|
|
| Today's environment news articles environment news | for all environment news articles |
|
from Environment News Service July 18, 2001
Senators, Environmental Groups Respond to Report
Finding Pattern of
Conservative Judicial Activism
WASHINGTON, D.C., Jul. 18
-/E-Wire/--
Members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee and the nation’s top environmental groups responded to
a report documenting a trend of anti-environmental judicial activism on
the federal bench by vowing today to push for greater scrutiny of judicial
nominees.
The report reviewed 10 years’ worth of federal rulings and found that a group of highly ideological conservative judges has disregarded norms of judicial conduct while shaping a new judicial philosophy that threatens core environmental protections. The report, written by the Alliance for Justice, Community Rights Counsel and the Natural Resources Defense Council, was released today at a press conference on Capitol Hill. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.), speaking at the press conference, praised the report as a valuable tool for members of the Judiciary Committee: “As a senator with a deep commitment to environmental protection, I strongly believe that the environmental views of public servants must be fully vetted and evaluated. I also believe that the Senate, in fulfilling its constitutional role of providing advice and consent on nominees, should apply the highest standards and the strictest scrutiny to judges, and certainly to Supreme Court justices, who will serve for life.” Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) responded to the report with a statement: “In recent years, the Supreme Court has issued decisions that undermine some of our country’s most important laws, including … environmental legislation enacted by Congress. Whether provisions of the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the tendency to undermine federal statutes is clear and worrisome.” In the first coordinated effort by environmental groups to monitor judicial nominees, 12 national organizations also called on the U.S. Senate to consider the views of nominees on issues related to environmental protection. The letter is available on http://www.ems.org. Speaking at the press conference were: Greg Wetstone, director of advocacy at the Natural Resources Defense Council: “We are talking about the brazen abandonment of the most fundamental precepts of judicial fairness by judges openly biased against environmental protection. That is why, with this event, the environmental community is launching a new effort to carefully scrutinize judicial nominees. It is not too much to ask for assurances that future judges should be willing to commit to the rule of law in the environmental area, to endorse congressionally sanctioned environmental goals and give the environment a fair hearing.” Buck Parker, executive director of Earthjustice: “Never before have the stakes been higher. A growing number of judges are exceeding their proper role by rewriting laws passed by Congress, in order to serve the judges’ own personal preferences. A few more judges out of this mold will tip the balance in many courts and seriously weaken, if not nullify, many of our landmark environmental statutes.” Doug Kendall, executive director of Community Rights Counsel: “A handful of judges are willing to express abject hostility to environmental protections. Many more judges, including a slim majority of the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court, are willing to ignore procedural and substantive obstacles in order to strike down environmental protections.” Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice: “There is a very significant expansion of groups now mounting efforts across the country around judicial selection. It’s highly significant that this community, which has mostly remained neutral in this area, is participating in monitoring federal judges. That is new and highly significant.” To read the report or download complete statements of environmentalists and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, go to http://www.ems.org. |
|
from Environment
News Service July 19, 2001 |
|
British Columbia Lifts Ban on Grizzly Bear Hunting VICTORIA, British Columbia, Canada, July 19, 2001 (ENS) - The newly elected Liberal government in British Columbia has lifted the three year ban on the hunting of grizzly bears imposed by the previous government earlier this year. The move has infuriated the province's conservation groups, and one prominent bear scientist says the decision turns the bears into a political football.
Joyce Murray is B.C. Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection (Photo courtesy Office of the Minister)The Liberal government was sworn in on June 5. In announcing the lifting of the grizzly hunting ban Monday, Water, Land and Air Protection Minister Joyce Murray reminded the province that the Liberals had campaigned on a "commitment to replace the blanket moratorium on grizzly bear hunting with regional moratoriums and a scientific peer review panel.""The blanket moratorium on grizzly bear hunting was imposed by the previous government for political reasons and was inconsistent with the wildlife branch’s own analysis. We made a commitment to the people that we would replace the blanket moratorium with a proper peer review by scientists and biologists, and with regional moratoriums where appropriate. We are honoring that commitment today," said Murray. The previous New Democratic Party government imposed the three year moratorium on hunting grizzlies after many warnings from prominent bear scientists that the hunting must stop if the bears are to survive. Polls show that over 90 percent of British Columbians support the moratorium. Wayne McCrory has studied the province's bears for over 30 years. A bear biologist and one of 12 scientists on the former B.C. government's grizzly science panel that recommended the moratorium, he says allowing hunting again is not based on good conservation principles.
