---

from The Audubon Society May 1, 2003

---

The New York State Senate is poised to act on a groundbreaking measure aimed at protecting birds and wildlife from the devastating impact of non-native or "invasive" species.  The term invasive species describes the set of harmful, non-native plants, animals, and microorganisms found throughout the United States that are causing widespread damage to bird and wildlife habitat and cause billions of dollars of damage annually to crops, rangelands, and waterways.  Many of America's most imperiled birds are threatened by invasive species, including more than one-third of the birds on Audubon's WatchList

Here in New York, invasive species are severely threatening native species on several wildlife refuges, and many Important Bird Areas throughout the state.  And currently in Albany, the State Senate is about to vote on a bill that could significantly help!   Bill number S.3522 calls for the creation of an invasive species task force whose job it will be to monitor the impact of invasive species and create plans to protect birds and wildlife at serious risk from the impact of these non-native species.  This is a very big and necessary first step that will go a very long way in protect birds and wildlife throughout our state!  

As your State Senator will cast a deciding vote on this measure, we're writing to you today to ask that you please contact your Senator and urge that lawmaker to support S.3522!  Remember, the more our lawmakers hear from their constituents, the better chance there is they will support this species-saving measure!  Click onto this link now for more information and to identify and communicate with your State Senator on this issue today: http://www.capitolconnect.com/audubon/summary.asp?subject=218

---

from The ETC Group May 2, 2003

---

ETC Group
Genotype
May 2, 2003
www.etcgroup.org


Nanotech and the Precautionary Prince
Tiny tech's biggest woe may be anger management.

Public row over princely cautions exposes nanotech's
not-so-small problem - green goo:

Prince Charles' concerns about the emerging revolution in nanotechnology (what ETC group prefers to call Atomtechnology) have catapulted tabloid headlines about "grey goo" (and impending doom) onto front pages around the world.(1) Industry fears that the great GMO (genetically modified organisms) debate is about to go down to the nanoscale inhabited by atoms and molecules.  Despite being one of the world's best-funded new technologies, nanotech is still little known or understood outside scientific and business circles - and even less regulated by governments. While grey goo makes great headlines, many are probably still scratching their own grey goo wondering what the fuss is about.

The Precautionary Prince: According to news reports, Prince Charles' concerns stem in part from his reading of The Big Down, an ETC Group report on nanoscale technologies (see www.etcgroup.org for the full text and related studies). Only four pages of the 80-page study discuss the prospect of molecular manufacturing (which, if possible and allowed out of control, could lead to the grey goo scenario). Jim Thomas of the ETC Group's UK office explains,
"Although Prince Charles hasn't talked with us, he did order several copies of The Big Down.  It seems reasonable to assume that he is aware of the full range of issues addressed in the study. These include the health and environmental implications of nanoparticle manufacture, the implications for national economies and employment, the potential for technology monopolies as well as the future of molecular self-assembly. In fact, these are the same issues we will be discussing at a seminar in the European Parliament in Brussels on June 11th 2003 [see box below]." In so doing, the Prince is simply observing the precautionary approach for environmental safety that has been recognised by governments through the United Nations. News of the Prince's interest has galvanized industry (and some scientists) to try to marginalise St. James' Palace by arguing that the Prince's concerns are either non-existent, centuries distant, or exist only in pulp fiction. But the virulent attacks against the Prince may only be the latest of a series of technical and tactical mistakes made by nanotech's over-eager proponents.

The first mistake: Prince Charles has grounds for caution. Despite a quarter-century of lab work on nanoparticles, scientists worldwide have failed to establish agreed laboratory protocols to safeguard workers. Moreover, governments have allowed nanoparticles into consumer products in the absence of regulatory mechanisms. Particles that have been approved for consumer use at the micro or macro scale have not been re-tested when introduced into the same products at the nanoscale. Indeed, some nano companies pooh-poohed the notion that nanoparticles need to be evaluated for their health and environmental impact - even though the quantum characteristics of elements in the Periodic Table change radically and nanoparticles can run undetected past immune systems and can even slip through the blood-brain barrier. Over the past year, ETC Group has brought forward a series of reports showing that real risks exist. (See, for example, "No Small Matter" and "Size Matters," www.etcgroup.org.) Partly because of this research, a growing number of scientists are acknowledging that nanoparticles could pose significant risks for the environment and human health.

