The 99% Declaration » 7. Protection of the Planet

- Video Chat
- Like This Page
- Facebook
- Twitter
- Back to Top
- Settings

##

# 7. Protection of the Planet

Grievances Add comments
Dec 082011

Protection of the Planet. Human greed, exponentially magnified by corporations partnered with corrupt governments, is destroying the only habitable planet known to humanity. Multinational corporations have purchased so much influence in Congress (and other governments in the world) that they can secure the passage or blockage of regulations to maximize profits and minimize conservation of the environment. The evidence of climate change due to human activity can no longer be denied by rational people and species are becoming extinct at an alarming rate. Humans have caused the extinction of hundreds, if not thousands of species through over-harvesting, pollution, habitat destruction, introduction of new predators and food competitors, over-hunting, and other influences. Unsustainable human population growth is an essential cause of the extinction crisis. New comprehensive laws and regulations must be immediately enacted to give the Environmental Protection Agency, and other environmental protection regulators around the world, expanded powers and resources to shut down corporations, businesses or any entities that intentionally or recklessly damage the environment, and to criminally prosecute individuals who intentionally or recklessly damage the environment. No “corporate veil” should protect any employee, officer or director of a corporation that is directly or indirectly engaged in the intentional or reckless decimation of the planet for profit. The amount of profit a corporation can make must be balanced by conflict-free regulators with the inevitable damage that human activity inflicts on the environment. The 99% of the American People demand the immediate implementation of programs and tax incentives to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels and nuclear energy {those government subsidies should be eliminated immediately} to safe, non-toxic, reusable or carbon neutral sources of energy. Immediate adoption of higher greenhouse gas emission standards so that something of the atmosphere will be left for our children and grandchildren. The rights to clean air, water, and conservation of the planet for future generations shall no longer be infringed by greed-driven corporations and selfish individuals who care for nothing except money.

“If the Bill of Rights contains no guarantee that a citizen shall be secure against lethal poisons distributed either by private individuals or by public officials, it is surely only because our forefathers, despite their considerable wisdom and foresight, could conceive of no such problem.” -Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, Chapter 2.

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
please wait...
Rating: 9.5/10 (13 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Rating: +20 (from 24 votes)
7. Protection of the Planet, 9.5 out of 10 based on 13 ratings

- Post to Facebook
- Post to Twitter
- Add to LinkedIn
- Post to Delicious
- Post to StumbleUpon
- Send via Gmail
- Send via E-mail program
- Print with PrintFriendly
- Add to Tumblr

Get Shareaholic for Firefox
0

### 47 Responses to “7. Protection of the Planet”

1. personhood says:
   2012/01/31 at 3:02 am

   Tax policy can support a healthy planet as well as provide jobs. One example is green jobs. Also, we still subsidize farmers to not grow crops. Why not subsidize organic farmers to grow food instead? Organic farm subsidies could provide safer food and reduce agricultural chemicals in our air and water and soil, as well.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
2. flaja says:
   2012/01/25 at 1:05 pm

   Protecting the planet is the wrong attitude to have. I am a conservationist, not an environmentalist because environmentalism has left-wing political implications that I want no part of. I don’t want to save the planet because as a mere human being I am not arrogant enough to believe I can either save or destroy the planet. But as a conservative and a conservationist I want to use natural resources in such a way that they can provide the greatest material benefit to the largest number of people for the longest amount of time. I want to save natural resources today for the sake of being able to use them tomorrow.

   Part of America’s PRIDE Ten-Squared plan.

   Article 3
   Achieve Energy Independence
   A. Immediately levy a tax on energy derived from non-renewable resources according to the BTU content to encourage demand and thus development of renewable energy sources.
   B. Provide government matching funds for non-profit organizations that build and maintain solar, wind and biomass energy production facilities.
   C. Provide government matching funds for non-profit organizations that build and maintain biological wastewater water reclamation facilities.
   D. Mandate higher motor fuel efficiency standards for all motor vehicles according to the passenger/freight capacity regardless of make and model of the vehicle in order to return the nation’s annual per capita oil consumption to what it was in 1990.
   E. Levy a progressive annual federal motor vehicle tax on all households:
   1. One motor vehicle is taxed at $500;
   2. Two motor vehicles are taxed at $1200;
   3. Three or more vehicles are taxed at $4000 plus $400 per vehicle owned.
   F. Mandate the use of biofuels, other than ethanol, in all motor vehicles that are part of a commercial fleet and all civilian motor vehicles used by the United States government within seven years.
   G. Grant tax credits that can be used to pay tax liabilities whenever a taxpayer builds or purchases a home made with ecologically sustainable technologies (rammed earth; papercrete; earthbag; strawbale; compressed earth blocks).
   H. End the United States Postal Service’s mass-volume postage discounts.
   I. Mandate that a certain percentage of agricultural and forestry products purchased by the federal, state and local governments be produced by organic methods which will be determined by law without the input or interference of the conventional agriculture industry.
   J. Prohibit standby switches for all electronic devices so no energy is used while the devices are “turned off”.