Grizzly bear (Photo courtesy Parks Canada)Speaking from the Slocan Valley, "a beautiful valley that still has grizzlies," McCrory said the removal of the ban will jeopardize the bear populations again. "The simple fact of the matter," he told ENS, "is that they are cutting the forests of B.C at a rate unparalleded on the planet. The logging roads are opening up areas that allow poachers and hunters to have greaater access to bears, having an enormous impact on the grizzlies.""It's political stupidity, not based on any good science," McCrory said. "It's just more smoke and mirrors cloaking things. There were 68 independent biologists who signed a petition asking for a moratorium on the hunt. Now they're forming a new science panel with bunch of U.S. biologists, leapfrogging around a critical conservation issue." The grizzlies are already extinct, endangered or in jeopardy in many areas of B.C., says McCrory, and adding the logging impacts makes their survival even less assured. McCrory will not be on the new panel and said he did not want to be "until they address the overcutting of the forests." Murray says the new scientific panel will "review and comment on grizzly management practices." The six man panel will have authority to receive scientific submissions, and its recommendations will be made public. "The wildlife branch conducts detailed analysis of B.C.’s grizzly bear populations using advanced scientific methods, including DNA analysis. Ministry biologists have confirmed there are at least 13,000 grizzly bears in British Columbia," Murray said. But McCrory says the crux of the matter is that the grizzly bear is North America's slowest reproducing mammal, not like deer and elk which can recover more quickly from overhunting. If you put the grizzly population into a decline, it could take 45 years to restore itself to a natural level," he warned.
B.C.'s bear hunt has attracted attention from environmentalists in London, UK(Photo courtesy Environmental Investigation Agency)Mother grizzlies account for from 30 to 50 percent of the legal trophy kills, McCrory said, and breeding females are critical to maintaining the population. "Lifting the ban is not scientific, or ethical. The government is "using the grizzlies as a political football to cater to a lobby group," he charged.The new bear panel is composed of five American scientists and one from British Columbia. One member of the new panel, Dr. Sterling Miller of the National Wildlife Federation, who is based in Missoula, Montana, says the panelists were chosen on the recommendation of the International Association for Bear Research and Management to the B.C. Ministry of Environment. Miller and McCrory agree that U.S. scientists were brought in because most Canadian scientists have already taken a position on the issue. The new scientific panel is composed of:
Dr. Miller said the group will meet by phone next month and in person in the fall. Their report may be ready in a year and certainly within two years. "The Ministry of Environment has given us the freedom to define the scope of our work as we see fit," he said. While the entire scope of the panel's work is not yet determined, it will at least investigate the basis which exists for the ministry's figure of 13,000 grizzly bears in British Columbia. "We are all coming to it free of prejudices," he said. "We will evaluate whether this figure is credible or not." We hope to have some kind of report ready in a year, and certainly within 2 years, that period of time will depend on what we defend of scope of our work. McCrory, from the previous panel, says he cannot see the new panel not arriving at the same place as the old panel did."We need long term population studies," he said, "and while doing these we should not be hunting grizzly bears."
Hunter bags a British Columbia grizzly bear. (Photo courtesy Outdoor Connection)"Our government is committed to maintaining strong scientific standards for wildlife management and protection - and ensuring openness and accountability in all our decisions," Murray said. "Where grizzly bear populations are healthy, a carefully managed hunt will be permitted. Conservation science will dictate which moratoriums will remain in place. Our scientific panel will help ensure public trust and confidence in wildlife management decisions."The Western Canada Wilderness Committee is conducting an email poll with responses directed to the office of Premier Gordon Campbell. Visitors to the Wilderness Committee website can fill out a form showing whether they support a permanent ban on the trophy hunting of grizzlies, support the three year moratorium, or believe a moratorium is not needed at all. A list of the regional bear hunting moratoriums is available from the B.C. Ministry of Environment online at: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/main/newsrel/fisc0102/july/bg159B.htm
© Environment News Service (ENS) 2001. All Rights Reserved |
|
from Environmental Defense July 21,
2001
|
|
from Anonymous Source July 24, 2001 from
oras_intsec@another.com |
|
from the Wall Street Journal July 24, 2001 |
