Save our Canyonlands, hurry!
Sorry to do this here, but this whole business sucks. My brother and I spent a lot of years exploring in this area of the country and trust me, it's too good to let a bunch of corporations get rich on digging it up.
The BLM's Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft PEIS is a plan for environmental devastation on a huge scale. Alternative B, the BLM's "Preferred Alternative" in the PEIS, would amend 12 existing BLM land use plans to open almost 2 million acres of public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for commercial leasing, exploration, and development of fossil fuels. This includes pristine wildlands and watersheds adjacent to Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, other national parks, and wilderness areas, and vast, unspoiled expanses of the Colorado River watershed.
Oil shale and tar sands development is being marketed by the Bush administration as a way to help provide energy security for the U.S. In reality, there has not been adequate research to show the full environmental, economic, and social impacts of this technology. There is no doubt that the proposed development would cause massive, irreversible environmental damage - scarring the landscape with mines, roads, pipelines, and power lines; releasing toxic pollution; consuming enormous amounts of scarce water; requiring ten new coal-fired power plants to provide needed power; endangering the health of local communities; and spewing out greenhouse gases that add to climate change impacts.
This BLM plan will set the baseline against which all future oil shale and tar sands development will be assessed. Unfortunately, the plan completely fails to provide a thorough and scientifically credible basis for action. As a result, the BLM's "Preferred Alternative" B is fatally flawed and must be rejected.
"NO ACTION": THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE
Glen Canyon Institute believes that our government should be promoting energy conservation and sustainable energy production - such as solar and wind - to increase energy independence and fight global climate change. We believe that before any development can be approved, all impacts to watersheds that flow into the Colorado River system must be thoroughly analyzed and mitigated. The BLM's plan falls far short of meeting the minimum level of assessment required for adequate decision-making. Alternative B, the BLM's "Preferred" Alternative," would sacrifice our public lands to develop dirty fossil fuel that will worsen climate change. This is totally unacceptable. The only responsible choice is Alternative A, the "No Action" alternative.
WHAT YOU CAN DO
Glen Canyon Institute urges you to send your comments on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft PEIS. They do not need to be detailed. The most important thing is to tell the BLM that you oppose the "Preferred Alternative" B and support the "No Action" alternative A. You can use the sample letter below or write your own letter. If possible, use personal examples from your experiences visiting the areas proposed for development in eastern Utah, western Colorado, and southwestern Wyoming.
Act now - all comments must be received by March 20, 2008!
To submit comments, you can:
· Use the BL M Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS public comment form or
· Mail your comments to:
Sherry Thompson, Project Manager
BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic EIS
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Argonne IL 60439
SAMPLE COMMENT LETTER
Sherry Thompson, Project Manager
BLM Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic EIS
Argonne National Laboratory
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Argonne IL 60439
Dear Ms. Thompson,
I am writing to comment on the Bureau of Land Management's Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic EIS. I strongly oppose Alternative B, the "Preferred Alternative" and support Alternative A, the "No Action" alternative in the PEIS.
It is clear that the "Preferred Alternative" B is almost certain to cause massive, irreversible damage to large areas of Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming. This includes devastating the land and water, endangering wildlife and their habitats, harming the people in local communities, and generating massive greenhouse gas pollution that would add to global climate change. Moreover, the BLM admits that more research is needed before we know the true impacts of the technology or if it is even commercially feasible.
At a time when we need to be moving away from fossil fuels and the damage they cause, this proposal would continue our dependence on them. The PEIS fails to adequately address any of these issues, or to consider a reasonable range of alternatives, including the potential for increased energy conservation and efficiency. This is contrary to agency regulations and the law.
[OPTIONAL: IF YOU HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE AFFECTED REGION, YOU CAN STRENGTHEN YOUR LETTER BY TALKING ABOUT PLACES YOU HAVE VISITED, HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE TO YOU, AND HOW THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD HARM THEM.]
I urge the BLM to choose the "No Action" alternative A, and to halt efforts to develop oil shale and tar sands on public lands. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Draft Programmatic EIS.
Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
***************************
Thank you for taking action to protect Glen Canyon, the Colorado River, and southern Utah wildlands!
Best regards,
Amy Collins
Glen Canyon Institute
1520 Sunnydale Lane
Salt Lake City, UT 84108
Phone: 801 363-4450
Fax: 801 363-4451
email: info@glencanyon.org
phone: 801.363.4450
web: http://www.glencanyon.org