Will Community Bans on Hydrofracking Hold Up? (Gotham Gazette, Dec 2011)
Communities across the state have passed legislation banning the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing. The movement brings up questions of home rule and is being followed closely by the natural gas industry. Cuomo administration efforts to open the New York State section of the Marcellus Shale to drilling will require hydraulic fracturing, which critics say poses a serious threat to the safety of surface and underground water sources, and causes other environmental problems. Advocates of the process say it will boost upstate economies.
According to a list compiled by Keuka Citizens Against Hydrofracking, fifty-four upstate communities –spanning 14 counties and including the cities of Albany and Buffalo- have permanently banned or placed a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and related activities within their boundaries. And more bans are on the way. Six upstate counties (Dutchess, Onondaga, Ontario, Sullivan, Tompkins and Ulster) have banned hydraulic fracturing on all county-owned lands. The practice is already restricted from the New York City and Syracuse watersheds.
Thursday
Canada-El Salvador trade deal to further entrench power of rogue mining corporations
Canada-El Salvador trade deal to further entrench power of rogue mining corporations
A protest was held at the Canadian Embassy in El Salvador yesterday to commemorate the two-year anniversary of the assassination Ramiro Rivera and Dora Sorto, two environmental advocates from Cabanas El Salvador who were active in the campaign against the El Dorado mine of the Canadian company Pacific Rim.
The Embassy refused to meet with representatives from the Mesa Nacional frente la Mineria Metalica to hear concerns and receive a letter demanding an end to free trade negotiations between Canada and El Salvador that would further entrench the rights of mining companies “If neoliberal mechanisms actually worked the people of El Salvador and Central America would not experience the levels of poverty and humanitarian crises that lead to the exodus of thousands of people each day,” the letter said.
The trade agreement is being negotiated at a time when Canadian mining company Pacific Rim is using an American subsidiary to sue the El Salvador government for failing to issue a permit for its cyanide leach gold mine in Cabanas.
The following statement from Council of Canadians’ chairperson, Maude Barlow was read at the protest:
On behalf of the Council of Canadians, I am sending you a message of solidarity and gratitude from Canada for your courageous stance against the big corporate bully, Pacific Rim. El Salvador has made the right choice in refusing to grant Pacific Rim a permit for its cyanide-leach gold mine.
In July 2010, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution recognizing water and sanitation as a human right. Pacific Rim’s El Dorado mine threatens to poison the Lempa River watershed, the most important watershed in the country and source of drinking water for the majority of Salvadorans. This is a blatant violation not only of the human right to water of Salvadorans today, but of all future generations of Salvadorans.
As water justice activists, we salute the environmentalists, community activists and social justice advocates in El Salvador who have been fighting to protect the destruction of water resources by big mining corporations. You are an inspiration to all of us and we stand with you today in declaring that our environment and our rights are more important than their profits.
Trade tribunals that are not accountable to our communities and put the interests of corporations first have no business undoing the democratic decisions of our elected governments. We cannot continue to allow trade agreement and the rights they grant to multinational corporations to trump the environment and human rights. This must stop. Ya basta!
A protest was held at the Canadian Embassy in El Salvador yesterday to commemorate the two-year anniversary of the assassination Ramiro Rivera and Dora Sorto, two environmental advocates from Cabanas El Salvador who were active in the campaign against the El Dorado mine of the Canadian company Pacific Rim.
The Embassy refused to meet with representatives from the Mesa Nacional frente la Mineria Metalica to hear concerns and receive a letter demanding an end to free trade negotiations between Canada and El Salvador that would further entrench the rights of mining companies “If neoliberal mechanisms actually worked the people of El Salvador and Central America would not experience the levels of poverty and humanitarian crises that lead to the exodus of thousands of people each day,” the letter said.
The trade agreement is being negotiated at a time when Canadian mining company Pacific Rim is using an American subsidiary to sue the El Salvador government for failing to issue a permit for its cyanide leach gold mine in Cabanas.
The following statement from Council of Canadians’ chairperson, Maude Barlow was read at the protest:
On behalf of the Council of Canadians, I am sending you a message of solidarity and gratitude from Canada for your courageous stance against the big corporate bully, Pacific Rim. El Salvador has made the right choice in refusing to grant Pacific Rim a permit for its cyanide-leach gold mine.
In July 2010, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed a resolution recognizing water and sanitation as a human right. Pacific Rim’s El Dorado mine threatens to poison the Lempa River watershed, the most important watershed in the country and source of drinking water for the majority of Salvadorans. This is a blatant violation not only of the human right to water of Salvadorans today, but of all future generations of Salvadorans.
As water justice activists, we salute the environmentalists, community activists and social justice advocates in El Salvador who have been fighting to protect the destruction of water resources by big mining corporations. You are an inspiration to all of us and we stand with you today in declaring that our environment and our rights are more important than their profits.
Trade tribunals that are not accountable to our communities and put the interests of corporations first have no business undoing the democratic decisions of our elected governments. We cannot continue to allow trade agreement and the rights they grant to multinational corporations to trump the environment and human rights. This must stop. Ya basta!
Monday
Are Privatized Water Utilities in Cahoots With Shale Gas Companies?
Are Privatized Water Utilities in Cahoots With Shale Gas Companies? | Common Dreams
No surprises here, but this needs wider dissemination
The report details big concerns about the sketchy relationship between IOU’s and gas companies, including the possibility that IOU’s would protect their investment even if it meant downplaying the risks of contamination caused by their new customers: shale gas companies.
Not only that, but water contamination in a community can lead to new customers for the private water utilities when they need to find a new source of drinking water. Look at what’s happening in Pavillion, Wyoming and Dimock, Pennsylvania, and you can see that this could be a tricky relationship to monitor. If your household relies on its own drinking water well and it suddenly becomes contaminated, you might have to deal with switching to an IOU to provide your water. They can benefit from contamination.
The report also points to IOU’s giving gas-drilling companies discounted rates for water—an average of 45 percent less than residential customers, in the case of one IOU. This sets the tone for water— a public resource — to be sold cheaply to shale gas companies, giving IOU’s a handsome profit. And this water would be used for fracking, which could potentially contaminate water sources. Do we really want to sell our clean water up the river?
No surprises here, but this needs wider dissemination
Published on Monday, December 12, 2011 by Food & Water Watch Blog
On one hand, we have shale gas companies who have been rushing into various regions of the country to extract gas using a dangerous extraction process that involves toxic chemicals potentially contaminating our drinking water. On the other hand, we also have investor-owned water utilities (IOU’s) who are taking a public resource out of the hands of the public and profiting greatly from it. What happens when you put them both together? The results are revealed in the latest Food & Water Watch Report, Why the Water Industry is Promoting Shale Gas Development and they could involve the over-generalization of water quality tests, increased water rates and big profits… for the investors. The report details big concerns about the sketchy relationship between IOU’s and gas companies, including the possibility that IOU’s would protect their investment even if it meant downplaying the risks of contamination caused by their new customers: shale gas companies.
Not only that, but water contamination in a community can lead to new customers for the private water utilities when they need to find a new source of drinking water. Look at what’s happening in Pavillion, Wyoming and Dimock, Pennsylvania, and you can see that this could be a tricky relationship to monitor. If your household relies on its own drinking water well and it suddenly becomes contaminated, you might have to deal with switching to an IOU to provide your water. They can benefit from contamination.
The report also points to IOU’s giving gas-drilling companies discounted rates for water—an average of 45 percent less than residential customers, in the case of one IOU. This sets the tone for water— a public resource — to be sold cheaply to shale gas companies, giving IOU’s a handsome profit. And this water would be used for fracking, which could potentially contaminate water sources. Do we really want to sell our clean water up the river?
Friday
NEWS: Canadian fracking company may have polluted groundwater in Wyoming
NEWS: Canadian fracking company may have polluted groundwater in Wyoming
More news - “The EPA found that compounds likely associated with fracking chemicals had been detected in the groundwater beneath Pavillion, a small community in central Wyoming where residents say their well water reeks of chemicals. …Calgary, Alberta-based Encana Corp. owns the Pavillion gas field. …The fracking occurred below the level of the drinking water aquifer and close to water wells, the EPA said. …The EPA did emphasize that the findings are specific to the Pavillion area. The agency said the fracking that occurred in Pavillion differed from fracking methods used elsewhere in regions with different geological characteristics. …Elsewhere, drilling is more remote and fracking occurs much deeper than the level of groundwater that would normally be used.”
More news - “The EPA found that compounds likely associated with fracking chemicals had been detected in the groundwater beneath Pavillion, a small community in central Wyoming where residents say their well water reeks of chemicals. …Calgary, Alberta-based Encana Corp. owns the Pavillion gas field. …The fracking occurred below the level of the drinking water aquifer and close to water wells, the EPA said. …The EPA did emphasize that the findings are specific to the Pavillion area. The agency said the fracking that occurred in Pavillion differed from fracking methods used elsewhere in regions with different geological characteristics. …Elsewhere, drilling is more remote and fracking occurs much deeper than the level of groundwater that would normally be used.”
FIRST TIME: (US) EPA Finds Fracking Contaminated Drinking Water (in Wyoming)
epa-finds-fracking-contaminated-drinking-water-in-wyoming/
By: David Dayen Friday December 9, 2011 9:08 am
For the first time, (US) government scientists concluded that hydraulic fracturing, the process of shooting massive quantities of water and chemicals into rock to release natural gas, contaminates drinking water. The study concerns an incident in Pavillion, Wyoming, and culminates three years of research of the local aquifer.
EPA constructed two deep monitoring wells to sample water in the aquifer. The draft report indicates that ground water in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing. EPA also re-tested private and public drinking water wells in the community. The samples were consistent with chemicals identified in earlier EPA results released in 2010 and are generally below established health and safety standards. To ensure a transparent and rigorous analysis, EPA is releasing these findings for public comment and will submit them to an independent scientific review panel. The draft findings announced today are specific to Pavillion, where the fracturing is taking place in and below the drinking water aquifer and in close proximity to drinking water wells – production conditions different from those in many other areas of the country.
Independent reports have previously shown contaminants in water due to fracking, but this is the first time the EPA has come out and said so. And while they cite Pavillion as a special case, it calls into question the surge in fracking across the country. From the Marcellus Shale to the Rocky Mountains, thousands of natural gas drilling sites have sprung up, and questions about air and water quality have persisted. Multiple examples of residents lighting the water out of their faucets on fire, and incidents of sickness in areas around the natural gas wells (many of which are in the backyards of people paid handsomely by the fracking companies for the privilege), abound.
Jim Martin, the EPA’s regional administrator in Denver, said in a statement, “EPA’s highest priority remains ensuring that Pavillion residents have access to safe drinking water. We will continue to work cooperatively with the State, Tribes, Encana (the gas company that did the fracking) and the community to secure long-term drinking water solutions. We look forward to having these findings in the draft report informed by a transparent and public review process. In consultation with the Tribes, EPA will also work with the State on additional investigation of the Pavillion field.”
By: David Dayen Friday December 9, 2011 9:08 am
For the first time, (US) government scientists concluded that hydraulic fracturing, the process of shooting massive quantities of water and chemicals into rock to release natural gas, contaminates drinking water. The study concerns an incident in Pavillion, Wyoming, and culminates three years of research of the local aquifer.
EPA constructed two deep monitoring wells to sample water in the aquifer. The draft report indicates that ground water in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing. EPA also re-tested private and public drinking water wells in the community. The samples were consistent with chemicals identified in earlier EPA results released in 2010 and are generally below established health and safety standards. To ensure a transparent and rigorous analysis, EPA is releasing these findings for public comment and will submit them to an independent scientific review panel. The draft findings announced today are specific to Pavillion, where the fracturing is taking place in and below the drinking water aquifer and in close proximity to drinking water wells – production conditions different from those in many other areas of the country.
Independent reports have previously shown contaminants in water due to fracking, but this is the first time the EPA has come out and said so. And while they cite Pavillion as a special case, it calls into question the surge in fracking across the country. From the Marcellus Shale to the Rocky Mountains, thousands of natural gas drilling sites have sprung up, and questions about air and water quality have persisted. Multiple examples of residents lighting the water out of their faucets on fire, and incidents of sickness in areas around the natural gas wells (many of which are in the backyards of people paid handsomely by the fracking companies for the privilege), abound.
Jim Martin, the EPA’s regional administrator in Denver, said in a statement, “EPA’s highest priority remains ensuring that Pavillion residents have access to safe drinking water. We will continue to work cooperatively with the State, Tribes, Encana (the gas company that did the fracking) and the community to secure long-term drinking water solutions. We look forward to having these findings in the draft report informed by a transparent and public review process. In consultation with the Tribes, EPA will also work with the State on additional investigation of the Pavillion field.”
Feds Approve yet another tar sands project in last hours of UN climate talks
Feds Approve yet another tar sands project in last hours of UN climate talks
How fitting. With a mere 36 more hours to go until the end of the UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa and with intensifying international pleas for action on the climate crisis, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver announces the approval of the Joslyn North Oil Sands Mine in the Alberta tar sands. What will this mean?
TAKE ACTION: Write Minister Oliver, let him know what you think about his announcement approving the Joslyn mine, Joe.Oliver@parl.gc.ca
How fitting. With a mere 36 more hours to go until the end of the UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa and with intensifying international pleas for action on the climate crisis, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver announces the approval of the Joslyn North Oil Sands Mine in the Alberta tar sands. What will this mean?
- It will add one and a half million tonnes of GHGs pollution each yea – equivalent of putting over 270,000 cars on the road.
- Add 12.5 billion litres of toxic tailings waste each year
- Produce 2,740 tonnes of pollution each year that causes acid rain
- Destroy 7 thousand hectares of land, equivalent to 13,000 football fields
- Remove and pollute up to 22 billion litres of fresh water from the Athabasca River each year (source)
TAKE ACTION: Write Minister Oliver, let him know what you think about his announcement approving the Joslyn mine, Joe.Oliver@parl.gc.ca
Thursday
Tar Sands Action - Write to the Senate (US)
Tar Sands Action
Hey Canada - keep an eye on the US action - more work needed in Canada too --
Tell the Senate: Reject Backroom Deals on Keystone XL
Hey Canada - keep an eye on the US action - more work needed in Canada too --
Tell the Senate: Reject Backroom Deals on Keystone XL
Big oil is fighting back, pushing a backroom deal in Congress that would force rapid approval of Keystone XL.
We won this fight in public once, and now Big Oil is trying to take it back into the shadowy back rooms of Washington where they have all the power. We need to put our Senators on notice that we expect them to reject any legislation to force Keystone XL, and that they will hear from us again if they make the wrong decision.
We won this fight in public once, and now Big Oil is trying to take it back into the shadowy back rooms of Washington where they have all the power. We need to put our Senators on notice that we expect them to reject any legislation to force Keystone XL, and that they will hear from us again if they make the wrong decision.
Saturday
Action for LGBT Organizations in Nigeria
All Out
December 2, 2011
Thanks to Kevin
Nigeria is pushing forward a law that would make it a punishable offense - of up to 14-years in prison - for anybody to go to a gay bar, to work for or be involved with LGBT organizations, or to be in an openly gay relationship.
This Monday, our friend Ifeanyi and other Nigerian activists are speaking out at the UN against this draconian bill with a simple message: We Are Not Illegal.
Add your voice to Ifeanyi's urgent appeal to the Nigerian President and he will deliver your signature this Monday.
December 2, 2011
Thanks to Kevin
Nigeria is pushing forward a law that would make it a punishable offense - of up to 14-years in prison - for anybody to go to a gay bar, to work for or be involved with LGBT organizations, or to be in an openly gay relationship.
This Monday, our friend Ifeanyi and other Nigerian activists are speaking out at the UN against this draconian bill with a simple message: We Are Not Illegal.
