From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Here are all the major edit sections I have done, or have yet to update.

Under Monsanto[edit]

Short-term Solution, Lont-term Problem[edit]

Most people are concerned about hormone-treated beef finding it's way to their table, but what about vegetables grown from genetically engineered seeds? [1] The seeds have been modified so that they are immune to the poisons of Monsanto brand, Round-up, a powerful weed killer. Their reasoning is that you can dowse the crops with Round-up, killing the weeds, but leaving the healthy crops untouched. [2] These modifications have given the company reason to patent their successful product, but this form of genetic engineering has brought many problems to the environment. [3] Monsanto has inadvertently made Round-up so that it will kill off crops that it does not own, but their patented crops are nearly impossible to be rid of once they have been released into an environment. [4] This herbicide is being globally overused and is leading to a widespread weed resistance. In 2003, Round-up was officially banned in Denmark because the chemicals were not breaking down and were polluting the soil and water more than five times past the safe limit for human health. Monsanto spokesperson, Greg Elmore, says that people are simply overreacting. [5]

Pollen Pollution Lawsuit[edit]

Monsanto specializes in genetically altered seeds especially food crops such as corn, soybeans, and potatoes. Because of these modifications the company has reason to patent their product. This is their greatest advantage, because the consumers must continue to buy new seed each season or risk a law suit for violating Monsanto's patent. [6] This is supported by the United States government because it believes in free trade, even though Monsanto's domination over the seed buying market is now a choice between Monsanto or it's top competitor, DuPont. [7] This genetic engineering has brought more problems than just cornering the market. [8] In 1998 Monsanto's patented seeds infected and pollenated farmland, established for forty years, owned by Percy Schmeiser. Monsanto Canada sued the seventy year old farmer for 'stealing' their patented seeds. This high profile case, Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, went to the Supreme Court level. Monsanto sued an independent farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for patent infringement for growing genetically modified Roundup resistant canola. The 1998 case was portrayed in the media as a classic David and Goliath confrontation. This cross pollination destroyed Schmeiser's forty years worth of carefully grown fields. In March of 2001, Suprem Court Judge W. Andrew MacKay ruled that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto's genetically engineered patent. "This is very good news for us, Mr. Schmeiser had infringed on our patent." said Monsanto's Trish Jordan. This court ruling gives Monsanto a "license to pollute," an incentive to spread their genetically altered seeds. They can win money from neighboring farmers through lawsuits, and use this pollen pollution to destroy surrounding competitors. The court rejected Monsanto's claim for damages and did not impose punitive damages on Schmeiser, which would not have been expected in a case involving a new question of law. The case did cause Monsanto's enforcement tactics to be highlighted in the media over the years it took to play out. [9]

Under the Presidency of George W. Bush[edit]

Environmental Record[edit]


September 28, 2007, President Bush made a speech on energy security and climate change to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but not the economy or prosperity of the people. He believes that the key is clean energy technologies that are environmentally friendly. This will require some major investments and eliminating tariffs on clean energy products so that the technologies are more available to everyone. President Bush has even proposed an international fund to develop clean energy technology in developing nations. Since being elected President the Federal government has invested $18 billion to research, develop, and promote clean and efficient energy technologies. The Bush Administration has even taken steps to safeguard our forests for future generations. In 2001, $3 billion were given to restore and protect forests against wild fires. Tens of billions have been given to farmers to promote conservation. They are even promoting sustainable land management. [10]


