|
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
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 .
TUESDAY HEARING ON HR 1835 -- CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TO
OPPOSE ANOTHER POMBO - YOUNG ATTACK ON THE ESA Ø DEMOCRATS: REPUBLICANS:
Among other things, HR 1835 would:
Broadly eliminate federal agencies' duty to conserve (i.e.,
protect and recover) threatened and endangered species under the ESA. This would apply to
all federal agencies, including the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management,
Bureau of Reclamation, and other agencies which have a record of harming
imperiled species and their habitats, unless forced to protect them by the ESA
and other laws.
Broadly weaken the US Fish & Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service's duty under the ESA to designate "critical
habitats" for species newly listed as threatened and endangered. Critical habitat
designations are intended to provide important immediate protections for these
imperiled species on federal public lands, and to help identify and protect
federal public lands needed for species' recovery.
Allow the Secretary of Defense to exempt the military from
any and all provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, if the Secretary
determines the exemptions are needed for "national security." These exemptions
would not have to meet ANY substantive criteria or definitions of "national
security," and the decision would be entirely up to the Secretary of
Defense. These
exemptions could also be very broad and sweeping, and could literally apply to
any military-related actions, including training and research, for as long as
two years at a time.
202/225-2095
202/225-6161
202/225-2701
202/225-2161
202/225-3611
202/225-5506
202/225-6065
202/225-6311
202/225-6190
202/225-4765
202-225-1947
202-225-5765
202-225-5811
202-225-1986
202-225-4761
202-225-2311
202-225-7751
202-225-6155
202-225-4436
202-225-6730
202-225-2190
202-225-6435
202-225-2635
202-225-2315
202-225-6165
202-225-2365
202-225-0453
202-225-2523
202-225-1252
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.
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
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.
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.
DOES NOT ENSURE ANY
INCREASED PROTECTION FOR COMMUNITIES:
CUTS THE HEART OUT OF
NEPA:
PROVIDES EVEN MORE SUBSIDIES FOR THE TIMBER INDUSTRY:
THE
WILDERNESS SOCIETY
U.S.
PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUP
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
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
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.
|
|
|
ACTION DEADLINE: May 12, 2003
Introduced
by Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), the
Climate Stewardship Act could come up for a vote soon. |
|
|||||||||
»» Tell Your Friends »» Take Action Around the World »» Protect the Arctic Refuge from Drilling »» Urge Congress to Help Rhinos, Tigers, and More |
| |||||||||
| If you have
any questions or problems with taking action contact
us for help. Visit your Personal Action Center and click on "Edit Your Profile" if you prefer to receive alerts in text format. |
||||||||||
Tiger & Rhino:©WWF-Canon/Martin Harvey Whale:©Melissa S. Cole Panda:©EyeWire, Inc. | |
| ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
|
On
June 2, the Federal Communications Commission is planning on authorizing
sweeping changes to the American news media. The rule changes could allow your
local TV stations, newspaper, radio stations, and cable provider to all be owned
by one company. NBC, ABC, CBS and Fox could have the same corporate parent. The
resulting concentration of ownership could be deeply destructive to our
democracy.
When we talk to Congresspeople about this issue, their
response is usually the same: "We only hear from media lobbyists on this. It
seems like my constituents aren't very concerned with this issue." A few
thousand emails could permanently change that perception. Please join us in
asking Congress and the FCC to fight media deregulation at:
http://www.moveon.org/stopthefcc/
After the FCC and Congress relaxed radio ownership
rules, corporate giant Clear Channel Communications swept in and bought hundreds
of stations. Clear Channel has used its might to support pro-war political
rallies and conservative talk shows, keep anti-war songs off its stations,
coerce musicians into playing free promotional concerts, and bully them into
performing at its music venues. In many towns that used to have a diverse array
of radio options, Clear Channel is now the only thing on the dial.
Monopoly power is a dangerous thing, and Congress is
supposed to guard against it. But the upcoming rule change could change the
landscape for all media and usher in an era in which a few corporations control
your access to news and entertainment. Please tell Congress and the FCC to
support a diverse, competitive media landscape by going to:
http://www.moveon.org/stopthefcc/
You can also automatically have your comments publicly
filed at the FCC.
Democracy is built on the idea that the views and
beliefs of an informed citizenry are the best basis for political
decision-making. Without access to fair and balanced news, the system simply
doesn't work. And media corporations can't be trusted to balance themselves:
news corporations have shown again and again that they're willing to sacrifice
journalism to improve the bottom line. That's why we need many media entities --
to keep each other honest, and to provide the information and ideas that make
democracy happen.
Please join this critical campaign, and let Congress
know you care.
Sincerely, P.S. Here's a copy of our recent bulletin on this
subject. To sign up for the bulletin, just click here:
--Eli Pariser
MoveOn.org
May 8th, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/
Subscribe online at:
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/
You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking here:
http://moveon.org/s?i=1344-1576351-Eths880v0XlzL1iWOgVVhw
CONTENTS:
1. Eli Pariser: Why Worry About Who Owns the
Media?
2. Jeff Chester: Showdown at the FCC
3. Neil Hickey: The Gathering Storm Over Media Ownership
4. Bill Moyers: Barry Diller Takes On Media Deregulation
5. Danny Schechter: The Media, the War, and Our Right to Know
6. Eric Boehlert: Clear Channel's Big Stinking Deregulation Mess
7. Paul Schmelzer: The Death of Local News
8. Caryl
Rivers: Where Have All the
Women Gone?
9. About the Bulletin
------------------------------
WHY WORRY ABOUT WHO OWNS THE MEDIA? It's like something out of a nightmare, but it really
happened: At 1:30 on a cold January night, a train containing hundreds of
thousands of gallons of toxic ammonia derails in Minot, North Dakota. Town
officials try to sound the emergency alert system, but it isn't working.
Desperate to warn townspeople about the poisonous white cloud bearing down on
them, the officials call their local radio stations. But no one answers any of
the phones for an hour and a half. According to the New York Times, three
hundred people are hospitalized, some are partially blinded, and pets and
livestock are killed.
Where were Minot's DJs on January 18th, 2002? Where was
the late night station crew? As it turns out, six of the seven local radio
stations had recently been purchased by Clear Channel Communications, a radio
giant with over 1,200 stations nationwide. Economies of scale dictated that most
of the local staff be cut: Minot stations ran more or less on auto pilot, the
programming largely dictated from further up the Clear Channel food chain. No
one answered the phone because hardly anyone worked at the stations any more;
the songs played in Minot were the same as those played on Clear Channel
stations across the Midwest.
Companies like Clear Channel argue that economies of
scale allow them to cut costs while continuing to provide quality programming.
But they do so at the expense of local coverage. It's not just about emergency
warnings: media mergers are decreasing coverage of local political races, local
small businesses, and local events. There are only a third as many owners of
newspapers and TV stations as there were in the 1970s (about 600 now; over 1,500
then). It's harder and harder for Americans to find out what's going on in their
own back yards.
On June 2, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
is considering relaxing or getting rid of rules to allow much more media
concentration. While the actual rule changes are under wraps, they could allow
enormous changes in the American media environment. For example, one company
could be allowed to own ABC, CBS, and NBC. Almost certainly, media companies
will be allowed to own newspapers and TV stations in the same town. We could be
entering a new era of media megaliths.
Do you want one or two big companies acting as
gatekeepers and controlling your access to news and entertainment? Most of us
don't. And the airwaves explicitly belong to us -- the American people. We allow
media companies to use them in exchange for their assurance that they're serving
the public interest, and it's the FCC's job to make sure that's so. For the
future of American journalism, and for the preservation of a diverse and local
media, we have the hold the FCC to its mission. Otherwise, Minot's nightmare may
become our national reality.
------------------------------
Interested in taking on the FCC and other media-related
concerns? Join the MoveOn Media Corps, a group of over 29,000 committed
Americans working for a fair and balanced media. You can sign up now at: ------------------------------
SHOWDOWN AT THE FCC ------------------------------
THE GATHERING STORM OVER MEDIA OWNERSHIP ------------------------------
BARRY DILLER TAKES ON MEDIA DEREGULATION ------------------------------
THE MEDIA, THE WAR, AND OUR RIGHT TO KNOW ------------------------------
CLEAR CHANNEL'S BIG STINKING DEREGULATION MESS ------------------------------
THE DEATH OF LOCAL NEWS ------------------------------
WHERE HAVE ALL THE WOMEN GONE? ------------------------------
ABOUT THE MOVEON BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG MoveOn.org is an issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization that gives people a voice in shaping the laws that affect their
lives. MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the Internet to
democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising public awareness of
pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots advocacy campaigns to encourage
sound public policies. You can help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by
participating in the discussion forum at: To: All
Activists From: Lisa Dix, American
Lands Date: May 12,
2003 Urgent Calls to the House Judiciary Committee
Needed: Urge Judiciary Members to Strike Sections 104, 105, 106 and
107 in HR 1904 On Wednesday, May 14,
2003 the House Judiciary Committee will consider Representative McInnis (R-CO)
"Healthy Forests Restoration Act 2003" (HR 1904). The McInnis bill was scheduled to go to the
floor tomorrow but has been postponed until next week as so the Judiciary
Committee can consider the bill. It is unusual for the Judiciary Committee to
consider a bill under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee. However, due to the
over reaching changes to the National Environmental Policy Act alternative
analysis process, the repeal of the Appeals Reform Act and the unprecedented
changes in judicial review the Judiciary Committee has urged that HR 1904 must
go to the Committee for consideration. Please Call the Members of the Judiciary Committee (see
list below) and Urge them to strike Sections 104, 105, 106 and 107 of the
"Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003" (HR 1904) and to oppose the McInnis
bill.
·
Section 104 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. Under this section
the Forest Service will be allowed to conduct large-scale, environmentally
damaging logging projects without considering any alternatives, including the
"no action" alternative or their relative environmental impacts.
