The following is adapted from a special Clear Earth Day report LEAR View, Volume 5, Number 6 of April 21, 1998
The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) with all their wealth and political clout took over the National Mall in Washington, DC, for Earth Day for a rally "to demonstrate the leadership of industry in cleaning up the environment." Here are the details....
The National Association of Manufacturers calls its Earth Day display on the National Mall, "Manufacturing Technologies for a Better World." It has attempted to convince "thousands of students" to listen in from its Internet site, where "visitors can learn all about the positive contributions companies make to keep our air and water clean." In a recruiting letter for the Earth Day event, NAM President Jerry Jasinowski wrote, "For too long, environmental activists have taken the credit for all that is good about America's air, land and water. And they've used Earth Day to effectively blast American industry for all that ails our planet. Not anymore. It's time to tell the truth about industry's contributions to our cleaner environment. Our nation's leaders, the media, opinion leaders, and especially our young people, need to see and hear how manufacturers preserve and protect our nation's resources, even as we build the world's strongest economy."
This event, called "Innovation Works: Manufacturing Technologies For A Better World," featured NAM member companies displaying their wares along the Mall. Hundreds of students from around the country were there to "see firsthand how US industry's technological innovations are leading the way to a better, cleaner environment." The event was also "cybercast" live into hundred of schools around the country, through a web site established specifically for the NAM Earth Day event.
A partial listing of exhibitors (and the anti-environmental groups and coalitions they fund or are members of) includes:
Activities focused on students, such as the Close-Up Forum "Teens and Industry -- Preparing for the Millennium." This forum is billed as an "educational forum on education and training needed for rewarding careers in manufacturing." Sounds like a blast..... This forum will be followed by "Student Q & A," during which exhibitors at the event will take questions from students.
While NAM's publicists were coming up with these themes, NAM itself, according to its own Internet site, has been busy trying to weaken a wide range of environmental laws in Congress and the courts.
The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act -- none have been safe from NAM's attacks in recent years. And NAM has led an attempt to scuttle the international treaty to slow global warming, operating a $13 million disinformation campaign from its own offices under an assumed name (the "Global Climate Coalition").
When Americans learn about a NAM campaign to weaken environmental laws, they don't like it. A recent $30 million NAM-led effort to halt enforcement of the Clean Air Act, for instance, is all but dead due to widespread public concern about skyrocketing death rates from childhood asthma.
NAM's anti-clean air effort is on the verge of defeat even though it tried to hide its activities behind front groups with misleading names such as the "Foundation for Clean Air Progress," or the "Air Quality Standards Coalition."
Too often, however, and with little public notice, NAM succeeds in using an army of lobbyists, lawyers, and phony front groups to weaken the fabric of environmental protection that Americans have come to take for granted. This record, which it usually boasts about to members, makes its current attempt to look "green" on Earth Day 1998 the height of hypocrisy.
Following is a list of typical environmental fines recently assessed against members of NAM. The fines on this list alone total $68 million.
General Motors. Clean Air Act -- $11,000,000
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel. Clean Air Act -- $3,259,889
National Steel Weirton. Clean Air Act -- $3,456,150
Bethlehem Steel Corp. Clean Air Act -- $3,681,415
U.S. Steel-Geneva. Clean Air Act -- $4,250,000
Chevron USA, Inc. Clean Air Act -- $4,726,777
U.S. Steel-Lorain. Clean Air Act -- $6,450,000 & $2,700,000
BP Oil Inc.-Marcus Hook Clean Water Act -- $2,191,000
United Technologies Corp. Clean Water Act -- $4,281,732
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Clean Water Act -- $6,184,220 & $2,000,000
ASARCO Inc. Clean Water Act -- $3,340,5000
Shell Oil Co. Refinery. Clean Water Act -- $2,050,000
Horsehead Industries, Inc. Resource Cons. Recovery Act (solid waste) -- $2,825,000
Bethlehem Steel Burns Harbor Resource Cons. Recovery Act (solid waste) -- $6,000,000
TOTAL FINES = $68,396,683 (SOURCE: Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division)
Members of the National Association of Manufacturers belong to and support numerous front groups with misleading names that oppose environmental laws and work to have them weakened in Congress. In some cases, NAM created the groups. The following excerpt from a July 1997 report by CLEAR titled "Industry Deploys New Anti-Environmental Strategy," describes this practice as employed by NAM members during their unsuccessful effort in 1997-98 to block tighter Clean Air Act standards on smog and soot.
"In the battle against the clean air rules, two major industry trade associations have played critical roles in establishing and supporting an array of opposition front groups. The National Association of Manufacturers and the American Petroleum Institute have conducted massive fundraising efforts and have themselves poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into establishing a set of front groups to combat the proposed clean air rules.