Add your voice to Ifeanyi's urgent appeal to the Nigerian President and he will deliver your signature this Monday.
Friday
Success! 2012 Waste & Water Budgets | Toronto Environmental Alliance
Success! 2012 Waste & Water Budgets | Toronto Environmental Alliance
Toronto Water budget
After many hours of debate about industrial water users and pollution in Toronto, Council voted against the Mayor's Executive Committee recommendation to subsidize water rates for industrial polluters.
Industrial water users have the option to get discounted water rates (called the Block 2 rate) if they create water efficiency plans and don’t break the City’s important water pollution by-laws. The budget proposed to remove this eligibility criteria and give the discount to all industries, whether they've been found to violate the pollution by-laws or not. Councillors voted to solve the administrative problems of the program, rather than scrap it altogether.
This would have cut City revenue by over $3 million, and would mean higher costs to the city to monitor and treat pollution. (sometimes, it works)
Toronto Water budget
After many hours of debate about industrial water users and pollution in Toronto, Council voted against the Mayor's Executive Committee recommendation to subsidize water rates for industrial polluters.
Industrial water users have the option to get discounted water rates (called the Block 2 rate) if they create water efficiency plans and don’t break the City’s important water pollution by-laws. The budget proposed to remove this eligibility criteria and give the discount to all industries, whether they've been found to violate the pollution by-laws or not. Councillors voted to solve the administrative problems of the program, rather than scrap it altogether.
This would have cut City revenue by over $3 million, and would mean higher costs to the city to monitor and treat pollution. (sometimes, it works)
Cost of Tax Evasion Revealed as Campaign to Tackle Tax Havens Launches | Canadians for Tax Fairness
Huge Cost of Tax Evasion Revealed as Campaign to Tackle Tax Havens Launches
In Canada an estimated $81 billion a year is lost to tax evasion in the ‘shadow economy’ - that is half of our total healthcare spending. Canada ranks 11th out of the 145 countries surveyed in total amount of tax evaded.
Tax havens are a major part of the tax evasion problem – and these new findings come as the Tax Justice Network launches Tackle Tax Havens, a new campaign that highlights the critical role that these secretive states play in corrupting the global economy.
The issue of tax collection is rising fast up the political and social agenda, as countries across the world make deep cuts in public spending in ways that hurt the poor and the middle classes the most.
This new research demonstrates how important it is to tackle tax evasion and the tax havens that help wealthy individuals and corporations escape from contributing to the services that directly benefit them - from the health and education systems that support their workforces, to the roads that ship their goods to markets, to the courts of law that enforce their contracts or to the police who protect their property.
But tax havens are not just about tax: they cause colossal damage on many fronts. Tackle Tax Havens aims to inform the public about the offshore system and the problems it causes -- and to show what we can do about it.
Africa as a whole loses the equivalent of 98% of its total healthcare budget to tax evasion
119 of the 145 countries surveyed are losing over half of their healthcare budget to tax evasion
In 67 countries, tax evasion losses are larger than their entire health budgets
In Bolivia, tax evasion is more than four times as large as that oil rich country's health spending.
In Russia, it is more than three times the size
In Greece and Italy, where economic collapse currently looks possible, more than €1 in €4 is hidden in the shadow economy
More than $1 in every $6 earned in the world is not subject to tax because those earning it have deliberately ensured that their income is hidden from the world’s tax authorities
In Canada an estimated $81 billion a year is lost to tax evasion in the ‘shadow economy’ - that is half of our total healthcare spending. Canada ranks 11th out of the 145 countries surveyed in total amount of tax evaded.
Tax havens are a major part of the tax evasion problem – and these new findings come as the Tax Justice Network launches Tackle Tax Havens, a new campaign that highlights the critical role that these secretive states play in corrupting the global economy.
The issue of tax collection is rising fast up the political and social agenda, as countries across the world make deep cuts in public spending in ways that hurt the poor and the middle classes the most.
This new research demonstrates how important it is to tackle tax evasion and the tax havens that help wealthy individuals and corporations escape from contributing to the services that directly benefit them - from the health and education systems that support their workforces, to the roads that ship their goods to markets, to the courts of law that enforce their contracts or to the police who protect their property.
But tax havens are not just about tax: they cause colossal damage on many fronts. Tackle Tax Havens aims to inform the public about the offshore system and the problems it causes -- and to show what we can do about it.
Africa as a whole loses the equivalent of 98% of its total healthcare budget to tax evasion
119 of the 145 countries surveyed are losing over half of their healthcare budget to tax evasion
In 67 countries, tax evasion losses are larger than their entire health budgets
In Bolivia, tax evasion is more than four times as large as that oil rich country's health spending.
In Russia, it is more than three times the size
In Greece and Italy, where economic collapse currently looks possible, more than €1 in €4 is hidden in the shadow economy
More than $1 in every $6 earned in the world is not subject to tax because those earning it have deliberately ensured that their income is hidden from the world’s tax authorities
Amnesty International's Global Write for Rights Dec 10
Amnesty International's Global Write-a-thon | Write for Rights Dec 10
Your words can be a SPOTLIGHT that exposes the dark corners of the torture chamber. They can bring POWER to a human rights defender whose life is in jeopardy. They can IGNITE hope in a forgotten prisoner.
Join hundreds of thousands of people around the world in marking International Human Rights Day this December 10 by taking part in Amnesty International's Write for Rights Global Write-a-thon - the world's largest human rights event. Through letters, cards and more, we take action to demand that the human rights of individuals are respected, protected and fulfilled. We show solidarity with those suffering human rights abuses, and work to bring about positive change in people's lives.
Sign up now to Write for Rights!
Your words can be a SPOTLIGHT that exposes the dark corners of the torture chamber. They can bring POWER to a human rights defender whose life is in jeopardy. They can IGNITE hope in a forgotten prisoner.
Join hundreds of thousands of people around the world in marking International Human Rights Day this December 10 by taking part in Amnesty International's Write for Rights Global Write-a-thon - the world's largest human rights event. Through letters, cards and more, we take action to demand that the human rights of individuals are respected, protected and fulfilled. We show solidarity with those suffering human rights abuses, and work to bring about positive change in people's lives.
Sign up now to Write for Rights!
Wednesday
Bernie Sanders confronts defense contractor fraud
Bernie Sanders confronts defense contractor fraud y
Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Senate floor Wednesday urged lawmakers to make the Pentagon fight against defense contractor fraud as they debated the National Defense Authorization Act.
“This country has a record breaking deficit and a $15 trillion national debt,” he said. “What many people do not know is that one of the reasons our deficit is as high as it is, is because there is a significant amount of fraud from defense contractors who sell their products to the Department of Defense.”
The Pentagon paid more than $1.1 trillion during the past decade to 37 contractors that had defrauded the Department of Defense, according to a report released in October. Another $255 million went to 54 defense contractors convicted of hard-core criminal fraud in the same period.
“I think the American people are very clear that when we pay a dollar for a product that goes to our military, we want to get a dollar’s worth of value,” Sanders continued. “That we do not want to see the taxpayers of this country or the Department of Defense ripped off by fraudulent contractors.”
Sanders has proposed an amendment to the annual defense bill that would require the Pentagon to step up its efforts to fight fraud and submit annual reports.
“What this amendment does is tell the DOD, ‘get your act together,’” he said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders on the Senate floor Wednesday urged lawmakers to make the Pentagon fight against defense contractor fraud as they debated the National Defense Authorization Act.
“This country has a record breaking deficit and a $15 trillion national debt,” he said. “What many people do not know is that one of the reasons our deficit is as high as it is, is because there is a significant amount of fraud from defense contractors who sell their products to the Department of Defense.”
The Pentagon paid more than $1.1 trillion during the past decade to 37 contractors that had defrauded the Department of Defense, according to a report released in October. Another $255 million went to 54 defense contractors convicted of hard-core criminal fraud in the same period.
“I think the American people are very clear that when we pay a dollar for a product that goes to our military, we want to get a dollar’s worth of value,” Sanders continued. “That we do not want to see the taxpayers of this country or the Department of Defense ripped off by fraudulent contractors.”
Sanders has proposed an amendment to the annual defense bill that would require the Pentagon to step up its efforts to fight fraud and submit annual reports.
“What this amendment does is tell the DOD, ‘get your act together,’” he said.
Ontario environmental commissioner criticizes lack of Great Lakes funding
NEWS: Ontario environmental commissioner criticizes lack of Great Lakes funding
Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller released his annual report today.
The Canadian Press says, “The report takes the province and federal government to task for allowing negotiations to clean up the Great Lakes drag on to the point where they ‘threaten to paralyze’ any more progress. ‘We’ve walked away, we’ve waned. Our commitment has been well short of their contribution, $2.2 billion on the American side,’ said Miller. ‘It’s very embarrassing for us because we’re not putting up anywhere near that kind of money.’ Miller also said it was no accident that the Ontario government is doing so little on the environment, calling it the goal of those who oppose environmental protections.”
In mid-September, during the last election, the Toronto Star reported that the provincial Liberals announced a $52 million plan to clean up the Great Lakes. In the June 2010 federal budget, the Harper government allocated $8 million a year to Environment Canada to “implement its action plan to protect the Great Lakes.” In Budget 2011, they announced an “additional $5 million over two years to improve near shore water and ecosystem health, and better address the presence of phosphorous in the Great Lakes.”
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper highlights these key excerpts from the Environment Commissioner’s report:
- “Chronic underfunding has been a key weakness of the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, with the dollars committed disproportionate to the scale of the challenges.” (p. 8 ) The ECO notes that Ontario gives $10-million per year towards a $3.5 billion restoration project while the U.S. has committed $2.2-billion over five year.
Ontario’s Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller released his annual report today.
The Canadian Press says, “The report takes the province and federal government to task for allowing negotiations to clean up the Great Lakes drag on to the point where they ‘threaten to paralyze’ any more progress. ‘We’ve walked away, we’ve waned. Our commitment has been well short of their contribution, $2.2 billion on the American side,’ said Miller. ‘It’s very embarrassing for us because we’re not putting up anywhere near that kind of money.’ Miller also said it was no accident that the Ontario government is doing so little on the environment, calling it the goal of those who oppose environmental protections.”
In mid-September, during the last election, the Toronto Star reported that the provincial Liberals announced a $52 million plan to clean up the Great Lakes. In the June 2010 federal budget, the Harper government allocated $8 million a year to Environment Canada to “implement its action plan to protect the Great Lakes.” In Budget 2011, they announced an “additional $5 million over two years to improve near shore water and ecosystem health, and better address the presence of phosphorous in the Great Lakes.”
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper highlights these key excerpts from the Environment Commissioner’s report:
- “Chronic underfunding has been a key weakness of the Canada-Ontario Agreement Respecting the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, with the dollars committed disproportionate to the scale of the challenges.” (p. 8 ) The ECO notes that Ontario gives $10-million per year towards a $3.5 billion restoration project while the U.S. has committed $2.2-billion over five year.
US agents in Canada under new border deal is ‘worrisome’
NEWS: Trew says US agents in Canada under new border deal is ‘worrisome’
The Toronto Star reports, “Armed U.S. police officers will for the first time be allowed to operate in Canada along with the RCMP as part of far-reaching changes in Canadian-American border operations to be unveiled next week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and President Barack Obama.”
“In contrast to the silence from Canadian negotiators, some U.S. officials have been open about what the new reality at the border will look like in the years ahead. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder revealed last fall that the deal will authorize Canada and the U.S. to designate officers who can take part in police investigations on both sides of the border. …The model for the joint policing program is the Shiprider project, a three-year-old plan under which the RCMP and U.S. Coast Guard join forces and ride in each others’ vessels when patrolling boundary waters. …(Shiprider) requires a Canadian officer to be in charge when the team of mixed U.S. and Canadian police are operating in Canada, and vice-versa on the American side.”
“Stuart Trew, trade campaigner with the Ottawa-based Council of Canadians, said further integration of Canada and U.S. police operations is worrisome at a time when Canadians are still waiting for the establishment of controls recommended (by the Arar Commission) on information-sharing by Canadian police and intelligence agencies. ‘The mechanism for holding the U.S. agents accountable is vague,’ he said of the joint policing project included in the border deal. ‘It’s difficult to know how you would file a complaint, for example, against a U.S. agent and whether there is any accountability in that respect.’”
“Besides security, the agreement expected to be announced in Washington on Dec. 7 will cover a wide range of measures on border infrastructure, harmonized product standards, intelligence-gathering and commercial transport.”
“In contrast to the silence from Canadian negotiators, some U.S. officials have been open about what the new reality at the border will look like in the years ahead. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder revealed last fall that the deal will authorize Canada and the U.S. to designate officers who can take part in police investigations on both sides of the border. …The model for the joint policing program is the Shiprider project, a three-year-old plan under which the RCMP and U.S. Coast Guard join forces and ride in each others’ vessels when patrolling boundary waters. …(Shiprider) requires a Canadian officer to be in charge when the team of mixed U.S. and Canadian police are operating in Canada, and vice-versa on the American side.”
“Stuart Trew, trade campaigner with the Ottawa-based Council of Canadians, said further integration of Canada and U.S. police operations is worrisome at a time when Canadians are still waiting for the establishment of controls recommended (by the Arar Commission) on information-sharing by Canadian police and intelligence agencies. ‘The mechanism for holding the U.S. agents accountable is vague,’ he said of the joint policing project included in the border deal. ‘It’s difficult to know how you would file a complaint, for example, against a U.S. agent and whether there is any accountability in that respect.’”
“Besides security, the agreement expected to be announced in Washington on Dec. 7 will cover a wide range of measures on border infrastructure, harmonized product standards, intelligence-gathering and commercial transport.”
Thursday
Medicinal tree used in chemotherapy drug faces extinction
Medicinal tree used in chemotherapy drug faces extinction |
species of Himalayan yew tree that is used to produce Taxol, a chemotherapy drug to treat cancer, is being pushed to the brink of extinction by over-harvesting for medicinal use and collection for fuel, scientists warned on Thursday.
The medicinal tree, Taxus contorta, found in Afghanistan, India and Nepal, has seen its conservation status change from "vulnerable" to "endangered" on the IUCN's annual "red list" of threatened species.
Taxol was discovered by a US National Cancer Institute programme in the late 1960s, isolated in the bark of the Pacific yew tree, Taxus brevifolia. All 11 species of yew have since been found to contain Taxol. "The harvesting of the bark kills the trees, but it is possible to extract Taxol from clippings, so harvesting, if properly controlled, can be less detrimental to the plants," said Craig Hilton-Taylor, IUCN red list unit manager.
"Harvest and trade should be carefully controlled to ensure it is sustainable, but plants should also be grown in cultivation to reduce the impact of harvesting on wild populations," he added.
The red list is currently the most detailed and authoritative survey of the planet's species, drawn from the work of thousands of scientists around the globe. For the first time, more than 61,900 species have been reviewed. The latest list categorises 801 species as extinct, 64 as extinct in the wild, and 9,568 as critically endangered or endangered. A further 10,002 species are vulnerable, with the main threats being overuse, pollution, habitat loss and degradation.
species of Himalayan yew tree that is used to produce Taxol, a chemotherapy drug to treat cancer, is being pushed to the brink of extinction by over-harvesting for medicinal use and collection for fuel, scientists warned on Thursday.
The medicinal tree, Taxus contorta, found in Afghanistan, India and Nepal, has seen its conservation status change from "vulnerable" to "endangered" on the IUCN's annual "red list" of threatened species.
Taxol was discovered by a US National Cancer Institute programme in the late 1960s, isolated in the bark of the Pacific yew tree, Taxus brevifolia. All 11 species of yew have since been found to contain Taxol. "The harvesting of the bark kills the trees, but it is possible to extract Taxol from clippings, so harvesting, if properly controlled, can be less detrimental to the plants," said Craig Hilton-Taylor, IUCN red list unit manager.