   People like me get turned off when they hear about saving the planet or ending global warming. But we are more likely to get interested if you present your environmentalist goals in terms of economics and national security.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
3. geogehringer says:
   2012/01/24 at 8:34 am

   This is going to be an idealistic statement grounded in historic fact and personal belief. If this declaration is to be transformative then let us transform.
   Native Americans who occupied US lands till 1491 could not comprehend that an individual or entity could, would or should own the land, air and water. They had a sacred trust that if they took care of the Earth it would take care of them. By monetizing the discussion to save and protect the Earth desecrates its sacredness. In the absence of this sacredness others are empowered to continually try to dominate/own nature and Earth. It is this obsession to dominate/own that destroys.By thinking inside the box of capitalism we are trapped into this domination/ownership mentality. Our constitution does not specify what kind of Earth management or economic model our nation should pursue. It never gave rights to destroy the Earth.
   But Native Americans have been subdued and put in reservations (prisons or gulags of sort). They could not comprehend the ideals of ownership because they had a sacred trust as stewards. Because we did not understand this sacred trust fund we have bought into the idea of putting monetary values on the Earth and its resources which defines ownership. No individual or entity has the right to Earth domination or ownership.
   It is clear that in these times we have a responsibility to stop the destructive paths we are on. Do not trust that the institutions that currently own or are responsible to regulate will be willing to just hand over controls. We the people must recreate the sacred trust and it needs to be framed outside the ideals and language of capitalism.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
4. tvargo says:
   2012/01/20 at 8:13 pm

   Cecelia, I could not agree with you more. As a mother of 2, 1 of which was born 2 months early, I have always been concerned with what is going into my kids’ bodies. On top of that, in doing research about my own illnesses, I have found that the number of women having to go through hystorectomies before they even reach the age of 30, the number of people suffering from depression, fibromyalgia, cancer, and most other autoimmune diseases has increased significantly since our food has been contaminated not only with gmo’s, but with pesticides, fillers, artifical sweeteners, colors and flavorings, and everything else that does not come from nature. Not only are we suffering from the practices of “factory farmers”, but the animals are suffering as well. our food lacks any real nutrition because our livestock is not fed the diet their bodies were meant to have, let alone given the exercise they need. I raise my own small flock of chickens because I cannot stand the way they are treated in the chicken factories and because on my small plot of land it is one more thing I can personally do to know what is really going into my families bodies. It should not cost us more to be buy organic than to by non-organic. We should not basically be forced to eat foods that keep us sick and reliant on the pharmaceutical companies. If we were to have a supply of food that was natural and not altered, our bodies would only crave what we actually need and not more than that. We would find ourselves healthier and better able to focus at work, school and so on. The schools here have made the menus “healthier” by taking out any sweets, or replacing them with sugar-free (aspartame) alternatives, and yet the state child care guidelines says that popcorn is a vegetable….something, no a lot of things need to be changed here. These changes need to be not only with gm foods, but also with the way the animals and lands are being treated. One plays into the other and so on.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
5. Ninjitsumo says:
   2012/01/19 at 3:02 am

   Provide subsidies for renewable energy resources equal to or exceeding those now given to fossil fuels and eventually phase out or decrease subsidies for fossil fuels to levels that allow them to sustain only the industries that absolutely need them because renewable energy resources are either unavailable or impractical.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
6. ramlirose says:
   2012/01/19 at 2:20 am

   Get rid of HAARP and all other bioegineering projects that are heating our atmosphere and bending ionisphere.

   Stop spraying chemtrails which also heats up atmosphere and is poisoing us. It’s a crime agaist humanity and is making people sick and poisoning air, water, soil and all life with aluminum particles(smaller than 1 micron so it will enter blood}, barium salts (10 times more neurotoxic as lead}, strontium {radioactive), dessicated bioengineered red blood cells, microplasma {tiny polymorphic cells similar to candida), bits of unknown particles made from indestructable and unidentifiable substance (which have all been proven scientifically and can be found at carnicominstitute.org}.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
   Log in to Reply
7. lizell says:
   2012/01/09 at 11:20 am

   Who cleared all the ratings on all these pages? That was not helpful.

   Remove the image of the rhino. It does not represent corporate greed over natural resources, such as pollution in our water, pollution in the air, climate change, or development of habitat.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
   Log in to Reply
   - JGMAC says:
     2012/01/20 at 6:55 pm

     What is more important is the fact that we as a specie have now reached the milestone of 7 billion people which is the major underlying cause of worldwide pollution, extinction of flora and fauna, starvation, war, pestilence, misery of all types. Nothing we do can or will change the course we are on, that of the 6th great extinction and the only one caused by something other than an act of nature. That is the simple fact.

