be dried and sold for horticultural purposes to companies like Scotts.  Also known as the Pine Island Bog, it is the largest last pristine sphagnum moss/spruce wetland in the lower 48 states and is home to timber wolves, black bear, moose, bald eagles, southern lemming and many bird species.  It is a primary aquifer and head waters for several Minnesota rivers, lakes, and streams and serves as a vital filter that purifies the water of pollutants.  It has locked away huge amounts of mercury, that if released, would further contaminate the surface & ground waters of the area.  For thousands of years, this ecosystem has stored vast amounts of carbon that are now being released by digging the peat, which oxidizes when it dries and releases CO2, thereby contributing to global warming.  The Big Bog is also an important aspect of the natural entitlements of the Red Lake Nation, which has stood in historical opposition to peat mining because it would destroy their fishing, wild rice harvesting and subsistence farming.  Many Northern Minnesotans also oppose peat mining in the Big Bog and do not believe the DNR’s and Berger’s  promises that it will be restored since it takes thousands of years for peat to develop.  The mining operation will leave a six-foot deep hole of many square miles, which can never be recovered. Once it is gone, it is gone, along with the species that lived there and the vital ecological services the Big Bog provides.  The operation offers only about two dozen seasonal jobs at poverty wages of eight dollars an hour.  This natural wonder is shared by the people of Minnesota with the Red Lake Nation, and it should not be violated to satisfy the economic interests of a few.

Do you agree that DNR Commissioner Gene Merriam should revoke Berger’s permit immediately?

RESTORATION OF THE GREAT LAKES:  The Great Lakes Collaboration Implementation Act was introduced into Congress in 2006.  It is a comprehensive plan to:  1) Halt the invasion of non-native aquatic species that upset the natural balance, reaching crisis proportions because of their introduction via the ballast water discharge from foreign vessels;  2) End the dumping of raw, untreated sewage into the waters, especially from the City of Duluth;  3) Restore the sorely depleted coaster brook trout to Lake Superior and its tributaries, which are its spawning grounds;  4) Clean up the badly polluted St. Louis River, which is a critical superfund site where sediments are loaded with tar, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, cyanide, naphthalene, mercury, zinc, chromium, PCBs and dioxins/furans;  5) Capture toxic mercury pollution from taconite mining and halt its emission from coal-fired power plants;  6) Protect the shoreline and tributaries from overdevelopment and land clearing that would destroy wildlife and aquatic habitat and diminish water quality.

Do you support the passage of this vital legislation to restore and preserve Lake Superior for future generations?

MINNTAC TACONITE TAILINGS BASIN DRAINAGE:  The discharge of about 7.2 million gallons of water from the Minntac tailings basin into the Sandy and Dark Rivers will be disastrous.  It will increase stream flow (By 637% & 450% respectively), leading to river bed erosion and sedimentation and boost the amount of suspended solids in downstream waters.  It will also damage wild rice beds by inhibiting germination, which will affect the subsistence harvest for the native people.   The warmer temperature of the contaminated water will affect the lifecycle of freshwater species.  Plus, its massive discharge will increase mercury levels in fish downstream.  There will be greatly elevated levels of sulfates, facilitating the further uptake of methyl mercury into the aquatic food chain.  It is bad enough that the EPA has permitted seepage at the rate of 2,200 gallons per minute throughout the history of the basin.  This practice has already pushed concentrations of several heavy metal pollutants such as manganese above accepted standards.  Many environmental groups, workers and even the Lake Vermilion Sportsmen’s Club are in opposition to the diversion and for good reason.

Should U.S. Steel be allowed to continue polluting the local lakes and streams and posing a threat to the health of wildlife and humans living in the Arrowhead Region?

OHV/ATV FOREST RECLASSIFICATION PROCESS:  Off-highway and all-terrain vehicles do serious ecological damage by gouging ruts, eroding banks, spreading alien plant species, fragmenting forests, destroying wetlands and jeopardizing habitat for birds and other creatures.  The noise factor is also disruptive to wildlife and people who want to enjoy our woodlands in peace and quiet.  The use of motor vehicles also increases carbon emissions and adds to global warming.  The Minnesota legislature has backtracked on the 2003 law that required the DNR to reclassify all “managed” forest to be either limited or closed, meaning recreational vehicles must stay on trails specifically designated for motorized use.  The new law allows all trails in the state forest north of Hwy. 2 to remain open to motorized recreation unless posted as closed.  “Closed” signs as opposed to “open” are routinely pulled down by illegal motorists who have no regard for the sanctity of our natural areas, making enforcement virtually impossible.  State registrations for OHV/ATVs have steadily increased since the 1970s, yet, less than 5% of Minnesotans use the them on public lands.  The vast majority who use our forests engage in healthy activities such as hiking, cycling, canoeing or skiing and respect the woodlands and wetlands by doing as little damage as possible.  Many people feel the DNR should ban motorized recreation from our nature preserves and forests all together rather than appeasing the auto and snowmobile industries which have been reluctant to modify their products to make them more eco-friendly in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

Where do you stand on the issue of OHV/ATV use in Minnesota’s natural areas?