"Harvest and trade should be carefully controlled to ensure it is sustainable, but plants should also be grown in cultivation to reduce the impact of harvesting on wild populations," he added.
The red list is currently the most detailed and authoritative survey of the planet's species, drawn from the work of thousands of scientists around the globe. For the first time, more than 61,900 species have been reviewed. The latest list categorises 801 species as extinct, 64 as extinct in the wild, and 9,568 as critically endangered or endangered. A further 10,002 species are vulnerable, with the main threats being overuse, pollution, habitat loss and degradation.
World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns
World headed for irreversible climate change in five years, IEA warns
The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.
Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this "lock-in" effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world's foremost authority on energy economics has found. If this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous.
"The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."
If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world's existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that "carbon budget", according to the IEA's analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.
If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available "carbon budget" will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA's calculations.
The world is likely to build so many fossil-fuelled power stations, energy-guzzling factories and inefficient buildings in the next five years that it will become impossible to hold global warming to safe levels, and the last chance of combating dangerous climate change will be "lost for ever", according to the most thorough analysis yet of world energy infrastructure.
Anything built from now on that produces carbon will do so for decades, and this "lock-in" effect will be the single factor most likely to produce irreversible climate change, the world's foremost authority on energy economics has found. If this is not rapidly changed within the next five years, the results are likely to be disastrous.
"The door is closing," Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said. "I am very worried – if we don't change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum [for safety]. The door will be closed forever."
If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world's existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that "carbon budget", according to the IEA's analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.
If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available "carbon budget" will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA's calculations.
Wednesday
Not a good neighbor: fracking industry admits to waging war on communities
Not a good neighbor: fracking industry admits to waging war on communities | EARTHblog
For a long time, the hydraulic fracturing-enabled drilling industry has been fighting a war to be accepted in communities around the country.
They've been losing the war.
That is, the more they've operated, the more they've polluted, and the worse name they've received. Thanks to the good work of community groups, Josh Fox, DeSmogBlog, ProPublica, the New York Times, and many, many others, the word has gotten out that you allow the drilling industry into your community at the peril of your drinking water, clean air, and the very fabric of your community.
So industry was (and still is) faced with a choice: Start acting as a good neighbor really would and behave responsibly by -- keeping the community fully informed, proactively, about what you're doing; seeking to comply, not evade environmental laws that do (and should) apply to gas drilling and production, etc., OR Double down on fighting the war
With the Media & Stakeholder Relations Hydraulic Fracturing 2011 Initiative, held 10/31 & 11/1 in Houston, the fracking industry chose the latter.
We know this because Earthworks sent our Texas/Gulf Regional Organizer Sharon Wilson to the conference as a paid attendee, openly and honestly, to listen to what they had to say.
What she learned: the fracking industry regards the fight to get access to communities as a real war, not a figurative one. And they are acting accordingly. As reported in today's CNBC story, Oil Executive: Military-Style 'Psy Ops' Experience Applied, industry PR heads recommend employing the tactics of the U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Manual. They also recommend (and do) employ ex-military "psy-ops" personnel on the ground within communities. In other words, the fracking industry is using tactics developed to wage war on our nation's enemies on the communities they want to drill.
As Sharon put it, "they view this as an occupation." And occupiers, all protestations to the contrary, are not neighbors. Not even bad ones. They are adversaries.
UPDATE: A reminder that communities have been experiencing these tactics on the ground for years. The only thing new here is that they've admitted it publicly. For example, earlier this year This American Life did an excellent piece on Pennsylvania's experience with fracking -- including "divide and conquer" tactics at the community level.
For a long time, the hydraulic fracturing-enabled drilling industry has been fighting a war to be accepted in communities around the country.
They've been losing the war.
That is, the more they've operated, the more they've polluted, and the worse name they've received. Thanks to the good work of community groups, Josh Fox, DeSmogBlog, ProPublica, the New York Times, and many, many others, the word has gotten out that you allow the drilling industry into your community at the peril of your drinking water, clean air, and the very fabric of your community.
So industry was (and still is) faced with a choice: Start acting as a good neighbor really would and behave responsibly by -- keeping the community fully informed, proactively, about what you're doing; seeking to comply, not evade environmental laws that do (and should) apply to gas drilling and production, etc., OR Double down on fighting the war
With the Media & Stakeholder Relations Hydraulic Fracturing 2011 Initiative, held 10/31 & 11/1 in Houston, the fracking industry chose the latter.
We know this because Earthworks sent our Texas/Gulf Regional Organizer Sharon Wilson to the conference as a paid attendee, openly and honestly, to listen to what they had to say.
What she learned: the fracking industry regards the fight to get access to communities as a real war, not a figurative one. And they are acting accordingly. As reported in today's CNBC story, Oil Executive: Military-Style 'Psy Ops' Experience Applied, industry PR heads recommend employing the tactics of the U.S. Army Counterinsurgency Manual. They also recommend (and do) employ ex-military "psy-ops" personnel on the ground within communities. In other words, the fracking industry is using tactics developed to wage war on our nation's enemies on the communities they want to drill.
As Sharon put it, "they view this as an occupation." And occupiers, all protestations to the contrary, are not neighbors. Not even bad ones. They are adversaries.
UPDATE: A reminder that communities have been experiencing these tactics on the ground for years. The only thing new here is that they've admitted it publicly. For example, earlier this year This American Life did an excellent piece on Pennsylvania's experience with fracking -- including "divide and conquer" tactics at the community level.
'Yes We Can, Stop The Pipeline'
'Yes We Can, Stop The Pipeline'
(actually REPORTED by the Republican-leaning AP)
Thousands of protesters opposing a controversial oil pipeline project rallied around the White House on Sunday. Canadian company TransCanada is seeking permission to build the 1,600-mile Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast in Texas. Environmental groups say that extracting oil from the sands would generate huge greenhouse gas emissions, and that any accident on the route could be disastrous.
Protesters shouted "yes we can, stop the pipeline," the AP reports, and some carried an inflatable oil pipeline.
(actually REPORTED by the Republican-leaning AP)
Thousands of protesters opposing a controversial oil pipeline project rallied around the White House on Sunday. Canadian company TransCanada is seeking permission to build the 1,600-mile Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast in Texas. Environmental groups say that extracting oil from the sands would generate huge greenhouse gas emissions, and that any accident on the route could be disastrous.
Protesters shouted "yes we can, stop the pipeline," the AP reports, and some carried an inflatable oil pipeline.
Monday
Iran called to account on LGBT repression at UN | Care2 Causes
Iran called to account on LGBT repression at UN
For the first time, Iran has been called to account for its repression of LGBT people at the United Nations.
In the Concluding Observations [PDF] on November 3 from its 3rd periodic review of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has made clear that the government’s conduct amounts to a violation of the international laws that it has agreed to uphold.
“As a state that prides itself in tradition and morality, Iran must now take immediate action to ensure its definitions of tradition and morality are in accordance with the fundamental principles of international human rights law,” UNHRC said.
“For years, Iranian authorities have committed atrocities against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, incited violence by others, and refused to admit that LGBT Iranians exist,” said Hossein Alizadeh, Regional Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC).
The UNHRC meets three times a year for four week sessions to consider the five-yearly reports submitted by 162 UN member states on their compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (ICCPR).
The Committee has asked the Iranian government to widely circulate their Concluding Observations to the Iranian judiciary, government and civil society. After consulting with civil society, the government must submit a progress report about the implementation of the recommendations included in the Committee’s Concluding Observations. The Committee has specifically asked the Iranian government to include detailed information on the enjoyment of Covenant rights by members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in its next periodic review.
The Committee urged the government of Iran to repeal or amend legislation that “could result in the discrimination, prosecution and punishment of people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” There is a range of discriminatory laws in Iran, among them laws criminalizing homosexual sex and punishing it with death.
The number of executions of gay people in Iran is opaque because trials on moral charges are usually held on camera, so it is difficult to determine, Human Rights Watch said in a report last December, what proportion of those charged and executed for same-sex conduct are LGBT and in what proportion the alleged offense was consensual. The Iranian government maintains that “most of these individuals have been charged for forcible sodomy or rape.” However, in just one report, by Doug Ireland in December 2009, twelve men were facing execution for sodomy and a joint appeal had been made for them by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO), and COC of the Netherlands. Iranian media reported the execution of three men for sodomy in September.
The Human Rights Committee said, however, that:
“Even one person incarcerated [on account of freely and mutually agreed sexual activities or sexual orientation] constitutes a violation of fundamental rights to privacy and non-discrimination.”
The questioning of whether LGBT people actually are executed — or even persecuted at all — has led those judging Iranian LGBTs seeking refuge in Western countries to argue that it is possible to ‘live discreetly’ there without suffering consequences.
IGLHRC and the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO) submitted a joint Shadow Report to the UNHRC entitled Human Rights Violations on the Basis of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Homosexuality in the Islamic Republic of Iran and testified before the Committee.
In September, Saghi Ghahraman of IRQO wrote:
Right after the revolution, execution of Gay and Transsexuals began, by the ruling clergies, illegally; it was legalized in 1995 – two decades after the revolution – when Shari’a law, Islam’s Code of Conduct, legally replaced Iran’s penal code.
Article 110 – executions based on sodomy; Article 130 – executions based on lesbianism; Article 220 – granting fathers the right to kill their children, recognizing fathers as blood-owners of their own children, turned State and Society, equally, into executioners of gays, lesbians, bi, and transsexual population, and also the heterosexuals; clergies have used sodomy laws against those prisoners who couldn’t be executed or persecuted otherwise.
Shari’a law is not only responsible for killing of LGBT members of society in Iran, it is also the basis of generations of LGBT’s lack of parenting, education, carrier, housing, and overall security and safety.
The fact that no LGBT Iranian dares to introduce themselves as L, G, B or T by their own voice, face, name is because of the fear-mongering articles of Shari’s sodomy law.
Living as a Queer woman over 50 years, a Queer poet over 20 years, directing a LGBT advocacy organization over five years, I have been witness to the horror the community in Iran goes through, everyday, not only by way of murders and executions but in everyday life of Not Living a simple, decent, dignified life human beings deserve in the realm in the Age of Democracy and Human Rights. And I am not talking only about those of our children who are disadvantaged and deprived, but also about gay professors, TS engineers, lesbian and gay specialist medical doctors, gay and lesbian poets, writers, artists, journalists and more, of highly accomplished status, all working inside Iran, who are victims in the hand of a hostile set of laws, and are most vulnerable.
I would like to offer the government of Iran to give account and explanation for violations of LGBT human rights. Or, to replace the primitive penal code of Shari’a law with constitutions based on 21st century human rights. Or if either is not doable, I would like to suggest that Mr. Ahmadinejad, the head of state of Iran, in his trips to the UN, travel to the USA on the back of a camel. After all, we, the LGBT of Iran shouldn’t be only ones treated with the mind-set of the dark-ages of 1400 years back in history.
For the first time, Iran has been called to account for its repression of LGBT people at the United Nations.
In the Concluding Observations [PDF] on November 3 from its 3rd periodic review of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has made clear that the government’s conduct amounts to a violation of the international laws that it has agreed to uphold.
“As a state that prides itself in tradition and morality, Iran must now take immediate action to ensure its definitions of tradition and morality are in accordance with the fundamental principles of international human rights law,” UNHRC said.
“For years, Iranian authorities have committed atrocities against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, incited violence by others, and refused to admit that LGBT Iranians exist,” said Hossein Alizadeh, Regional Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC).
The UNHRC meets three times a year for four week sessions to consider the five-yearly reports submitted by 162 UN member states on their compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (ICCPR).
The Committee has asked the Iranian government to widely circulate their Concluding Observations to the Iranian judiciary, government and civil society. After consulting with civil society, the government must submit a progress report about the implementation of the recommendations included in the Committee’s Concluding Observations. The Committee has specifically asked the Iranian government to include detailed information on the enjoyment of Covenant rights by members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in its next periodic review.
The Committee urged the government of Iran to repeal or amend legislation that “could result in the discrimination, prosecution and punishment of people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” There is a range of discriminatory laws in Iran, among them laws criminalizing homosexual sex and punishing it with death.
The number of executions of gay people in Iran is opaque because trials on moral charges are usually held on camera, so it is difficult to determine, Human Rights Watch said in a report last December, what proportion of those charged and executed for same-sex conduct are LGBT and in what proportion the alleged offense was consensual. The Iranian government maintains that “most of these individuals have been charged for forcible sodomy or rape.” However, in just one report, by Doug Ireland in December 2009, twelve men were facing execution for sodomy and a joint appeal had been made for them by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO), and COC of the Netherlands. Iranian media reported the execution of three men for sodomy in September.
The Human Rights Committee said, however, that:
“Even one person incarcerated [on account of freely and mutually agreed sexual activities or sexual orientation] constitutes a violation of fundamental rights to privacy and non-discrimination.”
The questioning of whether LGBT people actually are executed — or even persecuted at all — has led those judging Iranian LGBTs seeking refuge in Western countries to argue that it is possible to ‘live discreetly’ there without suffering consequences.
IGLHRC and the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO) submitted a joint Shadow Report to the UNHRC entitled Human Rights Violations on the Basis of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Homosexuality in the Islamic Republic of Iran and testified before the Committee.
In September, Saghi Ghahraman of IRQO wrote:
Right after the revolution, execution of Gay and Transsexuals began, by the ruling clergies, illegally; it was legalized in 1995 – two decades after the revolution – when Shari’a law, Islam’s Code of Conduct, legally replaced Iran’s penal code.
Article 110 – executions based on sodomy; Article 130 – executions based on lesbianism; Article 220 – granting fathers the right to kill their children, recognizing fathers as blood-owners of their own children, turned State and Society, equally, into executioners of gays, lesbians, bi, and transsexual population, and also the heterosexuals; clergies have used sodomy laws against those prisoners who couldn’t be executed or persecuted otherwise.
Shari’a law is not only responsible for killing of LGBT members of society in Iran, it is also the basis of generations of LGBT’s lack of parenting, education, carrier, housing, and overall security and safety.
The fact that no LGBT Iranian dares to introduce themselves as L, G, B or T by their own voice, face, name is because of the fear-mongering articles of Shari’s sodomy law.
Living as a Queer woman over 50 years, a Queer poet over 20 years, directing a LGBT advocacy organization over five years, I have been witness to the horror the community in Iran goes through, everyday, not only by way of murders and executions but in everyday life of Not Living a simple, decent, dignified life human beings deserve in the realm in the Age of Democracy and Human Rights. And I am not talking only about those of our children who are disadvantaged and deprived, but also about gay professors, TS engineers, lesbian and gay specialist medical doctors, gay and lesbian poets, writers, artists, journalists and more, of highly accomplished status, all working inside Iran, who are victims in the hand of a hostile set of laws, and are most vulnerable.
I would like to offer the government of Iran to give account and explanation for violations of LGBT human rights. Or, to replace the primitive penal code of Shari’a law with constitutions based on 21st century human rights. Or if either is not doable, I would like to suggest that Mr. Ahmadinejad, the head of state of Iran, in his trips to the UN, travel to the USA on the back of a camel. After all, we, the LGBT of Iran shouldn’t be only ones treated with the mind-set of the dark-ages of 1400 years back in history.
Iran called to account on LGBT repression at UN
Iran called to account on LGBT repression at UN
For the first time, Iran has been called to account for its repression of LGBT people at the United Nations.
In the Concluding Observations [PDF] on November 3 from its 3rd periodic review of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has made clear that the government’s conduct amounts to a violation of the international laws that it has agreed to uphold.