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
     Log in to Reply
8. lizell says:
   2012/01/02 at 1:55 pm

   RE the images above. Gulf Oil spill. Outdated. Currently in court (criminal charges pending). And removal of rhino horns as an example of corporate greed?

   Rhinos are not native animals, the US has no authority over this problem. Local poachers are persuaded by the lucrative purse promised to them, supported by a high demand associated with the beliefs that there are medicinal and religious properties associated with this animal part. Not a corporate US issue. Not a corporate issue at all.
   http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/rhinoceros/rhino-horn-use-fact-vs-fiction/1178/

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
   Log in to Reply
   - karlie says:
     2012/01/14 at 1:48 am

     Help us out – suggest a better image – post a link – happy to improve the page. Thanks!

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
     Log in to Reply
     - JGMAC says:
       2012/01/20 at 7:08 pm

       How about a great big ZPG or better yet a DPG (Decreased Population Growth) sign with an image of the throngs of people jammed together in a Somalia Camp, or a over crowded boat, etc.

       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       please wait...
       Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
       Log in to Reply
       - bogotabro says:
         2012/01/21 at 3:19 pm

         Be careful what you wish for.

         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         please wait...
         Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
         Log in to Reply
         - JGMAC says:
           2012/01/22 at 1:02 pm

           You mention that “… it’s unrealistic to set the need to stop multiplying in the scope of this organization. We need to focus on how to change the way our government operates and the way we live…” Our govt. encourages people to have more children by giving them tax deductions for each child, by not providing adequate or fully informed sex education beginning in elementary schools, all of which plays into the whole concept that there are 10 people for every job therefore corporatist and aristocrats do not have to pay living wages, not to mention the damage to the environment. It all works together. Get real.

           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           please wait...
           Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
9. lizell says:
   2011/12/24 at 9:56 pm

   Mobile natural resources and wildlife should not have site specific boundaries placed around them. That is, water and wildlife travel – as in the case of rivers flowing through regions to the ocean, migratory birds, migratory marine mammals, and so on. However, when we address impacts to this “mobile” resources, we often analyze the impacts as if they are immobile – within a specific project area. And we so often fail to address cumulative impacts.

   These mobile resources should be recognized as community resources, even national resources, or in the case of some larger water bodies (oceans) or certain wildlife (marine mammals, fish), international resources.

   The level of protection, conservation and management should be appropriate for community, regional, national or international resources. However, if a resource is in danger of depletion – whether at the community or international level – protection must the first approach taken. NOT management.

   The Federal Government must develop a new approach to planning for “mobile” resources. The site specific mitigation approach, often involving a short term planning approach and a permit to deplete the resource at some site specific level, no longer works. Cumulative impacts are never, ever adequately addressed. This section should include language to encourage leadership in this area. The Council for Environmental Quality would pave the way. Any results would be included as amendments to CFR 1501, NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) and Agency Planning.

   This language would apply to federal projects with a federal nexus requiring NEPA review.

   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   please wait...
   Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
   VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
   Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
   Log in to Reply
   - lizell says:
     2011/12/26 at 3:49 pm

     What do you think? This is really drafty and I have not come up with the suggestions. Just the Need, and some of the background information.

     If I could preview it, I would use the html tags and add formatting.

     7. Protection of the Planet

     Call to action: Human greed, exponentially magnified by corporations, is destroying the only habitable planet known to humanity. Multinational corporations have purchased so much influence in Congress (and other governments in the world) that they can secure the passage or blockage of regulations to maximize profits and minimize conservation of the environment. The evidence of climate change due to human activity can no longer be denied by rational people.
     New comprehensive laws and regulations must be immediately enacted to give the Environmental Protection Agency, and other environmental protection regulators, expanded powers and resources to shut down corporations, businesses or any entities that intentionally or recklessly damage the environment, and to criminally prosecute individuals who intentionally or recklessly damage the environment. No corporate veil should protect any employee, officer or director of a corporation who is directly or indirectly engaged in the intentional or reckless decimation of the planet for profit. The amount of profit a corporation can make must be balanced (by conflict-free regulators) with the inevitable damage that human activity inflicts on the environment. The 99% of the American People demand the immediate implementation of new and existing programs to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels to reusable or carbon neutral sources of energy and higher greenhouse gas emission standards so that something will be left for our children and grandchildren. The rights to clean air, water, and conservation of the planet for future generations shall no longer be infringed by greed-driven corporations and selfish individuals.