The second mistake: In an ill-conceived campaign to paint critics - and now Prince Charles - as paranoid, industry has implied that concerns about nanotech come from either Luddites or science fiction fans who believe it is possible for scientists to construct nanoscale robots (nanobots). Such nanobots would self-replicate and be capable of atom-by-atom construction of everything from a Big Mac to a Mac Apple to the Big Apple. "The image is a fanciful combination of invisible sci-fi robots stacking atoms mixed with the Sorcerer's Apprentice," says Jim Thomas in Oxford. "This is hardly what we mean by molecular self-assembly."

Green goo: "It's not grey goo but green goo that makes molecular self-assembly worthy of serious study and plausible in the not-too-distant-future," says Pat Mooney, ETC Group's Executive Director. "Molecular self-assembly is what living materials do best. You don't need tiny tin robots. Science is merging biotechnology and nanotechnology into nanobiotechnology in order to fashion unique amino acids, proteins, molecules and cells. These will be organized in new manufacturing processes that could replace conventional machines and workers." ETC Group believes that rapid developments in this field warrant concern.

Life matters: Through the nanoscale manipulation of biological materials it is now possible (or scientists believe it soon will be possible) to:
* Craft synthetic DNA from the blueprint provided by a natural organism;
* Use the synthetic DNA to create unique living organisms; (2)
* Construct new artificial amino acids that can be built into unique proteins;
* Add a fifth letter to DNA (A, C, T, G and now "F") thus increasing the potential diversity (or destructiveness) of life. (3)
* "Write" DNA code in much the same way programmers write software;(4)
* Use DNA to build nano machines capable of exponential self-assembly;
* Design exponentially self-assembling nanomachines that can become motors, pistons, tweezers, etc. in manufacturing processes.

Time matters: While the prospects for molecular self-assembly as a major manufacturing process remain hypothetical, it would be a dangerous mistake to consider it unlikely or far-off. "Consider how the pace of scientific progress is already impacting nanobiotechnology," Pat Mooney suggests. "In 1996, after ten years, 1,000 scientists decoded the yeast genome. This year, a SARS genome was decoded in eight days. At the outset of the Human Genome Project, it took two months to sequence 150 nucleotides. Now we can sequence 11 million nucleotides in a few hours," said Mooney. "In the last ten years," Jim Thomas points out, "the number of screened drug candidates has increased by three orders of magnitude from 500,000 compounds to 1.5 billion."

Anger management: As funding and research in nanotech have grown dramatically in recent years, its proponents have been warning one another that they dare not make the same mistakes the agbiotech companies made when GM crops were introduced in the mid-1990s.  Yet, when critics of nanotech pointed out that industry had introduced nanoscale particles into consumer products without adequate testing for health and environmental impacts, the industry resorted to diversionary tactics. The recent attacks on the Prince of Wales by nanotech proponents are reminiscent of the worst blunders of biotech's boosters. By characterizing all legitimate concerns as hysterical and grey goo-related, industry is desperately seeking to silence all voices of caution.  In doing so, they risk making ever larger mistakes.

Seminar in European Parliament: Together with The European Greens, The Ecologist, Greenpeace, the Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, Genewatch UK, Clean Production Action and a cross-party group of MEPs, ETC Group will hold a seminar on nanotechnology in the European Parliament in Brussels on June 11th 2003. Led by international experts, the seminar will look at both the issues related to nanoparticle safety and the potential for molecular self-assembly with a view to consider appropriate steps for societal discourse and government regulation. Speakers include physicist Dr. Vandana Shiva and toxicologist Dr. Vyvyan Howard. The seminar will be followed, on June 12th by a discussion among civil society organizations in Europe on strategies to address the issues involved in nanotechnology. For further information please see ETC Group's website, www.etcgroup.org.

1 Jonathan Oliver, "Charles: 'Grey Goo' Threat To the World," The Mail on Sunday, April 27, 2003, p1. For responses, see: Japer Gerard, "Charles gets in a wee tizz over nanotechnology," Sunday Times (London), April 27, 2003 and Anon., "MP's anti-science slur on the Prince," Norwich Evening News, April 28, 2003.
2 Alexander Goho, "Life Made to Order," Technology Review, April 2003. Available on the Internet: www.technnologyreview.com
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.

ETC Group will release a new Communiqué related to this subject in May, 2003.

The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, formerly RAFI, is an international civil society organization headquartered in Canada. The ETC group is dedicated to the advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights.  www.etcgroup.org. The ETC group is also a member of the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Programme (CBDC).  The CBDC is a collaborative experimental initiative involving civil society organizations and public research institutions in 14 countries.  The CBDC is dedicated to the exploration of community-directed programmes to strengthen the conservation and enhancement of agricultural biodiversity.  The CBDC website is www.cbdcprogram.org .