“As a state that prides itself in tradition and morality, Iran must now take immediate action to ensure its definitions of tradition and morality are in accordance with the fundamental principles of international human rights law,” UNHRC said.
“For years, Iranian authorities have committed atrocities against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, incited violence by others, and refused to admit that LGBT Iranians exist,” said Hossein Alizadeh, Regional Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC).
The UNHRC meets three times a year for four week sessions to consider the five-yearly reports submitted by 162 UN member states on their compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (ICCPR).
The Committee has asked the Iranian government to widely circulate their Concluding Observations to the Iranian judiciary, government and civil society. After consulting with civil society, the government must submit a progress report about the implementation of the recommendations included in the Committee’s Concluding Observations. The Committee has specifically asked the Iranian government to include detailed information on the enjoyment of Covenant rights by members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in its next periodic review.
The Committee urged the government of Iran to repeal or amend legislation that “could result in the discrimination, prosecution and punishment of people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” There is a range of discriminatory laws in Iran, among them laws criminalizing homosexual sex and punishing it with death.
The number of executions of gay people in Iran is opaque because trials on moral charges are usually held on camera, so it is difficult to determine, Human Rights Watch said in a report last December, what proportion of those charged and executed for same-sex conduct are LGBT and in what proportion the alleged offense was consensual. The Iranian government maintains that “most of these individuals have been charged for forcible sodomy or rape.” However, in just one report, by Doug Ireland in December 2009, twelve men were facing execution for sodomy and a joint appeal had been made for them by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO), and COC of the Netherlands. Iranian media reported the execution of three men for sodomy in September.
The Human Rights Committee said, however, that:
“Even one person incarcerated [on account of freely and mutually agreed sexual activities or sexual orientation] constitutes a violation of fundamental rights to privacy and non-discrimination.”
For the first time, Iran has been called to account for its repression of LGBT people at the United Nations.
In the Concluding Observations [PDF] on November 3 from its 3rd periodic review of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has made clear that the government’s conduct amounts to a violation of the international laws that it has agreed to uphold.
“As a state that prides itself in tradition and morality, Iran must now take immediate action to ensure its definitions of tradition and morality are in accordance with the fundamental principles of international human rights law,” UNHRC said.
“For years, Iranian authorities have committed atrocities against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, incited violence by others, and refused to admit that LGBT Iranians exist,” said Hossein Alizadeh, Regional Coordinator for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC).
The UNHRC meets three times a year for four week sessions to consider the five-yearly reports submitted by 162 UN member states on their compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, (ICCPR).
The Committee has asked the Iranian government to widely circulate their Concluding Observations to the Iranian judiciary, government and civil society. After consulting with civil society, the government must submit a progress report about the implementation of the recommendations included in the Committee’s Concluding Observations. The Committee has specifically asked the Iranian government to include detailed information on the enjoyment of Covenant rights by members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community in its next periodic review.
The Committee urged the government of Iran to repeal or amend legislation that “could result in the discrimination, prosecution and punishment of people because of their sexual orientation or gender identity.” There is a range of discriminatory laws in Iran, among them laws criminalizing homosexual sex and punishing it with death.
The number of executions of gay people in Iran is opaque because trials on moral charges are usually held on camera, so it is difficult to determine, Human Rights Watch said in a report last December, what proportion of those charged and executed for same-sex conduct are LGBT and in what proportion the alleged offense was consensual. The Iranian government maintains that “most of these individuals have been charged for forcible sodomy or rape.” However, in just one report, by Doug Ireland in December 2009, twelve men were facing execution for sodomy and a joint appeal had been made for them by the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC), the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO), and COC of the Netherlands. Iranian media reported the execution of three men for sodomy in September.
The Human Rights Committee said, however, that:
“Even one person incarcerated [on account of freely and mutually agreed sexual activities or sexual orientation] constitutes a violation of fundamental rights to privacy and non-discrimination.”
Wednesday
Industry Sources Admit Keystone XL Key to Tar Sands Development | Tar Sands Action
Industry Sources Admit Keystone XL Key to Tar Sands Development | Tar Sands Action
“The signs are there: the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline has festered into an uncomfortable election issue for the U.S. president, Barack Obama.
The upshot for Canada: a decision on whether to grant a Presidential permit, promised by year end, could once again be delayed.
The reality is that anything short of a go-ahead in December for Keystone XL would plunge the oil sands sector into disarray until new solutions move forward. The worst-case scenario? Stranded oil sands — for years.
Keystone XL, with a capacity to carry up to 830,000 barrels a day from Alberta to Texas, was due for startup in early 2013. There is no backup on the same scale or timeline.”
“The signs are there: the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline has festered into an uncomfortable election issue for the U.S. president, Barack Obama.
The upshot for Canada: a decision on whether to grant a Presidential permit, promised by year end, could once again be delayed.
The reality is that anything short of a go-ahead in December for Keystone XL would plunge the oil sands sector into disarray until new solutions move forward. The worst-case scenario? Stranded oil sands — for years.
Keystone XL, with a capacity to carry up to 830,000 barrels a day from Alberta to Texas, was due for startup in early 2013. There is no backup on the same scale or timeline.”
Tar Sands Action - Obama finally speaks...
Tar Sands Action (WOW - a 'crack in the line'?? Certainly Harper will NOT pleased....)
Yesterday President Obama made his first comments about the Keystone XL pipeline. Take a minute to read what he told a Nebraska television station that asked him about the pipeline:
The State Department’s in charge of analyzing this, because there’s a pipeline coming in from Canada. They’ll be giving me a report over the next several months, and, you know, my general attitude is, what is best for the American people? What’s best for our economy both short term and long term? But also, what’s best for the health of the American people?
When pressed about how the potential for new jobs plays in to his decision, President Obama said:
"I think folks in Nebraska, like all across the country, aren’t going to say to themselves, “We’ll take a few thousand jobs if it means that our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health ..."
Getting the President to step up and own this decision is an important victory that would not be possible without your hard work. We've come a long way from a few dozen people sitting in on the hot August concrete outside the White House.
Of course, the fight continues: the President has said that this is his decision, which means we need to make sure he stands up to the pressure from big oil and rejects the pipeline. Now that we know the President is paying attention, it's important to speak loud and clear. We'll be taking that same message to him this Sunday when thousands of people join hands and surround the White House. (
In a reasonable world, the President's statements yesterday would mean the end of this pipeline. After all, he ran as a candidate with the hope to end the tyranny of oil, and if this is his decision, there should be no question about what he should do.
But big oil is already waging a huge misinformation and lobbying campaign to get this thing through, and the pressure will only get more intense in the coming weeks. We need to let the president know that he has the support he needs to reject the pipeline, and that there will be real consequences if he doesn't.
Yesterday President Obama made his first comments about the Keystone XL pipeline. Take a minute to read what he told a Nebraska television station that asked him about the pipeline:
The State Department’s in charge of analyzing this, because there’s a pipeline coming in from Canada. They’ll be giving me a report over the next several months, and, you know, my general attitude is, what is best for the American people? What’s best for our economy both short term and long term? But also, what’s best for the health of the American people?
When pressed about how the potential for new jobs plays in to his decision, President Obama said:
"I think folks in Nebraska, like all across the country, aren’t going to say to themselves, “We’ll take a few thousand jobs if it means that our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health ..."
Getting the President to step up and own this decision is an important victory that would not be possible without your hard work. We've come a long way from a few dozen people sitting in on the hot August concrete outside the White House.
Of course, the fight continues: the President has said that this is his decision, which means we need to make sure he stands up to the pressure from big oil and rejects the pipeline. Now that we know the President is paying attention, it's important to speak loud and clear. We'll be taking that same message to him this Sunday when thousands of people join hands and surround the White House. (
In a reasonable world, the President's statements yesterday would mean the end of this pipeline. After all, he ran as a candidate with the hope to end the tyranny of oil, and if this is his decision, there should be no question about what he should do.
But big oil is already waging a huge misinformation and lobbying campaign to get this thing through, and the pressure will only get more intense in the coming weeks. We need to let the president know that he has the support he needs to reject the pipeline, and that there will be real consequences if he doesn't.
Tuesday
Baird ‘not happy’ with UNESCO vote on Palestine
NEWS: Baird ‘not happy’ with UNESCO vote on Palestine
Agence France Presse reports, “Canada is ‘not happy’ with the vote to grant UNESCO membership to the Palestinians and will reconsider its participation in the UN cultural body, Foreign Minister John Baird said Monday. The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on Monday adopted a resolution to admit Palestine, with 107 countries voting in favor, 14 including the United States and Canada voting against, and 52 abstaining. ‘We are not happy with UNESCO’s decision. We are working to determine what our response will be,’ Baird told reporters. ‘We are in the process of evaluating our future participation’ in UNESCO, he added…”
The stated purpose of UNESCO is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the United Nations Charter. Projects sponsored by UNESCO include literacy, technical, and teacher-training programmes; the promotion of independent media and freedom of the press; the preserving of world heritage sites; regional and cultural history projects; and to preserve human rights.
UNESCO also funds the International Hydrological Programme, a scientific programme that focuses on the use and availability of water.
Baird’s comments imply Canada may withdraw its annual $12 million contribution to UNESCO. The United States has already announced it will withdraw a $60 million contribution to UNESCO as a result of the vote to grant UNESCO membership to Palestine.
The Gaza Strip is one of the territorial units forming the Palestinian territories. At our annual general meeting in Montreal on October 23, the Council of Canadians passed a resolution resolving that the Council of Canadians: support the Canadian Boat to Gaza to end the illegal blockade of Gaza; call on the Government of Canada, the United Nations and the international community to do everything in their power to ensure the safe passage of the Canadian Boat to Gaza and the safety of all those aboard; call for an end to the blockade of Gaza, in accordance with international law.
Agence France Presse reports, “Canada is ‘not happy’ with the vote to grant UNESCO membership to the Palestinians and will reconsider its participation in the UN cultural body, Foreign Minister John Baird said Monday. The UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on Monday adopted a resolution to admit Palestine, with 107 countries voting in favor, 14 including the United States and Canada voting against, and 52 abstaining. ‘We are not happy with UNESCO’s decision. We are working to determine what our response will be,’ Baird told reporters. ‘We are in the process of evaluating our future participation’ in UNESCO, he added…”
The stated purpose of UNESCO is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights along with fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the United Nations Charter. Projects sponsored by UNESCO include literacy, technical, and teacher-training programmes; the promotion of independent media and freedom of the press; the preserving of world heritage sites; regional and cultural history projects; and to preserve human rights.
UNESCO also funds the International Hydrological Programme, a scientific programme that focuses on the use and availability of water.
Baird’s comments imply Canada may withdraw its annual $12 million contribution to UNESCO. The United States has already announced it will withdraw a $60 million contribution to UNESCO as a result of the vote to grant UNESCO membership to Palestine.
The Gaza Strip is one of the territorial units forming the Palestinian territories. At our annual general meeting in Montreal on October 23, the Council of Canadians passed a resolution resolving that the Council of Canadians: support the Canadian Boat to Gaza to end the illegal blockade of Gaza; call on the Government of Canada, the United Nations and the international community to do everything in their power to ensure the safe passage of the Canadian Boat to Gaza and the safety of all those aboard; call for an end to the blockade of Gaza, in accordance with international law.
WIN! Niagra-on-the-Lake calls for moratorium on treating fracking wastewater in the Great Lakes Basin
WIN! Niagra-on-the-Lake calls for moratorium on treating fracking wastewater in the Great Lakes Basin
WIN! Niagra-on-the-Lake calls for moratorium on treating fracking wastewater in the Great Lakes Basin
By Brent Patterson, Monday, October 31st, 2011
Last week, the Council of Canadians issued an action alert asking for your support on a motion to be heard at Niagara-on-the-Lake town council this evening. The motion called for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and the treatment of fracking wastewater within the Great Lakes Basin. It was sparked by concern about the Niagara Falls (New York) Water Board’s move to explore treating fracking wastewater in Niagara Falls’ wastewater treatment system.
Late this evening we received word from Councillor Jamie King - who introduced the motion - that the motion was just passed unanimously by council!
Niagara-on-the-Lake is a town located in southern Ontario where the Niagara River meets Lake Ontario. It has a population of about 15,000 people. Niagara Falls, where it has been proposed that a specialized wastewater facility could treat fracking wastewater, is also situated on the Niagara River, which drains Lake Erie into Lake Ontario.
Our thanks go to Councillor King and all councillors, and to everyone who called the mayor and their city councillor to ask them to support this motion.
This motion will be brought to the attention of the Niagara Falls Water Board, which meets next on November 17.
The action alert that was widely distributed starting on October 28 can be read here
WIN! Niagra-on-the-Lake calls for moratorium on treating fracking wastewater in the Great Lakes Basin
By Brent Patterson, Monday, October 31st, 2011
Last week, the Council of Canadians issued an action alert asking for your support on a motion to be heard at Niagara-on-the-Lake town council this evening. The motion called for a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing and the treatment of fracking wastewater within the Great Lakes Basin. It was sparked by concern about the Niagara Falls (New York) Water Board’s move to explore treating fracking wastewater in Niagara Falls’ wastewater treatment system.
Late this evening we received word from Councillor Jamie King - who introduced the motion - that the motion was just passed unanimously by council!
Niagara-on-the-Lake is a town located in southern Ontario where the Niagara River meets Lake Ontario. It has a population of about 15,000 people. Niagara Falls, where it has been proposed that a specialized wastewater facility could treat fracking wastewater, is also situated on the Niagara River, which drains Lake Erie into Lake Ontario.
Our thanks go to Councillor King and all councillors, and to everyone who called the mayor and their city councillor to ask them to support this motion.
This motion will be brought to the attention of the Niagara Falls Water Board, which meets next on November 17.
The action alert that was widely distributed starting on October 28 can be read here
Friday
Amnesty USA: Don't let Congress legislate torture or keep Guantanamo open
Take Action Now - Amnesty International USA
Our Senators are on the verge of passing legislation -- the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, S. 1253) -- with provisions that would essentially keep Guantanamo open indefinitely, despite President Obama's executive order to close it.
If that weren't bad enough, Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) may introduce a provision that would bring back "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- which means torture.
The US Senate is poised to pass legislation containing provisions that would keep Guantanamo open, further entrenching indefinite detention and unfair trials. The Senate could vote at any time. To make matters worse, Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) may introduce a provision that would enshrine “enhanced interrogation techniques”--that’s right, torture—in US law. The implications are staggering. We can’t let any of these provisions pass. Urge Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Carl Levin (D-MI), to use their influence to block any such provisions and take a stand for human rights and the rule of law.
Our Senators are on the verge of passing legislation -- the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA, S. 1253) -- with provisions that would essentially keep Guantanamo open indefinitely, despite President Obama's executive order to close it.
If that weren't bad enough, Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) may introduce a provision that would bring back "enhanced interrogation techniques" -- which means torture.
The US Senate is poised to pass legislation containing provisions that would keep Guantanamo open, further entrenching indefinite detention and unfair trials. The Senate could vote at any time. To make matters worse, Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) may introduce a provision that would enshrine “enhanced interrogation techniques”--that’s right, torture—in US law. The implications are staggering. We can’t let any of these provisions pass. Urge Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and Carl Levin (D-MI), to use their influence to block any such provisions and take a stand for human rights and the rule of law.
Thursday
Council says Niagara Falls fracking plans threaten Toronto’s drinking water
NEWS: Council says Niagara Falls fracking plans threaten Toronto’s drinking water
The Toronto Star reports, “Toronto’s drinking water could be at risk due to a recent proposal to treat toxic waste at a plant on the New York side of Lake Ontario. The Niagara Falls Water Board is exploring the possibility of treating excess fluid from fracking in the Adirondacks. The chemical-laden liquid would be transported to an existing waste water plant (in Niagara Falls, New York) along the shores of Lake Ontario, home to an expansive ecosystem and the source of drinking water for more than 9 million people. …The Council of Canadians issued a letter to the board on Thursday, suggesting waste water facilities are rarely able to fully decontaminate fracking fluid.”