·
Section 105 REPEALS THE APPEALS REFORM ACT:
The McInnis bill abolishes citizens'
statutory right to appeal Forest Service hazardous fuels projects provided by
the Appeals Reform Act of 1992. Instead, it simply directs the Forest Service to
establish an undefined administrative process. The bill gives the Forest Service unfettered
discretion in designing the administrative process. Conceivably, the
agency could give citizens only a few days to participate in the process, impose
substantial filing fees or bonding requirements, allow projects to proceed
before completion of the process, or deny other interested parties an
opportunity to intervene or comment. ·
Section 106 IMPOSES SEVERE LIMITS ON JUDICIAL REVIEW:
The McInnis bill imposes unreasonable
deadlines, restrictions, and burdens on the judicial system for lawsuits
challenging expedited fuel reduction projects. 1. Lawsuits would have to
be filed within 15 days after the agency publishes notice of the project
decision. This
extremely short deadline would effectively preclude the option for citizens to
administratively appeal agency decisions before having to go to court. Thus, more lawsuits
would likely be filed, since litigation would be the only feasible way to
contest an agency decision. ·
Section 107
INTERFERES WITH OUR INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY: The McInnis
bill seeks an astounding change in American legal standards by requiring courts
to give "deference" to agency findings regarding the balance of harms in
deciding whether to enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction,
or a permanent injunction in ANY court challenge where the agency claims the
action is necessary to reduce hazardous fuels. In other words, even if the evidence
presented to a court clearly demonstrates that a project would cause immediate
and substantial harm to water quality or endangered species or the agency is
found to violate the law, a judge would have to defer to the agencies' claims of
long-term benefit and the agency would be able to proceed. This would be a
terrible precedent undermining the impartiality of the judicial
system. Please Call the Judiciary Committee below and tell them to
strike sections 104, 105, 106, 107 in the McInnis
Bill. Judiciary Committee Members James Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
202-225-5101 John Conyers (D-MI) 202-225-5126 Henry Hyde (R-IL) 202-225-4561 Steve Chabot (R-OH) 202-225-2216 Melissa Hart (R-PA) 202-225-2565 Mark Green (R-WI) 202-225-5665 Howard Berman (D-CA) 202-225-4695 Rick Boucher (D-VA) 202-225-3861 Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
202-225-5635 Bobby Scott (D-VA) 202-225-8351 Mel Watt (D-NC) 202-225-1510 Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) 202-225-3072 Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
202-225-3816 Maxine Waters (D-CA) 202-225-2201 Marty Meehan (D-MA) 202-225-3411 William Delahunt (D-MA)
202-225-3111 Robert Wexler (D-FL) 202-225-3001 Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) 202-225-2906 Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
202-225-6616 Adam Schiff (D-CA) 202-225-4176 Linda Sanchez (D-CA) 202-225-6676 From: Matt Howes, National
Internet Organizer, ACLU
MoveOn Bulletin Op-Ed
by Eli
Pariser
http://www.moveon.org/mediacorps/
Jeffrey
Chester and Don Hazen, AlterNet
Despite wide protests
and the Clear Channel debacle, the FCC is about to award the nation's biggest
media conglomerates a new give-away that will further concentrate media
ownership in fewer hands. The impact on the American media landscape could be
disastrous. Recent TV coverage of the Iraq war already illustrates that US media
companies aren't interested in providing a serious range of analysis and debate.
This overview describes what's at stake and offers an introduction to the
following articles.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15796
Neil Hickey, Columbia Journalism Review
CJR's editor-at-large explains just what is at stake in
this fight over media ownership. He provides an in-depth look at the issues, and
major players in a battle that is pitting journalists against their bosses,
breaking up old alliances, and gathering momentum as the day of reckoning draws
near. He traces the snowballing trend of media consolidation and its
implications for the future, revealing just how the drive for profit is eroding
diversity, local control, and more importantly giving a few mega-corporations a
monopoly over the dissemination of news.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15654
Bill Moyers, Now with Bill Moyers
The founder of Fox Broadcasting and present CEO of USA
Networks is an unlikely but passionate opponent of plans to loosen media
ownership rules. In an interview with Bill Moyers, the media mogul explains how
deregulation creates corporations with "such overwhelming power in the
marketplace that everyone has to do essentially what they say." Diller argues
that government regulation is essential to prevent media companies from
controlling everything we see, read, and hear. As he puts it, "Who else is gonna
do it for us?"
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15768
Danny Schechter, MediaChannel.org
Why did the media do such a poor job of reporting on the
Iraq war? The boosterism of news anchors, the suppression of antiwar views, and
the sanitized images of war that defined television coverage are not a simple
matter of bias or ineptitude, says media analyst Danny Schechter. He draws
attention to the connection between the decisions made by journalists and the
lobbying efforts of owners who will profit immensely from the upcoming FCC
decision in June.
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/moveon.shtml
Eric Boehlert, Salon
Clear Channel,
the radio and concert conglomerate, has been the greatest beneficiary of the
1996 Telecommunications Act, which stripped all ownership limits in the radio
industry. The rapacious company, led by Bush supporter Lowry Mays, has grown
from 40 stations to 1,225 since then, and now uses its power to routinely bully
advertisers and record companies, and more recently censor antiwar artists.
However, as Eric Boehlert points out, its "success" may be the most powerful
weapon in the arsenal of media activists. Clear Channel's stranglehold on the
radio industry is the best and clearest example of the effects of rampant
deregulation.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15281
Paul
Schmelzer, AlterNet
Meet the Sinclair Broadcast Group,
the "Clear Channel of local news." Since 1991, the company has managed to
acquire 62 television stations or 24 percent of the national TV audience. The
company's modus operandi is the centralized production of homogenized,
repackaged faux "local" news. Its success offers an alarming glimpse of the
post-deregulation world in which all news may be produced in one giant newsroom
and from a single viewpoint -- which in Sinclair's case is wholeheartedly
conservative.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15718.
Caryl Rivers, Women's Enews
Once
the war on Iraq took center-stage in the headlines of newspapers and magazines
across the country, women writers became increasingly rare in the media. In
their place are mostly white men who write on a narrow band of foreign policy
issues, mostly recycling their views over and over again. From the all-male
line-ups in the op-ed pages of the Washington Post and the New York Times to the
dwindling female bylines in the New Yorker and Atlantic Monthly, women's voices
have been caught in a "spiral of silence" that is unprecedented since the
pre-women's movement days.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15677
The MoveOn Bulletin is a free email bulletin providing
information, resources, news, and action ideas on important political issues.
The full text of the MoveOn Bulletin is online at http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/ ; you can
subscribe to it at that address. The MoveOn Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org.
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223
from American Lands May 12, 2003
from
American Civil Liberties Union May 13, 2003
To: ACLU Action Network
Members
Date: May 13, 2003
Under an infamous provision in the USA PATRIOT Act, the FBI
has the power to search your library and book-buying records by simply telling a
secret court that the records are "sought for" an intelligence
investigation. Furthermore, if the librarian or bookseller tells you
that they turned your records over to the government, they could be imprisoned.
Proposed legislation before
the U.S. House of Representatives -- the "Freedom to Read Protection Act" --
would remove this power to search your records without a warrant or probable
cause. It is a much-needed fix to the USA PATRIOT Act, the
controversial and sweeping anti-terrorism law rushed through Congress just after
September 11.
This positive
legislation will restore constitutional protections of our privacy. It deserves
our support!
Click here to get
more information and to take action!
http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=12607&c=110
****************************************************************
For more information on other issues and the latest
news, please visit our website at http://www.aclu.org
Help Strengthen the ACLU's Voice in Congress... Click below
to become a card-carrying Member or donate today!
http://www.aclu.org/contribute/contribute.cfm?ORGID=AA02
If you are not already on our
mailing list and would like to subscribe to the ACLU Action Network Updates,
click http://www.aclu.org/team/member.cfm
To find out what more you can do
to protect your civil liberties, please visit http://www.aclu.org/action
from Defenders of Wildlife May 14, 2003
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() |
| |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Alaska's Denali National Park and Preserve is one of the
premier wilderness national parks in America, but some components of a new
National Park Service backcountry plan are threatening this pristine area.
When it was
established in 1917 as Mt. McKinley National Park, the park encompassed about
two million acres. In 1980, it was expanded to six million acres and renamed
Denali National Park and Preserve. In one of the backcountry plan's options is a
Park Service proposal to open a majority of the added parkland to snowmobiles --
either riding on identified corridors or, worse yet, in uncontrolled dispersed
riding areas jeopardizing wildlife, and other natural resources.
While NPCA
recognizes the need for limited, traditional use of motorized vehicles in
certain areas, NPCA does not support recreational snowmobile riding in national
parks, including parks in Alaska.
Take action >> We need your help today to encourage
the Park Service to choose the alternative that "emphasizes wilderness resource
values." Please write to Denali National Park's superintendent
in support of Alternative B by May 30.
http://www.npca.org/take_action/action_alerts/denali.asp
Donate now >> Support NPCA's
efforts to keep one of America's premier wilderness parks free from snowmobiles.
https://www.npca.org/bear/denalisnowmobiles.asp
Play the Bear Necessities
>> A special Denali grizzly bear knows one way to take a stand against
recreational snowmobiles. Help him win a snowball fight.
http://www.npca.org/bear/denali.asp
Thank you for protecting Denali
National Park and Preserve,
Gaby
National Parks Conservation Association
TakeAction@npca.org
http://www.npca.org/takeaction
Visit us online at http://www.npca.org.
The
Bush administration is pushing for the development of new nuclear
weapons. The White House is interested in smaller, more
"usable"
nuclear weapons and has asked Congress to lift
the 10-year Spratt-
Furse ban on the development of new
"mini-nukes." The Senate will
likely vote next week
whether or not to maintain the ban. Take this
opportunity to tell your senators to oppose new nuclear
weapons: tell
them to maintain the Spratt-Furse law.
TAKE ACTION:
1) Call the Capitol Switchboard at
(202) 224 - 3121. Ask to be
connected
to your senators' office. Tell the receptionist you
want your senator "to maintain the
Spratt-Furse law in the 2004
defense authorization bill." Calling is
the most effective way to
get your
message to your senators.
----
OR ----
2) To customize and send the letter below to
your senator visit
http://www.ucsaction.org/index.asp?step=2&item=2680.
Read the
prepared
letter and insert a sentence or two of personal message into
the first paragraph. Please take the extra minute to
personalize! The
vote on new nuclear weapons may be the
most critical global security
issue of this Congress,
and personalized emails are much
more influential.
Learn more about the issue in the
background section below.
Letter:
I
am writing to ask you to maintain the ban on developing new low-
yield nuclear weapons, also known as "mini-nukes."
The Senate's FY 04 defense
authorization bill repeals the 1993 Spratt-
Furse
provision. Spratt-Furse bans the development of these weapons
while permitting research. Maintaining the ban serves US
interests
overall.