---

from American Lands May 2, 2003

---

---

from Alaska Rainforest Campaign May 2, 2003

---

akrain.org/

Bush Administration “Rainforest Campaign” Begins!
Cholmondeley Logging Project First Assault on Tongass National Forest Roadless Areas

TAKE ACTION: Tell Forest Service Chief Bosworth that you OPPOSE ALL ROADLESS AREA LOGGING in the Tongass National Forest! Here’s what you can do to help:

1. Email Chief Bosworth - dbosworth@fs.fed.us. (A sample email message is included at the end of this alert that you can personalize and send.)  

2. Call Chief Bosworth (202) 205-1661. Call first thing Monday morning or leave a message this weekend! Tell the Chief that you oppose ALL logging projects in roadless areas of the Tongass National Forest including the Cholmondeley (pronounced chom-lee) project.

*****

The Bush Administration released yesterday (May 1, 2003) the Record of Decision for the Cholmondeley (pronounced Chomlee) logging project, the first of approximately 50 projects scheduled in roadless areas of the Tongass National Forest.

"This sale is a sign of things to come, bad things," says Tim Bristol of the Alaska Coalition. "We expect three more sales in quick succession to be followed by a dismantling of Tongass protections included in the Roadless Rule," says Bristol. "It's a slow motion disaster for our biggest, wettest, wildest national forest, coming to you courtesy of the Bush administration."

Once again, the administration has revealed that they value roadless areas in the Tongass National Forest as little more than gifts to corporate special interests. At the first opportunity available they’ve chosen not to protect a wild road-free expanse of the rainforest, but rather have put in place a plan for large-scale clearcuts and development in a pristine roadless area in the Tongass.

The Cholmondeley logging project —a patchwork of clearcuts, log dumps and roads—will damage one of the last remaining intact watersheds on Prince of Wales Island, an island already devastated by decades of industrial scale logging. The area hosts beautiful rolling hills, sparkling lakes and secluded ocean coves. It contains numerous streams with large healthy runs of wild salmon. Area residents have opposed the sale due to its potential negative impacts on drinking water. Owners of long-established lodges, dependent on a wild - not a stump and road filled - Alaska experience, also adamantly oppose the project.

Cholmondeley is one of four Tongass logging projects in roadless areas not afforded protection by the wildly popular National Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Yet it clearly violates the spirit of the landmark conservation policy which bans commercial logging and road building in roadless areas nationwide.

It is clear that the Bush administration is focused on an aggressive agenda to log roadless areas in the Tongass despite the overwhelming public support to permanently protect the crown jewel of our nation’s forest system. The Bush administration has publicly acknowledged its intent to revise the Roadless Rule and in doing so exempt the Tongass National Forest from any protection. In the meantime, the Bush administration’s first direct assault on roadless areas in the Tongass has arrived with the release of the Record of Decision for the Cholmondeley timber project.

For more information on the Alaska rainforest contact: Laurie Cooper, Alaska Coalition (laurie@alaskacoalition.org)


SAMPLE EMAIL:

Dear Chief Bosworth,

I urge you to reconsider your decision on the Cholmondeley logging project in the Tongass National Forest. I strongly support the protection all of the roadless areas in our largest national forest and oppose this project, as well as any other, that proposes to clearcut and develop pristine areas of the rainforest.

The Cholmondeley logging project is not in the best interests of the people of southeast Alaska, nor is it in the best interest of our nation. What remains wild and road-free in the world’s largest intact temperate rainforest should be safeguarded for generations to come. Logging roadless areas of the Tongass is a poor decision.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

BE SURE TO INCLUDE YOUR NAME AND FULL ADDRESS.

Thanks for your support.

Alaska Rainforest Campaign Staff.

---

from Care2 alerts May 6, 2003

---

1. Global Warming on the Hot Seat

http://www.care2.com/go/z/5718

Today, U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph
Lieberman (D-CT) should include their Climate Stewardship
Act (S. 139) in the U.S. Energy Bill. This groundbreaking
legislation could be the turning point in a fight against global
warming. In contrast with President Bush's voluntary-only cuts
in global warming pollution from power plants, this new plan
*requires* cuts in U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gasses
that cause global warming.