     Background information:
     o Lack of leadership in air quality control – Natural resources must be protected as the population increases at the local, state, national and international levels. The Federal Government is responsible for showing leadership in the protection of national resources, including air and water. Yet, President Obama rejected the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed air quality revisions in 2011, which were closely aligned with scientific findings that changes to the Clean Air Act were necessary. Industries were supportive of his decision, calling any further changes to air quality regulations “job killers.” (Science, OutsideOnline.com, Top Environmental Stories of 2011, accessed December 26 2011).

     o Lack of leadership in carbon control – The Federal government remains behind the world, and now lags behinds the states, in effective carbon control. California joined the rest of the world in putting a price-tag on carbon emissions. The European Union taxes carbon emissions on airplane flights, as well. These taxes are to encourage technologies that reduce emissions. If such technology cannot be found, the emitter will pay for their pollution (Science, OutsideOnline.com, Top Environmental Stories of 2011, accessed December 26 2011).

     o Failure to provide leadership on genetically modified food, or provide complete information on food ingredients – Unlike most other developed countries – such as the 15 nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and even China – the U.S. has no laws requiring labeling of genetically engineered foods. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires the FDA to prevent consumer deception by clarifying that a food label is misleading if it omits significant, “material” information. In 1992 however, the FDA issued a policy statement that defined “material” by the ability to be sensed by taste, smell, or other senses. The FDA determined that GE Foods were “substantially equivalent” to conventionally produced foods, so there was no material difference – and no labeling was required. For example, a salmon that is genetically engineered to produce hormones throughout the year is not, according to the FDA, materially different from a non-genetically engineered salmon because it does not taste, smell or feel different. And without a label to tell us differently, when eating salmon, we would not know if what we were consuming had been genetically altered. The Federal Government must direct the FDA to immediately adopt the petition and recommendations as put for the by the group Just Label It. http://justlabelit.org/

     o Ocean acidification, shellfish – A symptom of our excessive greenhouse gas emissions is ocean acidification. Oceans can absorb excess carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air. With levels of CO2 rising faster than anyone expected, farmed and wild oyster populations in the Pacific Northwest are showing declines. The shellfish industry has begun to control how seawater enters shellfish beds, and buffer the pH. Washington state also has launched an initiative to increase oyster and other shellfish farming, to help filter out pollutants. The Federal government has played a significant role in funding and contributing to these efforts. This type of assistance and coordination is not common in other areas of the Nation. Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, and Puget Sound can set the stage for local-state-Tribal-Federal models to be used across the Nation (Science, OutsideOnline.com, Top Environmental Stories of 2011, accessed December 26 2011).

     o Fracking for natural gas – Scientists have directly linked fracking with increased earthquake activity. The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing revising rules that regulate the oil and gas industry, including adding air pollution standards for fracking, but the bigger regulatory problem is that fracking ultimately falls under the control of state governments. Most recently, the EPA implicated fracking as the source of contaminated groundwater in Wyoming (Science, OutsideOnline.com, Top Environmental Stories of 2011, accessed December 26 2011).

     o Keystone XL Pipeline – The Federal Government was slow to get behind the diverse group against this pipeline. This was and still is an issue that conservative farmers, Native Americans, climate scientists and progressive liberals all are against. It is Keystone XL, a proposed pipeline that the TransCanada oil company would build to carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta to refineries in the Midwest and Gulf Coast. The industry referred to the terms “job creator” and “domestic energy source”. The facts are that the 1700-mile pipeline would travel over the Ogallala Aquifer, a large, shallow source of a third of the ground water used for irrigation in the U.S. The potential for this pipeline to leak worried many farmers and residents. A leak could devastate the agriculture industry or even pollute drinking water sources for residents of the plains and American Indian reservations. That’s why farmers and tribes opposed it. What about the “domestic energy”? The oil from the tar sands is extracted from Canada, not the U.S. Furthermore, it uses an energy-intensive, dirty process that raises environmentalists’ hackles and would mark a departure from any semblance of a clean energy agenda (Science, OutsideOnline.com, Top Environmental Stories of 2011, accessed December 26 2011).

     o Parties are confused about environmental values – Both parties have shown mixed messages on environmental leadership. The Republicans have sent clear messages that EPA’s authority and regulation in general should be limited or even shut down. The Democrats have either followed suite on bills or not said much at all. As the United States’ population increases, so does development. Environmental pressure rises. The demands for natural resources rises, the potential for problems with our air and water quality increases, and the Nation must ensure an adequate food supply by preserving valuable farmland. These are environmental/natural resource issues. The Nation deserves Federal leadership in this area. If the delegates find such leadership does not exist, it is proposed that the Delegates of the 99% Declaration consider a proposal to ask Congress to delegate Federal authority to the states in the appropriate areas, with associated funding, to ensure natural resources and environmental issues are managed appropriately at the local and state level.
     § Example of confused and mixed messages about natural resource/environmental leadership – http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/us/politics/18epa.html

     (Other areas we want to add in background?)