SUSTAINABLE FORESTRY:  Significant chunks of Minnesota’s north woods are being divided up, sold off and developed at an alarming rate.  This year Boise Cascade Corp. (BCC) sold 309,000 acres to a Boston-based TIMO that purchases forest land for short-term gain as a real-estate investment.  Thousands of acres of privately owned land that for a century were managed by timber and mining companies and were open to the public have been sold to investment companies and parcelled up for re-sale.  One million acres, an area larger than the Chippewa National Forest, are now at risk of being off limits to the public for recreation.  The state of Minnesota and private conservation groups together have purchased 50,000 acres of the former BCC forest in Itasca and Koochiching counties as conservation easements.  The funds came from the DNR and the Trust for Public Land, which is well and good.  The trees are supposed to be managed sustainably according to the standards of the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).  However, the SFI is considered to be nothing but a greenwash of the timber and paper pulp industries to cover up their very unsustainable practices such as logging old growth forests and endangered species’ habitats, cutting timber in wilderness areas, replacing natural forests with ecologically-sterile tree plantations that are barren of understory, clear-cutting vast tracts of woodlands, destroying watershed and using toxic herbicides.  Their practices lead to ecosystem destruction, the violation of indigenous peoples’ treaty rights and trampling on the healthy and safety of lumber and pulp mill workers and their collective bargaining rights.  In addition, the paper pulp industry is one of the worst polluting of any on the globe.  Many of the chemicals in the sediments of the St. Louis River come from paper pulp production in Northern Minnesota.  If the Nature Conservancy and other groups think they are saving the forests from development and preserving them for sustainable use, they are sorely mistaken.  SFI should not be the chosen standard bearer since its use will only lead to the degradation of the forest easements.

Where do you stand on this issue?

CLEAR CUTTING IN THE SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST:  Four environmental groups filed suit in August of this year against the U.S. Forest Service hoping to halt the long term Superior National Forest plan because it fails to protect biodiversity in and around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW).  Thousands of acres of timber will be clear-cut within a quarter-mile of the boundary waters since the DNR also plans to log vast areas of state land mixed amid the federal holdings that were designated as roadless under the Clinton Administration and are now open to plunder by the Bush regime.  This will result in motorized trespassing that will open up passageways for damaging invasive species like buckthorn, spotted knapweed and gypsy moths.  The Forest Service is cheating on environmental standards by reducing the number of indicator species used to measure the impact of logging from 34 to only three animals and one tree.  In March, a federal Judge had already ruled that the Forest Service had adequately studied the impacts in the Tomahawk area just south of the BWCAW, giving legal sanction to this plunder.

Where do you stand on DNR and Forest Service policies which threaten one of the last pristine wilderness areas in the region?  Do you think they should be reversed?

THE 1991 WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT (WCA):  By the state’s own admission, Minnesota wetlands are being lost at an alarming rate despite the passage of the WCA, which calls for no net loss.  This is due to far too many exemptions in the protection laws.  The WCA was a political compromise that actually allows destruction, damage and degradation of aquatic ecosystems.  Plus, enforcement of federal and state protections is wholly inadequate.  This situation, combined with outdated drainage laws, has led to a loss of 1,367 acres of wetlands between 2001-03 alone.  We need the many vital ecological services our wetlands provide and our children and theirs deserve the right to enjoy them.

Would you like to see the legal loopholes closed to protect our wetlands from further loss?

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING COMPOUNDS IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND OTHER WATERWAYS:  Our streams, rivers, lakes and water supply are being contaminated by an insidious group of chemicals called Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs).  They are a diverse category that includes pesticides, herbicides, plastics, pharmaceuticals, household cleaners, industrial chemicals such as PCBs and heavy metals.  Metabolites from birth-control pills that are dumped down drains, anabolic steroids used in livestock operations, the post-emergent herbicide Atrazine and natural plant steroids from paper pulp mills are other examples of EDCs.  They interfere with the normal hormonal activity and reproductive health of both vertebrates and invertebrates with the greatest impact being on aquatic life that is continually immersed.  EDCs disrupt a body’s glandular system by sending inappropriate signals at the wrong time in a creature’s crucial developmental stages.  Some of the effects on wildlife are behavioral and physiological changes such as early or delayed sexual development, egg shell thinning in birds, reduced penis size in males, deformities of bird beaks, increased hermaphrodism, skewed sex ratios in populations, feminization and reduced sex drive among males, impaired gonad development and lower sperm counts.  In human beings the effects of EDCs can include autism, hyperactivity and Attention Deficit Disorder in our children and infertility, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in adults.  There is even scientific speculation that it EDCs can cause senile dementia, Parkinsons and Alzheimers in the elderly.  They can also make people vulnerable to certain cancers as with the children and grandchildren of women who took the synthetic hormone diethylstilbestrol (DES) during pregnancy in the 1950s.  DDT is also a hormone disrupter that was affecting our bird populations and was eventually banned in the U.S. because of that.  EDCs are commonly found in the effluent discharged from sewage treatment plants, including the one in St. Paul, which serves 1.8 million people.   That plant’s treatment regime can remove about 80% of known steroids, but apparently this is not enough.  U. of M. researchers have found that male carp and walleye downstream are being feminized, which is affecting the ability of these species to reproduce at healthy population levels.   Many people feel the Precautionary Principle is best in these cases and safeguards should be instituted.