As you may know, the United States has already developed
and tested
low-yield nuclear weapons, and does not need
to develop new ones.
Some argue that the ban impedes
the development of new nuclear
weapons designed to
attack deep underground targets and destroy
chemical
and biological agents. However, technical analysis conducted
by nuclear weapon scientists shows that low-yield weapons
would not
be effective for these tasks.
Other advocates of mini-nukes push
them as more useable than larger
nuclear weapons. As
the world's preeminent military power, however,
the
United States should work to decrease rather than increase the
potential for nuclear use. Breaking the taboo on the use of
nuclear
weapons can only harm US interests.
Finally, new mini-nukes put at
risk international efforts to halt the
spread of
nuclear weapons. The US pursuit of new nuclear weapons
legitimizes their development by other countries. It is
also an
incentive for countries that are concerned that
they may be a target
of such weapons to develop their
own nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
As your constituent, I strongly believe that you should
improve US
national security by voting to preserve the
Spratt-Furse provision.
Background:
Next week, the Senate will likely consider the annual
defense
authorization bill. Tucked deep within the bill
is language calling
for the repeal of a 1993 law called
the Spratt-Furse provision.
Spratt-Furse bans the
development of new low-yield nuclear weapons
(with
yields of less than 5 kilotons-about a third of the bomb that
destroyed Hiroshima), also known as "mini-nukes." It is
critical to
maintain this ban for two reasons.
First, many advocates of
mini-nukes push them as more useable than
larger
nuclear weapons. However, the use of any nuclear weapons, with
their destructive power and radioactive fallout, is
unacceptable. As
the world's preeminent military power,
the United States should work
to decrease rather than
increase the potential for nuclear use.
Breaking the
taboo on use of nuclear weapons can only harm US
interests.
Second, new mini-nukes put at risk international efforts to
halt the
spread of nuclear weapons. The US pursuit of
new nuclear weapons
legitimizes their development by
other countries. It is also an
incentive for countries
that are concerned that they may be a target
of such
weapons to develop their own nuclear weapons as a
deterrent.
For detailed information on the Spratt-Furse provision,
please see
our backgrounder at:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/page.cfm?
pageID=1182
Act now to help stop the US development of new mini-nukes
by
preserving the Spratt-Furse law!
Here's a press release about our current campaign in Ghana.
Copied below is
the full statement of Ghana's National
Coalition of Civil Society Groups
Against Mining in
Forest Reserves.
Please
support the Coalition of environmental and human rights organizations
in Ghana by writing letters to Ghana's President and to the
CEO of Newmont
Mining Corporation. We need to stand by
these Ghanaian citizens who are
determined to protect
their last remaining forests and to prevent the
gutting
of Ghana's conservation laws.
To read the Global Response action alert and write your
letters now, please
see:
www.globalresponse.org/ghana.
THANKS for helping out in this campaign! Please circulate
the press release
far and wide.
--Paula Palmer
*********************
May 13, 2003
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Paula Palmer, Program Director, 303/444-0306;
paula@globalresponse.org
www.globalresponse.org/ghana
GLOBAL RESPONSE BACKS GHANA CITIZENS' PLEA TO UPHOLD
CONSERVATION LAWS
On May 8, a
coalition of 14 environmental and human rights organizations in
Ghana launched a campaign to rebuff five powerful mining
companies that are
trying to muscle their way into
Ghana’s protected forest reserves. The
National Coalition of Civil Society Groups Against Mining
in Forest Reserves
argues that these big companies
should not be pressuring Ghana to change its
conservation laws.
Citing Ghana’s 1994 Forest and Wildlife Policy and its
ratification of the
Convention on Biological Diversity
and the Convention to Combat
Desertification, the
Coalition is demanding that Ghanaian government
officials and the mining companies uphold existing
protections for the
forest reserves, where mining has
never been permitted. It also issued an
appeal to the international community to “echo our demands
and support our
course.”
The Coalition charges that industry giant Newmont Mining
Corporation,
Chirano Goldmines Limited, Satelite
Goldfields Limited, Nevsun/AGC and
Birim/AGC are
pressuring Ghanaian authorities to open the forest reserves to
mining.
Global Response, an international network for environmental
action and
education, is launching a letter-writing
campaign, urging citizens around
the world to write
letters to Ghana’s president and Newmont Mining
Corporation’s CEO. “Letters from thousands of citizens will
show Ghana that
the world is watching, and that we
expect the government to enforce its
environmental
protection laws,” said Global Response program director Paula
Palmer.
The Boulder, Colorado-based organization led protests and
street theater at
Newmont’s annual shareholders’
meeting in Denver on May 7. “Newmont
projects an image as an industry leader in responsible
mining practices,”
said Palmer, “but right now Newmont
is pressuring Ghana to relax its
environmental
protection laws. That is unacceptable behavior for an industry
leader.”
Coalition member Daniel Owusu-Koranteng of the Wassa
Association of
Communities Affected by Mining (WACAM)
has already seen too much
environmental destruction and
human suffering from mining. WACAM is
demanding clean-up and compensation after two disastrous
cyanide spills from
gold mines in 2001. Recalling the
toxic spills that killed fish, crabs and
birds in
rivers and marshlands and left thousands of villagers without safe
water for drinking and agriculture, Owusu-Koranteng says,
“Ghana’s precious
forest reserves must not suffer this
fate.”
“Mining in forest
reserves will aggravate the already alarming rate of
forest degradation in the country and wreak havoc on
freshwater systems and
watersheds, …as well as the
entire ecosystem and biodiversity,” the
Coalition
stated. Ghana’s Ministry of Lands and Forestry reports that a
mere 2 percent of the country’s original forests remain
intact. These
savanna and tropical rain
forests have over 700 different tree species and
provide critical habitat for many endangered species,
including rare
primates and the forest elephant.
***************************************************
DECLARATION: Campaign Against Mining in Ghana’s Forest
Reserves
By: National
Coalition of Civil Society Groups Against Mining in Forest
Reserves
7-8th May 2003, Accra
Mr Chairman,
Members of the press
Colleagues
Ladies and gentlemen
I am happy to make this presentation on behalf of the
National Coalition of
Civil Society Groups against
Mining in Ghana’s forest reserves. The
presentation I
am about to make focuses on concerns we as a coalition have
about national decision-making efforts for mining in
Ghana’s forest
reserves. Knowing that we are all
interested in the sustainable development
of our
natural resources we are hopeful that by the end of the presentation
many would see our campaign as justified and worthy of
support.
The Government of
Ghana has declared her intention to release portions of
Ghana’s closed forest reserves for mining. Five mining
companies are already
lined up for mining leases to
exploit mineral resources in the forest
reserves.
Therefore we the Civil Society Coalition against mining in forest
reserves are concerned about this decision by the
government and we call on
her to withdraw the decision
and to revoke those mining leases if already
granted.
We believe that the decision to release portions of the country’s
forest reserves is just an entry point for opening up the
entire forest
reserves to mining. The decision does not
only undermine the significant
role that forest
reserves play in the economic, environmental and social
development of a people and their country but also
contradicts the
government’s own policy on natural
resource conservation.
The
forest reserves in question include : Subri River Forest Reserve, a
globally important bio-diversity area which is also the
largest forest
reserve in the country.It is also a
critical watershed between major
rivers -Rivers Bonsa
and Pra. Others are the Supuma Shelterbelt ; Opon
Mansi Forest Reserve in the Western Region ; Tano-Suraw and
Suraw Extension
also in the Western region ; Ajenjua
Bepo Forest Reserve in the Eastern
region ; Cape Three
Points Forest Reserve in the Western region and the
Atewa Range Forest Reserve in the Eastern region.
Chirano Goldmines Limited,
Satelite Goldfields Limited, Nevsun/AGC,
Birim/AGC and
Newmont Ghana Limited are the companies fronting to mine in
these reserves.
Forests reserves have important environmental and
ecological linkages. They
are linked to water and soil
resources, genetic resources of plants and
animals and
to food production and food security. In particular they
constitute a major source of fresh water bodies for
domestic and industrial
use and enhance local climatic
conditions for agricultural production. In
Ghana most
freshwater bodies take their source from forested areas. For
example, rivers Ankobra and Suraw take their source from
the Tano-Suraw
forest reserve, which also protects
river Tano that passes through it.
Clearly, if this
reserve is being considered for mining then we are being
confronted with serious livelihood and environmental
consequences in a much
larger magnitude. Forets
reserves are also important to the economic and
social-cultural relationship of rural communities and the
nation as a whole.
They create jobs, provide health and
food security and help in the cultural
identity of a
people. It is for these and many other important reasons that
Ghana Government has committed herself to several
international conventions
and has also enacted various
legislation to protect and conserve forest and
forest
resources.
In spite of the
important role that forest reserves play they have been
undergoing qualitative and quantitative deterioration over
the years.
Already, much of the original vegetation of
the country has been removed or
considerably
deteriorated. The size of existing forests and forestry
resources and their adequacy for supplying critical goods
and environmental
influences neccessary for the
continued viability of local production is
dwindling
year afetr year. The nation’s total forest cover has reduced from
the 8.2 million hectares around 1900 to less than 1.6
million hectares as at
now, which is even less than the
initial 1.76million hectares reserved as
permanent
forest estates. Out of the 1.6 million hectares, only 32,000
hectares representing 2% of the remaining forest reserves
is said to be in
excellent condition.
The government’s decision to open
up the forest reserves for mining is
influenced by the demands of the Chamber of Mines who
represent the interest
of the mining industry based on
their narrow economic benefits and not based
on a
proper assesment of the environmental and social costs to the nation.
Proponents for mining in forest reserves are hiding behind
what they call
production zones within the forest
reserves to back their claim. Clearly, it
is hard to
believe that mining is one of the activities that constitute
productive activity in forest reserves.
Mining in forest reserves will
aggravate the already alarming rate of forest
degradation in the country and wreak havoc on freshwater
systems and
watersheds, which are already global scarce
commodities, as well as the
entire ecosystem and
biodiversity.
Mining in forest
reserves also contravenes the principles underlining the
establishment of forest reserves in Ghana. The 1994 Forest
and Wildlife
Policy of Ghana aims at ‘conservation and
sustainable development of the
nation’s forest and
wildlife resources for the maintenance of environmental
quality and perpetual flow of optimum benefits to all
segments of society’.
Mining especially surface mining
in forest reserves have no place in this
policy
objective because surface mining does not conserve, sustain the use
of nor preserve biological diversity, water resources and
the environment.