Let the U.S. government know that the whole world
supports U.S. efforts to curb global warming!  The U.S.
is the world's number-one emitter of global warming
pollution, and alternative fuels exist TODAY that could solve
this problem. Please sign this petition to demonstrate your
support for the McCain-Lieberman global warming bill and new
actions to slow global warming; even if you are not from the
United States, sign this petition to show how far reaching the
concern about global warming is.
http://www.care2.com/go/z/5718

2. Global Warming Hits Seals and Polar Bears
Shrinking Arctic ice caps are threatening arctic animals.
Polar bears find it harder to find the food as icebergs, their
"highways" to a seal food supply, shrink away, or as ice
that normally forms fails to appear. The giant white bears
need the ice to gain access to ringed and barbed seals
which live and play away from land among the ice bergs,
yet the ice is breaking up two weeks earlier than normal
these days, and polar bears are on average between 176
and 187 pounds lighter. Scientists believe it is because
they cannot find food. Every day of ice hunting is critical,
as the bears must hunt to build enough fat to last through
the forced 5 month fast during winter.

Unseasonal warming can also lead to collapses of the snow
caves where female seals bear their young. The young as
yet have no blubber and die of exposure when cold
conditions return. Scientists suspect that declines in seal
populations will occur in this manner, and will ultimately
lead to further declines in polar bear populations.

3. Inspirational Quote:
"Let man heal the hurt places and revere whatever is still
miraculously pristine"
- David R. Brower

---

from American Lands May 6, 2003

---

To:  All Activists

From:  Lisa Dix, American Lands

Date:  May 6, 2003   

Please Sign On to Letter Opposing McInnis Bill (HR 1904)   

The "Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003" (HR 1904) introduced by Representative McInnis (R-CO) will be considered on the House Floor during the week of May 12, 2003.   This bill passed in the House Resources Committee on Wednesday April 30, 2003 and will be considered in the House Agriculture Committee on Thursday May 6, 2003.
  We must generate as much opposition to the bill as possible before it goes to the House floor during the week on May 12th.     

1).
  Please call your Representative at 1-800-839-5276 and tell them to vote NO on HR 1904, the "Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003."   

2).
  Please sign your group on to the letter below by 11 a.m. EST, Wednesday May 6, 2003.  

  Thank you.  

 

PLEASE OPPOSE the McINNIS BILL (HR 1904)   

The McInnis bill will cut the heart out of NEPA, interfere with the independent judiciary, further subsidize logging, and cut out the public.   

And the bill will do nothing to ensure protection of homes and communities from the risk of wildfire.   

Dear Representative:   

During the week of May 12, 2003 the House will consider the "Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003" (HR 1904).   We urge you to oppose this bill, which seeks to cut the heart out of NEPA -- the Magna Carta of environmental protection, eliminate the public’s say regarding the management of its public lands, and dramatically interfere with our independent judiciary, all while providing new subsidies to the timber industry.   This bill does not offer more protection to communities at risk from wildfire, but rather seeks to undermine our environmental laws and the judicial process when it comes to logging on our public lands, potentially including national parks and wildlife refuges.
  The "Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003" (HR 1904):   

DOES NOT ENSURE ANY INCREASED PROTECTION FOR COMMUNITIES: This bill does not include any specific measures to protect homes or communities.  The only proven method to protect homes and communities is to reduce flammable materials in the immediate vicinity of structures, yet the sham definitions in the McInnis bill would not require any activities to be near homes.
  Instead, the bill seeks to eliminate obstacles to logging large, fire-resistant trees miles away from the nearest home.  The country’s top forest scientists, including the Forest Service’s own scientists, have found that this kind of logging can actually increase fire risk and make fires larger and more intense.  Attached is a letter from scientists providing more details.   

CUTS THE HEART OUT OF NEPA: The McInnis bill seeks to eliminate the most important part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – the requirement that alternatives to agency actions are considered.  The courts have called this consideration of alternatives the very “Heart of NEPA.”
  Attached is a letter from the nation’s most highly respected independent NEPA experts detailing the legal significance of this action.

INTERFERES WITH OUR INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY:   The McInnis bill seeks to restrict a core principle of our democracy -- the right of Americans to seek redress in the courts for grievances involving the federal government.  It attempts to automatically require a court to tip the scales of justice in favor of the proponents of a logging project.  In addition, it would drastically limit the amount of time the public has to file an appeal in court and attempts to legislate unprecedented interference with the judiciary by limiting the time judges have to review the impacts of logging projects, as well as forcing them to affirmatively renew preliminary injunctions after 45 days.  The requirement that several committees of Congress be informed whenever a judge presumes to renew a preliminary injunction is also troubling.   