     Suggestions -

     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     please wait...
     Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
     VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
     Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
     Log in to Reply
     - danieclarke says:
       2011/12/26 at 4:19 pm

       I like the idea of protecting the natural flow on earth /mobil resources. One of the major issues in the enviroment is that we humans need to stop consuming and live a simplier life. That means major changes to our way of life. We have to only go places if in need not for enjoyment. Its this idea that 1st world countrie take for granite that travel is ok while many people in 3rd world countries may travel but its for food and travel like nomdaic travel. We have to make major changes in the way we live or else all these ideas mean nothing. You can’t have your natural resorces / mobil resources and abuse them too with people flying all over and driving all over just for fun.. until we can travel withot a footprint all un-nesacery travel should be eliminated. That means many types of jobs and economies need to make changes back to just basic survival living.. we can’t have our cake and eat it too…

       Its either that or remove 3/4 of the people off the planet.. and they should be mostly 1st world people.. tough choice but its true..

       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       please wait...
       Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
       Log in to Reply
       - JGMAC says:
         2012/01/20 at 6:59 pm

         Humans need to reverse their numbers, we need to stop multiplying and that is the only real solution, anything else is just stop-gap.

         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         please wait...
         Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
         Log in to Reply
         - JGMAC says:
           2012/01/20 at 7:01 pm

           NOTE: every US citizen, on average, places over 50 times the demand upon world resources as does a person in a third world developing nation. So don’t get into the numbers game, it doesn’t work.

           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           please wait...
           Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
         - bogotabro says:
           2012/01/21 at 3:24 pm

           JGMAC, although I agree with your premise, it’s unrealistic to set the need to stop multiplying in the scope of this organization. We need to focus on how to change the way our government operates and the way we live.

           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           please wait...
           Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
           VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
           Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
     - Mark Greene says:
       2012/01/01 at 9:27 am

       New comprehensive laws and regulations must be immediately enacted to give the Environmental Protection Agency, and other environmental protection regulators, expanded powers, including the powers and resources to…

       Substitute “The major parties have shown” for “Both parties have shown…” at the start of the last bullet?

       Looks good!

       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       please wait...
       Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
       Log in to Reply
     - lizell says:
       2012/01/07 at 12:25 pm

       NEPA and the National Association of Environmental Professionals NEPA Working Group – In 2010, NEPA celebrated its 40th Anniversary. President Obama stated that:

       NEPA elevated the role of environmental considerations in proposed Federal agency actions, and it remains the cornerstone of our Nation’s modern environmental protections. On this anniversary, we celebrate this milestone in our Nation’s rich history of conservation, and we renew our commitment to preserve our environment for the next generation.

       President Barack Obama,
       Proclamation on the Fortieth Anniversary of the
       National Environmental Policy Act, 2010

       NEPA is a process for making informed decisions about the potential environmental, economic, and social impacts from a project. It does not involve a permit, although it may rely upon permits for information. It is a process for informing the decisionmaker, and the public.

       The Council for Environmental Quality is the governmental branch responsible for NEPA regulations and guidance. Pressure can be placed upon the CEQ by powerful interest groups. The CEQ also receives feedback from other sources – most notably a group of environmental professionals who work with NEPA on a regular basis.

       The National Association of Environmental Professionals (NAEP) is a multidisciplinary association of professionals dedicated to advancing environmental professions. They have developed a NEPA Working Group who tracks NEPA cases throughout the year, evaluating Environmental Impact Statements, reviewing policy, discussing pending litigation and court decisions, and providing annual reports. The Mission is defined as:

       “The mission of the NEPA Working Group is to improve environmental impact assessment as performed under the National Environmental Policy Act.”

       This group also provides recommendations when asked by the Government on NEPA. It is recommended that we add a section to the Protection of (U.S. Environment and Natural Resources) that states something to the effect:

       “All recommendations provided by the National Association of Environmental Professionals on NEPA will be adopted unless the recommendation can be shown to be burdensome and unreasonable to the American Citizens, and the NAEP cannot provide an alternative suggestions.”

       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       please wait...
       Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
       Log in to Reply
       - JGMAC says:
         2012/01/20 at 7:02 pm

         The suggested addition is absurd.

         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         please wait...
         Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
         VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
         Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
         Log in to Reply
     - tvargo says:
       2012/01/20 at 8:16 pm

       I really like this write up Lizell.

       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       please wait...
       Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
       VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
       Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
       Log in to Reply
10. danieclarke says:
    2011/12/24 at 6:23 pm

    40% of our energy is used heating or cooling homes. We need to tear down old and new slab homes that are not usuing the earths natural heat to heat and cool them. in most of the USA 3ft below the surface the earth is 56 degrees year round. Whereas a home built on a slab has to raise the temperature from the outside temperature (maybe 20degrees Fin dead of winter) to a comfortable 70 degrees. A home with a deep basement only needs to bring the temperature from 56 degrees to a comfortable 70 degrees or from a high of 95 to a comfortable 70 degrees using the earths 56 degrees from basment. It would be cheaper to tear down and rebuild all homes with deep basements than it would to just insulate and pay the energy cost for the next 50 yrs. A proper built home uses 1/12 the energy. It would also provide our building industry with a boom until all homes are properly utilizing the earths natural heat and cooling. Or at least until a home has geothermal installed which is also another way to use the earths natural heat.

    VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - zarepheth says:
      2011/12/24 at 7:54 pm

      We have to fix the economy before we’ll have the financial resources to afford geothermal heating and cooling for evey home in our country. When building my current home, I looked into geothermal heating and cooling. Though I could acquire the ground-source heat pump for about the same price as a traditional furnace, A/C, and water water – the 600′ deep well was going to run over $50,000. It was simply out of the budget; $50,000 can pay for many, many years of heating and cooling, even at our current energy prices.

      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
      - danieclarke says:
        2011/12/25 at 7:10 am

        Well i built homes 2400 sq ft that used 1/12th the heat of other new homes by having basements that were 13 ft below ground in the rear and 7 ft below in front and had the exterior walls isolated from interior walls so they didn’t conduct or transmit heat loss. I hope you have a basement. slab homes are the worse energy users for heating and cooling

        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        Log in to Reply
      - bogotabro says:
        2012/01/21 at 3:38 pm

        Unfortunately when you live in sandy Florida you can’t build a home with a basement. When we built our home in 2006 I looked into geo-thermal heating and cooling, and solar power, but it was also cost-prohibitive. It makes me crazy that in 2012 these kinds of energy sources are not mainstream and financially feasible to the 99% who want to use them but can’t afford it.

        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        Log in to Reply
11. Rabble Rouser says:
    2011/12/19 at 6:14 pm

    We need to put a price on carbon now!

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
12. Nathan D says:
    2011/12/19 at 1:23 am

    A federal agency should be charged with and properly funded to determine how much of various pollutants each region of our country (and sometimes the Earth as whole) is able to recycle without environmental harm. That should be the basis for how much polluting is allowed in each region.

    Though some people like the proposed “cap and trade” ideas for limiting pollution, instead of the governments handing out a free ticket to existing polluters and then letting them sell their rights to any private entity they wish, every prospective polluter should lease the right to emit some portion of the maximum allowable pollution in an annual, competitive bid process. And the highest bidder pays the community as a whole. The government would have the authority to set minimum bids so the money can be used for cleanup or other remediation.

    This not only limits the pollution, but provides incentives to avoid polluting, puts dollar values on the harm it causes, and provides funding the remediate that harm – and makes those who cause the harm pay for it.

    Note: It’s quite possible that some pollutants will have an exceptable pollution level of zero and not be allowed – ever.

    Enforcement: those who pollute outside the limits for which they are renting a pollution permit should be held criminally liable for all harm they cause. If no specific harm can be found, fine the twice the amount paid by the highest bidder in their region for the amount of the pollutants they emitted. If their pollution caused non-life-threatening harm, add the twice the cost of remediating that harm to the fine. Double or quadruple the financial penalties and criminal charges to the individuals involved in the polluting when people are directly harmed by the pollution.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - Liz Ellis says:
      2011/12/19 at 8:01 pm

      Interesting, and sounds like a reasonable form of alternative mitigation. However, if a company is auctioning for the rights to pollute, they are paying to pollute in my book. I would rather support a more proactive approach – support Best Available Science and Technology that seeks to reduce pollutants. Support companies that evolve voluntarily, developing and investing in themselves to find ways to remove pollutants from their systems. Support and reward these companies. I have never supported the Federal Government’s approach of allowing companies to pay to pollute, or issuing permits to kill (ESA, MMPA).

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
13. Margaret Motheral says:
    2011/12/18 at 4:43 pm

    I’ve been fighting environmental crime and political corruption regarding a Environmental Injustice in Philadelphia since 2006. They dug up a contaminated site next to my home and put me in hospital, displaced me and have been attacking me ever since to hide their crimes. During this ordeal, I have learned a lot and wrote a Bill of Rights to Empower People to Better Protect the Earth. I would like to see a Constitutional amendment to Protects the Rights of the Earth as a Living Entity and for People to have the Right to Protect the Earth. Both Bolivia and Ecuador had passed similar amendments. It doesn’t have to be exactly like I wrote it. See the web link. But we need one. Thank you. Margaret

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - Liz Ellis says:
      2011/12/18 at 5:23 pm

      Hi Margaret, I would be interested in reading what you worked on but I do not see a weblink. Can you post it?

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
      - Liz Ellis says:
        2011/12/18 at 5:46 pm

        Here it is, I found it. For anyone else who is interested:
        http://web.me.com/wildmother/Bill_of_Rights_for_Natural_Law/A_Mother_Law_Bill_of_Rights_for_All_People_and_Natural_Law/A_Mother_Law_Bill_of_Rights_for_All_People_and_Natural_Law.html

        VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
        please wait...
        Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
        VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
        Log in to Reply
14. progressivist says:
    2011/12/18 at 4:21 pm

    I think we have to include something about biodiversity and restoration of habitat. I agree, the EPA is already overworked and underfunded, and each agency that manages part of the environmental whole (including food safety) needs to be fully staffed and to work without fear of losing their funding because of politics.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
15. Jean Netherton says:
    2011/12/18 at 1:10 pm

    I agree that giving that broad a power to one agency could either be dangerous or ineffective, and removes local oversight. The intention of the declaration is good.