By removing the entire forest biomass
(plants and animals) biodiversity is
lost, water cycle
function of the forests is lost, local climate for
agricultural production is seriously distorted, headwaters
of streams and
rivers get vanished with consequent
distorted effects on domestic and
industrial water
supplies even in remote settlemnts. If these are some of
the adverse effects of surface mining in forest reserves of
which Ghana
seeks to protect through Forest
Certification, then a clrear contravention
is
established by any attempt to permit mining in forest reserves.
The decision to permit mining in
forest reserves undermines the reasons
behind the
establishment of statutory bodies such as the Forestry Commission
and international conventions which Ghana is signatory.
Ghana is signatory
to the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) and the Convention to Combat
Desertification (CCD) which all aim to conserve natural
resources for
sustainable development. If the country
is signatory to all these
conventions that seeks to
protect natural resources including forest
reserves and
forest products and yet is permitting mining especially surface
mining in forest reserves then the Government’s concern
about general
environmental degradation is mere
rhethoric.
We are deeply
concerned about the lukewarm attitude successive governments
in Ghana have accorded the forestry sector which
unfortunately has allowed
so much damage to the
country’s closed forest estates. This same lukewarm
attitude is being used as an excuse to permit mining in
forest reserves. For
instance Honourable Kwadwo
Adjei-Darko the outgone Minister of Mines once
indicated that ‘…..some of these areas that they are
calling forest reserves
are only on paper as forest
reserves…’ The logical implication of this
statement is
that the forest reserves are degraded therefore we as a nation
should intensify the degradation by permitting surface
mining in the forest
reserves.
Demands :
On the basis of the foregoing we
the National Coalition of Civil Society
Groups against
Mining in forest reserves make the following demands:
1. That Government should withdraw
her decision to allow mining in forest
reserves and
also revoke all mining leases on forest reserves if already
granted.
2. Government should enact a clear cut regulatory framework
that prohibits
mining in forest reserves.
3. Government should demonstrate
the political will and commitment for the
protection
and conservation of the country’s forest estates by strengthening
the capacity of state institutions responsible for the
protection and
management of these forests
estates.
4. We call on the
World Bank Group (WBG), the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and other Multinational Financial
Institutions not to finance or
support the
Ghana Government and the five companies to carry out mining in
forest reserves in the country.
5. We also call on the public and
the media to echo our demands and support
our course.
Organisations
1. Third World Network-Africa (TWN-Afr)
2. Centre for Public Interest Law (CEPIL)
3. Wassa Association of Communities Affeted by Mining
(WACAM)
4. League of Environmental Journalist (LEJ)
5. Food First International and Action Network (FIAN)
6. Friends of the Earth Ghana, (FOE-Ghana)
7. Green Earth Organisation
8.
Abantu for Development
9. Ever Green Club of Ghana
10. Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA)
11. Ghana Agricultural Workers Union (GAWU)
12. Centre for Environmental Research and Sustainable
Development (CERES)
13. Federation of Environmental
Journalist (FEJ)
********************************
Paula Palmer, Program Director
Global Response
P.O. Box 7490
Boulder CO 80306
USA
TEL: 303-444-0306
FAX:
303-449-9794
Email: paula@globalresponse.org
Website: http://www.globalresponse.org
At the request of indigenous
peoples and grassroots organizations, Global
Response
organizes international letter-writing campaigns to help
communities prevent environmental
destruction. Young people and adults in
92
countries participate in these very effective campaigns.
To request Global Response Action
alerts by mail or email, or to make a
tax-deductible
donation, please visit http://www.globalresponse.org.
********************************
Paula Palmer, Program Director
Global Response
P.O. Box 7490
Boulder CO 80306
USA
TEL: 303-444-0306
FAX:
303-449-9794
Email: paula@globalresponse.org
Website: http://www.globalresponse.org
At the request of indigenous
peoples and grassroots organizations, Global
Response
organizes international letter-writing campaigns to help
communities prevent environmental
destruction. Young people and adults in
92
countries participate in these very effective campaigns.
To request Global Response Action
alerts by mail or email, or to make a
tax-deductible
donation, please visit http://www.globalresponse.org.
To:
Northeast Activists
From: John Demos, American Lands
Date: May 15, 2003
FINAL PUSH TO STOP MCINNIS FIRE BILL
The McInnis "Healthy Forests
Restoration Act," HR 1904 will be on the House floor tomorrow.
I have heard the following from
several Northeast Offices.
Boehlert’s (R-NY) staffer told me last week that Boehlert
is going to speak on the floor in support of McInnis. He needs to
feel the heat on this one.
Shays’ (R-CT) aide told me on Friday that he
will vote against McInnis. He needs a big thank you on
this. The White House is putting major pressure on the moderate R’s.
Bradley (R-NH) told me himself
on Saturday that he was undecided. Please call his office (and Bass’)
to let them know this is a rotten piece of legislation.
Other moderates in our region have
not answered my phone calls.
PLEASE CALL YOUR REPS TODAY (The Democrats need to be
shored up on this too!) Phone numbers at end of this message.
BACKGROUND
This is an urgent
situation. The Timber Industry, biomass industry, the Society of
American Foresters, other timber industry front groups and the White House have
been on Capitol Hill lobbying for this bill for weeks. Many
Representatives, Republican and Democrat alike have stated that they are
"undecided" about how they are going to vote on this
legislation. Many Representatives, even Representatives that have a
good record for voting to protect the environment have stated "this issue is a
tough one for them back home."
Even more Representatives have said that this is an
election issue for them and they have to vote to do "something," therefore they
might vote for HR 1904. The perception for these Representatives,
both Democrat and Republican, is that voting for a bill that will devastate our
forests and cut citizens out of management decisions affecting their public
lands is better for them and has more support back home than to actually be
strong and vote against 1904. Please educate your Representative and
let them know that voting for HR 1904 will have consequences and is
unacceptable. Your Representatives need to be educated about the effects this
vote will have on the ground in our National Forests.
Keep up the
pressure. Please call your Representative (and try to generate as
many calls as possible) at 1-800-839-5276. Ask for the staff that
handles National Forest issues and tell them to vote NO on HR 1904, "Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003."
The "Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HR 1904)
will:
·
· Not Ensure Any Increased
Protection for Communities: HR 1904 does not include any specific measures to
protect homes or communities. It is also inconsistent with the
Western Governors’ Association 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, which does not
call for any changes in existing laws. 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 H.R. 1904 would not require
any activities to be near homes. Instead, the bill seeks to further
subsidize the timber industry and 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.
· Cut the Heart out of NEPA. HR 1904 allows the
Forest Service to conduct large-scale, environmentally damaging logging projects
without considering any alternatives, including the "no action" alternative or
their relative environmental impacts.
· Remove the Public from the Process. HR 1904
eliminates the statutory right of citizens to appeal Forest Service logging
projects.
· Interfere with the
Independent Judiciary. HR 1904 seeks to restrict a core principle of
our democracy -- the right of Americans to seek redress in the court for
grievances involving the federal government. The bill limits
preliminary injunctive relief to 45 days, and forces any U.S court to render a
final decision on the merits of a case within 100 days. Finally, the
bill seeks an astounding change in American legal standards by requiring courts
to give deference to agency findings regarding the balance of harms in deciding
whether to enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or a
permanent injunction in ANY court challenge where the agency claims the action
is necessary to "restore fire-adapted forest or rangelands
ecosystems."
·
Create New Insect Categorical Exclusion. HR 1904 creates a new
Categorical Exclusion from the National Environmental Policy Act on all
Department of Interior and Forest Service lands by authorizing an unlimited
number of projects (up to 1,000 acres each) for all lands that the agencies
claim are at risk of infestation by certain insects.
· Provide New Logging
Subsidies. HR 1904 would authorize $125 million in subsidies to the
biomass industry to log our National Forests.
CT
Rosa
DeLauro D CT 3 (202) 225-3661
Rob Simmons R CT 2
(202) 225-2076
Nancy LJohnson R
CT 6 (202) 225-4476
John
Larson D CT 1 (202) 225-2265
James Maloney D CT 5 (202)
225-3822
Christopher Shays R CT 4 (202) 225-5541
MA
Michael Capuano D MA 8 (202)
225-5111
William Delahunt D MA 10
(202) 225-3111
Barney
Frank D MA 4 (202) 225-5931
Stephan Lynch D MA 9
(202) 225-8273
Edward J. Markey D MA 7
(202) 225-2836
James
McGovern D MA 3 (202) 225-6101
Martin Meehan D MA 5
(202) 225-3411
Richard E. Neal D
MA 2 (202) 225-5601
John
Olver D MA 1 (202) 225-5335
John Tierney D
MA 6 (202) 225-8020
ME
Thomas Allen D ME
1 (202) 225-616
Mike
Michaud D ME 2 (202) 225-6306
NH
Charles F. Bass R NH 2 (202)
225-5206
Jeb
Bradley R NH 1 (202) 225-5456
NJ
Andrews Robert D NJ
1 (202) 225-6501
Holt Rush
D NJ 12 (202) 225-5801
Menendez Robert D NJ 13 (202)
225-7919
Pallone Frank D
NJ 6 (202) 225-4671
Pascrell
William D NJ 8 (202) 225-5751
Payne Donald M. D NJ 10 (202)
225-3436
Rothman Steven D
NJ 9 (202) 225-5061
Ferguson Mike
R NJ 7 (202) 225-5361
Frelinghuysen Rodney R NJ 11 (202) 225-5034
Garrett R NJ
5 (202) 225-4465
LoBiondo Frank
A. R NJ 2 (202) 225-6572
Saxton Jim R NJ
3 (202) 225-4765
Smith
Christopher R NJ 4 (202) 225-3765
NY
Gary
L. Ackerman D NY 5 (202) 225-2601
Bishop Timothy D
NY 1 (202) 225-3826
Sherwood L. Boehlert R NY 24 (202)
225-3665
Joseph
Crowley D NY 7 (202) 225-3965
Eliot L. Engel D
NY 17 (202) 225-2464
Vito
Fossella R NY 13 (202) 225-3371
Maurice Hinchey D NY
22 (202) 225-6335
Amo
Houghton R NY 29 (202)
225-3161
Sue
Kelly R
NY 19 (202) 225-5441
Peter
King R NY 3
(202) 225-7896
Steve
Israel D NY 2 (202)
225-3335
Nita M.