The CBC adds, “The Council of Canadians has written to the board, expressing concerns that fracking water will end up flowing into Lake Ontario via the Niagara River.
....Though not noted in this CBC new report, we know that Toronto mayor Rob Ford told the reporter that the proposed treatment of fracking fluids at the wastewater plant in Niagara Falls, NY would not affect Toronto because the Niagara River flows south away from Lake Ontario. Council of Canadians Great Lakes campaigner Emma Lui highlighted to the reporter that, in fact, the Niagara River flows north into Lake Ontario!
The Toronto Star reports, “Toronto’s drinking water could be at risk due to a recent proposal to treat toxic waste at a plant on the New York side of Lake Ontario. The Niagara Falls Water Board is exploring the possibility of treating excess fluid from fracking in the Adirondacks. The chemical-laden liquid would be transported to an existing waste water plant (in Niagara Falls, New York) along the shores of Lake Ontario, home to an expansive ecosystem and the source of drinking water for more than 9 million people. …The Council of Canadians issued a letter to the board on Thursday, suggesting waste water facilities are rarely able to fully decontaminate fracking fluid.”
The CBC adds, “The Council of Canadians has written to the board, expressing concerns that fracking water will end up flowing into Lake Ontario via the Niagara River.
....Though not noted in this CBC new report, we know that Toronto mayor Rob Ford told the reporter that the proposed treatment of fracking fluids at the wastewater plant in Niagara Falls, NY would not affect Toronto because the Niagara River flows south away from Lake Ontario. Council of Canadians Great Lakes campaigner Emma Lui highlighted to the reporter that, in fact, the Niagara River flows north into Lake Ontario!
Wednesday
Eight Nobel Peace Laureates call on Harper to take action on the tar sands
UPDATE: Eight Nobel Peace Laureates call on Harper to take action on the tar sands
“Eight Nobel Peace Laureates - including Archbishop Desmond Tutu (South Africa), Jody Williams (USA), President Ramos Horta (Timor) and Shirin Ebadi (Iran) - today sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper calling on him to ensure that Canada moves towards a clean energy future—and halts the expansion of the tar sands. …The letter comes two days after Canadians from across the country gathered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to risk arrest in an act of nonviolent civil disobedience to protest the rapid expansion of the tar sands and Prime Minister Harper’s inaction on climate change. The Laureates recognize the power of peaceful civil disobedience in advancing many of the great moral challenges in human history.”
“Eight Nobel Peace Laureates - including Archbishop Desmond Tutu (South Africa), Jody Williams (USA), President Ramos Horta (Timor) and Shirin Ebadi (Iran) - today sent a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper calling on him to ensure that Canada moves towards a clean energy future—and halts the expansion of the tar sands. …The letter comes two days after Canadians from across the country gathered on Parliament Hill in Ottawa to risk arrest in an act of nonviolent civil disobedience to protest the rapid expansion of the tar sands and Prime Minister Harper’s inaction on climate change. The Laureates recognize the power of peaceful civil disobedience in advancing many of the great moral challenges in human history.”
Bolivia: Stop the Amazon Highway
Avaaz - Bolivia: Stop the Amazon Highway
On Sunday, Bolivian police used tear gas and truncheons to crack down on indigenous men, women and children who are marching against an illegal mega-highway that will slice through the protected Amazon rainforest.
72 hours later, the country is in crisis -- two key Ministers have resigned, Bolivians are erupting in street protests across the country, and President Evo Morales has been forced to temporarily suspend the highway construction. But powerful multinationals are already divvying up this important nature preserve. Now, only if the world stands with these brave indigenous people can we ensure the highway is rerouted and the forest is protected.
Avaaz just delivered a 115,000 strong Bolivian and Latin American emergency petition to two senior government Ministers -- they are worried about massive public pressure and are on the back foot. Now after this brutal violence let's ramp up the pressure and raise a global alarm to end the crackdown and stop the highway. Sign the urgent petition -- it will be delivered spectacularly to President Evo Morales when we reach 500,000.
On Sunday, Bolivian police used tear gas and truncheons to crack down on indigenous men, women and children who are marching against an illegal mega-highway that will slice through the protected Amazon rainforest.
72 hours later, the country is in crisis -- two key Ministers have resigned, Bolivians are erupting in street protests across the country, and President Evo Morales has been forced to temporarily suspend the highway construction. But powerful multinationals are already divvying up this important nature preserve. Now, only if the world stands with these brave indigenous people can we ensure the highway is rerouted and the forest is protected.
Avaaz just delivered a 115,000 strong Bolivian and Latin American emergency petition to two senior government Ministers -- they are worried about massive public pressure and are on the back foot. Now after this brutal violence let's ramp up the pressure and raise a global alarm to end the crackdown and stop the highway. Sign the urgent petition -- it will be delivered spectacularly to President Evo Morales when we reach 500,000.
Monday
Gordon Pinsent And The Oil Sands: Elder Statesman Of Canadian Theatre Throws His Weight Behind Protests
Gordon Pinsent And The Oil Sands: Elder Statesman Of Canadian Theatre Throws His Weight Behind Protests
Gordon Pinsent is the latest Canadian celebrity to endorse the protest against the oil sands planned for Parliament Hill on Monday.
Canada’s elder statesman of theatre spoke out on Thursday in opposition to the oil sands, which have come under increasing scrutiny in recent weeks following well-publicized protests in Washington over the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.
“I can't think of anything -- here, now, or in our future -- that would rank above the tar sands for sheer, blind, stupidity,” Pinsent said in a press release by Greenpeace Canada, one of several organizations behind the protest. “The dangerous minds who are heralding the tar sands as an answer of any kind to our betterment need to be shut down with such positive action as to cancel any possible recurrence.”
Musician Dave Bidini and member of the Order of Canada Tantoo Cardinal -- the first Canadian indigenous celebrity to pledge to be in attendance at the Ottawa event -- are other recent additions to the small but apparently growing list of Canadian celebrities that have lent their support to the action. Dave Thomas of SCTV fame, as well as Graham Greene, Mia Kirshner and Kate Vernon have also given their stamp of approval to the protest.
Gordon Pinsent is the latest Canadian celebrity to endorse the protest against the oil sands planned for Parliament Hill on Monday.
Canada’s elder statesman of theatre spoke out on Thursday in opposition to the oil sands, which have come under increasing scrutiny in recent weeks following well-publicized protests in Washington over the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.
“I can't think of anything -- here, now, or in our future -- that would rank above the tar sands for sheer, blind, stupidity,” Pinsent said in a press release by Greenpeace Canada, one of several organizations behind the protest. “The dangerous minds who are heralding the tar sands as an answer of any kind to our betterment need to be shut down with such positive action as to cancel any possible recurrence.”
Musician Dave Bidini and member of the Order of Canada Tantoo Cardinal -- the first Canadian indigenous celebrity to pledge to be in attendance at the Ottawa event -- are other recent additions to the small but apparently growing list of Canadian celebrities that have lent their support to the action. Dave Thomas of SCTV fame, as well as Graham Greene, Mia Kirshner and Kate Vernon have also given their stamp of approval to the protest.
Gagging the Gag Rule for Good
Gagging the Gag Rule for Good
Written by Mimi Seidner, a Ms. Magazine blogger
In three years, one of the most volatile on-and-off-again relationships in American history will celebrate its 30th anniversary: that of the Global Gag Rule and U.S. global policy. But if Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) can convince her Senate colleagues, the gag rule might not live to receive its pearls.
The rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) was instated through executive order by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, prohibiting NGOs who depend on U.S. international family planning funding from providing information about abortion services; referring patients to safe, clean, legal facilities for abortions; or simply mentioning abortion services, even as an option in countries where abortions are legal. It has been estimated to have led to the deaths of thousands of women who sought illegal, unsafe abortions because that was the only choice they had.
Sen. Boxer, along with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and fifteen other colleagues, has reintroduced the Global Democracy Promotion Act to permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule, preventing future executive orders from reinstating it. This permanence is needed because the gag rule is a political football, rescinded by President Bill Clinton, reinstated by President George W. Bush, repealed again by President Barack Obama and now up for both reinstatement and permanent repeal.
Sen. Boxer has pointed out that,
Written by Mimi Seidner, a Ms. Magazine blogger
In three years, one of the most volatile on-and-off-again relationships in American history will celebrate its 30th anniversary: that of the Global Gag Rule and U.S. global policy. But if Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) can convince her Senate colleagues, the gag rule might not live to receive its pearls.
The rule (also known as the Mexico City Policy) was instated through executive order by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, prohibiting NGOs who depend on U.S. international family planning funding from providing information about abortion services; referring patients to safe, clean, legal facilities for abortions; or simply mentioning abortion services, even as an option in countries where abortions are legal. It has been estimated to have led to the deaths of thousands of women who sought illegal, unsafe abortions because that was the only choice they had.
Sen. Boxer, along with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and fifteen other colleagues, has reintroduced the Global Democracy Promotion Act to permanently repeal the Global Gag Rule, preventing future executive orders from reinstating it. This permanence is needed because the gag rule is a political football, rescinded by President Bill Clinton, reinstated by President George W. Bush, repealed again by President Barack Obama and now up for both reinstatement and permanent repeal.
Sen. Boxer has pointed out that,
If the Global Gag Rule were applied in the United States, it would violate the First Amendment because it restricts what organizations can do or say with their own funds. Ending this undemocratic policy is long overdue.
Permanently ending the Global Gag Rule would save NGOs the heartbreak of choosing between accepting American family planning assistance under draconian anti-abortion restrictions or limiting vital services, cutting staff and ultimately closing clinics. It would also save women’s lives.
Tar Sands action in Ottawa today
More than 180 people - in groupings of 32 waves - are now preparing to soon peacefully cross a police barricade in front of the Centre Block in an attempt to take this message - through a sit-in - to the foyer near the House of Commons.
A powerful rally is now taking place with First Nations leaders, CEP president Dave Coles, Tony Clarke, and numerous others speaking.
Council of Canadians chairperson Maude Barlow will be speaking momentarily. Barlow will also be in the first wave of activists to pass over the fence.
Sunday
New UN Human Rights Logo unveiled
The first ever logo for human rights was unveiled Friday night, at an event in New York hosted by the global charity organization, Cinema for Peace. The logo aims to become a universally recognized symbol for the promotion and implementation of human rights around the world. It comes at an important time, as millions of citizens in the Middle East and around the world are struggling against oppressive regimes and myriad human rights violations.
In a presentation introducing the logo for the first time, news anchor Ann Curry explained the concept of the logo, stating, "If symbols are a way to communicate what we value most, it is time for a symbol for human rights." The new design, which brings to mind both a human hand and a bird in flight, was created by Serbian designer Predrag Stakic. Stakic's logo was the winner of an online contest, and was chosen from overwhelming pool of 15,000 entries which were submitted by designers in 190 countries.
The field of entries was narrowed down to 10 finalists by a panel of judges that included some of the world's most important leaders and human rights defenders. Nobel Peace Prize Laureates Aung San Suu Kyi, Jimmy Carter, Muhammed Yunus, Mikhail Gorbachev and Shirin Ebadi, as well as Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, Cambodian human rights activist Somaly Mam, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, Columbian musician Juanes and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navanathem Pillay all voted for the new human rights logo, which they hope will some day be a globally understood symbol of hope. When asked about the project, and its impressive jury, Human Rights Logo supporter and CEO of United Internet Media, Matthias Ehrlich said, "The jury reflects the diversity of the world, with people representing nearly every continent. Most importantly, they are people who are engaged in the human rights movement, meaning that the movement itself is choosing its symbol."
In a video message to those gathered at the presentation, Burmese opposition politician and human rights icon, Aung San Suu Kyi said, "I look forward to the time when this logo will be seen all over the world, from the smallest towns to the biggest cities. I hope that little children and babies will see it and it will be a sign of happiness, peace and security to them."
Also in attendance were Leila and Manoubia Bouazizi, sister and mother of Mohamed Bouazizi, the man who inspired the Arab Spring by committing suicide by self-immolation in January of 2011. The assembled audience was moved as the pair spoke of his life and the repercussions of his death. Through a translator, his sister Leila Bouazizi expressed solidarity with the revolutions taking place across the Arab world, and called upon human rights leaders to stand with those who had sacrificed themselves for freedom, justice and dignity - the ideals of the Arab Spring.
As citizens around the world protest and make sacrifices for the ideals Leila Bouazizi spoke of, they will have one new tool in their arsenal, a symbol that demands human rights for everyone, in every language.
The Humanist Case against Capital Punishment | Center for Inquiry
The Humanist Case against Capital Punishment | CFI Amherst
Humanism cannot support the death penalty.
Humanism stands for a social ethics of equality, individual human rights, justice for everyone, and government that defend their citizens.
Death penalty supporters appeal to these principles, too. But they narrowly interpret them to justify government killings, and they coldly apply them to the weakest among us. The pro-death side behaves as if some people’s value is higher than others, the rights of the victim outweigh the rights of the accused, the desire for retribution should dictate just punishment, and that the government needn’t defend everyone equally.
The pro-death camp will admit that trials can deliver wrong verdicts. There’s no way to ignore how many defendants get poor legal counsel, and how death-row inmates can be proven innocent on fresh evidence. Yet pro-deathers prefer a criminal system that kills all the murderous guilty along with some innocents over a criminal system that might let a single guilty murderer escape death. The rights of the victims far outweigh the rights of the accused, in their estimation. The blood of the victim on the ground cries out for retribution -- any retribution available -- and the government’s overriding duty becomes the delivery of that retribution.
Dominated by that vengeful spirit, the criminal justice system encourages prosecutors to chase a conviction of whoever they can, rather than the truly guilty; it distracts jurors from the lofty standard of reasonable doubt; and it lets supervisory courts forget their supreme duty of justice for all. In that heated atmosphere of swift vengeance, the criminal “justice” system mostly executes the poor, the disadvantaged, and racial minorities. Evidently, the pro-death camp is satisfied with a system that can’t value some lives as much as others.
Pro-deathers should broaden their principles. Governments exist not merely to deliver criminal justice, but to protect and defend the lives and rights of everyone. When a government executes an innocent person, it violates the ultimate justification for its own existence. The death penalty permits the government to mutate into a loathsome tyrant over its own people, rather than its protector. Other punishment options, especially the life sentence without parole, are sufficient to protect the population and signal disapproval of murder.
Pro-deathers should look inside to ponder this drive to vengeance toward other human beings. The pro-death argument exalts death-retribution as an exemplary valuing of human life. Humanism replies that the rational way to respect human life is to stop killing people. The pro-death side fears weakness in the face of violence against society. Humanism replies that the true strength of a society lies in its commitment to social justice. Pro-deathers are quick to judge who should die and who should live, as if they were a god. Would they want to be on the receiving end of an all-too-human system passing judgment on them?
Humanism stands for valuing the lives of all, individual human rights, justice for everyone, and governments that defend all of their people. These grounds alone are sufficient for abolishing the death penalty. Humanism also stands for elevating human dignity and pursuing the nobler virtues of common humanity. Even if some perfected criminal system could execute only the truly guilty, such murderous machinery is still unworthy of us. Any institution that still encourages vengeance and retribution over equal social justice and protection of everyone is a decrepit perversion of civilization.
Humanism looks forward to a time when society consistently respects humane virtues. But a day of execution is day of sadness and shame. May we have mercy on us all.
Humanism cannot support the death penalty.
Humanism stands for a social ethics of equality, individual human rights, justice for everyone, and government that defend their citizens.