PROVIDES EVEN MORE SUBSIDIES FOR THE TIMBER INDUSTRY:

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

U.S. PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP

 

---

from U.S. PIRG May 6, 2003

---

As American consumers struggle through tough economic times, the U.S. Senate Energy Committee has developed a disaster of a dirty energy bill.  The Senate energy bill is loaded with provisions written by and for the utility, nuclear, coal and oil industries that threaten our pocketbooks, public health, national security and environment.

Please take a moment to urge your senators to reject this dirty and expensive energy bill.

To take action, click on this link or paste it into your web browser:
http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id=30&id4=ES


Last month, the U.S. House passed its version of the energy bill.  The U.S. House energy bill delivers far more to the oil and nuclear industry than it will ever deliver to American consumers.  The U.S. Senate is poised to vote on its energy bill as soon as this week.  The Senate energy bill is too expensive and dangerous for America and should be rejected.

The Senate energy bill threatens national security by increasing oil consumption.  At a time when oil prices are skyrocketing and our national security is threatened by our dependence on oil, this bill contains no meaningful oil savings provisions.  Not only does the Senate energy bill fail to increase vehicle fuel economy, it would make it even more difficult for the Transportation Department to raise fuel economy than under current law by adding new criteria for any future increases.

The bill also repeals one of the few laws that protect electricity consumers from market manipulation and price gouging, the Public Utility Holding Company Act.  This will encourage more Enron-type electricity market manipulation and open the door to more California-size electricity disasters.

The Senate energy bill contains $10.7 billion in tax breaks to polluters like the oil, gas, coal, incinerator and nuclear industries, including a first-ever tax break for burning coal - an incentive to increase global warming pollution.  The bill also includes an estimated $30 billion subsidy in federal loan guarantees to assist the nuclear industry.

The Senate energy bill accelerates oil and gas drilling in public lands.  The bill contains a number of provisions that would further erode existing environmental protections for the nation's public lands, which provide outstanding recreation opportunities, critical fish and wildlife habitats and serve as the headwaters for most of the drinking water in the West.  Most oil and gas resources on our public lands are already available for oil and gas development, which is proceeding at an unprecedented rate.  Nonetheless, the energy bill seeks to further accelerate new development of our lands for oil and gas wells, pipelines and roads by emphasizing speed at the expense of meaningful public involvement and environmental review of potential damage.

Please take a moment to urge your senators to reject this dirty and expensive energy bill that threatens our pocketbooks, public health, national security and the environment.

To take action, click on this link or paste it into your web browser:
http://pirg.org/alerts/route.asp?id=30&id4=ES

Sincerely,

Gene Karpinski
U.S. PIRG Executive Director
GeneK@uspirg.org
http://www.USPIRG.org

---

from Greenpeace May 7, 2003

---

Greenpeace Activist News, Vol. 3, No. 4
7 May 2003

In this action packed issue, nuclear playing cards, a war update, attack of the speech bubbles, threats to African forests and beaches, a blubber victory, GE wheat in Canada, dirty oil in Australia, and ... have you cast your Webby vote for Greenpeace yet?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can change your email address, unsubscribe from this list,
and have a forgotten cybercentre password mailed to you using
the links at the bottom of this message. Please remember to
delete these links before forwarding this message to anyone
else.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SUITS AND NUKES

Nuclear weapons and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) are the topic being discussed this week by world governments meeting in Geneva. While much media attention has focussed recently on whether Iraq did or did not possess weapons of mass destruction, it is clear that the major possessors of these weapons, namely the US, Russia, the UK, France, China, Israel, Pakistan and India, have not made enough progress in eliminating them. When the NPT was agreed in 1968, there were approximately 38,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Today, there are still approximately 30,000.

After Greenpeace created a pack of playing cards showing the major leaders behind the global stockpiles of nuclear weapons and distributed decks in Geneva, the media and public response was overwhelming.

You can read more about the NPT and the playing cards here:

http://greenpeace.org/features/details?item_id=234491

Check out the nuclear solitare game in the box on the right (requires the latest version of Flash).

We may do a second larger printing of these playing cards. If you would like to register to express your interest in getting one (or more) decks, you can do it here:

http://act.greenpeace.org/col/get?i=770&sk=std2&la=en

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNITING FOR PEACE

Your overwhelming and record breaking response to the Uniting for Peace initiative during the war in Iraq had a great influence. Our lobbyists at the UN received lots of positive feedback from Ambassadors about the quantity of public support the initiative had, and although the Arab League DID in fact put in a call for a special General Assembly meeting on the war in the first week of April, events in Baghdad overtook the initiative, and it was withdrawn.