Lowey D NY 18 (202) 225-6506
Carolyn Maloney D NY 14
(202) 225-7944
Carolyn
McCarthy D NY 4 (202) 225-5516
John
McHugh R NY 23 (202)
225-4611
Michael R.McNulty D NY
21 (202) 225-5076
Gregory
Meeks D NY 6 (202) 225-3461
Jerrold Nadler D
NY 8 (202) 225-5635
Major R.
Owens D NY 11 (202) 225-6231
Jack
Quinn R NY 27
(202) 225-3306
Charles B.
Rangel D NY 15 (202) 225-4365
Thomas Reynolds R NY 26
(202) 225-5265
Jose
Serrano D NY 16 (202)
225-4361
Louise McIntosh Slaughter D NY 28 (202)
225-3615
John
Sweeney R NY 20 (202)
225-5614
Edolphus
Towns D NY 10 (202) 225-5936
Nydia Velazquez D NY 12
(202) 225-2361
James T.
Walsh R NY 25 (202) 225-3701
Anthony Weiner D
NY 9 (202) 225-6616
PA
Brady Robert D PA 1 (202) 225-4731
Doyle Michael D PA 14 (202) 225-2135
Fattah Chaka D PA 2 (202) 225-4001
Hoeffel Joseph D PA 13 (202) 225-6111
Holden Tim D PA 17 (202) 225-5546
Kanjorski Paul D PA 11 (202) 225-6511
Murtha John D PA 12 (202) 225-2065
English Philip R PA 3 (202) 225-5406
Gerlach Jim R PA 6 (202)
225-4315
Greenwood James R PA 8 (202) 225-4276
Hart Melissa R PA 4 (202) 225-2565
Murphy Tim R PA 18 (202)
225-2301
Peterson John R PA 5 (202) 225-5121
Pitts Joseph R PA 16 (202) 225-2411
Platts Todd R PA 19 (202) 225-5836
Sherwood Donald R PA 10 (202) 225-3731
Shuster Bill R PA 9 (202) 225-2431
Toomey Patrick R PA 15 (202) 225-6411
Weldon Curt R PA 7 (202) 225-2011
RI
Patrick J. Kennedy D RI 1 (202) 225-4911
James
Langevin D RI 2 (202) 225-2735
VT
Bernard Sanders I VT AL (202)
225-4115
Your
action is needed immediately to defend our rivers - and the
wildlife that depends on them - from environmental
overrides on
behalf of the Department of
Defense.
Hidden in a bill covering Department of Defense programs,
the House
of Representatives is considering provisions
THIS WEEK that would
exempt the Department of Defense
from some of our nation's most
important environmental
laws, including the Endangered Species Act.
One specific provision included by Representative Renzi of
Arizona
would allow Fort Huachuca to increase its water
consumption without
considering the impacts on the San
Pedro River (one of our nation's
last intact desert
river ecosystems) and the endangered species it
supports.
TAKE ACTION TODAY! Contact your Representative
now and urge him/her
to oppose the Renzi language
(Section 319) and all environmental
exemptions in the
Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 1588). You can
call your Representative by dialing the Capitol Switchboard
(202-224-
3121) or you can use our action alert system
to send an email
letter. Visit:
http://amriversaction.ctsg.com/wac/index.asp?step=2&item=2682
*************************************
Thank you for helping to protect and
restore America's rivers, and being a part of American
Rivers' River
Action Center (http://amriversaction.ctsg.com/wac/).
Take the next step - become a
member of American Rivers!
http://www.americanrivers.org/joindonate or call us at
202-347-7550,
or toll free at 1-877-347-7550.
To contact American Rivers, email
us at outreach@amrivers.org
To: All Activists
From: Anne Martin and
Randi Spivak - American Lands Alliance, Chris van
Daalen - Alliance for Sustainable Jobs and the Environment,
Todd Schulke -
Center for Biological Diversity, Rick
Brown - Defenders Of Wildlife,
Katherine Groves -
Georgia Forest Watch, Brett Brownscomb - Hells Canyon
Preservation Council, Jake Kreilick - National Forest
Protection Alliance,
Hugh Irwin - Southern Appalachian
Forest Coalition, Marnie Criley -
Wildlands CPR, Dr.
Dominick A. DellaSala - World Wildlife Fund
Date: May 21, 2003
Subject: Announcing the Citizen's Call for
Ecological Restoration: Forest
Restoration Principles
and Criteria
Today, 121 local
and national organizations, unveiled the "Citizen's Call
for Ecological Restoration: Forest Restoration Principles
and Criteria." The
Restoration Principles are the
result of a 2-year bridge building effort
between
conservation groups, community forestry advocates and restoration
practitioners to develop agreement on a common sense,
scientifically-based
framework for restoring our
nation's forests.
The
Restoration Principles serve as a national policy statement to guide
sound ecological restoration. They clearly define
principles and criteria in
order to evaluate proposed
forest restoration policies and projects. By
including social and economic criteria, the Restoration
Principles also help
bridge the gap between what's good
for the land and what's good for
communities and
workers.
The Restoration
Principles stand in stark contrast to the so-called "Healthy
Forests Restoration Act of 2003" passed yesterday by the
U.S. House and the
Bush administration's "Healthy
Forest Initiative." Instead of restoring our
National
Forests, this bill and the bush so-called Healthy Forest Initiative
(HFI) limits citizen participation and undermine key
environmental laws in
order to increase logging and
road building on National Forests, thereby
creating an
even greater need for ecological restoration in the future.
The so-called HFI and the House
bill purport to restore forest health, but
the focus
remains on logging and "thinning" forests. These approaches
represent the same failed management practices of the past
decades now being
advanced under the guise
of "hazardous fuels reduction" and "forest
health."
During a period of significant change in forest policies at
the federal,
state and local level, the Forest
Restoration Principles and Criteria
establish a vision
for restoring natural ecosystems and a sustainable human
relationship with the land. They strongly reject the false
claims of
"regulatory streamlining" and "healthy
forests" initiatives that use
pseudo-science and failed
economic theories, and purport to serve the public
interest. The Principles and Criteria provide an essential
tool for
stakeholders and decision-makers at all levels
to evaluate, critique,
improve, support or reject a
proposed project or policy. All interested
parties are
invited to endorse and utilize this document.
A copy of the Restoration Principles is available at:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/swcbd/Programs/restoration/principles.pdf
An Executive Summary of
the Citizen's Call for Ecological Forest Restoration
is
below as well as a list of the organizations that have endorsed the
document.
Who Developed the Restoration Principles?
These Forest Restoration
Principles and Criteria are based on values and
principles that were developed by a diverse group of forest
activists and
forest ecologists from around the U.S.
with input from representatives of
forest practitioners
and community forest groups who participated in the
Forest Activist Summit on Forest Restoration in Boulder
Colorado, February
16-18, 2001. This diverse group was
brought together because of the
recognition that, to
develop and implement a sound restoration agenda, the
conservation community must learn from and work with those
who do the
restoration work on the ground. A steering
committee of grassroots, regional
and national
conservation organizations worked for over a year and a half to
finalize the Principles and ensure that they were
scientifically credible. A
second summit was held in
Spokane, Washington February 15-17th, 2002 to
bring
together environmentalists, forest practitioners and community
forestry advocates to further the conversation about
implementing ecological
restoration. A third Summit
took place in Ashland, Oregon March 13-15, 2003
to
continue this dialogue.
How
will the Principles be used?
The Restoration Principles will be used to guide
restoration policy and
educate Members of Congress and
their staff on what is good and bad forest
restoration
and how ecological forest restoration should be implemented.
The Principles are also a tool for forest watch activists,
forest
practitioners, restorationists, scientists and
others to guide development
and assess restoration
projects in the planning or implementation stage. To
make the principles more "field friendly", they have been
formatted into a
checklist that can be used in the
field to determine if restoration projects
are
restoring ecological integrity and meeting restoration
objectives. This
checklist has been
published along with a manuscript version of the
Restoration Principles in the March 2003 issue of
Ecological Restoration
available at:
www.worldwildlife.org/klamathsiskiyou
<http://www.worldwildlife.org/klamathsiskiyou>.
For more information about the
Restoration Principles, please contact:
Anne Martin, American Lands Alliance,
annem@americanlands.org or at
509-624-5657.
_____________________
Executive Summary
Citizen's Call for Ecological
Forest Restoration:
Forest Restoration Principles and
Criteria
Forests are among the
most precious and beloved places on our continent,
providing pure air, clean water, climate control and other
ecosystem
services that are vital to our quality of
life and the survival of fish and
wildlife. Regrettably, centuries of resource
extraction and development
have fundamentally altered
most of America's forests, resulting in loss of
habitat, water quality and old-growth forests, as well as
economic and
social harm to communities and workers.
Ecological forest restoration
can help reverse these declines, but only if
it is
based on science and recognizes that ecosystems are complex and our
understanding is limited. Preserving wild
forests and investing in degraded
landscapes through
thoughtful, science-based restoration will foster a just,
conservation-based economy that can create and sustain
family wage jobs
within the capacity of healthy forest
ecosystems.
The Citizen's Call
for Ecological Forest Restoration is a national policy
statement to guide sound ecological
restoration. It clearly defines
principles
and criteria to serve as a yardstick for evaluating proposed
forest restoration policies and projects. By
including social and economic
criteria, it also helps
bridge the gap between what's good for the land and
what's good for communities and workers. The
Restoration Principles were
developed by a diverse
group of forest activists and ecologists, with input
from forest practitioners and community forestry groups
since 2001.
Successful
ecosystem restoration must address ecological, economic and
social needs including community development and the
well-being of the
restoration
workforce. While emphasizing that the primary goal of
restoration is to enhance ecological integrity, the
document encompasses two
additional core principles
that address the value of "natural capital" and
socio-economic issues that set the context and criteria for
restoration.
Core Restoration
Principles:
1. Ecological Forest
Restoration. The primary goal of forest restoration is
to enhance ecological integrity by restoring natural
processes and
resiliency. Effective forest
restoration should reestablish fully
functioning
ecosystems. Ecological integrity can be thought of as the
"ability of an ecosystem to support and maintain a
balanced, adaptive
community of organisms having a
species composition, diversity and
functional
organization comparable to that of natural habitats within a
region (Karr and Dudley 1981)." A restoration
approach based on ecological
integrity incorporates the
advantages of historical models while recognizing
that
ecosystems are dynamic and change over time.