Death penalty supporters appeal to these principles, too. But they narrowly interpret them to justify government killings, and they coldly apply them to the weakest among us. The pro-death side behaves as if some people’s value is higher than others, the rights of the victim outweigh the rights of the accused, the desire for retribution should dictate just punishment, and that the government needn’t defend everyone equally.
The pro-death camp will admit that trials can deliver wrong verdicts. There’s no way to ignore how many defendants get poor legal counsel, and how death-row inmates can be proven innocent on fresh evidence. Yet pro-deathers prefer a criminal system that kills all the murderous guilty along with some innocents over a criminal system that might let a single guilty murderer escape death. The rights of the victims far outweigh the rights of the accused, in their estimation. The blood of the victim on the ground cries out for retribution -- any retribution available -- and the government’s overriding duty becomes the delivery of that retribution.
Dominated by that vengeful spirit, the criminal justice system encourages prosecutors to chase a conviction of whoever they can, rather than the truly guilty; it distracts jurors from the lofty standard of reasonable doubt; and it lets supervisory courts forget their supreme duty of justice for all. In that heated atmosphere of swift vengeance, the criminal “justice” system mostly executes the poor, the disadvantaged, and racial minorities. Evidently, the pro-death camp is satisfied with a system that can’t value some lives as much as others.
Pro-deathers should broaden their principles. Governments exist not merely to deliver criminal justice, but to protect and defend the lives and rights of everyone. When a government executes an innocent person, it violates the ultimate justification for its own existence. The death penalty permits the government to mutate into a loathsome tyrant over its own people, rather than its protector. Other punishment options, especially the life sentence without parole, are sufficient to protect the population and signal disapproval of murder.
Pro-deathers should look inside to ponder this drive to vengeance toward other human beings. The pro-death argument exalts death-retribution as an exemplary valuing of human life. Humanism replies that the rational way to respect human life is to stop killing people. The pro-death side fears weakness in the face of violence against society. Humanism replies that the true strength of a society lies in its commitment to social justice. Pro-deathers are quick to judge who should die and who should live, as if they were a god. Would they want to be on the receiving end of an all-too-human system passing judgment on them?
Humanism stands for valuing the lives of all, individual human rights, justice for everyone, and governments that defend all of their people. These grounds alone are sufficient for abolishing the death penalty. Humanism also stands for elevating human dignity and pursuing the nobler virtues of common humanity. Even if some perfected criminal system could execute only the truly guilty, such murderous machinery is still unworthy of us. Any institution that still encourages vengeance and retribution over equal social justice and protection of everyone is a decrepit perversion of civilization.
Humanism looks forward to a time when society consistently respects humane virtues. But a day of execution is day of sadness and shame. May we have mercy on us all.
Thursday
Death Penalty Links | Amnesty International USA
Death Penalty Links | Amnesty International USA
Here are the US State organizations working to ban the Death Penalty. Get local....
Here are the US State organizations working to ban the Death Penalty. Get local....
The State-Sanctioned Killing of Troy Davis
The State-Sanctioned Killing of Troy Davis
from TalkLeft - a long running site from a practicing lawyer on politics and legal matters in the US.
The article clarifies the sense of abandonment of all judicial principles in the spirit of 'revenge'.
...The murder of Troy Davis, defenders of the act will say, provided closure to the family of Officer MacPhail, whom Davis was convicted of killing with, as people have been repeating for the past week, “too much doubt.” If Davis is not the killer, the family has no closure. The person who really committed the crime is still on the loose. Putting Davis to death just gave the MacPhails and others a reason to move on and abandon a quest for legalized vengeance. And, so, what society and citizens who have no problem with this atrocity are in effect saying is as long as someone can be found to be cast as the convict and as long as the state can carry out the death sentence to the end result, which involves state-sanctioned murder, justice will be done.
from TalkLeft - a long running site from a practicing lawyer on politics and legal matters in the US.
The article clarifies the sense of abandonment of all judicial principles in the spirit of 'revenge'.
...The murder of Troy Davis, defenders of the act will say, provided closure to the family of Officer MacPhail, whom Davis was convicted of killing with, as people have been repeating for the past week, “too much doubt.” If Davis is not the killer, the family has no closure. The person who really committed the crime is still on the loose. Putting Davis to death just gave the MacPhails and others a reason to move on and abandon a quest for legalized vengeance. And, so, what society and citizens who have no problem with this atrocity are in effect saying is as long as someone can be found to be cast as the convict and as long as the state can carry out the death sentence to the end result, which involves state-sanctioned murder, justice will be done.
Tuesday
GMOS: Super Weeds Pose Growing Threat to U.S. Crops
Super Weeds Pose Growing Threat to U.S. Crops | Common Dreams
Published on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 by Reuters by Carey Gillam
PAOLA, Kansas - Farmer Mark Nelson bends down and yanks a four-foot-tall weed from his northeast Kansas soybean field. The "waterhemp" towers above his beans, sucking up the soil moisture and nutrients his beans need to grow well and reducing the ultimate yield. As he crumples the flowering end of the weed in his hand, Nelson grimaces.
"We are at a disturbing juncture," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The use of toxic chemicals in agriculture is skyrocketing. This is not the path to sustainability." "When we harvest this field, these waterhemp seeds will spread all over kingdom come," he said.
Nelson's struggle to control crop-choking weeds is being repeated all over America's farmland. An estimated 11 million acres are infested with "super weeds," some of which grow several inches in a day and defy even multiple dousings of the world's top-selling herbicide, Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate. The problem's gradual emergence has masked its growing menace. Now, however, it is becoming too big to ignore. The super weeds boost costs and cut crop yields for U.S. farmers starting their fall harvest this month. And their use of more herbicides to fight the weeds is sparking environmental concerns.
With food prices near record highs and a growing population straining global grain supplies, the world cannot afford diminished crop production, nor added environmental problems. "I'm convinced that this is a big problem," said Dave Mortensen, professor of weed and applied plant ecology at Penn State University, who has been helping lobby members of Congress about the implications of weed resistance.
"Most of the public doesn't know because the industry is calling the shots on how this should be spun," Mortensen said.
Last month, representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Weed Science Society of America toured the Midwest crop belt to see for themselves the impact of rising weed resistance. "It is only going to get worse," said Lee Van Wychen, director of science policy at the Weed Science Society of America.
Published on Tuesday, September 20, 2011 by Reuters by Carey Gillam
PAOLA, Kansas - Farmer Mark Nelson bends down and yanks a four-foot-tall weed from his northeast Kansas soybean field. The "waterhemp" towers above his beans, sucking up the soil moisture and nutrients his beans need to grow well and reducing the ultimate yield. As he crumples the flowering end of the weed in his hand, Nelson grimaces.
"We are at a disturbing juncture," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "The use of toxic chemicals in agriculture is skyrocketing. This is not the path to sustainability." "When we harvest this field, these waterhemp seeds will spread all over kingdom come," he said.
Nelson's struggle to control crop-choking weeds is being repeated all over America's farmland. An estimated 11 million acres are infested with "super weeds," some of which grow several inches in a day and defy even multiple dousings of the world's top-selling herbicide, Roundup, whose active ingredient is glyphosate. The problem's gradual emergence has masked its growing menace. Now, however, it is becoming too big to ignore. The super weeds boost costs and cut crop yields for U.S. farmers starting their fall harvest this month. And their use of more herbicides to fight the weeds is sparking environmental concerns.
With food prices near record highs and a growing population straining global grain supplies, the world cannot afford diminished crop production, nor added environmental problems. "I'm convinced that this is a big problem," said Dave Mortensen, professor of weed and applied plant ecology at Penn State University, who has been helping lobby members of Congress about the implications of weed resistance.
"Most of the public doesn't know because the industry is calling the shots on how this should be spun," Mortensen said.
Last month, representatives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Weed Science Society of America toured the Midwest crop belt to see for themselves the impact of rising weed resistance. "It is only going to get worse," said Lee Van Wychen, director of science policy at the Weed Science Society of America.
Watch for ‘Pipe Dreams’ documentary on Keystone XL
‘Pipe Dreams’ documentary on Keystone XL
Not sure when/where it will air - keep your eyes peeled (or your GoogleAlert)
Pipe Dreams is a new 40-minute documentary by Leslie Iwerks on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. It is narrated by Daryl Hannah, who was recently arrested in Washington, DC at the sit-in protest in front of the White House calling on US President Barack Obama to reject the pipeline.
You may remember Iwerks also directed Dirty Oil. “Narrated by actress Neve Campbell, this feature film follows pipelines from the Alberta oil sands to the American Midwest to witness how U.S. refineries, much like their Canadian counterparts, try to increase toxic dumping into the Great Lakes. These disturbing stories profoundly illustrate the price dirty oil is taking on both sides of the border.”
She also directed its prequel Downstream. “Shortlisted for the 81st Academy Awards, this 30-minute prequel documentary generated a media storm about the Alberta Oil Sands and got the Canadian government hot under the collar. Dirty Oil builds upon Downstream, exploring in full our addiction to oil - and offering hope for the future.” Downstream prominently features Dr. John O’Connor - now a Council of Canadians Board member - the Fort Chipewyan community physician who first raised concerns about cancer rates there.
For more, please go to http://www.leslieiwerks.com and http://www.babelgum.com/dirtyoil.
For more on Council of Canadians opposition to Keystone XL, go to
Not sure when/where it will air - keep your eyes peeled (or your GoogleAlert)
Pipe Dreams is a new 40-minute documentary by Leslie Iwerks on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. It is narrated by Daryl Hannah, who was recently arrested in Washington, DC at the sit-in protest in front of the White House calling on US President Barack Obama to reject the pipeline.
You may remember Iwerks also directed Dirty Oil. “Narrated by actress Neve Campbell, this feature film follows pipelines from the Alberta oil sands to the American Midwest to witness how U.S. refineries, much like their Canadian counterparts, try to increase toxic dumping into the Great Lakes. These disturbing stories profoundly illustrate the price dirty oil is taking on both sides of the border.”
She also directed its prequel Downstream. “Shortlisted for the 81st Academy Awards, this 30-minute prequel documentary generated a media storm about the Alberta Oil Sands and got the Canadian government hot under the collar. Dirty Oil builds upon Downstream, exploring in full our addiction to oil - and offering hope for the future.” Downstream prominently features Dr. John O’Connor - now a Council of Canadians Board member - the Fort Chipewyan community physician who first raised concerns about cancer rates there.
For more, please go to http://www.leslieiwerks.com and http://www.babelgum.com/dirtyoil.
For more on Council of Canadians opposition to Keystone XL, go to
Friday
Amnesty International for Troy Davis
Take Action Now - Amnesty International USA
Troy Davis is set to be executed by the state of Georgia on September 21st for a crime he may not have committed.
Georgia's District Attorney Larry Chisolm has the power to stop this injustice, but has so far failed to intervene. His inaction leaves Troy’s fate to be decided by the Georgia Board of Pardons & Paroles, who will hold a clemency hearing on Monday, September 19.
Davis was convicted on the basis of witness testimony – seven of the nine original witnesses have since recanted or changed their testimony. Troy has survived three previous execution dates, because people like you kept the justice system in check! Let Georgia authorities know you oppose the death penalty for Troy Davis!
NOTE: Due to high volume of supporters, please keep trying to sign this petition if your initial attempt does not succeed
» Learn more about Troy Davis
Troy Davis is set to be executed by the state of Georgia on September 21st for a crime he may not have committed.
Georgia's District Attorney Larry Chisolm has the power to stop this injustice, but has so far failed to intervene. His inaction leaves Troy’s fate to be decided by the Georgia Board of Pardons & Paroles, who will hold a clemency hearing on Monday, September 19.
Davis was convicted on the basis of witness testimony – seven of the nine original witnesses have since recanted or changed their testimony. Troy has survived three previous execution dates, because people like you kept the justice system in check! Let Georgia authorities know you oppose the death penalty for Troy Davis!
NOTE: Due to high volume of supporters, please keep trying to sign this petition if your initial attempt does not succeed
» Learn more about Troy Davis
Niagara Falls NY water utility plan to treat fracking fluid threatens the Great Lakes
NEWS: Niagara Falls water utility plan to treat fracking fluid threatens the Great Lakes
WGRZ News in New York State “has confirmed the Niagara Falls Water Board is moving forward with plans to treat ‘fracking fluid’ at its wastewater treatment plant following a feasibility study performed by an outside firm.”
“The board’s plans, first reported in late-July, were to investigate the possibility of treating the fluid, which is a toxic byproduct of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale. Through a statement, the Board confirmed its study is completed and it is moving forward with the project: Although the Niagara Falls Water Board has not advocated for drilling in the Marcellus Shale, should the State of New York allow drilling to proceed, and our wastewater treatment plant meet all requirements and regulations as set forth by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Niagara Falls Water Board potentially offers a solution to effectively and safely treat wastewater produced from drilling and would help mitigate concerns about impacts on public health and safety and the environment.”
Brian Smith of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment says, “Fracking waste can contain toxic chemicals, radioactivity, and be five-times saltier than seawater. The Niagara Falls sewage treatment facility is ill-equipped to properly treat hazardous fracking waste. Allowing this would risk the discharge of toxic, radioactive, and caustic waste into our fragile Great Lakes ecosystem.” And Rita Yelda of WNY Drilling Defense says, “If this fracking waste is not treated correctly, it could contaminate our water. It’s a potential risk.” The article notes that she encourages “the public to attend the Niagara Falls Water Board’s next public meeting, which is scheduled for 5 p.m. on Septemb
WGRZ News in New York State “has confirmed the Niagara Falls Water Board is moving forward with plans to treat ‘fracking fluid’ at its wastewater treatment plant following a feasibility study performed by an outside firm.”
“The board’s plans, first reported in late-July, were to investigate the possibility of treating the fluid, which is a toxic byproduct of hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas from the Marcellus Shale. Through a statement, the Board confirmed its study is completed and it is moving forward with the project: Although the Niagara Falls Water Board has not advocated for drilling in the Marcellus Shale, should the State of New York allow drilling to proceed, and our wastewater treatment plant meet all requirements and regulations as set forth by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Niagara Falls Water Board potentially offers a solution to effectively and safely treat wastewater produced from drilling and would help mitigate concerns about impacts on public health and safety and the environment.”
Brian Smith of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment says, “Fracking waste can contain toxic chemicals, radioactivity, and be five-times saltier than seawater. The Niagara Falls sewage treatment facility is ill-equipped to properly treat hazardous fracking waste. Allowing this would risk the discharge of toxic, radioactive, and caustic waste into our fragile Great Lakes ecosystem.” And Rita Yelda of WNY Drilling Defense says, “If this fracking waste is not treated correctly, it could contaminate our water. It’s a potential risk.” The article notes that she encourages “the public to attend the Niagara Falls Water Board’s next public meeting, which is scheduled for 5 p.m. on Septemb
Letter urging Canadian Embassy in Colombia to support investigations surrounding the death of Father José Reinel Restrepo
Letter urging Canadian Embassy in Colombia to support investigations surrounding the death of Father José Reinel Restrepo
By Meera Karunananthan, Friday, September 16th, 2011he Council of Canadians has signed a joint letter urging the Canadian Embassy in Colombia to support investigations surrounding the death of Father José Reinel Restrepo, a parish priest in Marmato. Father Restrepo was an outspoken opponent to the development of an open-pit gold mine by Medoro Resources mine (which recently merged with Toronto-based Gran Colombia Gold). The Canadian Pension Plan has $6 million worth of investments in the company. The mining project would require the relocation of the entire town of Marmato. On September 2, the 36-year-old priest was shot dead while out on his motorcycle.