What measures would you take to protect wildlife and humans from the detrimental effects of EDCs?

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

CLEAN-UP OF THE MINNESOTA RIVER:  Due to many decades of runoff from agricultural chemicals into the Minnesota River, its waters have now been classified as toxic by the MPCA.  Because of the extreme degradation of its water quality, this once pristine river is a major contributor to the hypoxic Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico from chemical fertilizers.  Many feel the intensive, petro-chemical based agriculture practiced in the state must change to a system that is much more sustainable and Earth-friendly.

What do you propose be done to clean up the Minnesota River and other waterways affected by agricultural runoff?

PESTICIDE & HERBICIDE USE:  Many of the commonly used agricultural pesticides herbicides are associated with decreasing male fertility, fetal abnormalities, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in children and Parkinson’s disease.  This is because of their hormone disrupting function, which is the reason they work against animal & plant pests.  Prolonged and chronic exposure to these chemicals is why they are ranked among the top three environmental cancer risks.  Many feel more aggressive government action should be taken to remove these harmful chemicals from the market and hold companies responsible for the damage to the health of wildlife and human beings.

Where do you stand in the debate?

THE CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAMS (CSP):  Industrial agriculture is a major source of pollution in the U.S.—leaching and eroding the soil, poisoning the water, generating 25% of greenhouse gasses and consuming 17% of all fossil fuels used.  The CSP was designed to encourage farmers to adopt conservation practices on their lands.  Its subsidies reward farmers for protecting watersheds, reducing tillage by employing no-till drill planting methods and cutting nitrogen fertilizer use in addition to setting aside acreage for tall grass prairie restoration and woodland and wetland preservation.  Unfortunately, because of congressional budget cuts, fewer than 20,000 out of 2 million farms nationwide are signed up for the program.  Lawmakers have placed a funding cap on the CSP while robbing it to pay for disaster relief, deficit reduction and financing other areas of the USDA’s budget.

Do you support a significant shift in funding to aid farmers in conservation and renewable energy practices on their farms?

THE ORGANIC CERTIFICATION COST SHARE PROGRAM:  This program, part of the 2002 Farm Bill, was allocated only $5 million to make one-time direct incentive payments of $500 each to assist farmers with the costs of initial organic certification.  It is the only subsidy ever given to them.  Whereas, industrial agriculture, by contrast, received over $23 billion in subsidies in 2005 alone.  Those who support an expansion of organic agriculture feel a significant shift in U.S. farm subsidies is needed to help family farmers and ranchers make the transition.

Where do you stand on this issue?

THE NUTRITIONAL QUALITY OF OUR FOOD

ORGANIC FOODS:  With rising healthcare costs, some of the best medicine is of the preventive sort by practicing a healthy, stress-free lifestyle and a good dietary regime.  Eating nutritious foods free of contaminants such as chemical preservatives, artificial flavorings and colorings is one of the best ways to prevent disease.  Organic products make up a 2.5% share of all grocery store sales and the demand for them is steadily increasing among health-conscious consumers.

Do you think organic agriculture should receive a fair share of government resources spent on agriculture?

ORGANIC STANDARDS:  As the consumer demand for organic foods grows, there is increasing pressure to lower organic standards.  Recently, this has taken the form of increased allowances for synthetic substances in processed food products labeled “organic” and the certification of “organic” dairies where the cows have little or no access to pasture.  In the body-care industry, shampoos and other items whose ingredients are mostly synthetic often misuse the word “organic” while regulators do little to discourage the practice.  This fudging on standards can erode the confidence people have in organic products.

Do you support strict standards for processed foods dairy and body-care products that are labeled as organic?

NATIONAL FOOD UNIFORMITY LAW:  This year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed this controversial law that would nullify 200 state and local food safety and labeling statutes.  Those eliminated would include regulations identifying ingredients likely to cause cancer, birth defects, allergic reactions or mercury poisoning.

Should we have the right to regulate consumer safety at the state and local level in order to warn consumers against dangerous substances in our food?

WOMEN, INFANT AND CHILDREN (WIC) PROGRAMS FOR THE WORKING POOR:  Until government resources are shifted from unsustainable industrial agriculture to the production of organic foods, they will remain unaffordable to many.  Children and the elderly especially need healthy foods the most, yet they are the groups most likely to live in poverty.

Do you support increases for WIC and the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Program to help low-income Americans buy organic foods?