Ecological sub-principles and criteria indicate that
restoration planning
should be based on restoration
assessments at multiple scales, and that
projects need
clear goals and benchmarks for use in monitoring and
evaluation, leading to a process of adaptive
management. Restoration
budgets should
include adequate funding for planning, monitoring and
adaptive management. Restoration must uphold all
local, state and federal
laws and
regulations.
In
the interest of cost-efficiency and effectiveness, restoration programs
should place priority on the least intrusive and intensive
methods needed to
enhance ecological integrity,
including protection of high integrity areas
("core
refugia") and passive restoration (i.e. ceasing harmful activities).
Active restoration - such as road removal and prescribed
burning - may be
necessary in cases of clear need, and
where there is broad stakeholder and
scientific
support. The Principles also distinguish between protecting the
Community Protection Zone (a small area immediately
surrounding homes in the
forest), and the broader goal
of landscape restoration. The principles
define the CPZ to help shape fire policy now being
considered in Congress.
2.
Ecological Economics. Intact forest ecosystems provide essential
ecological services, including clean air and water, upon
which all life and
all human economies
depend. Restoration of these natural systems is an
investment in natural capital diminished by decades of
logging, road
building, mining, grazing, fire
suppression, and invasion by exotic species.
An
economic and institutional framework that fully accounts for non-market
ecological services should be established to recognize the
value of intact
ecological systems and to guide
restoration efforts.
Ecological Economics sub-principles and criteria stress the
need to develop
positive incentives to encourage
ecological restoration, and to eliminate
commercial and
other incentives that drive activities, that harm ecosystems,
communities and workers. For example, the
current timber sale program is
not appropriate for
restoring forests. Rather, government should
appropriate multi-year funding for all aspects of
restoration, and reform
contracting mechanisms to award
contracts on the basis of "best value"
criteria rather
than lowest-bid. This includes preference for contracting
with local crews, small rural businesses, underserved
communities and
multicultural mobile
workers. Market values should be seen as a secondary
by-product of restoration for ecological integrity.
3. Communities and
Workforce. Restoration must foster a sustainable human
relationship to the land that promotes ecological
integrity, social and
economic justice for workers and
communities, and a culture of preservation
and
restoration. In turn, effective restoration depends upon strong,
healthy and diverse communities and a skilled committed
workforce.
Communities and
Workforce sub-principles and criteria emphasize the need for
collaborative efforts to build community and worker
capacity to perform
ecological restoration and create
quality jobs. This should emphasize a
"high-road" approach that provides family wages and
benefits, professional
training and career development,
equal access to work and training, and the
right to
organize and bargain collectively. Furthermore, restoration and
sustainable community development should involve an open,
inclusive and
transparent democratic process that
eliminates undue influence by any group
on public-land
management decision-making.
Sound forest restoration requires an integrated
multi-disciplinary approach
rooted in conservation
biology and principles that include preserving and
protecting intact landscapes, allowing the land to heal
itself, and where
necessary, helping it to do so
through active restoration. Through
thoughtful strategies employed over time, we can
reestablish sustainable
human connections to the land
creating quality restoration jobs and
encouraging
conservation-based economies.
During a period of significant change in forest policies at
the federal,
state and local level, the Forest
Restoration Principles and Criteria
establish a vision
for restoring natural ecosystems and a sustainable human
relationship with the land. They reject the
false claims of "regulatory
streamlining" and "healthy
forests" initiatives that use pseudo-science and
failed
economic theories, and purport to serve the public interest. The
Principles and Criteria provide an essential tool for
stakeholders and
decision-makers at all levels to
evaluate, critique, improve, support or
reject a
proposed project or policy. All interested parties are invited to
endorse and utilize this document.
The following 120 organizations
have endorsed the Restoration Principles:
20/20 Vision, DC
Appalachian
Voices, NC
Alabama Environmental Council, AL
Alliance for Sustainable Jobs and the Environment, OR
Allegheny Defense Project, PA
Alliance for the Wild Rockies, MT
Ambience Project, MT
American
Lands Alliance, DC
American Wildlands, MT
Aspen Wilderness Workshop, CO
Audubon Minnesota, MN
Beausoleil
Mediation Service, OR
Bradford Environmental Research
Institute
Buckeye Forest Council, OH
California Wilderness Coalition, CA
Cascadia Fire Ecology Education Project, OR
Cascadia Wildlands Project, OR
Center for Biological Diversity, AZ
Center for Environmental Economic Development, CA
Center for Native Ecosystems, CO
Cherokee Forest Voices, TN
Chiricahua-Dragoon Conservation Alliance, AZ
CLEAN (Citizens of Lee environment action Network), VA
Coalition for Jobs and the Environment, VA
Colorado Wild, CO
Committee for
the High Desert, ID
Defenders of Wildlife, DC
Devil's Fork Trail Club, VA
Dogwood Alliance, NC
Environmental
Protection Information Center, CA
Environment Council
of Rhode Island, RI
The Empty Bell, MA
Forest Conservation Council, NM
Forest Ecology Network, ME
Forest
Guardians, NM
Forest Stewards Guild, NM
Forest Trust, NM
Friends of the
Boundary Waters Wilderness, MN
Friends of the
Clearwater, ID
Friends of Wild River, NM
Georgia Forest Watch, GA
Gifford
Pinchot Task Force, WA
Gila Regional Information
Project, NM
GilaWoodNet, NM
Grass Lakes West Consulting, WA
Greater Wyoming Valley Audubon Society, PA
Great Basin Mine Watch, NV
Habitat
Education Center, WI
Headwaters, OR
Healing Harvest Forest Foundation, VA
Heartwood, IN
Hells Canyon
Preservation Council, OR
High Country Citizens'
Alliance, CO
High Uintas Preservation Council, UT
Idaho Conservation League, ID
Indiana Forest Alliance, IN
John
Muir Project, CA
Kentucky Heartwood, KY
Kettle Range Conservation Group, WA
Klamath Forest Alliance, OR
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, OR
Kalmiopsis Audubon Society, OR
League Of Wilderness Defenders-Blue Mountains Biodiversity
Project, OR
Lomakatsi Restoration Project, OR
Massachusetts Audubon Society, MA
Missouri Forest Alliance, MO
National Catholic Rural Life Conference, IA
National Forest Protection Alliance, MT
Native Forest Network, MT
New
Mexico Wilderness Alliance, NM
North Coast Restoration
Jobs Initiative, CA
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, WA
Olympic Forest Coalition, WA
Oregon Natural Resources Council, OR
Pacific Rivers Council, OR
Patrick
Environmental Awareness Group
Pennsylvania Wildlands
Recovery Project, PA
Prescott National Forest Friends,
AZ
Quiet Use Coalition, CO
Rainforest Action Network, CA
Resource Stewardship Council, IN
RESTORE: The North Woods, ME
San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, CO
Santa Fe Forest Watch, NM
Selkirk
Conservation Alliance, ID
Serpentine Art and Nature
Commons, Inc., NY
Sinapu, CO
Sisters Forest Planning Committee, OR
Sky Island Alliance, AZ
Soda
Mountain Wilderness Council, OR
South Carolina Forest
Watch, SC
Southern Appalachian Biodiversity Project, NC
Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition, NC
Superior Wilderness Action Network, MN
Swan View Coalition, MT
Taking
Responsibility for the Earth and Environment, VA
Tennessee Citizens for Wilderness Planning, TN
The Clinch Coalition, VA
The
Ecology Center, MT
The Four Corners Institute, NM
The Lands Council, WA
The Larch
Company, OR
The Northern Appalachian Restoration
Project/The Northern Forest Forum, NH
Tradelocal
Umpqua Watersheds, OR
Dr. Peter
Stacey, Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, NM
Upper Gila Watershed Alliance, NM
Vermont Natural Resources Council, VT
Vermont Forest Watch, VT
Virginia
Forest Watch, VA
Western Colorado Congress, CO
Western North Carolina Alliance, NC
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, WV
Wild Alabama, AL
Wildlands
Project, AZ
WildLaw, AL
Wildlands CPR, MT
Wild Watershed,
NM
White Mountains Conservation League, NM
The Wilderness Society, DC
World
Wildlife Fund, DC
Please join Amnesty International in this urgent effort to
protect the
rights and safety of environmental
activists in Honduras. Thanks very much
for helping in
this campaign. --Paula
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL URGENT ACTION APPEAL
UA 144/03 Fear for safety/Death threats 21
May 2003
HONDURAS
Jose Andres Tamayo (m), priest and environmental activist
Gilberto Flores (m)
Orlando Najera (m),
- community
leaders from Gualaco municipality, Olancho department
Priest Jose Andres Tamayo has
reportedly been threatened with
death due to his
activism in protection of the environment in
Olancho
department, northern Honduras. Community leaders
Gilberto Flores and Orlando Najera have also reportedly
been
harassed. Amnesty International is seriously
concerned for their
safety.
Jose Andres Tamayo, priest of the
municipality of Salama,
Olancho department, has
reportedly been warned to leave the
country by the end
of May. The warning allegedly comes from a
group of
powerful men involved in the logging business
(madereros) in the department. According to reports, on 19
May
they agreed to call on the authorities to take
action in order to
force the priest to leave Honduras.
On 5 and 6 May, the mayor of
Salama reportedly said on
four occasions that ''the environmental
problem in
Olancho will be only resolved by ordering the killing
of Father Tamayo'' (''el problema ambiental en Olancho
solamente se va a resolver mandando a matar al Padre
Tamayo''). These statements were allegedly made in front of
two
members of Comite de Familiares de Detenidos
Desaparecidos
en Honduras, (COFADEH), Committee of
Relatives of the
Disappeared in Honduras, an
organization working with
community leaders in Olancho
department.
Community leaders
Gilberto Flores and Orlando Najera, who are
campaigning
against the construction of a hydroelectric dam in
Olancho department, have also been intimidated by the
police
guards and local authorities. According to
reports, police guards
have recently fired shots in the
air outside the house of Orlando
Najer in the community
of Ocotal, in Gualaco municipality.