By Meera Karunananthan, Friday, September 16th, 2011he Council of Canadians has signed a joint letter urging the Canadian Embassy in Colombia to support investigations surrounding the death of Father José Reinel Restrepo, a parish priest in Marmato. Father Restrepo was an outspoken opponent to the development of an open-pit gold mine by Medoro Resources mine (which recently merged with Toronto-based Gran Colombia Gold). The Canadian Pension Plan has $6 million worth of investments in the company. The mining project would require the relocation of the entire town of Marmato. On September 2, the 36-year-old priest was shot dead while out on his motorcycle.
As the letter states, “Echoing the demands of committees, associations and Indigenous councils in Marmato and Caldas, we urge the Canadian Embassy to cooperate with all investigations into this matter in order to ensure that the facts surrounding Restrepo’s murder are brought to light. The Embassy should also encourage the company to cooperate fully.” To read the letter, please go here.
Thursday
Huskers cut off deal with TransCanada
Huskers cut off deal with TransCanada
The University of Nebraska-Lincoln athletic department ended the sponsorship agreement Wednesday after fans and others complained.
"I want to make it clear that the athletic department has no position, either pro or con, regarding the proposed TransCanada Pipeline," Athletic Director Tom Osborne said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.
Osborne said the athletic department's marketing partner, IMG College, and the Husker Sports Network signed the sponsorship arrangement with TransCanada in April, before the proposed Keystone XL pipeline became so controversial.
"We have certain principles regarding advertising in the stadium such as no alcohol, tobacco or gambling advertisements. We also avoid ads of a political nature," he said. "Over the last two or three months, the pipeline issue has been increasingly politicized. Our athletic events are intended to entertain and unify our fan base by providing an experience that is not divisive."
He said he regretted having to end the sponsorship deal, adding that TransCanada and IMG/Husker Sports Network had acted honorably and "with best intentions."
TransCanada spokesman Jeff Rauh said the company was disappointed by the decision. "We're proud to be active members in the community and sponsors of Husker football," he said. "Our sponsorship of the Huskers is something that our employees have encouraged and valued."
He said TransCanada has offices in Omaha and has had a presence in Nebraska since the early 1980s. The company has received supportive comments about its Husker sponsorship from landowners and other pipeline stakeholders, Rauh said.
TransCanada plans to divert the money it would have spent on its Husker sponsorship toward nonprofits in Nebraska. Rauh said the company donated $137,000 in Nebraska in 2010 and $500,000 since 2007. "We'll redeploy those funds for other purposes here in the state," he said.
Those who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline say the video attempted to draw connections between the Huskers' tradition of strong offensive lines and TransCanada. They said it was unfair for the company to attempt to associate itself with Husker football when it was in the midst of trying to gain approval for its controversial pipeline.
The pipeline would carry Canadian oil across Nebraska and several other states and cross the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water for drinking and irrigation to parts of several states.
The University of Nebraska-Lincoln athletic department ended the sponsorship agreement Wednesday after fans and others complained.
"I want to make it clear that the athletic department has no position, either pro or con, regarding the proposed TransCanada Pipeline," Athletic Director Tom Osborne said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.
Osborne said the athletic department's marketing partner, IMG College, and the Husker Sports Network signed the sponsorship arrangement with TransCanada in April, before the proposed Keystone XL pipeline became so controversial.
"We have certain principles regarding advertising in the stadium such as no alcohol, tobacco or gambling advertisements. We also avoid ads of a political nature," he said. "Over the last two or three months, the pipeline issue has been increasingly politicized. Our athletic events are intended to entertain and unify our fan base by providing an experience that is not divisive."
He said he regretted having to end the sponsorship deal, adding that TransCanada and IMG/Husker Sports Network had acted honorably and "with best intentions."
TransCanada spokesman Jeff Rauh said the company was disappointed by the decision. "We're proud to be active members in the community and sponsors of Husker football," he said. "Our sponsorship of the Huskers is something that our employees have encouraged and valued."
He said TransCanada has offices in Omaha and has had a presence in Nebraska since the early 1980s. The company has received supportive comments about its Husker sponsorship from landowners and other pipeline stakeholders, Rauh said.
TransCanada plans to divert the money it would have spent on its Husker sponsorship toward nonprofits in Nebraska. Rauh said the company donated $137,000 in Nebraska in 2010 and $500,000 since 2007. "We'll redeploy those funds for other purposes here in the state," he said.
Those who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline say the video attempted to draw connections between the Huskers' tradition of strong offensive lines and TransCanada. They said it was unfair for the company to attempt to associate itself with Husker football when it was in the midst of trying to gain approval for its controversial pipeline.
The pipeline would carry Canadian oil across Nebraska and several other states and cross the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water for drinking and irrigation to parts of several states.
Petition to Protect Arts Funding to Keep Toronto Vibrant
Petition to Protect Arts Funding to Keep Toronto Vibrant
Friends of the Arts
We wanted to make you aware of important deliberations taking place at Toronto City Hall about arts funding and your actions and support are very important.
Toronto's City Manager has put forward deep cuts to the city budget, and this puts arts and cultural funding for both small and large organizations at serious risk. Cutting the arts could be an economic and social catastrophe for Toronto: not only does the city achieve a huge return on a relatively small investment, but our vibrant arts scene is also a big part of what makes Toronto a great place to live, work and visit.
Friends of the Arts* has launched an online petition to let City Councillors know
Torontonians value the arts.
By signing the petition you will be sending a message to City Hall and your local councillor telling them that arts funding should be protected. Here are a few of the reasons why the arts might be important to you:
• Arts and culture are essential to Toronto’s economy, generating $9 billion every year.
• Arts and culture create jobs. 130,000 people work in the sector – and many more depend on related businesses, including hospitality and tourism.
• Torontonians care about the arts. In 2010, there were 20 million visits from every corner of Toronto to city-supported arts events.
• Every dollar Toronto invests in arts organizations attracts $17 more from private and public sources. Arts and culture funding has a great return on investment.
• Great art and artists take years to achieve commercial success; today’s funding enables tomorrow’s art.
• Artists flock to cities that support them – yet Toronto invests less in the arts than other major cities; City Council has been working to change that, and it must stay the course.
• Toronto Councillors need to know that their voters value the arts.
Although most signatures will be collected online, the Toronto Arts Council will also be sending volunteers to specific arts events with hard copies of the petition. If you’d like to help, please email: friendsoftheartsTO@gmail.com and put volunteer in the subject line.
*Friends of the Arts is a network of arts supporters including the following organizations: Arts Vote Toronto, Arts Etobicoke, BeautifulCity.ca, Business for the Arts, Creative Trust, Lakeshore Arts, Scarborough Arts, Toronto Alliance for the Performing Arts, Toronto Arts Foundation, and Urban Arts.
Thank you for your support. Let's keep Toronto a creative city!
Janice Price, CEO, Luminato
Friends of the Arts
We wanted to make you aware of important deliberations taking place at Toronto City Hall about arts funding and your actions and support are very important.
Toronto's City Manager has put forward deep cuts to the city budget, and this puts arts and cultural funding for both small and large organizations at serious risk. Cutting the arts could be an economic and social catastrophe for Toronto: not only does the city achieve a huge return on a relatively small investment, but our vibrant arts scene is also a big part of what makes Toronto a great place to live, work and visit.
Friends of the Arts* has launched an online petition to let City Councillors know
Torontonians value the arts.
By signing the petition you will be sending a message to City Hall and your local councillor telling them that arts funding should be protected. Here are a few of the reasons why the arts might be important to you:
• Arts and culture are essential to Toronto’s economy, generating $9 billion every year.
• Arts and culture create jobs. 130,000 people work in the sector – and many more depend on related businesses, including hospitality and tourism.
• Torontonians care about the arts. In 2010, there were 20 million visits from every corner of Toronto to city-supported arts events.
• Every dollar Toronto invests in arts organizations attracts $17 more from private and public sources. Arts and culture funding has a great return on investment.
• Great art and artists take years to achieve commercial success; today’s funding enables tomorrow’s art.
• Artists flock to cities that support them – yet Toronto invests less in the arts than other major cities; City Council has been working to change that, and it must stay the course.
• Toronto Councillors need to know that their voters value the arts.
Although most signatures will be collected online, the Toronto Arts Council will also be sending volunteers to specific arts events with hard copies of the petition. If you’d like to help, please email: friendsoftheartsTO@gmail.com and put volunteer in the subject line.
*Friends of the Arts is a network of arts supporters including the following organizations: Arts Vote Toronto, Arts Etobicoke, BeautifulCity.ca, Business for the Arts, Creative Trust, Lakeshore Arts, Scarborough Arts, Toronto Alliance for the Performing Arts, Toronto Arts Foundation, and Urban Arts.
Thank you for your support. Let's keep Toronto a creative city!
Janice Price, CEO, Luminato
Wednesday
Apple Bans App That Shows Electronics' Blood Trail
Apple Bans App That Shows Electronics' Blood Trail
(The YES MEN strike again!) read the story for the story behind the story....
Phone Story is a funny game with a not-so-funny message. By allowing players to assume the roles of technology's manufacturers, it teaches players a lesson or two in the life-cycle of Apple products and the blood trail technology leaves behind. But Apple, apparently not too psyched on selling an app that reveals its own atrocious human rights record, banned the silly app just hours after its release.
The Yes Men are some of "more than forty trouble makers" behind the game, and its premise is right in line with their previous involvement in activism, which often involves targeting "leaders and big corporations who put profits ahead of everything else" and "Impersonating big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them." As their Guerrilla Drive-In attack on the Koch Theatre at Lincoln Center shows, their activism is often rooted in fun.
(The YES MEN strike again!) read the story for the story behind the story....
Phone Story is a funny game with a not-so-funny message. By allowing players to assume the roles of technology's manufacturers, it teaches players a lesson or two in the life-cycle of Apple products and the blood trail technology leaves behind. But Apple, apparently not too psyched on selling an app that reveals its own atrocious human rights record, banned the silly app just hours after its release.
The Yes Men are some of "more than forty trouble makers" behind the game, and its premise is right in line with their previous involvement in activism, which often involves targeting "leaders and big corporations who put profits ahead of everything else" and "Impersonating big-time criminals in order to publicly humiliate them." As their Guerrilla Drive-In attack on the Koch Theatre at Lincoln Center shows, their activism is often rooted in fun.
Tuesday
FedEx and Pepsi Are Top Defense Contractors?
FedEx and Pepsi Are Top Defense Contractors? 5 Corporate Brands Making a Killing on America’s Wars
Chris Hellman of the National Priorities Project, writing recently at TomDispatch.com, noted that since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has spent about $8 trillion on national security. Even accounting for all the funds paid out for troop salaries, overseas base construction and the training and equipping indigenous allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, among many other costs, it’s clear that vast sums of Pentagon money are flowing somewhere other than to the top weapons-makers. Unknown to most U.S. taxpayers and even many Pentagon-watchers, some of the largest and most recognizable corporations in the world have also been getting rich on America’s wars. Below are five examples of “civilian” companies that have reaped major rewards from the Pentagon during its last decade at war:
1. BP: The oil giant, perhaps most famous for dumping 206 million gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico last year, is also a perennial power when it comes to Pentagon contracts. Back in 2001, BP nabbed a cool $357 million in contracts from the Department of Defense. Last year, the number hit $1 billion and it’s no secret why. As defense-tech writer Noah Shachtman noted at Foreign Policy last year, the U.S. military burns “22 gallons of diesel [fuel] per soldier per day in Afghanistan, at a cost of more than $100,000 a person annually.”
2. FedEx: The overnight shipping giant is a long-time defense-contracting powerhouse that has also seen an exponential increase in contract dollars since September 10, 2001, when its stock was trading at just under $40 per share. By the end of that year, FedEx had been awarded about $211 million in contracts from the Pentagon. In 2010, the company received $1.4 billion from the Department of Defense and this year, with its stock closing in on $80 per share, has already passed the $1 billion mark, again. This includes a $182 million deal, inked in August, to pack and ship fresh fruit and vegetables to U.S. military bases overseas and a joint agreement, which also includes United Parcel Service (UPS) and Polar Air Cargo, which could last up to five years and potentially net the companies a combined $853 million.
3. Dell: If you’re in the military and you want to pilot a drone, transfer supplies or write a memo, you need a computer. That’s just what Dell provides. The desktop- and laptop-maker has been plying the Pentagon with computers for many years and, just like Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop Grumman, has done especially well by the Department of Defense since 2001. That year, Dell was awarded $65 million in Pentagon contracts. By 2009, that number had jumped to $731 million and, over the course of the decade, has added up to a total of $4.3 billion in contracts for the PC manufacturer.
4. Kraft – From A-1 steak sauce, their signature mayonnaise and Oreo cookies to Oscar Meyer hot dogs, Planters peanuts and Wheat Thins crackers, this company ranks as one of the largest and best known food concerns in the world. Not surprisingly, it also does a brisk business with the Pentagon which has grown ever larger during the last decade. Back in 2001, Kraft inked $148 million in deals with the Department of Defense, by 2010, its yearly take had risen to $373 million.
5. Pepsi – Once upon a time it was the “choice of a new generation.” These days, it’s the choice of the Pentagon. In 2010, PepsiCo washed down $217 million in Defense Department contract dollars, compared to the mere $61 million in deals it inked back in 2001. Earlier this year, the company continued the trend by signing a multi-million dollar deal to provide the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps with “bag-in-box beverages.” (That very same day, Coca-Cola also received a slightly larger contract to provide drinks for the military.)
Other big-name firms that are regularly awarded large, lucrative deals from the Defense Department include tire titans Goodrich and Goodyear, oil giants Shell and Exxon Mobil, big food suppliers like Nestle, General Mills, Tyson, ConAgra and Campbell's Soup, and tech and telecom stalwarts including AT&T, Oracle, Sony and Verizon.
A decade of waging wars abroad, from Iraq and Afghanistan to Pakistan and Libya to Yemen and Somalia hasn’t been kind to average Americans. As the United States poured nearly $8 trillion into national security spending, and the national debt ballooned from $6 trillion to $14.3 trillion, the official unemployment rate has more than doubled -- from 4.5% to 9.1%. Meanwhile the number of children living in poverty in the U.S. has jumped nearly 20% since 2000, according to the National Center for Children in Poverty. And for older Americans, the risk of hunger has spiked almost 80% since 2001, according to a recent report by AARP. But from car companies to candy makers and even the biggest brands in organic food, so many of the world’s favorite companies have, over these years, cashed in on America’s wars.
In his famous 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned of the "acquisition of unwarranted influence" by what he called the "military-industrial complex.” Today, however, the "large arms industry" that Eisenhower warned about is only part of the equation. Civilian firms such as FedEx and PepsiCo form the backbone of what more accurately can be described as a military-corporate complex of “civilian” businesses that enable the Pentagon to function, to make war and to carry out foreign occupations.
Chris Hellman of the National Priorities Project, writing recently at TomDispatch.com, noted that since the 9/11 attacks, the United States has spent about $8 trillion on national security. Even accounting for all the funds paid out for troop salaries, overseas base construction and the training and equipping indigenous allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, among many other costs, it’s clear that vast sums of Pentagon money are flowing somewhere other than to the top weapons-makers. Unknown to most U.S. taxpayers and even many Pentagon-watchers, some of the largest and most recognizable corporations in the world have also been getting rich on America’s wars. Below are five examples of “civilian” companies that have reaped major rewards from the Pentagon during its last decade at war:
1. BP: The oil giant, perhaps most famous for dumping 206 million gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico last year, is also a perennial power when it comes to Pentagon contracts. Back in 2001, BP nabbed a cool $357 million in contracts from the Department of Defense. Last year, the number hit $1 billion and it’s no secret why. As defense-tech writer Noah Shachtman noted at Foreign Policy last year, the U.S. military burns “22 gallons of diesel [fuel] per soldier per day in Afghanistan, at a cost of more than $100,000 a person annually.”