However, the struggle over this issue continues. The UN Security Council continues to wrangle over the role of inspectors, the transition in Iraq, the lifting of sanctions, the question of weapons of mass destruction, and the fear of who the Bush administration will target next. The call by the public, politicians and governments to uphold the UN Charter and the rule of law, and to oppose US unilateralism and the Bush doctrine continues. There is now an on-line petition supporting the principles that we continue to push for at the UN. Please sign today at:

http://www.uniting-for-peace.net

and add your voice to those who don't want to see another 'preventive war'!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ATTACK OF THE SPEECH BUBBLES

More than 1100 people have uploaded a speech bubble image attacking Esso/Exxon/Mobil for undermining action against global warming and climate change. You can visit the image gallery and upload your own image from:

http://www.stopesso.org

While you are there, you may also want to visit one of the many national Don't Buy Esso/Exxon/Mobil sites by using the drop down box at the top.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HELP BLOCK BLOODY TIMBER

The Liberian timber industry has been supporting arms trafficking and regional conflict through financial and logistical support since the diamond export ban. Because of overwhelming evidence, the United Nations Security Council has agreed to an export ban on Liberian timber to put an end to the active and violent destabilisation implemented by the Liberian government in the region. This ban does not come into effect until July and in the meantime this blood stained timber is flooding into markets.

Take action to support our efforts to stop the import of Liberian timber and urge German timber company Offermann to cancel all existing contracts for Liberian timber immediately:

http://act.greenpeace.org/ams/e?a=772&s=for

And get ready for many more forest actions to come!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
STOP SHIPBREAKING IN GUINEA BISSAU

The beautiful Bolama beach in the West African country of Guinea Bissau may soon turn into a scrapyard for old toxic ships, threatening nature and the lives of local people. The beach is part of the Bijagos Archipelagos, classified as a Biosphere Reserve by the United Nations (Unesco). Help to save the Bolama beach! Let the United Nations know they should protect the nature and people of Guinea Bissau. You can also send a beautiful e-card to tell your friends about this cyberaction.

http://act.greenpeace.org/ams/e?a=766&s=ship

Help Greenpeace spot toxic ships destined for scrapping

Are you connected to the shipping industry, a ship spotter, a harbourmaster, a crew member or in any other way able to localize the positions of ships that are destined for shipbreaking beaches? We need your help! Please visit the Greenpeace shipbreaking website:

http://www.greenpeaceweb.org/shipbreak/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BLUBBER VICTORY

Over the past two years, more than 30 thousand cyberactivists wrote to the Norwegian prime minister asking him to stop plans to export whale blubber to Japan and other countries. We now have a victory!

Here's the update from our whale campaign:

A committee of Norwegian scientists has formally recognised the high levels of toxic compounds in whale blubber produced by Norway hunt and recommended that human consumption of whale blubber be banned in Norway. Their tests showed that one gram of minke blubber had about 95 picograms of PCB-related pollutants, almost a tenth of the maximum weekly intake under European Union guidelines. PCBs build up in fatty tissues and have been linked to birth defects.

The recommendation to ban consumption of blubber in Norway ends the possiblity of export to Japan. This is a real blow to the Norwegian whaling industry whose expansion has been driven by hopes of increased profits through export.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HELP STOP MONSANTO GE WHEAT

Wheat is the single biggest food source in the world -- and the oldest. Canada and the US sell one fifth of the world's wheat -- second only to China. Now Monsanto is asking for permission to sell genetically engineered wheat in North America.

Take action today by signing this petition urging the Canadian government to ban GE wheat:

http://www.greenpeace.ca/e/action/wheat/index.php

For more information, watch "Slice of Life", a 9-minute video documenting just how much is at stake, for our food supply and for our farmers. You can see the video on-line here:

http://www.greenpeace.org/multimedia/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HELP STOP DIRTY AUSTRALIAN OIL

At the end of April an obscure US private energy investment fund, Sandefer Capital Partners, agreed to invest A$52 million in Australian shale oil company Southern Pacific Petroleum (SPP).

See

http://www.greenpeace.org.au/climate/causes/criminals/shaleoil/overview.html

for more information.

Sandefer's investment is crucial for SPP. Sandefer has said it will also consider arranging the A$600 million needed to expand the pilot plant to commercial scale.