July 23, 2001 Antiglobalization Activists Are Shifting Focus to Multinational Corporations By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV and HELENE COOPER Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL GENOA, Italy -- Businesses better brace themselves for some unwanted attention. Even as activists and police clashed during the weekend in the most violent protests against globalization to date, demonstration organizers are making plans to expand their targets beyond the big summit meetings that have become a lightning rod for free-trade critics. And multinational companies of all sizes are next on the hit list. "We're not spending all of our time trying to influence legislators and governments anymore," said Mike Brune, campaigns director for the Rainforest Action Network, an environmental group that sent nonviolent protesters to the meeting here of leaders from the seven major industrialized nations and Russia. "We're going after the root of the problem," Mr. Brune said. "Corporate campaigns are the next frontier -- and definitely it's companies like CitiGroup, Boise Cascade and Exxon that will be seeing this for sure." Indeed, on Wednesday, demonstrators from 16 organizations plan to hit the Itasca, Ill., headquarters of Boise Cascade Office Products, a unit of Boise Cascade Corp., the paper and forest-products company. The protesters say they will block traffic and shut down the company's front office to register their disapproval of its logging of old-growth forests. Another corporate target up for a "direct-action" hit is District of Columbia General Hospital, where protesters are focusing on the Washington facility's privatization. Formerly run as a municipal agency catering primarily to the city's poor, D.C. General ran into financial problems and its management was turned over to a private medical group this year. "The movement will not settle for summit-hopping anymore," said John Sellers, head of the Ruckus Society, which helped spearhead the 1999 World Trade Organization protests in Seattle that helped launch the antiglobalization movement. By almost all counts, the Genoa conference, which drew close to 100,000 protesters and 15,000 police, was a seminal event. Violence erupted on both sides in this Mediterranean port city: from a fringe of anarchists, who threw Molotov cocktails into bank offices and set cars on fire, to the police themselves, who beat protesters and even a few journalists. By Sunday evening, the toll was the highest yet for a globalization protest: one dead, 450 injured, tens of millions of dollars in damage and a large part of the city devastated by riots. Early Sunday, Italian police raided a school building housing activists and arrested all 92 people inside. Afterward, the building was covered with pools of blood and littered with smashed computers. Several reporters at the school were hurt; one had his arm broken. Police said 61 of the detainees had been wounded in riots that preceded the raid, but neighbors described hours of beatings and screaming coming from the school during the raid. Speaking at a news conference at the end of the Group of Eight summit, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said anarchist members of the "Black Block" -- a small roving band behind most of the weekend's violence -- "apparently were hiding [in the school] and were helped by Genoa Social Forum representatives" who were "colluding" with the rioters. To justify the action, the police displayed "weapons" seized at the school: Apart from two bottles filled with gasoline, the confiscated items consisted of cellular telephones, swimming goggles, motorcycle helmets and, mysteriously, tanning lotion, tissue and a packet of headache pills. Police also displayed nails and hammers, but those were plentiful at a construction site within the school. The fatal shooting Friday of a 23-year-old man who apparently was throwing a fire extinguisher at police may well have provided the movement with its first martyr. But the violence in Genoa by more-radical protesters also has distanced them from moderate organizations, prompting many to wonder whether the traditional tactic of demonstrating at big international gatherings hasn't become counterproductive. "For people in the mainstream campaigns, it's change time," said Lucy Matthew, spokeswoman for Drop the Debt, a British-based nongovernmental organization that advocates forgiving part of Third World debts to the World Bank and other lenders and bondholders in industrialized nations. Adds Maria Grazia Francescato, leader of Italy's Green Party: "The movement should rethink its entire strategy ... We can't be responsible for devastating entire cities every time we hold a demonstration." But the weekend's events in Genoa brought into sharper focus the expansion plan that protest leaders have been working on: shifting to corporate targets. Last month, hundreds of biotechnology opponents demonstrated in San Diego outside of a biotech-industry convention. To be sure, activists have targeted companies for years. For instance, Greenpeace, the environmental group, has long waged a war against oil companies. But in the past, these efforts mostly have been episodic and uncoordinated. Now, the globalization protesters have substantial numbers on their side, and they say they want to turn the "juice" they have stoked from previous summit protests toward specific corporate targets. For the companies, getting hit can hurt. "It certainly is a harassment campaign, and it's directed at our employees and our customers," said Boise Cascade public-relations manager Michael Moser. In October, three activists were arrested when they broke into Boise's corporate headquarters in Boise, Idaho, to try to rappel off the roof. Mr. Moser maintains that less than 3% of the wood used by the company is old-growth, but he said that, nonetheless, Boise executives have met with the activists three times during the past year. Citigroup Inc. is another target. Activists upset with the financial-services giant's investment policies follow around after company executives marketing its credit cards on college campuses. Activists set up booths next to the New York bank's booths, warning students away from the cards. "We're looking to reorient the financial-services industry to target investments in sustainable agriculture," said Rainforest Action's Mr. Brune. "Citigroup may not be cutting down the trees, but it's aiding in the destruction." Activists launched the campaign against Citigroup last year after the bank refused their request to fund a conference for opponents of the bank. "We are proud of our business record," a Citigroup spokeswoman said. ---------------- Write to Yaroslav Trofimov at yaroslav.trofimov@wsj.com and Helene Cooper at helene.cooper@wsj.com |
|
from the New York Fair Trade Campaign July 24, 2001 |
How
you can fight the FTAA and the WTO?