2. FedEx: The overnight shipping giant is a long-time defense-contracting powerhouse that has also seen an exponential increase in contract dollars since September 10, 2001, when its stock was trading at just under $40 per share. By the end of that year, FedEx had been awarded about $211 million in contracts from the Pentagon. In 2010, the company received $1.4 billion from the Department of Defense and this year, with its stock closing in on $80 per share, has already passed the $1 billion mark, again. This includes a $182 million deal, inked in August, to pack and ship fresh fruit and vegetables to U.S. military bases overseas and a joint agreement, which also includes United Parcel Service (UPS) and Polar Air Cargo, which could last up to five years and potentially net the companies a combined $853 million.
3. Dell: If you’re in the military and you want to pilot a drone, transfer supplies or write a memo, you need a computer. That’s just what Dell provides. The desktop- and laptop-maker has been plying the Pentagon with computers for many years and, just like Lockheed, Boeing and Northrop Grumman, has done especially well by the Department of Defense since 2001. That year, Dell was awarded $65 million in Pentagon contracts. By 2009, that number had jumped to $731 million and, over the course of the decade, has added up to a total of $4.3 billion in contracts for the PC manufacturer.
4. Kraft – From A-1 steak sauce, their signature mayonnaise and Oreo cookies to Oscar Meyer hot dogs, Planters peanuts and Wheat Thins crackers, this company ranks as one of the largest and best known food concerns in the world. Not surprisingly, it also does a brisk business with the Pentagon which has grown ever larger during the last decade. Back in 2001, Kraft inked $148 million in deals with the Department of Defense, by 2010, its yearly take had risen to $373 million.
5. Pepsi – Once upon a time it was the “choice of a new generation.” These days, it’s the choice of the Pentagon. In 2010, PepsiCo washed down $217 million in Defense Department contract dollars, compared to the mere $61 million in deals it inked back in 2001. Earlier this year, the company continued the trend by signing a multi-million dollar deal to provide the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps with “bag-in-box beverages.” (That very same day, Coca-Cola also received a slightly larger contract to provide drinks for the military.)
Other big-name firms that are regularly awarded large, lucrative deals from the Defense Department include tire titans Goodrich and Goodyear, oil giants Shell and Exxon Mobil, big food suppliers like Nestle, General Mills, Tyson, ConAgra and Campbell's Soup, and tech and telecom stalwarts including AT&T, Oracle, Sony and Verizon.
A decade of waging wars abroad, from Iraq and Afghanistan to Pakistan and Libya to Yemen and Somalia hasn’t been kind to average Americans. As the United States poured nearly $8 trillion into national security spending, and the national debt ballooned from $6 trillion to $14.3 trillion, the official unemployment rate has more than doubled -- from 4.5% to 9.1%. Meanwhile the number of children living in poverty in the U.S. has jumped nearly 20% since 2000, according to the National Center for Children in Poverty. And for older Americans, the risk of hunger has spiked almost 80% since 2001, according to a recent report by AARP. But from car companies to candy makers and even the biggest brands in organic food, so many of the world’s favorite companies have, over these years, cashed in on America’s wars.
In his famous 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower warned of the "acquisition of unwarranted influence" by what he called the "military-industrial complex.” Today, however, the "large arms industry" that Eisenhower warned about is only part of the equation. Civilian firms such as FedEx and PepsiCo form the backbone of what more accurately can be described as a military-corporate complex of “civilian” businesses that enable the Pentagon to function, to make war and to carry out foreign occupations.
Monday
Pig Power! Google Signs Up
Pig Power! Google Signs Up | TPM Idea Lab
now if they'd just take on factory farming...
Google last week revealed for the first time that it consumed enough electricity to power 200,000 homes in 2010. The company also said that it intends to source more than a third of its electricity from clean sources by 2012.
One way that it's trying to minimize its carbon footprint is by signing up for carbon offsets.
One of these projects comes from Duke University, where a new facility uses hog waste to generate power. Duke developed the pilot project to demonstrate the economic feasibility of capturing methane emissions from large hog farms and converting those emissions to electricity.
Google has just announced that it will take on part of the operating and maintenance costs in exchange for carbon offsets, to help achieve its carbon-neutral goal.
Duke engineered the new facility as an open source design that is freely available to the hog industry. However, even though the design is free, hog farmers may be hesitant to invest in the equipment. The school hopes that Google's involvement will provide some reassurance that the economics are solid.
now if they'd just take on factory farming...
Google last week revealed for the first time that it consumed enough electricity to power 200,000 homes in 2010. The company also said that it intends to source more than a third of its electricity from clean sources by 2012.
One way that it's trying to minimize its carbon footprint is by signing up for carbon offsets.
One of these projects comes from Duke University, where a new facility uses hog waste to generate power. Duke developed the pilot project to demonstrate the economic feasibility of capturing methane emissions from large hog farms and converting those emissions to electricity.
Google has just announced that it will take on part of the operating and maintenance costs in exchange for carbon offsets, to help achieve its carbon-neutral goal.
Duke engineered the new facility as an open source design that is freely available to the hog industry. However, even though the design is free, hog farmers may be hesitant to invest in the equipment. The school hopes that Google's involvement will provide some reassurance that the economics are solid.
Calzavara tells Boston Herald that quarry must be rejected
NEWS: Calzavara tells Boston Herald that quarry must be rejected
Quarry battle now includes Harvard investments... hmmm
The Boston Herald reports, “The Baupost Group, a Boston hedge fund, is under fire north of the border for financing a controversial, 2,300-acre limestone ‘mega-quarry’ outside Toronto (in Melancthon) that would replace fertile potato farmland.”
Quarry battle now includes Harvard investments... hmmm
The Boston Herald reports, “The Baupost Group, a Boston hedge fund, is under fire north of the border for financing a controversial, 2,300-acre limestone ‘mega-quarry’ outside Toronto (in Melancthon) that would replace fertile potato farmland.”
“Baupost, headed by investment guru Seth Klarman, has reportedly managed money for Harvard University’s endowment, though it’s not clear if the school’s money is invested in the quarry. Harvard Management Co. declined comment. Baupost spokeswoman Elaine Mann said the hedge fund couldn’t comment on investors…”
“Mark Calzavara, regional organizer at the Council of Canadians, said the quarry would disrupt the flow of filtered water to local wells by stripping the land of the soil. ‘They said, with a straight face, they’re going to pump 600 million liters of water a day out of the hole for perpetuity — till the end of time,’ Calzavara said. ‘For that reason alone, it should be rejected out of hand.’”
“Last week, the province ordered an environmental review for the quarry — a win for opponents. That could take two to four years, Calzavara said, though reviews tend to end in approvals. ‘If it’s done fairly, if it’s done right, there’s no way that quarry can be approved,’ he said. ‘But the devil is in the details.’”
The Boston Herald is a daily newspaper with more than 108,000 readers of its Sunday edition
“Mark Calzavara, regional organizer at the Council of Canadians, said the quarry would disrupt the flow of filtered water to local wells by stripping the land of the soil. ‘They said, with a straight face, they’re going to pump 600 million liters of water a day out of the hole for perpetuity — till the end of time,’ Calzavara said. ‘For that reason alone, it should be rejected out of hand.’”
“Last week, the province ordered an environmental review for the quarry — a win for opponents. That could take two to four years, Calzavara said, though reviews tend to end in approvals. ‘If it’s done fairly, if it’s done right, there’s no way that quarry can be approved,’ he said. ‘But the devil is in the details.’”
The Boston Herald is a daily newspaper with more than 108,000 readers of its Sunday edition
Saturday
US: Help protect communities from irresponsible uranium mining
EARTHWORKS - Take Action!
Help protect communities from irresponsible uranium mining
Tell your Representative to support URSA, HR 1452
Congressmen Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) have introduced legislation to modernize oversight of uranium mining -- by shifting it from the antiquated 1872 Mining Law to the Mineral Leasing Act. This change would allow uranium mining on federal lands to be managed through a competitive leasing program, as opposed to the current, industry-initiated system, which amounts to "first come, first serve".
This legislation, the Uranium Resources Stewardship Act (HR 1452), is the first step towards comprehensive federal regulation and oversight of uranium mining to protect both uranium-impacted communities and the environment. The Uranium Resources Stewardship Act (URSA) would impose a 12.5% royalty on the uranium mining industry, compensating the taxpayer for the uranium that is being taken from public lands.
Perhaps most importantly, URSA would end the presumed "right to mine" afforded by the 1872 Mining Law. It would allow public land managers more discretion to decide where uranium mining is and is not appropriate.
Ask your members of Congress to support this important legislation.
Help protect communities from irresponsible uranium mining
Tell your Representative to support URSA, HR 1452
Congressmen Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) have introduced legislation to modernize oversight of uranium mining -- by shifting it from the antiquated 1872 Mining Law to the Mineral Leasing Act. This change would allow uranium mining on federal lands to be managed through a competitive leasing program, as opposed to the current, industry-initiated system, which amounts to "first come, first serve".
This legislation, the Uranium Resources Stewardship Act (HR 1452), is the first step towards comprehensive federal regulation and oversight of uranium mining to protect both uranium-impacted communities and the environment. The Uranium Resources Stewardship Act (URSA) would impose a 12.5% royalty on the uranium mining industry, compensating the taxpayer for the uranium that is being taken from public lands.
Perhaps most importantly, URSA would end the presumed "right to mine" afforded by the 1872 Mining Law. It would allow public land managers more discretion to decide where uranium mining is and is not appropriate.
Ask your members of Congress to support this important legislation.
Rootworms, Monsanto, and the Unity of Existence
Daily Kos: Rootworms, Monsanto, and the Unity of Existence (very good essay - here are some excerpts)
Bt and Monsanto. The rootworms are newsworthy because they're not supposed to be there. The fields were planted with a corn seed that Monsanto genetically modified to kill rootworms. It contains a gene from bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occurring insect-killing bacteria. Apparently the Iowa fields have evolved a rootworm resistant to Bt, or at least to this particular expression of Bt. That's bad -- and not just for Monsanto.
This possibility was considered when the Monsanto corn was approved by the EPA in 2003. The remedy was for farmers to plant 20% of their fields with non-Bt corn. Basically, you want to prevent insects with low-level resistance from mating with each other and producing high-level resistance. The 20% "refuge" area keeps non-resistant rootworms in the evolutionary picture, so that the species as a whole doesn't become resistant.
Now it looks like 20% wasn't enough. That's what independent scientists told the EPA in 2003. They wanted 50% non-Bt corn, but Monsanto lobbied the EPA down to 20%. Now it looks like their lobbying screwed up their own product.....Monsanto's Bt seeds, by contrast, expose the entire field, all season long. And one of the seed's touted advantages is that you don't have to rotate. The Iowa fields where resistance developed had been planted in corn for many years in a row. So, used as directed, Monsanto's seeds are breeding Bt-resistant rootworms. (It's not clear yet if the Iowa worms are universally Bt-resistant or just resistant to the particular protein Monsanto engineered its seeds to produce. In any case, they are a step in the direction of Bt-resistant rootworms.)
Once they exist, these rootworms are unlikely to respect property lines. They'll be a problem for everybody, including the organic farms. So Monsanto has profited by using up a common resource that could have lasted for centuries otherwise.
The term judicial activism is hardly ever applied to cases that expand corporate rights. But patenting life-forms stems from Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980), where it is the liberal dissent of Justice Brennan that invokes judicial restraint: "We must be careful to extend patent protection no further than Congress has provided." He lost.
Monsanto vs. the farmers who don't buy its seed. Some farmers who never bought Monsanto seed are growing patented plants because birds drop seeds on their property or pollen blows in from a neighbor's field. Other farmers who stopped using Monsanto seed nonetheless see "volunteer" seeds from last year's crop sprout in their fields.
Occasionally such a farmer loses a patent infringement suit. And no one knows how many innocent farmers -- less determined than this family profiled by CBS -- just pay up when confronted with evidence of patented plants in their fields and the threat of Monsanto's expensive legal team. (Sixty different organic-farming organizations have preemptively filed suit against Monsanto to avoid being sued later for inadvertent patent infringement.)
Farmers who hope to export to countries that ban genetically modified crops are harmed if the wind blows Monsanto pollen onto their fields. But Monsanto's licensing agreement puts this responsibility on the farmer who plants its seeds. So you can sue your neighbor, but not Monsanto.
By their insatiable nature, corporations make all tragedy-of-the-commons problems much, much worse. Antibiotic-resistant disease is a similar story, as the meat industry uses massive quantities of antibiotics without concern for the consequences. Ditto for air quality, water rights, and any other common asset that a corporation can profit from. If there's a horse in the common stable, a corporation will ride it to death.
Bt and Monsanto. The rootworms are newsworthy because they're not supposed to be there. The fields were planted with a corn seed that Monsanto genetically modified to kill rootworms. It contains a gene from bacillus thuringiensis, a naturally occurring insect-killing bacteria. Apparently the Iowa fields have evolved a rootworm resistant to Bt, or at least to this particular expression of Bt. That's bad -- and not just for Monsanto.
This possibility was considered when the Monsanto corn was approved by the EPA in 2003. The remedy was for farmers to plant 20% of their fields with non-Bt corn. Basically, you want to prevent insects with low-level resistance from mating with each other and producing high-level resistance. The 20% "refuge" area keeps non-resistant rootworms in the evolutionary picture, so that the species as a whole doesn't become resistant.
Now it looks like 20% wasn't enough. That's what independent scientists told the EPA in 2003. They wanted 50% non-Bt corn, but Monsanto lobbied the EPA down to 20%. Now it looks like their lobbying screwed up their own product.....Monsanto's Bt seeds, by contrast, expose the entire field, all season long. And one of the seed's touted advantages is that you don't have to rotate. The Iowa fields where resistance developed had been planted in corn for many years in a row. So, used as directed, Monsanto's seeds are breeding Bt-resistant rootworms. (It's not clear yet if the Iowa worms are universally Bt-resistant or just resistant to the particular protein Monsanto engineered its seeds to produce. In any case, they are a step in the direction of Bt-resistant rootworms.)
Once they exist, these rootworms are unlikely to respect property lines. They'll be a problem for everybody, including the organic farms. So Monsanto has profited by using up a common resource that could have lasted for centuries otherwise.
The term judicial activism is hardly ever applied to cases that expand corporate rights. But patenting life-forms stems from Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980), where it is the liberal dissent of Justice Brennan that invokes judicial restraint: "We must be careful to extend patent protection no further than Congress has provided." He lost.
Monsanto vs. the farmers who don't buy its seed. Some farmers who never bought Monsanto seed are growing patented plants because birds drop seeds on their property or pollen blows in from a neighbor's field. Other farmers who stopped using Monsanto seed nonetheless see "volunteer" seeds from last year's crop sprout in their fields.
Occasionally such a farmer loses a patent infringement suit. And no one knows how many innocent farmers -- less determined than this family profiled by CBS -- just pay up when confronted with evidence of patented plants in their fields and the threat of Monsanto's expensive legal team. (Sixty different organic-farming organizations have preemptively filed suit against Monsanto to avoid being sued later for inadvertent patent infringement.)
Farmers who hope to export to countries that ban genetically modified crops are harmed if the wind blows Monsanto pollen onto their fields. But Monsanto's licensing agreement puts this responsibility on the farmer who plants its seeds. So you can sue your neighbor, but not Monsanto.
By their insatiable nature, corporations make all tragedy-of-the-commons problems much, much worse. Antibiotic-resistant disease is a similar story, as the meat industry uses massive quantities of antibiotics without concern for the consequences. Ditto for air quality, water rights, and any other common asset that a corporation can profit from. If there's a horse in the common stable, a corporation will ride it to death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)