Nunavut vs Big Oil | SumOfUs
Off the coast of Clyde River, Nunavut, unspoiled Arctic waters are home to 90% of the world's narwhals. These unique tusked whales play a crucial role in the aquatic ecosystem, and for thousands of years have been a staple of the local Inuit community. But now their very survival is in danger.
The Canadian government just granted oil corporations the right to search for drilling sites in the ocean near Clyde River. Offshore drilling is bad enough, but the search is worse – these oil companies will use "seismic testing," setting off huge explosions underwater to try and find oil.
Like all whales, narwhals use their hearing to communicate and to find their way safely beneath the Arctic ice. The search for oil will deafen, disorient, and kill any narwhals caught in its path. It's up to us to speak up now, and stop this while we still can. Save the narwhals! For generations, big corporations have stripped northern Canada
of its natural resources, trampling the rights of native peoples and
destroying entire ecosystems for profit. The government has
been complicit in this, auctioning off oil and mineral rights to the
highest bidder and ignoring the consequences. But until now, the
narwhals and the local ecosystem they support have managed to survive.
The people of Clyde River have had enough. They are standing up to the
government and to Big Oil and fighting to protect their home. But there
are only 900 people in Clyde River. They need us to stand with them. If we act now, we can stop the oil companies in their tracks before the damage is done.
Sign the petition to stop Big Oil from destroying Arctic habitats.
Tuesday
Amnesty International: Tories' Resources-Over-Human-Rights Approach Mistaken
Amnesty International: Tories' Resources-Over-Human-Rights Approach Mistaken
OTTAWA - Amnesty International's Canada branch has issued a wide-ranging attack on the Harper government for making economic development a higher priority than human rights — especially in resource development.
Alex Neve, Amnesty's director general, said the organization wants human rights issues to be on the agenda for the expected federal election in 2015. Canadians will be talking about jobs and economic prosperity during next year's election, and those issues are inextricably linked to questions of human rights, said Neve.
Amnesty is accusing the government of doing too little to ensure that the rights of aboriginal people are adequately protected in the hundreds of major resource projects that are planned for the next decade.
"With all the attention that will be on jobs and the economy, we have to recognize how important it is to deal with indigenous people's land rights, corporate accountability and a trade policy that is grounded in human rights," said Neve.
OTTAWA - Amnesty International's Canada branch has issued a wide-ranging attack on the Harper government for making economic development a higher priority than human rights — especially in resource development.
Alex Neve, Amnesty's director general, said the organization wants human rights issues to be on the agenda for the expected federal election in 2015. Canadians will be talking about jobs and economic prosperity during next year's election, and those issues are inextricably linked to questions of human rights, said Neve.
Amnesty is accusing the government of doing too little to ensure that the rights of aboriginal people are adequately protected in the hundreds of major resource projects that are planned for the next decade.
"With all the attention that will be on jobs and the economy, we have to recognize how important it is to deal with indigenous people's land rights, corporate accountability and a trade policy that is grounded in human rights," said Neve.
Monday
OCA: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
OCA: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond. No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond. No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.
No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.
No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf
Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.
No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.
No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf
Starbucks wants you to think the company is on your side when it comes to GMO labeling laws.
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.
No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf
But it isn’t. As long as Starbucks is a dues-paying member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), which is party to a lawsuit against
the state of Vermont intended to overturn Vermont’s recently passed GMO
labeling law, the coffee peddler’s profits are being used to defeat
your right to know.
TAKE ACTION: Tell Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Stop Supporting Efforts to Kill GMO Labeling Laws. Quit the GMA!
In response to a blog post by singer/songwriter Neil Young, proclaiming his support for a Starbucks boycott, Starbucks posted this statement on its website:
Starbucks Response to Questions and Litigation Regarding GMO Labeling
Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling
nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not
aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law.
The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is
completely false and we have asked the petitioners to correct their
description of our position.
Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling.
As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we
prefer a national solution.
“Completely false”? Not quite.
As this subsequent article by Reuters points out:
Internal GMA documents filed last year as part of a lawsuit in
Washington State revealed [GMA] members contribute to a "Defense of
Brands Strategic Account" designed "to help the industry fund programs
to address the threats from motivated and well financed activists" and
to "shield individual companies from criticism for funding of specific
efforts."
When asked by Reuters if Starbucks has contributed to this “special” account, Starbucks did not respond.
No big surprise. Because not only does Starbucks’ membership in the
GMA support the GMA’s lawsuit against Vermont, it also supports a bill awaiting a hearing in Congress, written by the GMA, that would strip states of the right to pass mandatory GMO labeling laws.
- See more at:
http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50865/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15178&track=FB&tag=FB#sthash.pDDuweFj.dpuf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)