Defeat Fast Track! Congress
is voting on Fast Track within the next 2 weeks before the August recess
begins. If it gets on the floor, it will be a close vote. Act
now! 1.
Call
your Representative toll free.
Tell them to vote NO on Fast Track. See information
below. 2.
Picket
pro-corporate globalizer Long Island Congressmember Felix Grucci on July
30th @ noon in front of his home district office
(31
West Main Street, Suite 306 Patchogue, New York). 3.
If
Long Island Congressmember Steve Israel is your Rep. join us on a lobby
visit on Aug. 7th at his home district office where we will
talk with him about the devastating impacts of corporate
globalization.
Call
646-602-5629 for details. 12
Days Left Till August Recess.... GOP
Leadership wants to vote on FAST TRACK before
then CALL
CONGRESS TOLL-FREE (1-800-393-1082) AND TELL YOUR MEMBER TO OPPOSE FAST
TRACK! The
Republican leadership is pushing hard for a vote on Fast Track before the
Recess starts on August 6th. This week, Vice President Cheney and Commerce
Secretary Evans were on the Hill lobbying for Fast Track; the corporate
business coalition is bringing in delegations of business owners to lobby
Members; and they are running paid media in targeted
districts. They
are using their unlimited resources to create the illusion of a grassroots
campaign, but lack of course the real ingredients that we have: a strong
coalition of workers, environmentalists, family farmers, consumers, people
of faith, indigenous people, students and fair trade activists.
The
victory is ours to keep - we denied them Fast Track in '97 & '98 by
organizing on the retail level in every targeted Congressional District.
Below you will find the list of the Members that we need to convince,
thank or slam. You have a toll-free number to use (1-800-393-1082) where
all you have to do is enter your zip code to be connected to your Member.
It’s easy, free and IMPORTANT!! CALL
TODAY...CALL TOMORROW...CALL UNTIL YOUR MEMBER OPPOSES FAST
TRACK! Talking
points: ·
We
should not grant the President Authority to expand the failed NAFTA model
throughout the hemisphere:
-NAFTA has cost more than 750,000
jobs.
-33,000 family farms have been eliminated since
NAFTA.
-NAFTA has been an environmental disaster especially along the
border. ·
Trade
agreements must include strong and enforceable provisions for human
rights, labor and the environment.
The provisions must be equal to the commercial provisions, be in
the core text of any agreement and be backed up with trade
sanctions. New
York Area Reps. who are NOT definitely opposing Fast
Track Member
Trade Staffer
District Office #
DC Office # Felix
Gucci (R-1)
John Gibson
631-758-4600
202-225-3826 Steve
Israel (D-2)
Priya Dayananda
631-665-7333
202-225-3335 Gary
Ackerman (D-5)
Howard Diamond
718-423-2154
202-225-2601 Joseph
Crowley (D-7)
Jody Lieberman
718-779-1400
202-225-3965 Carolyn
Maloney (D-14)
Donald Auerbach
212-860-0606
202-225-6101
Charles
Rangel (D15)
John Shiner
212-663-3900
202-225-4365 Jose
Serrano (D-16)
Nadine Berg
718-538-5400
202-225-4361 Sue
Kelly (R-19)
Jody Milanese
845-897-5200
202-225-5441 Benjamin
Gilman (R-20)
Hillel Weinberg
914-343-6666
202-225-3776
John
Sweeney (R-22)
Natalie Barusic
518-792-3031
202-225-5614 Sherwood
Boehlert (R-23)
Brett Karcher
315-793-8146
202-225-3665
John
McHugh (R -24)
Jennifer Han
315-782-3150
202-225-7163 James
Walsh (R-25)
Rolland Anderson
315-423-5657
202-225-3701 Thomas
Reynolds (R-27)
Tina Mufford
716-634-2324
202-225-5265
***
If your Representative is not listed here, call them to make sure they are
voting against Fast Track!!!!!!! ***
When calling your Member in DC, ask for the person who handles trade
issues and ask for a written response Stay
tuned for more information if the vote doesn't happen before August
recess. We will have a full
month to lobby them at home.
We can go to their town hall meetings, set up district office
meetings and of course call them every day! Please
call the NY Fair Trade Campaign a project of the Human Rights Project of
the Urban Justice Center Let
us know what you hear from your Member and/or with questions/comments and
other ways to get involved.
646-602-5629 / tradewatchnyc@hotmail.com For
more information on Fast Track, visit www.tradewatch.org |
|
