Replies

John Adams served as NRDC's executive director and later president from the organization's inception in 1970 until stepping down in 2006. His tenure is unparalleled by the leader of any other environmental organization.

John is a graduate of Michigan State University and the Duke University School of Law. Prior to his work at NRDC, John served as assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. He is chair of the board of the Open Space Institute and sits on the boards of numerous other environmental organizations. He has also served on governmental advisory committees, including President Clinton's Council for Sustainable Development.

Adams grew up in New York's Catskills and still owns a farm there, often wheeling guests around on an ancient Cub Cadet tractor. But he is not afraid to draw the ire of his allies: NRDC has taken flak from fellow environmentalists for siding with the Bush administration and fossil-fuel producers on the benefits of "clean coal," a new technology that filters out climate-warming pollutants so they can be "sequestered" underground. "We're not going to solve the climate problem unless we get industry to join us in the fight," Adams insists. Coal currently accounts for more than half of U.S. electricity production, and Adams believes that a complete shift to renewable energy will simply take too long to protect the climate. "The bottom line," he says, "is that America has to start significantly reducing greenhouse gases even before we phase out fossil fuels."

Frances Beinecke became NRDC's second president after assuming the helm in 2006. Frances served as executive director from 1998 through 2005 and has been with NRDC for more than 30 years.

Frances's leadership is informed by a strong background in ecosystem studies. She received her bachelor's degree from Yale College and a master's degree from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Frances co-chairs the Leadership Council of the School of Forestry, serves on the advisory board of Yale's Institute of Biospheric Studies and is a member of the steering committee of the Energy Future Coalition. She also serves on the boards of the World Resources Institute and New York League of Conservation Voters.

You didn't mention nuclear. There have been calls by some in the environmental movement to rethink opposition to nuclear power, in light of the greater threat posed by greenhouse gases. Do you agree?

We've looked at nuclear, but we continue to think it has serious problems. One is economic. If nuclear power could compete in the marketplace without major subsidies from Congress, it would be an interesting thing to look at. But that's not what the industry is proposing. And the waste problem is not solved. We haven't figured out what to do with the waste. Until they do that and can compete economically, we don't think it's a major part of the equation.

But you're not suggesting that we hold, say, solar power to the same standard of competing economically without subsidies, are you?

Solar power is a new source. We think subsidies or assistance from the federal government should go to the new technologies that need to come to the market. Nuclear has been around for a long time. When you and I were in college, it was going to be the key to the future, but it hasn't turned out that way.

Other than energy, carbon and global warming, what are your top priorities at this point? Well, another one is clearly our oceans, which basically are completely in crisis. The fish stocks are considerably depleted: 90 percent of the large fish of the oceans are gone. And, you know, the oceans are being harvested at an alarming rate and the technology that's being used is exceedingly destructive. For example, bottom-trawling essentially clear-cuts the ocean floor. It ruins the substrate, so you can't assume new fish stocks are going to develop there.

What's the solution?

It requires major changes in ocean policy at the federal level, setting aside parts of the ocean as protected areas where fish stocks can resume. You've got to remember that the majority of the world's people get major protein from fish, and so the depletion of fish is an ecological problem but also a serious human problem. We need to feed 6-plus billion people around the earth, so it's really important to take this issue very seriously.

I didn't ask for that drivel as a response. You get an E for effort though. ;)

See post 7.

The way Mary Nichols fixed the deal implementing MTBE as an oxygenate belies the NRDC's concern for the environment.

The fish stocks are considerably depleted: 90 percent of the large fish of the oceans are gone

And yet somehow life goes on...

What's the solution?

It requires major changes in ocean policy at the federal level,

HAW, HAW, HAW, HAW, HAW, HAW, HAW!!!

Get real, American fisheries are among the most regulated in the world. Most of the overfishing is done by other countries. Has Tyson Foods got a hand up your back or something?

The real solution to the ocean is to colonize it as private property with boundaries set by GPS coordinates and then set up contracts with coastal property owners for management of intertidal zones and watersheds. A claque of bureaucrats dependant upon failure for funding is the last thing the fish need.

If you had any idea what a mess the Feds were making of "salmon protection," you wouldn't drop an idiotic post like that. See tagline.

Frances Beinecke

Damn.... do ALL Liberal women have to look alike?

I found the solution to fish depletion just today. I took my grandkids to see "Happy Feet", and in the movie, the UN solved everything!

We need to feed 6-plus billion people around the earth, so it's really important to take this issue very seriously.

We?....WE?.....Who's We? You and the mouse in your pocket? Spare from ugly people who have nothing to do but stick their noses where nobody wants them.

"We" indeed....

FMCDH(BITS)

Re: #5,

Paragraphs 1 thru 6, NRDC=MTBE.

Paragraphs & thru 11, selected theory bull.

What's the solution?

Most likely the opposite of what you suggest.

Paragraph 13, The major changes in ocean policy need to come from OTHER NATIONS, our are plenty stringent enough.