Father Jose Andres Tamayo has been actively campaigning
with
local communities in northern Olancho against
intense
deforestation and logging in the area. He has
been intimidated
and threatened several times. In
October 2001 a police officer
reportedly pointed his
gun at Father Jose Andres Tamayo during
a demonstration
calling for the protection of the environment. He
was
also under threat from local criminals who had reportedly
been offered money to kill him because of his legitimate
and
peaceful environmental activism (UA 169/01 issued
14
November 2001and follow-ups).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The campaign against Father Jose Andres Tamayo and
grassroots activists, including indigenous people, is part
of a
pattern of human rights abuses against those
involved in
defending the environment. Illegal logging
of the forests in
Honduras and the construction of dams
is causing grave
environmental damage. In October 2002
the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights
acknowledged that environmental
degradation has a
serious impact on human rights. On 30 June
2001 Carlos
Roberto Flores, a community leader and
environmental
activist protesting against the construction of a
hydroelectric dam, was shot dead in the municipality of
Gualaco,
Olancho department. He was reportedly killed
by security guards
hired by Energisa, the firm building
the dam. Although five of
the security guards were
charged and warrants issued for their
arrest, they
still have not been brought before a court.
In 2001 another priest involved in helping communities in
the
area, Peter Marchetti, was also reportedly
threatened and
harassed by landowners, and eventually
had to leave Honduras
for his own protection.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send
appeals to arrive
as quickly as possible:
- expressing concern for the safety of Father Jose Andres
Tamayo following reports that he has been receiving
death
threats;
- expressing
concern for the safety of Gilberto Flores, and
Orlando Najera after reports that they have been
intimidated by
local authorities and police guards;
- urging the authorities to take action to protect Father
Jose
Andres Tamayo, Gilberto Flores and Orlando Najera
according
to their wishes;
-
requesting an immediate, thorough and impartial investigation
into the campaign of harassment and threats to those named
above, and that the results be made public and those
responsible
brought to justice;
- reminding the authorities of the right of human rights
defenders
to carry out their activities without any
restrictions or fear of
reprisals, as set out in the
United Nations Declaration on the
Rights and
Responsibilities of Individuals, Groups and
Institutions to Promote and Protect Universally Recognised
Human Rights and Fundamental Liberties, and in the
equivalent
declaration from the Organization of
American States.
APPEALS TO:
President of Honduras:
Lic.
Ricardo Maduro
Presidente de la Republica de Honduras
Casa Presidencial, Boulevard Juan Pablo Segundo
Palacio Jose Cecilio del Valle
Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Telegram:
Presidente de Honduras, Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Fax: 011 504 2214552
Salutation: Dear President/ Sr. Presidente
Minister of Security:
Dr. Oscar Alvarez
Ministro de
Seguridad Publica
Ministerio de Seguridad Publica
Edificio Poujol, 4o piso, Col. Palmira (Blvd. Morazan)
Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Telegram:
Ministro de Seguridad, Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Fax: 011
504 220 4352
Salutation: Dear Minister/Senor Ministro
Attorney General:
Dr. Roy Edmundo Medina
Fiscal
General de la Republica
Fiscalia General de la
Republica
Colonia Loma del Guijaro
Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Telegram:
Fiscal General de la Republica, Tegucigalpa,
Honduras
Fax: 011 504 221 5666
Salutation: Dear Attorney General/ Senor Fiscal General
COPIES TO:
National Commissioner for the Protection of Human Rights:
Comisionado Nacional de Proteccion de los Derechos
Humanos
Ramon Custodio Lopez
Avda. La Paz No. 2444
Contiguo a
Galerias La Paz
Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Fax: 011 504 232 6894
Committee of Relatives of the
Disappeared of Honduras:
Comite de Familiares de
Desaparecidos de Honduras
(COFADEH)
Apartado Postal 1243
Barrio La
Plazuela, Ave. Cervantes
Casa 1301, a la par de JM
Stereo
Tegucigalpa, Honduras
Fax: 011 504 220 5280 (if someone answers ask for the fax:
''me da tono de fax, por favor'')
Ambassador Mario Miguel Canahuati
Embassy of Honduras
3007
Tilden St. NW Suite 4-M
Washington DC 20008
Fax: 1 202 966 9751
Please send appeals immediately. Check with the Colorado
office between 9:00 am and 6:00 pm, Mountain Time,
weekdays only, if sending appeals after July 2, 2003.
Amnesty International is a
worldwide grassroots
movement that promotes and defends
human
rights.
This Urgent Action may be reposted if kept
intact, including contact information and stop
action date (if applicable). Thank you for your
help with this appeal.
Urgent Action Network
Amnesty
International USA
PO Box 1270
Nederland CO 80466-1270
Email:
uan@aiusa.org
http://www.amnestyusa.org/urgent/
Phone: 303 258 1170
Fax: 303 258 7881
Tell
your senators to make the U.S. a leader in fighting global
warming by supporting the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA).
This
landmark legislation--introduced by Senators
McCain and Lieberman--is
a responsible first step that
will require reductions in the heat-
trapping pollution
that causes climate change. As the world's #1
emitter
of global warming gases, the United States must act
responsibly. The Senate may vote on this as early as June
2, so
please send your letters today.
TAKE ACTION:
Hit reply and send in your email
program to automatically email the
letter below to your
senators.
To learn more about
the issue and to customize your letter, visit
http://www.ucsaction.org/index.asp?step=2&item=2689
*****************
LETTER:
Dear [Your Senators name will be inserted],
I am writing to urge you to vote
in favor of limiting carbon dioxide
and other
heat-trapping gases from major industrial sources. These
gases are contributing to global warming, which will bring
with it
serious changes to our way of life and damage
America's economy.
Senators
McCain and Lieberman's Climate Stewardship Act (S. 139) is a
reasonable first step in limiting heat-trapping gas
emissions. As 85%
of U.S. global warming-related
emissions come from our energy use, it
is irresponsible
to pass energy legislation without addressing this
human-caused problem.
The Climate Stewardship Act's market-based approach would
harness
American technological know-how to find the
most cost effective ways
to cut our emissions of heat
trapping gases. Off-the-shelf
reductions
already available include producing more electricity from
clean renewable sources, limiting carbon pollution from
dirty coal-
fired power plants, increasing the energy
efficiency of our homes and
factories, and making cars
go further on a gallon of gas. By
encouraging
investment in these and other methods, the act would also
ensure that American technology remains competitive as
other
countries move to reduce their own
emissions.
As the
world's number one emitter of heat-trapping gases, the United
States should be a leader in the fight to curb global
warming instead
of trailing behind the rest of the
world. Our voluntary emission
reduction measures have
failed. In fact, U.S. emissions are nearly 12
percent
higher now than they were in 1990.
Please demonstrate your commitment to responsible
stewardship of
America's environment for our children
and grandchildren by voting
for the Climate Stewardship
Act amendment to the energy bill. I look
forward to
hearing your position on this issue.
Sincerely,
[Your name and address will be inserted here]
*****************
Background:
Our environment faces many risks, but few as large in scale
as global
warming. Global warming is caused when we
emit gases-primarily CO2
from burning fossil fuels-that
blanket the earth and trap heat. The
latest climate
models anticipate 2.5 to 10.4 degrees warming this
century, and the warming in the U.S. could be as much as 50
percent
more than this average. That means that during
our grandchildren's
lifetime Chicago will feel like
Texas, and Boston like Atlanta.
Extreme heat, coastal
erosion, increased storms and flooding, and
longer
droughts will all potentially wreak havoc on our lives. With
only one degree warming to date, we have already begun to
see many
indicators. Responsible action is needed today
to avoid
dramatic climate change.
Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and
Joe Lieberman (D-CT) recently
announced a historic
global warming bill, the Climate Stewardship Act
(CSA),
that is a good first step in addressing this human-made
problem. The bill places mandatory, but modest, limits on
the largest
emitters of heat-trapping gases, such as
power plants and oil
refineries. It also
allows for 'market-based' methods that help
industry
achieve reductions at the lowest cost.
Sens. McCain and Lieberman plan to offer the CSA as an
amendment to
the energy bill currently under debate in
the U.S. Senate. A vote on
this amendment could come as
early as June 2. Because energy use
accounts for 85% of
U.S. emissions of CO2 and the other heat-trapping
gases, it is irresponsible to pass energy legislation that
ignores
this problem
While the CSA is not expected to prevail in this vote, a
good showing
would accomplish several important goals:
First, it would strongly
position the CSA for rapid
progress in the future. Second, it would
forever
eliminate the widely touted but inaccurate notion that the
Senate is unanimously opposed to setting limits on
heat-trapping gas
emissions. Finally, it would directly
challenge the Bush
administration's "too little, too
late" policy of waiting until 2012,
when this
administration is out of office, to consider moving beyond
voluntary-only action on global warming. In short, a strong
showing
for the CSA in the upcoming vote will
dramatically improve the
climate debate within the
Congress.
To justify its
opposition to mandatory emissions reductions, the Bush
administration claims they would be too costly. The
administration's
economic arguments fail to account for
global warming costs such as
rising sea levels, extreme
weather, and loss of biodiversity. They
also ignore our
responsibility to leave our children and
grandchildren
with a healthy environment.
Please take action to curb global warming by urging your
senator to
vote to add the Climate Stewardship Act to
the energy bill.
************
If you have
questions, comments or concerns about this action, send
email to action@ucsusa.org -- replying to this action will send the
letter.
Greenpeace: ExxonMobil Global Headquarters Shut Down
Business at the international headquarters of the world's most powerful company ground to a halt today as the Greenpeace Global Warming Crimes Unit converged on ExxonMobil's compound in Irving, Texas.
Please read on to find out how you can support this important action.
Our news release is below. For more information, including regular updates as the action unfolds, please visit:
http://www.dontbuyexxonmobil.org
You can help by uploading your picture to the speech bubble gallery here (which automatically forwards it to the ExxonMobil board):
http://act.greenpeace.org/gpdesigner2/SubmitImage
and by sending a personal letter to the board of ExxonMobil here:
http://act.greenpeace.org/ams/e?a=esso_board&s=blue2
You can post comments and read updates at the weblog:
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/esso
Here's the release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 27, 2003
EXXONMOBIL BUSTED BY GREENPEACE GLOBAL WARMING CRIMES UNIT
Global Headquarters Shut Down Day Before Annual Meeting
DALLAS, Tex. - Business at the international headquarters of the world's most powerful company ground to a halt this morning as the Greenpeace Global Warming Crimes Unit converged on ExxonMobil's compound in Irving, Texas. Some members of the Unit are positioned across the entrance while others have entered the building to serve a list of charges against the company. The move comes as ExxonMobil's Board of Directors and international executives attempt to gather from across the world for tomorrow's Annual General Meeting.