Please email Sandefer's President and call on him to withdraw Sandefer's investment in SPP and dirty shale oil.

http://www.greenpeace.org.au/climate/takeaction/sandefer/stop_shale.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HELP GREENPEACE WIN A WEBBY

Have you done your part to make sure we win a webby?  You've been meaning to do it, but you just haven't had the time, right?  Well take a moment now!

We're currently the front runners, but only by a slim margin, and voting closes very soon. If you've enjoyed being a part of victories such as our successful cyberaction protecting the ancient Finnish forest from logging this year, or our on-going work against destructive corporations such as Dow, ExxonMobil or Monsanto, and want more people to join us in online activism in the future, vote for Greenpeace. It's a vote for online communities like ours, and the future of activism on the web. Follow the link below, pick up a password in your mailbox, and vote!

http://www.webbyawards.com/peoplesvoice/

VISIT THE CYBERCENTRE

Please don't forget to visit the Greenpeace Cyberactivist Community at:
http://act.greenpeace.org

---

from The ETC Group May 7, 2003

---

News Release
Wednesday, May 7th 2003
www.etcgroup.org

Europe's (and the World's) Big Soy Berger:
Patently Wrong!

After delays, denial, and double standards, Monsanto maintains unjust monopoly
on major food crop. Time to talk to the cooks about a new recipe?

In a jaw-dropping affirmation of Monsanto's monopoly control over commodity crops, one of the world's most notorious patents for genetically engineered crops was yesterday upheld by the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich - this despite a nine year battle by civil society (and  industry) to have it revoked. European Patent No. 301,749, granted in March 1994, is an exceptionally broad "species patent" which grants gene giant Monsanto exclusive monopoly over all forms of genetically engineered soybean varieties and seeds - irrespective of the genes used or the transformation technique employed. The patent, attacked as immoral and technically invalid by food security advocates worldwide, was vigorously opposed by Monsanto itself until they purchased the original patent holder (Agracetus) in 1996, and switched sides to make the soybean species patent a major ingredient in its global recipe for crop monopoly.

Backburner: The case simmered on the EPO's backburner for an astonishing nine years before reaching the patent tribunal in Munich yesterday. The EPO took only ten hours (including coffee and cake breaks) to hear oral arguments and uphold Monsanto's monopoly. Monsanto did surrender one unsustainable claim in the patent (claim no. 25), which sought control beyond soybeans to other plants as well.

ETC Group, who maintained its opposition to the patent since first uncovering it nearly a decade ago, were present in Munich yesterday with expert legal counsel, UK barrister Daniel Alexander and patent attorney Tim Roberts. Other opponents included Greenpeace, activist Stefan Geene, Syngenta and Pioneer Hi-Bred (a subsidiary of DuPont).

ETC Group and other opponents expressed bitter disappointment at the outcome.

Same old recipe: "Monsanto has made overtures in the media to reinvent themselves as a gentler, humbler company," said Hope Shand, ETC Group Research Director, "But their behavior in court showed that where it matters, Monsanto is still aggressively pursuing monopolistic control by any means available. Even more alarming is how readily the patent system rewards such behavior, ignoring basic morality, and failing to encourage socially beneficial innovation. When ETC Group first challenged this patent we were primarily concerned about the threat to food security from the Gene Giants - today, nine years later, we find ourselves equally shocked and concerned about the threat to democracy from such an unresponsive patent system. It portends much larger patent problems to come with nanotechnology and other emerging technologies."

"This is a thoroughly bad decision," said patent attorney Tim Roberts. "You would look far to find another patent in which such a small advance has justified such an enormous claim. It seems to have been reached by mechanically applying inappropriate precedent, while ignoring the fundamental principle of the patent system - the balance of rights between the innovator and society. If the Opposition Board's decision is correct in law, then the law needs to be changed,"
said Roberts.

SARS bars and Geene engineering: Monsanto began the proceedings in Munich with successful legal moves to deny some expert witnesses the right to speak; including Dr. Suman Sahai of the Gene Campaign who had been brought by Greenpeace from India to testify about the impact of the patent on food security. Most amazingly, soybean experts from China, the genetic homeland of soya, had already been barred from the EPO court because of SARS fears. Monsanto then proposed to the tribunal that ETC Group and long-time German campaigner Stefan Geene be disqualified from the hearing, claiming that Geene, despite being present in the courtroom, was a 'fictitious person'. Although Monsanto's request was denied, it set the tone for its strategy throughout the day. Debate on ethical questions was largely marginalised by Monsanto and an unresponsive Tribunal.

Secret Recipe: Perhaps most astonishing was Monsanto's legal maneuvering to sidestep its own evidence. In 1994 Monsanto gave unambiguous evidence in an opposition statement requesting that the patent be revoked. One of Monsanto's top scientists testified in 1994 that the genetic engineering process described in the patent was insufficient to allow someone skilled in the science to replicate the procedure - a necessary criterion for patentability. Nevertheless Monsanto's lawyers successfully argued that the company should be allowed monopoly over any genetically engineered soybean seed and variety obtained through any and all modification processes.

Let them eat cake? "It's a bit like publishing a badly written cake recipe and then claiming ownership of any cakes baked by anybody using any recipe any time in the future," explained Jim Thomas, of ETC Group's Oxford office. "In fact, since acquiring Agracetus, Monsanto has already leveraged this patent as part of their strategy to grab as much of the cake as they can - seeking to control one of the world's most important food crops. Monsanto now controls 100% of the world's genetically engineered soybeans covering 36.5 million hectares in 2002 - that's over half of the world's total soybean area. It's hard to imagine a more blatant and dangerous monopoly."

Soy Berger King: According to Dr. Christoph Then, patent expert for Greenpeace, "This case is a clear signal that the European Patent Directive should be revoked. Europe needs new patent legislation that expressly prohibits patents on life." Dr. Then and Stefan Geene represented Greenpeace at the EPO tribunal yesterday.

Matter Monopolies: ETC Group also regards the maintenance of this patent as a dangerous precedent for other broad claims on new emerging technologies, in particular nanotechnology - the atomic manipulation of matter to create new molecular forms. "This broad patent on Soybeans was allowed precisely because aggressive corporations and lax governments were pushing the boundaries in the early days of biotech, allowing exclusive monopoly patents on all biological products and processes," explained Shand. "Today, corporations are grabbing nano-patents on molecular products and processes, even the chemical elements that make up all of nature. With nanotech patents, 'Matter Moguls' threaten to control the fundamental building blocks of nature. "

Recipe change: "We fear that the EPO decision on Monsanto's soybean patent gives comfort to those who want to establish ever wider legal claims - including matter monopolies," emphasized Jim Thomas. "Monsanto may have won an entire species but others are seeking to monopolise entire elements of nature. Atomic-level manufacturing provides new opportunities for sweeping monopoly control over both living and non-living matter." With technologies converging at the nanoscale, ETC Group warns that efforts to oppose intellectual monopolies must not be limited to campaigns against the patenting of life. This issue will be discussed at an upcoming seminar for policy makers, civil society and the media in the European Parliament in Brussels on June 11th. "If the recipe is this bad we'll take it back to the cooks," Thomas concludes.

Seminar in European Parliament: Together with the European Greens, The Ecologist, Greenpeace, The Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, Genewatch UK, Clean Production Action and a cross-party group of MEP's, ETC Group will hold a seminar on nanotechnology in the European Parliament in Brussels on June 11, 2003. Led by international experts, the seminar will look at both the issues related to nanotech and intellectual property as well as societal and safety questions with a view to consider appropriate steps for government regulation. Speakers include physicist Dr. Vandana Shiva and toxicologist Dr. Vyvyan Howard. The seminar will be followed on June 12 by a discussion among civil society organisations in Europe on strategies to address the issues involved in nanotechnology. For further information please see ETC Group's website: www.etcgroup.org or contact jim@etcgroup.org.

Note to editors: Although the EPO tribunal decisively ruled in favour of Monsanto, the panel will not release its written judgment for several more weeks.

For further information:
Pat Mooney,   ETC Group (Canada) +1 204 4535259
Jim Thomas,   ETC Group (UK) jim@etcgroup.org +44 (0) 1865 207818
       or Mobile +44 (0) 7752 106806
Hope Shand,   ETC Group (USA) hope@etcgroup.org +1 919 9605223
Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (Mexico) silvia@etcgroup.org +52 55 55 632 664

The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, formerly RAFI, is an international civil society organization headquartered in Canada. The ETC group is dedicated to the advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights. www.etcgroup.org. The ETC group is also a member of the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Programme (CBDC). The CBDC is a collaborative experimental initiative involving civil society organizations and public research institutions in 14 countries. The CBDC is dedicated to the exploration of community-directed programmes to strengthen the conservation and enhancement of agricultural biodiversity. The CBDC website is www.cbdcprogram.org.

---

from World Wildlife Fund May 8, 2003

---