"Although corporate front groups and astroturf campaigns are not new tools, or tactics, used by industry to fight regulations, the manner in which such groups are being deployed in today's clean air debate represents a new overall strategy that industry has adopted to increase the likelihood that their efforts will succeed.
"Previously, an industry threatened with a law or set of regulations that it found objectionable would typically create a single front group that would use lobbying, PAC contributions and some manner of "astroturf" grassroots mobilization to attempt to mislead the public and influence Congress and the Administration that the regulations were unnecessary or a threat to the well being of that particular industry. Supporters of these front groups expected a full-service operation that would bring all the opposition tactics available to bear under one organization or coalition.
"Examples of such front groups include:
o Coalition for Vehicle Choice -- created and supported by the auto industry to oppose increased fuel efficiency standards
o Global Climate Coalition -- located in the headquarters of the National Association of Manufacturers, supported by oil, gas, and mining interests
o National Wetlands Coalition -- established and supported by the oil and gas and real estate industries to oppose wetlands protection.
"While industry front groups and astroturf campaigns such as these have been successful in the past in both masking their true intentions and defeating proposals to protect the environment, environmentalists and other public interest advocates, as well as public policy makers, have become more adept at exposing these shams and discrediting them.
"With corporate profits at stake, industry has continued to invest enormous amounts of money in developing new methods of fighting environmental regulations. Driven by this spending, the environmental public relations industry has grown rapidly over the past twenty years, now representing a $1 billion of the world-wide $35 billion PR industry." (see "Industry Deploys New Anti-Environmental Strategy" at (www.ewg.org/pub/home/clear/clear.html)
Here are NAM's real environmental priorities:
On clean air health standards against soot and smog -- The Air Quality Standards Coalition, sponsored by the National Association of Manufacturers, included more than 700 businesses, associations and other groups. Its goal was to fight the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's new standards against smog and soot by trying to include economic considerations as well as what is healthy for people.
"NAM-led coalition secured bipartisan support for moratorium on unsound air rules for particulate matter and ozone," the NAM web site boasts. Elsewhere it expands on the point: "NAM leads a national coalition lobbying for the bipartisan bill H.R. 1984 [that] would impose a four-year moratorium and authorize further scientific research...The NAM is also challenging the rules in federal court."
On global warming - NAM terms the United Nations treaty framework on global warming, reached last December in Kyoto, Japan, a "scientifically unsound climate treaty that would commit U.S. and other developed nations to deep, mandatory fossil fuel emission reductions." The association's web site promises, "NAM will lobby the Senate to reject the accord."
At another point NAM says, "During 1996-97, the NAM warned policy-makers of the risks of a binding agreement to cut emissions, without scientific backing or inclusion of developing nations...NAM member lobbying helped gain unanimous Senate approval in July of S. Res. 98, which put the Senate on record opposing any accord that does not include developing nations. The NAM is now working to assure senators abide by the spirit of S. Res. 98 and reject the accord."
On saving endangered species - An attempt to rewrite and weaken the Endangered Species Act "would strengthen science requirements and codify current rules to prevent continual revisions of recovery plans. Environmental activists oppose...yet NAM believes S. 1180 is step in right direction."
On smog over national parks and wilderness areas -- Many of our most visited and most scenic national areas -- for instance, the Grand Canyon-- are frequently shrouded in smog that cuts visibility and harms forests and wildlife. NAM's position on action to cut the smog: "EPA preparing rule...for national parks and wilderness areas. New emissions controls likely. Final rule due soon. NAM comments opposed proposal."
On reporting use of toxic chemicals -- The Toxic Release Inventory has used simple reporting by industry to greatly reduce factories' uncontrolled releases of toxic chemicals into the environment. However, it covers less than 5% of the chemicals in commerce and has many loopholes. Corrections are supported by EPA, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and groups concerned with worker safety, firefighter preparedness, and the environment.
NAM's opinion: "EPA may soon expand reporting program to include chemical use data. NAM comments in February opposed the effort as impractical, unnecessary."
On strip-mining public lands - The Mining Law of 1872 hasn't been changed in 126 years and virtually gives away America's mineral wealth to strip miners who often fail to reclaim the environmental destruction they cause.
NAM, on the other hand, believes that the antiquated law "promises reasonable access to individuals and corporations to mine federal lands. Upon discovery, they may stake a claim on the deposit for a nominal fee...Mining reform must balance the economic needs of manufacturers and the concern that the federal government is properly reimbursed for resources extracted from the public domain."
"NAM strongly believes that public land should not be closed to, or restricted from, resource development...required rulemaking and environmental clearance would seriously delay exploration for minerals on public lands."
In light of the efforts of NAM to destroy our health and well being by their actions, one wonders why we continue to buy their products. The ultimate weapon for ordinary folks is the boycott. Ed. _