    A more effective wording may be needed.
    Instead of: “New comprehensive laws and regulations must be immediately enacted to give the Environmental Protection Agency expanded powers to shut down corporations, businesses or any entities that intentionally or recklessly damage the environment, and to criminally prosecute individuals who intentionally or recklessly damage the environment.”

    If they added the words: “national or multinational” in front of the word corporation.

    or perhaps it could read: New comprehensive laws and regulations must be immediately enacted to give the existing federal agencies expanded powers to support State and local level agencies in their efforts to shut down corporations, businesses or any entities that intentionally or recklessly damage the local environment, and to criminally prosecute individuals who intentionally or recklessly damage the environment. The expanded powers would also give more authority to combine state’s actions regarding corporations that work across state lines.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
16. Caroline says:
    2011/12/18 at 1:09 pm

    I agree with Liz Ellis that EPA isn’t the only governmental agency dealing with environmental issues and should not be called upon to address all environmental issues. The number one environmental issue the government must fully address — and fast — is climate change. According to the International Energy Agency, the planet is headed toward irreversible climate change. We could reach this brink in as little as 5 years. The Durban climate change summit failed to make any meaningful dent in the regulations needed on new fossil fuel infrastructure to prevent this from happening. Irreversible climate change must be the priority as it impacts all other environmental concerns.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - Liz Ellis says:
      2011/12/18 at 5:31 pm

      This is a good start for clarifying language.

      “New comprehensive laws and regulations must be immediately enacted to give the existing federal agencies expanded powers to support State and local level agencies in their efforts to shut down corporations, businesses or any entities that intentionally or recklessly damage the local environment, and to criminally prosecute individuals who intentionally or recklessly damage the environment. The expanded powers would also give more authority to combine state’s actions regarding corporations that work across state lines.”

      I agree, we need to be more specific, and add sections on areas that are priorities for this country right now. Energy is one priority, habitat protection another, ensuring the United States addresses climate change, and protects clean water. Those are four sections.

      I would like to suggest a fifth section – I would like to suggest that the U.S Departments of Interior and Commerce become more proactive with respect to fish and wildlife, and work to keep fish and wildlife OFF the ESA List. Currently both are in a reactive role, only allocating resources when species are listed – very, very expensive (see the costs associated with mitigation, restoration, various ESA consultations for any salmonid species for an example).

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
17. Gambit says:
    2011/12/17 at 8:28 am

    This planet is the only home we’ve got. Period. Subsidies, regulations, what’s fair or isn’t fair to certain corporations, who has to pay for what and how much – none of that will matter in a world that is too polluted to live in, now will it? The time for action is now.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
18. Liz Ellis says:
    2011/12/17 at 1:21 am

    I strongly disagree. Placing the burdens of natural resources and the environment in one agency is not practical, not enforceable, not realistic, not workable, and not fundable. It aslo gives them way too much power. Finally, it removes control at the local level. Let’s look closer at environmental issues:

    Forest management and issues – Federal level = US Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture (insects, non-native plants), State level = State Departments of Forestry or Natural Resources, State Departments of Agriculture, Local Level = City foresters, arborists

    Clean Air – Federal level = EPA. State level = Regional air quality authorities. Local level = City or county agencies monitoring air quality locally, coordinating with regional air quality authority.

    Clean Water – Federal level = EPA. State level = Authority often designated to the State, Department of Environmental Quality or Ecology, etc. Local level – City and county or other municipal water systems, irrigation districts, etc.

    Fish and Wildlife – Federal level = U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and National Marine Fisheries Service. State level = Departments of Fish and Game, or similar. Local level – Often not a local representative, perhaps a county planner or biologist.

    Endangered Species – See Fish and Wildlife

    Contaminated Sites – Federal level = EPA, state level = State Department of Environmental Quality or Ecology, Toxics Cleanup program. No local program (funding).

    Energy – Federal level – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE. State Level, BLM or US Corps (Hydro) – Varies, if it exists. Local – Public Utility Districts.

    Food and drugs, cosmetics, etc…..I can keep going.