As America is being threatened by global warming, a thinning ozone layer, higher carbon dioxide concentrations, pollution, and the loss of natural resources, the Bush administration has only made these conditions worse. The Bush Administration has opened up the national forest for logging, relaxed the coal burning emission regulations, removed barriers to mountain top mining, opened up oil drilling in national parks, transferred the costs of toxic clean-ups to the taxpayers, rolled back drinking water regulations, rolled back air quality regulations, and broken several campaign promises. [11] These actions have all reversed the Clinton Administration's initiatives on a better environmental plan. President Bush even withdrew from the 1997 global warming agreement with Kyoto, Japan in 2001 because he had "no interest in implementing it," says Environmental Protection Administrator, Christie Todd Whitman. The Administration is pushing to open drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, reduce rules banning development on 60 million acres of national forest, relax the limit of arsenic in drinking water, and reduce cleanup regulations for surface mines. [12] The Bush Administration needs to find a way to support the environment while still supporting the economy. They take steps forward in this campaign, but then almost immediately take a step back. [13] Some believe that President Bush has never really believed in the environmental campaign. He has spent nearly his entire life in the oil business, moving away from an energy source we are so dependent on would be a dramatic affect on his way of life [14] The Bush Administration is most concerned about their own profits than protecting the environment. [15] "This is a terrible day for the environment." -Deb Callahan [16]

Under the United States Republican Party[edit]

Environmental Policy[edit]

Republicans for Environmental Protection[edit]

The Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP) are concerned about the environment, and believe a healthy environment and a sound economy are essential to the United States. This organization began in 1995 as a grassrooots movement dedicated to restoring the Republican Party’s conservationist tradition. [17] By working together they believe that they can preserve both the environment and the economy for current and future generations of Americans. Their hot topics include clean and renewable energy, putting a stop to global warming, managing clean air and water, saving conservational lands, and other environmental issues. Their goals include "Clean air & water, food free from harmful chemicals, clean, efficient businesses & industries, a high quality of life in our cities & rural communities, strong, results-oriented enforcement of environmental laws, economic development for communities without the ravages of sprawl, high priority for funding of natural resource stewardship & environmental protection, protection for posterity of our national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wild lands & waters, and effective legal protection for threatened & endangered plants & animals in their native habitats." The REP supports and votes for Republicans whom share these values. [18] They are speaking up, as Republicans, to let their leaders know that they want their environment preserved, not squandered for short-term gain. The REP is dedicated to educating the public and elected officials about the need to protect the environment and conserve America's wildlands and natural resources. [19]

Environmental Platform[edit]

In the year 2000 the Republican Party adopted the platform to encourage market-based solutions to environmental problems. This platform included that "economic prosperity and environmental protection must advance together, environmental regulations should be based on science, the government’s role should be to provide market-based incentives to develop the technologies to meet environmental standards, we should ensure that environmental policy meets the needs of localities, and environmental policy should focus on achieving results processes." [20] This platform was created for the GOP National Convention, though these issues have diminished in the past few years. [21]

Under United States Democratic Party[edit]


Democratic belief is that the health of our families and the strength of our economy depend on our stewardship of the environment. Democrats have promised to fight to strengthen the laws that ensure people have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. They also promise to make sure these laws are enforced. They feel that a sensible energy policy is key to a strong economy, national security, and a clean environment. [22]

The Democratic Party has stood on the platform that will always reject the idea of a healthy economy vs. a healthy environment, because they know that a cleaner environment means a stronger economy. They will protect our hunting and fishing heritage by expanding conservation lands. They encourage open space and rail travel to relieve highway and airport congestion and improve air quality and economy. "Democrats believe that communities, environmental interests, and government should work together to protect resources while ensuring the vitality of local economies. Once Americans were led to believe they had to make a choice between the economy and the environment. They now know this is a false choice." [23]

The biggest environmental concern of the Democratic party is global warming. Democrats, most notably former Vice President Al Gore, have pressed for stern regulation of greenhouse gases. On October 15, 2007 he won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to build greater knowledge about manmade climate change, and laying the foundations for the measures needed to counteract these changes. He says, "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity." [24]

Concerned Citizens of Platte County[edit]

Concerned Citizens of Platte County is a group of people who's motto is, "We work to protect overall quality of life, children's health, and enhance property values in Platte County." The organization was incorporated in the early 90's and successfully created one of the first County Health Ordinances to regulate confined animal feeding operations, also known as CAFOs or factory farming, with other groups like Missouri Rural Crisis Center. [25]

Board of Directors[edit]

This organization is run by a board of directors elected for two year terms. The current board consists of, chairman- Susan Brown, vice-chairman- Byron Combs, secretary- Antonio Cutulo-Ring, treasurer- Debbie Woehrman, and other directors include Debie Asher, Jackie Stevens, Sarah Hoffman, and Alex Asher, including an honorary director, Jean Deal. [26]


Energy Related Issues[edit]

Across the nation almost 150 coal burning power plants have been proposed, three in Missouri (Weston, Norborne, and Springfield) CCPCs home state, and three in Kansas (Goodland, Holcomb and Kansas City, KS), just on the other side of the Missouri River and Platte County. Not one of these plants has proposed using any kind of renewable energy, instead they pose the threat of using large amounts of water, creating huge landfills of waste, emitting mercury and other health threatening pollution, releasing millions of tons of global warming gasses, and driving up the demand of the price of energy. CCPC believes that energy efficiency and renewable resources can keep electricity rates low, create new jobs and avoid health risks. Their mission is to convince the public and leaders that this is a better idea. [27]


The Concerned Citizens of Platte County oppose the use of industrial livestock operations, namely confined animal feeding operations, CAFOs. They believe that livestock should be grown on a family operated farm, not by a corporately owned business. The majority of livestock operations are independent family farms. CAFOs make up less than 1/2 of 1% of Missouri's farming operations. CCPC believes that elected representatives should be taking steps to protect the property rights of the majority of family farmers and rural landowners, not just the small number of CAFO operators. CAFOs can not be good neighbors in general, in that they cannot provide good jobs, clean water and air, and healthy economies.

According to a United States Environmental Protection Agency study, a CAFO with 4,000 hogs can generate as much waste as a city of 16,000 people. A Class 1A CAFO (17,500 hogs and above) can generate as much waste as the city of St. Louis, that is the smallest registered class. Anything smaller is, by Missouri law, allowed to be withing 2000 feet of a residence. Scientists have found that the air of a CAFO constitutes a hazard to public and worker health causing nausea, headaches, runny nose, sore throat, burning eyes, an increase in asthma, brain damage, vomiting, diarrhea, and pulmonary edema.

A study by the University of Missouri found that property values near CAFOs decreased from 6.6% to 88% depending on property attributes and distance from the CAFO. A Missouri study has found that corporate contract operations create a net loss of employment. While creating 9 jobs, they displace 28 jobs. In the past 15 years, hog numbers in Missouri have stayed the same while the number of hog farmers has decreased 85%. The retail price of pork increased 75%, but the hog producers' share of the retail dollar decreased 30%.[28]



A priority of the Concerned Citizens of Platte County has been to oppose a proposal by Kansas City Power and Light to build two large coal-burning power plants along the Missouri River. By educating the public about thier concerns KCP&L agreed to reduce the number of power plants to only one, clean up two existing plants, and offset harmful emissions to the environment by adding wind power and energy efficiency to their portfolio. These proposed offsets will be partially implemented by 2010 and fully implemented by 2012. The parties are also agreeing to work together on a series of regulatory and legislative initiatives to achieve an overall reduction in KCP&L's carbon dioxide emissions of 20 percent by 2020. [29]

David Garcia Award[edit]

The Concerned Citizens of Platte County were recently honored with David Garcia Award at 13th Annual Environmental Excellence Awards recognizing their collaborative partnership agreement that set a ground-breaking precedent for clean energy development in the midwest with the Sierra Club and Kansas City Power & Light. The David Garcia Award for Environmental Excellence honors local organizations, businesses or governments who are leaders in collaborating to find solutions to regional environmental issues.

"This agreement shows that we can work together to curb air pollution, combat global warming, and protect our local communities", said Susan Brown, chairperson for Concerned Citizens of Platte County. "The renewable energy investments in this agreement can revitalize the region's manufacturing economy and offer rural landowners a new source of steady income from wind turbines located on their property. The large investment in energy efficiency will also help everyone use less energy-reducing emissions and saving consumers and businesses money each month." [30]

Wikipedia Overview[edit]

I have enjoyed the time we have spent working on Wikipedia and I think that I might even continue contributing to the articles that I am most interested in. Before we began this session I was always afraid to play a part in the online community, but now that I have been contributing I find that it can be quite fun. At first I could not see the point in working with Wikipedia, but now I understand. We learn to write articles that have a neutral point of view, use reliable sources and citations, and then publish them over the internet. I just wish I would have realized this earlier. The only thing that I might have changed is to give the students a broader range of articles to write on. Some people in class really disliked the topics assigned and I think they may have continued with Wikipedia after the session if they had enjoyed working on the assigned articles with Wikipedia in class.


  1. ^ Peter Montague (1999-9-2). "Monsanto: The Bad Seed". Environmental Health Weekly.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Emily Gersema. "Death Sentence for Monsanto--Roundup Resistant Weeds". Associated Press.  Text "date 2003-9-13 " ignored (help)
  3. ^ Melody Peterson (1999-8-29). "New Trade Threat for U.S. Farmers". New York Times.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Gar Smith (2001 autumn). "Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto". Earth Island Journal.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Emily Gersema. "Death Sentence for Monsanto--Roundup Resistant Weeds". Associated Press.  Text "date 2003-9-13 " ignored (help)
  6. ^ Melody Peterson (1999-8-29). "New Trade Threat for U.S. Farmers". New York Times.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Peter Montague (1999-9-2). "Monsanto: The Bad Seed". Environmental Health Weekly.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. ^ Emily Gersema. "Death Sentence for Monsanto--Roundup Resistant Weeds". Associated Press.  Text "date 2003-9-13" ignored (help)
  9. ^ Gar Smith (2001 autumn). "Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto". Earth Island Journal.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  10. ^ "Toward a New Global Approach to Climate Change and Energy Security". In Focus. 2007-9-28.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ Chris Fick (2007-3-28). "Bush's Policies are Poisoning the Environment". George W. Bush is Harming our Environment.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  12. ^ Gwen Ifill (2001-3-29). "Bush and the Environment". NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  13. ^ Deb Callahan (2001-3-29). "Bush and the Environment". NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  14. ^ Mark Hertsgaard (2001-3-29). "Bush and the Environment". NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  15. ^ Chris Fick (2007-3-28). "Bush's Policies are Poisoning the Environment". George W. Bush is Harming our Environment.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  16. ^ Deb Callahan (2001-3-29). "Bush and the Environment". NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Transcript.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  17. ^ "History". Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP). 2007. 
  18. ^ "Philosophy". Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP). 2007. 
  19. ^ "Mission". Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP). 2007. 
  20. ^ "Encourage Market-Based Solutions to Environmental Problems". OnTheIssues. 2000-8-12.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  21. ^ Paul Rauber (2006 May-June). "Elephant Graveyard-How the Republican Party is Handling Environmental Issues". Sierra.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  22. ^ "Clean Enironment". Retrieved 2007-03-18. 
  23. ^ Retrieved 2007-10-24.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
  24. ^ John Nicols (2007-10-12). "Al Gore Wins Nobel Peace Prize". The Nation. 
  25. ^ "CCPCMO". Retrieved 2007-11-16. 
  26. ^ "About Us". Retrieved 2007-11-16. 
  27. ^ "Energy". Retrieved 2007-11-16. 
  28. ^ "Confined Animal Feeding Operations". Retrieved 2007-11-16. 
  29. ^ "Iatan Power Plant Agreement". Retrieved 2007-11-16. 
  30. ^ "Iatan Power Plant Agreement". Retrieved 2007-11-16.