As of 7:45 AM (CDT), 15 members of the Global Warming Crimes Unit are secured to the main gates, where two police-style vans are parked across the entrance used by staff and management. More than 30 members of the Unit have entered the compound, fabled for its high security. Some members of the Unit, including a Baptist minister, are actually inside the building, while others are on the roof, holding a banner that brands the building a "global warming crime scene." Employees arriving to work are turning away.
James Moore of the Global Warming Crimes Unit said, "This is where ExxonMobil plots to sabotage all meaningful efforts to solve global warming. Within these walls, ExxonMobil executives fight to conduct business as usual while the catastrophe of global warming - which impacts millions of ordinary people - is completely ignored."
ExxonMobil stands accused of running a 10-year campaign of sabotage against international efforts to solve global warming. The company has used its influence and money to block agreements that would reduce global warming pollution. Recent figures show the company gives millions of dollars to ultra-conservative groups that aggressively lobby against action to protect our climate and direct President Bush's extreme energy policies.
The list of charges is accompanied by pages of evidence against the company. Copies of classified documents and letters demonstrate the unique role that ExxonMobil has played in sabotaging action on global warming, fraudulently misrepresenting the science, and lying to the American people.
"While 109 nations have signed the Kyoto Protocol to fight global warming, ExxonMobil has done all it can to ensure the United States sits on the sidelines," added Moore. "We will leave only when the company agrees to stop sabotaging international action on global warming. Meanwhile, everyone can help by refusing to buy gas from ExxonMobil."
VISIT THE CYBERCENTRE
Please don't forget to visit the Greenpeace Cyberactivist Community at:
http://act.greenpeace.org
To: Northeast Activists
From: John Demos
May 28, 2003
ROADLESS BILL INTRODUCED NEXT WEEK
I have been told that 5 Northeastern Representatives are needed to cosponsor the Rep. Boehlert (R-NY) and Inslee (D-WA) “National Forest Roadless Area
Conservation Act of 2003”. The Act will codify the Roadless Area Rule
promulgated in January 2001, and will protect nearly 59 million acres of
roadless National Forest lands. The 2003 National Forest Roadless Area
Conservation Act is identical to the original Roadless Rule.
The Act will be introduced next Wednesday or Thursday.
Please call the following and ask them to sign on.
CT
Rob Simmons R CT 2 (202) 225-2076
NJ
LoBiondo Frank A. R NJ 2 (202) 225-6572
NY
Sue Kelly R NY 19 (202) 225-5441
Gregory Meeks D NY 6 (202) 225-3461
Nydia Velazquez D NY 12 (202) 225-2361
BACKGROUND
Several Important developments have taken place since last year. On December
12, 2002, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, reversed an
order the Idaho U.S. district court, which had placed a preliminary
injunction on the Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The 9th Court decision not
to review the earlier decision was unanimous (unlike the original decision)
and is therefore an even stronger message from the court.
However, there are a half dozen or so other lawsuits brought by similar
interests in other districts that continue to threaten the rule. Until these
legal challenges are settled the Rule remains in limbo and these roadless
areas continue to be vulnerable to exploitation.
Meanwhile the Forest Service and the White House are working to
administratively weaken the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and get back to
large-scale logging in roadless areas.
Please tell your elected officials that the Roadless Rule is a popular
measure and of historic importance. The Forest Service held more than 600
public meetings throughout the country and received a record-breaking
1.6-million+ official comments – five times more comments than in any other
federal rulemaking process. More than 95% of these comments supported the
strongest possible protection for all of the Nation’s remaining roadless
areas.
Also recently, a group of sporting and some timber industry leaders released
a report supporting the Roadless Policy. Although many had feared that the
group would suggest changes that would weaken the Policy, the group has
called on the administration to put it into immediate effect unchanged.
After two years of study, the group, comprised of the Forest Roads Working
Group (FRWG) – made up of Wildlife Forever, the Wildlife Management
Institute, the Wildlife Society, Trout Unlimited, Izaak Walton League of
America, International Paper Co., the Outdoor Industry Association and
Pinchot Institute for Conservation - recommended that the Rule be implemented
without change.
Take Action Online!
http://capWiz.com/vision/issues/alert/?alertid=2423806&type=CU
May 2003
Close the Dirty Diesel Loophole
Take Action Now!
What’s At Stake:
Saving 9,600 lives each year and cleaning up urban smog
Americans will breathe easier if an unusually strong EPA proposal to control “non-road” diesel emissions survives the regulatory gauntlet. It would extend the pollution control standards for diesel trucks and buses (which 20/20 Vision fought for in 2000) to other types of big dirty diesel engines like bulldozers and tractors. A bulldozer can emit up to 8 times more toxic particulates than the average urban bus. The total non-road emissions exceed that from all the diesel trucks and buses on the road today!
Health dangers of unregulated diesels are severe. Particulates, NOx and more than 40 other hazardous substances come from diesels. Occupational health studies show that workers exposed to diesel exhaust suffer a 20-50% increase in the risk of lung cancer or mortality. EPA says its proposal will each year prevent 9,600 premature deaths, 8,300 hospitalizations, 1,600 heart attacks, 5,700 children’s asthma-related emergency room visits, 260,000 respiratory problems in children and close to one million work days lost to illness. Diesels have long been a source of the smog in our most polluted cities.
The current EPA proposal is—surprisingly—a strong one. It would slash cancer-causing particulate soot by 90 percent and smog-forming nitrogen oxides to 95 percent by 2014. Sulfur in fuels would be cut sharply enough to allow the use of catalytic converters. But there is still a risk that politicians' knives and industry influence will delay or weaken the proposal.
Action:
Grassroots action is urgently needed to flood the public docket, which the EPA is required by law to consider before finalizing the proposal. Urge the EPA to:
• Not weaken or delay the rule in any way
• Reject the “alternative analysis” that discounts the value of a human life in risk assessments
• Tighten emission standards for locomotive and marine diesel engines
• Reduce the sulfur levels in locomotive and marine diesel fuel to 15 parts per million, so the same fuel can be used for all diesels
Speak about your own experience with air pollution, because letters that look like form responses will be ignored. Comments must be received no later than August 20, and may be sent by e-mail.
Write: Air Docket, EPA
Mail Code 6102 T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
E-mail: nrt4@epa.gov and mention Docket ID No. A-2001-28
Act on-line! http://capWiz.com/vision/issues/alert/?alertid=2423806&type=CU
Public Hearings: Call us about participating in hearings scheduled
for June in New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
RAN Action Alert
May 30, 2003
Activists from across the country are gearing up for the June wave of
protests to pressure Ford Motor Company to stop driving America’s oil
addiction. The protests will kickoff on May 31st in San Francisco and
will continue through Ford’s 100th Anniversary celebration in Dearborn,
MI in mid-June. To get involved, please visit
www.ran.org/ran_campaigns/ford/action.html.
In addition to demonstrating in Dearborn, RAN will be participating in
Ford’s Annual Shareholders’ meeting on June 16th. RAN is looking for
proxies so that we can take our demands directly to Ford’s Board of
Directors. To donate your proxy, please contact Christine Corwin ASAP
at (415) 398-4404 or ccorwin@ran.org.
On June 7th - the Jumpstart Ford national day of action - hundreds of
activists will be lining up at Ford dealerships across the U.S. and
Canada to say "NO" to another 100 years of driving oil addiction. Here
are the locations and times for a few of the protests taking place on
June 7th.
Burley, ID
Time: 3:00pm
GOODE MOTOR, INC
1096 E. Main St.
Contact: Tom Mong, 208-431-5261
Charlotte, NC
Time: 3:00pm
TOWN AND COUNTRY FORD
5401 E. Independence Blvd
Contact: David Dixon, (704) 449-6925; nomorevictims@yahoo.com
Chicago, IL
*Time and location TBA
Contact Jason Mark at jason@globalexchange.org for more info.
Dallas, TX
*Time and location TBA
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Time: 2pm-4pm
MAROONE FORD
Corner of U.S. 1 and 13th St.
Contact: Karen Gottlieb, 954-483-5485; peek888@aol.com
Houston, TX (Spring, TX in North Houston)
Time: 1:00pm-2:30pm
PLANET FORD
20403 I-45 North
Contact: Anne Bayerkohler, 936-271-4917; greens@zounds.net
Longmont, CO
Time: 1pm-2pm
VALLEY FORD, INC
235 Alpine Rd. (at 119 Freeway)
Contact: Ann Rick, (303) 678-1801
Milwaukee, WI
Time: 12pm-1pm
BRAEGER FORD
3804 S. 27th St.
Contact: Michael Komba, ceramical@hotmail.com
New York, NY (Manhattan)
Time: 12:00pm-1:30pm
MANHATTAN FORD
787 11th Ave. (Between 54 & 55 Streets)
Contact: Gabrielle Engh, 917-886-1977
Portland, OR
*Time and location TBA
Contact: Lew Church, 503-725-7798; lc@pdx.edu
Santa Clara, CA
Time: 12pm-2pm
FRONTIER FORD
3701 Stevens Creek Blvd.
Contact: Charlotte Casey, 408-251-4355; ccasey@cagreens.org
Tampa, FL
Time: TBA
BILL CURRIE FORD
5815 N. Dale Mabry Hwy
Contact: Mariana Sarmiento, 504-236-3057; msarmien@tulane.edu
Thousand Oaks, CA
Time: 9:45am-10:45am
KEMP FORD
3810 Thousand Oaks Blvd
Contact: Joanie McClellan, (805) 241-8855; gx_ventura_to@aol.com
Vancouver, BC
Time: 1:00pm-2:30pm
BROWN BROS. FORD (BC's biggest Ford dealer!)
270 SE Marine Dr.
Vancouver, WA
Time: 10am-12pm
VANCOUVER FORD
6801 NE 40th St. (at SR 500 and Andresen)
Contact: Peter Anderson, 360-260-8937
Washington, DC
Time: 12pm
KOONS COLLEGE PARK FORD
8315 Baltimore Ave. (Hwy 1 in College Park right across from the main U.
of Maryland entrance)
Contact: Maritza Valenzuela, 202-213-0480; activist19@yahoo.com
*******
SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION
To subscribe to this list, send a blank message to: ran-updates-subscribe@igc.topica.com
To read archived messages, go to http://igc.topica.com/lists/ran-updates
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rainforest Action Network
221 Pine Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94104
tel: 415-398-4404
fax: 415-398-2732
URL: http://www.ran.org/