    Do you want to change all of this and dump it ALL in EPA’s lap? I am particularly against the removal of any local or state control.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - Mark Greene says:
      2011/12/19 at 10:29 am

      Agree with Liz on this one. We need to not abandon the federal model where it works, and in location-specific regulation and enforcement, it works – admittedly better in some places than others. We need to incentivize, where necessary, states and localities to improve, but having the EPA take over should be a last resort (as is happening here in Texas related to air quality because of the failures of our idiot governor and his cronies in the legislature…)

      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
19. David Gilbert says:
    2011/12/16 at 8:54 am

    Clean The Air Now! – EPA to STRICTLY enforce the Clean Air Act.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
20. DWolf says:
    2011/12/15 at 8:52 pm

    to incorporate hemp farming like our founding fathers is what we need to save the planet.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
21. Chris Hall says:
    2011/12/11 at 1:29 am

    This point in the demands is about protecting the planet – the thing we live on – and it should stay that way for everyone’s sanity. This GMO foods business has little to do with protecting our planet’s livability and would make more sense under the context of corporate accountability.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
    - karlie says:
      2011/12/11 at 9:53 pm

      GMO’s are a threat to our planet and biological diversity and sustainability. It will definitely affect the planet’s livability when we lose that bio-diversity. There are actually many factors that could and likely should be included under protecting the planet. It is a very main thing that many forget in the clamor about politics and the economy.

      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      please wait...
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
      VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
      Log in to Reply
22. Daniela says:
    2011/12/10 at 7:57 pm

    I’d like to get the message out on the atrocities we inflict upon animals to feed ourselves. What about a minimum “standard of living” or benefits for companies who treat their livestock, etc. humanely?

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply
23. Eric Soko says:
    2011/12/10 at 5:27 pm

    I agree with Cecelia Theis. GMO’s (genetically modified organism) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) are being added to our food system without our knowledge. I, the consumer should be allowed to know the process of which our food is grown or raised. Our produce is being washed in pesticides, herbicides & fungicides and God only knows what else. We are not being informed of this. Us Americans who strive to eat healthy by buying salads, herbs, fruits & etc. are being poisoned by the very food we eat. This shouldn’t be! Companies like Monsanto have patented the “seed,” so farmers can no longer keep there own seeds under penalty of Law. This is ridiculous and needs to be stopped as well. I hope and pray that you take this into account as we fight the corporate monster to regain our freedom.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    Log in to Reply
24. Cecelia Theis says:
    2011/12/10 at 10:30 am

    I would like to see attention brought to the issue of the U.S. Government’s involvement with genetic factory farming and agriculture. I am sickened to find out in this country I do not have the right to know if I’m feeding my little boy genetically altered food! While lab rats have had premature death and obesity, the big corporations who own 4 huge factories (not farms) are pushing this garbage on us. It is very difficult to be a single mother and afford to go to organic grocery stores, yet I feel stuck. 1 out of 3 children born after 2000 will have diabetes! The cost of a piece of fruit is more expensive than a bag of chips! The government has the nerve to call fozen processed pizza a vegetable in our kid’s lunches. Just about all meat is cleaned with ammonia because big corporations don’t want to go to the expense of feeding livestock grass! They feed them genetically altered corn. Animals are treated HORIFICALLY. I want our government to give us back the knowledge of where our food is coming from. These corporatiions are getting HUGE SUBSIDIES. Anyway, I hope this is part of the Protection of Planet issue #7. Each and every day America’s children are eating genetically engineered food as other countries watch us like guinnea pigs.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    please wait...
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
    Log in to Reply

### Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Would you prefer Michael Pollok, founder of the 99D, stay or resign?
Stay
Resign
Vote View Results
Share This Polldaddy.com
Should an anonymous donor be allowed to demand the resignation of a 99D board member as a condition of providing the match donation?
Yes
No
Vote View Results
Share This Polldaddy.com

Check out what's being said on all the Grievances and help draft the Petition!

1. Elimination of the Corporate State
View & Comment

2. Abrogation of “Citizens United” Case
View & Comment

3. Elimination of All Private Benefits and Perks” to Public Servants
View & Comment

4. Term Limits
View & Comment

5. A Fair Tax Code
View & Comment

6. Healthcare for All
View & Comment

7. Protection of the Planet
View & Comment

8. Federal Debt Reduction
View & Comment

9. Jobs for All Americans
View & Comment

10. Student Loan Debt Relief & Refinancing
View & Comment

11. Ending of Perpetual War for Profit
View & Comment

12. Emergency Reform of Public Education
View & Comment

13. End Outsourcing and Currency Manipulation
View & Comment

14. Banking and Securities Reform
View & Comment

15. Foreclosure Moratorium
View & Comment

16. Ending the Federal Reserve Bank
View & Comment

17. Abolish the Electoral College and Enact Uniform Election Rules
View & Comment

18. Ending the War in Afghanistan and
Care of Veterans
View & Comment

19. No Censorship of the Internet
View & Comment

20. Reinstitution of Civil Rights
View & Comment

21. Ending the “War on Drugs” and
Curtailing the Prison Industrial Complex
View & Comment

Suggest a Grievance
Please check if your idea fits in one of the already suggested grievances above first. If not, please add your comments here.
Other Suggestions/Revisions
Please check if your suggestion/revision fits in any of the grievances above. If not, you may post comments here.

### Vote for Delegates

- Register to Vote for Delegates

### Become A Delegate

- Become a Delegate

### Get Involved

- Volunteer

The 99% Declaration Website by The 99% Working Group, LTD is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. |  | Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha