Four months ago, the University of Connecticut “rose from 49^th to 16^th place” amongst greenest colleges in the Sierra Club’s Coolest Schools rankings (Kirk). This was encouraging news, especially to Office of Environmental Policy (OEP) director Rich Miller, who asserted that: “UConn’s score shows that our sustainability efforts cover a wide range of activities and engage many people” (qtd. in Kirk). Indeed, Miller’s Husky pride seems justified given the ever-expanding campus consciousness about environmental responsibility, largely due to the countless OEP initiatives since its founding in 2002.

The conservation efforts are apparent all over campus: a recycling station is located on each dormitory floor, recycling bins are placed throughout campus, sneaker recycling drives are held annually, and UConn even participates in the ever-popular Recyclemania competition. However, the progress that UConn has made in its efforts over the years begs the question—did past UConn students ever get the recycling itch?

Naturally, the answer to this question lies in the Dodd Center. According to the Undergraduate Student Government and President’s Office records, students in the Environmental Concern Committee helped implement an experimental glass recycling program during the fall 1972 semester. This program was launched in the Towers dorms and, after having recognized its initial success, was later expanded to other campus dorms. The glass-recycling program served as a model for students hoping to implement paper and aluminum-recycling programs as well.

Unfortunately by January 1974, the Inter-Area Residence Council Recycling Committee recognized that certain dorms in the glass recycling program were having problems with “not enough voluntary action and student cooperation” (IARC Minutes). The program continued in fall 1974, though with great difficulty as enthusiasm fell.

Fortunately, such spurts of recycling-related activism—which may be considered the early predecessors to the current array of UConn OEP / EcoHusky projects—will not be forgotten, as they are well-documented here at the Dodd Center.

Krisela Karaja, Student Intern

Resources:

Glass Recycling Folder, Box 1 (1972-1973), University of Connecticut Undergraduate Student Government Records. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

The Inter-Area Residents’ Council Minutes, Jan. 17, 1974, Summer Recycling Workshop Folder, Box 9 (1974), University of Connecticut Undergraduate Student Government Records. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

Kirk, Michael. “UConn Rises to 16th Among ‘Greenest Colleges.’ ” UConn Today. University of Connecticut Office of University Communications 25 Aug. 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2011. <http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2011/08/uconn-rises-to-16th-among-greenest-colleges/>.

Recycling Committee Folder, Box 161 (1972), University of Connecticut President’s Office Records [Homer D. Babbidge, 1962-1972]. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

Summer Recycling Workshop Folder, Box 9 (1974), University of Connecticut Undergraduate Student Government Records. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

Members of Congress on Bicycles, Stewart McKinney Papers

The Clean Air controversy was exacerbated by environmental taxes on “indirect sources”—such as mall parking lots—in which large numbers of pollution-causing automobiles could potentially congregate. Again, while many environmentalists favored this notion, private industry owners and especially urban renewal project developers such as those in charge of the Stamford Downtown urban redevelopment project, felt that the Clean Air Act delivered a direct and unnecessary blow to their interests in this regard (CAA Folder, Box 23).

Similarly, the more that was learned about the detrimental effects of aerosol fluorocarbons at this time, the more agitation there was for regulation of these greenhouse gases, as well, given their potential to destroy the earth’s ozone layer. In addition to many other undesirable complications, it was revealed in 1974 that fluorocarbons caused “a chemical reaction that led to a breakdown of the ozone belt […] and dramatic changes in world weather patterns” (“Clean Air Act Amendments, 1976”).

The amendments to the Clean Air Act were not passed until 1977. These amendments included among others the extension of auto emission standards for two years, the extension of air quality standards for U.S. cities for five-to-ten years, and a three-year extension for air polluting industries to comply with standards before facing significant fines (“Clean Air Act Amendments, 1977”). However, debates over altering the act continued in the ’80s, and legislation was finally later passed in 1990. This legislation imposed greater federal standards on limiting smog, auto exhaust, toxic air pollution, etc. The 1990 amendments also included a measure that would foster more research on global warming, so that scientists and politicians alike could understand the pollution-induced worldwide environmental changes attributed to this phenomenon (“Clean Air, 1989 – 1990”).

Thus, although it wasn’t defined as such in the ’70s, global warming was the ultimate culprit behind the debate in Congress—the debate that unfortunately remains heated in recent times. In fact, the “Clear Skies” program presented by the Bush administration in 2002 was perhaps most controversial as it proposed to alter the CAA using a more market-driven approach supported by the power industry. However, this initiative was eventually rejected by environmentalists for its failure to regulate carbon dioxide emissions in addition to sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury (“Clean Air, 2003-2004”). This debate actually resurfaced only a year ago, when the proposed 2010 Clean Air Act Amendments were rejected. Interestingly enough, although this bill did address issues regarding the ozone layer, it still failed to touch upon the regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. Needless to say, the proposed bill did not become a law.

Krisela Karaja, Student Intern

Resources:

 Clean Air Act Folder, Box 23 (1975), Stewart B. McKinney Papers. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

 “Clean Air, 1989-1990 Legislative Chronology.” In Congress and the Nation, 1989-1992, vol. 8, 473. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1993. <http://library.cqpress.com/catn/catn89-0000013636>.

“Clean Air, 2003-2004 Legislative Chronology.” In Congress and the Nation, 2001-2004, vol. 11, 437. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2006. <http://library.cqpress.com/catn/catn01-426-18057-965103>.

 “Clean Air Act Amendments, 1976 Legislative Chronology.” In Congress and the Nation, 1973-1976, vol. 4, 303. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1977. <http://library.cqpress.com/catn/catn73-0009171007>.

“Clean Air Amendments, 1977 Legislative Chronology.” In Congress and the Nation, 1977-1980, vol. 5, 535. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1981. <http://library.cqpress.com/catn/catn77-0010172918>.

 Environment—Air Folder, Box 16 (1974), Stewart B. McKinney Papers. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

 Environment—Air Folder, Box 28 (1976), Stewart B. McKinney Papers. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

Stewart McKinney to D.W. Sweeney, May 24, 1974, Environment—Air Folder, Box 16, Stewart B. McKinney Papers. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

Stewart McKinney to Joel M. Berns, July 1, 1975, Clean Air Act Folder, Box 23, Stewart B. McKinney Papers. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

United States. Cong. Senate. Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010. 111th Cong. S. 2995. GovTrack.us. Civic Impulse, LLC. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s111-2995>.

Stewart McKinney With Girl Scouts on Capitol Steps

That’s right, the 1970s was a hot decade—and not just for its music and fashion. During these years the debate over air-pollution legislation was practically ablaze. The people who knew this best were perhaps the congressmen and congresswomen dealing with the legislative process at the time. One such congressman, Connecticut’s own Stewart Brett McKinney, must have felt the heat first-hand, given the countless number of constituent letters he received just between 1974 and 1976—many of which can be found amongst his papers in the Political Collections here at the Dodd. In addition to serving as a member and minority leader in the CT State House of Representatives, McKinney was also elected to the U.S. House for Connecticut’s southwestern fourth district and served from 1970 until his death in 1987.

The letters McKinney received just in the aforementioned two-year-span—letters from private industry, organizations, and unaffiliated individuals—attest to the significance of environmental legislation at the time, seeing as a noteworthy portion of the correspondence deals with various proposed congressional amendments to the 1970 Clean Air Act. The Act set firm standards for energy providers, car emissions, etc. in an effort to curb air pollution and the negative environmental and health effects associated with it. Like many others at the time, congressman McKinney was in favor of modifying the 1970 act, but opposed to drastic changes that might weaken it. The challenge, as he stated in his response to a letter from Ms. D.W. Sweeney of Stamford, was to “balance those environmental goals with what is perceived to be the long-term energy needs of the nation” (S.M. to D.W.S.).

This was crucial given the energy crisis of the early ’70s. Even those companies that may have desired to switch from coal to the slightly less harmful alternatives of oil and gas may have been unable to do so, given the limited availability and high prices of these resources. Many businessmen therefore lobbied to have the 1970 act significantly amended and emissions standards deadlines extended while other groups—such as the League of Women Voters—urged Congressman McKinney to fight to maintain the original, strict environmental standards. For instance, in his July 1, 1975 letter to another Stamford resident Joel M. Berns, D.M.D, McKinney makes it clear that “we must avoid the irresponsible course of so weakening the Clean Air Act in the name of the ‘energy crisis’ only to face the same deferred problems five or ten years from now when the clean-up job will be far more difficult and costly” (S.M. to J.B.).

Krisela Karaja, Student Intern

Rainbow People, Vol. 1. No. 2. 1970

“This is Indian land, Indian water, Indian coal, Indian life that is going up in smoke” (Steiner “Black Mesa”).

Such were the words of Stan Steiner, author of various works (i.e. The New Indians, 1968) pertaining to American minority groups including Indians and Mexican-Americans. In fact, Steiner’s “Black Mesa Fact Sheet”—compiled in 1970 at the request of Navajo and Hopi tribal leaders— is included in Volume 1 No. 2 of Rainbow People, a newspaper conveniently found right here in the Alternative Press Collections at the Dodd Center. True to Steiner’s words, Indian life was literally going up in smoke—pollution-related smoke, that is. In 1966, the Navajo Tribal Council granted the Peabody Coal Company the right to explore land in the Black Mesa region of Arizona in order to generate fuel for six large southwestern power plants and for giant polluting cities such as Los Angeles and Phoenix. In exchange, the Navajo received “a mere $600,000 each year for their Nation” (Steiner “Fact Sheet”). However according to Calvin Estitty, a member of the Black Mesa Native Americans, the Navajo had not provided explicit consent to mine—they had simply consented to have the land surveyed (Steiner “Fact Sheet”).

The pollution statistics mentioned in Steiner’s fact sheet are jarring: “Sulfur dioxide emissions of 735 tons a day (267,275 tons a year). That is more than three times the health hazard […] that L.A. people suffer.” Additionally, the fly ash particle emissions of 137 tons a day were well above the LA statistic (109 /day) and almost as high as New York’s 140 tons. Indeed, the Navajo plant alone was estimated to “fill [the] sky [with] 465,125 tons of smog yearly” (Steiner “Fact Sheet”).

The Hopis, too, signed a 99-year lease with the company to strip-mine coal in Black Mesa (Committee of Concern). However the concerns amongst both native groups were not limited to air-pollution. Steiner goes so far as to criticize the New York Times’ coverage of Black Mesa as insufficient, seeing its failure to address the religious implications of strip-mining. Indeed, Black Mesa (the “Female Mountain”) has traditionally been considered a symbol of beauty, harmony, and the Navajo way. Some Navajos saw this as an example of how the “white man has unthinkingly defiled the religious belief of the Indians. He has disrupted the sacred and holy mountains” (Steiner “Fact Sheet”). The economic concerns were also significant. As one Navajo Tribal leader put it: “What will be left of our way of life? No pastures for our sheep! No jobs when the Mesa is gone! They force us into colonial economy (qtd. in Steiner “Fact Sheet”).

Although there are still groups like Black Mesa Indigenous Support that aid “the indigenous peoples of Black Mesa in their resistance to massive coal mining operations” (“Mission Statement”), Peabody Energy currently maintains the Kayenta Mine in the region. The company asserts that its “environmental and community practices on Black Mesa were recognized as a world model for sustainability” (“Southwest Operations”).

Although Steiner argues that the concerns of these “invisible” indigenous peoples are “lost in the smog” (“Black Mesa”) when being addressed in major newspapers, they can still be found right here—preserved and waiting to be read in the APC.

Krisela Karaja, Student Intern

Resources:

The Committee of Concern for the Traditional Indian. “Hopi: Black Mesa.” Rainbow People [John Day, Oregon] Vol. 1. No. 2. 1970: p. 6. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

Hill, Gladwin. “Arizona Strip-Mining Project Leaving Navajo Land Unscarred.”  New York Times 24 Jan. 1971:  p. 55. Proquest
Historical Newspapers. Web. 26 Oct 2011.

“Mission Statement.” Black Mesa Indigenous Support. BMIS. Web. 21 Oct. 2011. http://blackmesais.org/about/mission/.

“Southwest Operations.” Peabody Energy. Peabody Energy, Inc. Web. 26 Oct. 2011.

< http://www.peabodyenergy.com/content/247/US-Mining/Powder-River-Basin-and-Southwest>.

Steiner, Stan. “Black Mesa” (letter to the editor of the New York Times). Rainbow People [John Day, Oregon] Vol. 1. No. 2. 1971: p. 14. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

 Steiner, Stan. “Black Mesa Fact Sheet.” Rainbow People [John Day, Oregon] Vol. 1. No. 2. 1970: p. 8. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

Radioactive Times

The members of California’s Abalone Alliance must have thought just that as they continually resisted the proliferation of U.S. nuclear power plants—the Diablo Canyon plant in San Luis Obispo County being one of them—in the 1970s and ’80s. The Diablo controversy began in 1963, with the Pacific Gas & Electric Company’s proposal to build a nuclear plant in California. Anti-nuclear activists later learned that the company had not conducted sufficient seismic tests for fear of gathering information that would ultimately delay construction. What’s more, the plant was to be built 2.5 miles away from an earthquake fault. PG&E made this discovery in 1962 but neglected to inform the surrounding community about this safety concern (“Diablo Canyon, a history of cover-ups and resistance”).

Organized forms of civil disobedience—leafleting, peaceful protests, etc.—occurred under the direction and encouragement of the Abalone Alliance, an umbrella organization of over 60 groups, including the Los Angeles-based Alliance for Survival. In addition to promoting the Alliance for Survival’s Radioactive Times, the Abalone Alliance also distributed its own newsletter, It’s About Times. Both of these newsletters closely covered the developments at Diablo, and both also strove to spread awareness about the harmful effects of nuclear power. In fact the Times, whose main slogan was to deliver “All the news they never print,” went so far as to criticize the Reagan administration for its financial support of nuclear fusion research while cutting the budgets for energy conservation and solar energy (“Nuke Time for Bonzo”).

The opposition of the Abalone-affiliated groups was formidable. In 1981, 10,000 local citizens instituted a two-week blockade of Diablo Canyon, resulting in 1901 arrests. That year, it was also revealed that “PG&E used wrong blueprints when installing key seismic supports” (“Diablo Canyon, a history of cover-ups and resistance”). Whistleblower John Horn lamented: “I wasn’t exactly popular around the office then because most people thought I was just kind of nitpicking, and that I was stirring up  trouble” (“Diablo Canyon, a history of cover-ups and resistance”).

Despite these protests, Diablo Canyon was granted an operating license by The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on November 2, 1984, and will maintain this license until at least November 2, 2024 (“Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1”). On its website, PG&E maintains that “Diablo Canyon Power Plant is a safe, clean, reliable and vital resource for all Californians” (“Welcome to Diablo Canyon”).

However, the work—the history—of these sometimes overlooked grassroots anti-nuclear groups is still preserved within the Alternative Press Collections at the Dodd Center today, waiting to be rediscovered by researchers and students alike.

Krisela Karaja, Student Intern

Resources:

“AA Safe Energy Groups.” It’s About Times: Abalone Alliance Newsletter [San Francisco, CA] Mid-June—July, 1980: p. 11. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of
Connecticut Libraries.

“Abalone Alliance Newsletter: It’s About Times.” It’s About Times: Abalone Alliance Newsletter [San Francisco, CA] Mid-June—July, 1980: p. 2. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

“Diablo Canyon, a history of cover-ups and resistance: Do PG&E and the NRC Really Care About Safety?” [San Luis Obispo, CA] final edition, early 1984: p. 4. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

“Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1.” U.S. NRC: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC, 24 June 2011. Web. 13 Oct. 2011.http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/diab1.html.

“Nuke Time for Bonzo.” Radioactive Times [San Luis Obispo, CA] Summer 1981: p. 3. Print. Alternative Press Collections. Archives and Special Collections at the Thomas J. Dodd Research Center, University of Connecticut Libraries.

“Welcome to Diablo Canyon.” PG&E. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, n.d. Web. 13 Oct. 2011. <http://www.pge.com/myhome/edusafety/systemworks/dcpp/>.