-Caveat Lector-
[HardGreenHerald] # 14
"Unless someone like you cares a whole lot, nothing is going to get better.
It's not."
--Dr. Seuss, 'The Lorax'
--A RadTimes production--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contents:
---------------
--Agricultural Business May Face Overhaul
--Farmers Joining State Efforts Against Bioengineered Crops
--Genetically Engineered Fish Threaten World's Oceans
--NGOs Lambaste World Bank For Ignoring Dam Guidelines
--Eleventh oil worker dies in rig disaster
--Greens Threaten Boycott Of US Firms
--Drilling Studied in Off-Limits Areas of Rockies
--Global Warming: The World in 2050
--EU votes to ban animal-tested cosmetics
--Timber Ad Cut
===================================================================
AGRICULTURAL BUSINESS MAY FACE OVERHAUL
REPORT SAYS SEGREGATING BIOTECH CROPS COULD COST BILLIONS, TAKE YEARS
By Anthony Shadid, Globe Staff
The Boston Globe
March 22, 2001
WASHINGTON - Labeling requirements in Europe and Japan and growing consumer
demand for food that is not genetically engineered could require a sweeping
overhaul of agricultural sales and marketing in the United States, a new
report by the US Department of Agriculture says.
Farm specialists and some environmental advocates worry that, while such an
overhaul might be required - the contamination of corn last year by the
unapproved StarLink variety being the latest example - the measures to
segregate crops could cost billions of dollars and take years to implement.
Even then, they say, their success might be in doubt.
"Contamination can occur at any point in the process, from when the seed
goes into the ground to when it's safely in a product some place," said
Neil Harl, an economics professor and farm expert at Iowa State University.
"It poses a very large problem with substantial economic costs."
Genetically engineered crops - mainly corn, cotton, and soybeans - entered
the market five years ago, promising a revolution in what we grow and how
we grow it. The appeal of plants that can tolerate herbicides or produce
their own insecticides led to their rapid adoption. About 40 percent of
corn grown in the United States is now genetically engineered.
On the horizon is a potpourri of engineered traits - insect-resistant
eggplant, tomatoes with anticancer agents, rice high in iron, naturally
decaffeinated coffee, and corn that can grow a rabies vaccine.
More and more, the question has become how to segregate those crops from
their conventional counterparts - a demand being made by trading partners,
some of whom now require labeling. While less wary than Europeans, American
consumers, too, have expressed a degree of skepticism over biotech foods.
The US organic market, for example, has surged in recent years.
That anxiety was driven home by the scare over StarLink corn, whose
presence prompted a costly nationwide recall last year of corn chips, taco
shells, and other food products. StarLink, which is engineered to produce a
protein toxic to insect larvae, was approved only for use as animal feed
out of concern that it might cause allergic reactions in humans.
To forestall a similar episode or to meet organic or export requirements
could require the costly and time-consuming segregation of biotech crops
from nonbiotech crops, said the report, which was released this week. That
would force testing at every step in the process and, in all likelihood,
construction and renovation of grain facilities across the country.
"With these real bulk commodities, which are indistinguishable from each
other, it does make it more challenging," said Robbin Shoemaker, the
report's editor and an official in the USDA's Economic Research Service.
There are already signals that such segregation is needed.
Europe has effectively barred US corn imports over the use of genetically
engineered seeds - costing American farmers a $200 million a year market
because they are unable and unprepared to segregate different varieties.
Last year, the European Union also began requiring strict labeling for
foods whose ingredients exceed a 1 percent limit on genetically engineered
content - one of the world's toughest standards. Japan has set the level at
5 percent. No specific tolerance is set for organic foods in the United
States.
"At this point, it's going to be very difficult to keep these crops
segregated and it's going to be a major challenge to do so," said Matt
Rand, campaign manager for biotech at the National Environmental Trust.
The government report stopped short of putting a price tag on the overhaul,
but Harl estimated it could run into the billions of dollars and require
three to five years to put into place. While possible, Harl said the
likelihood of success for a segregated market is "low."
Even with segregated facilities, up to a bushel of corn can remain in a
combine, seed stays in a planter box and elevators mix up crops, he said.
Contamination, either through crops mixing or biotech varieties
cross-pollinating with nonbiotech varieties miles away, is the main reason
StarLink remains a headache for consumers, farmers, food companies, and the
companies responsible for the seed, Aventis CropScience.
John Wichtrich, the company's general manager, said Aventis has contained
99 percent of the StarLink corn grown in 2000, requiring 1.7 million tests
and forcing the rerouting of more than 8,000 trucks, 15,000 rail cars, and
285 barges. He admitted, though, that the company will never be able to
completely remove the variety from the country's corn supply.
"It's a far bigger deal than most people thought," Harl said.
Tests, meanwhile, remain too slow and too costly.
Under the current system, routine tests of crops take less than two
minutes. To determine biotech content would require new tests at every
stage that can take several hours to a few days and cost hundreds of
dollars. (One test costs up to $450 for each application. "The efficiency
of the US grain marketing system could be compromised unless more rapid,
accurate, and economical biotech testing methods are developed," the report
warned. It added that such testing was essential.
Shoemaker called the obstacles "temporary barriers."
Some critics, though, questioned whether the genetically engineered crops
should have been adopted without taking into account the demands it would
place on the country's industrial-scale marketing system.
"The technology has jumped in front of the regulations," said Rand of the
National Environmental Trust. "Now we're faced with coming up with the
regulations after the technology has already been introduced."
===================================================================
Farmers Joining State Efforts Against Bioengineered Crops
<http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/24/health/24DAKO.html?ex=3D986442678&ei=3D1&en=3De5dc60258946c561>
By ANDREW POLLACK
March 24, 2001
North Dakota is weighing a bill that would make it the first state to
ban planting of a genetically modified crop, reflecting a surge of
concern about such crops in legislatures around the country.
The North Dakota bill, which would impose a two-year moratorium on
growing genetically modified wheat, is one of more than 40 state
bills introduced this year that would regulate biotech crops or the
labeling of foods made using genetic engineering.
"You have people at the state level trying to get these things
passed because the federal government won't do it," said Andy
Zimmerman, who works with the Green Party in New York, where a bill
has been introduced to ban the planting of genetically modified
crops for five years.
But the North Dakota bill, which has already passed the state's
House of Representatives, signals another trend as well =F3 that
concern about genetically engineered crops is now coming not only
from environmental and consumer groups but from farmers, who have
generally supported such crops.
Although virtually all the state bills proposed in past years
failed, the North Dakota bill has made headway precisely because
its main backers are some of the state's own farmers, not the usual
biotechnology opponents. While many of these farmers say they are
not in principle opposed to bioengineered foods, they fear losing
the ability to export their crops to Europe, Japan and other places
where consumers are shunning such food and where governments
strictly regulate it.
"We don't want to lose the ability to sell our wheat abroad," said
Todd Leake, a farmer from near Grand Forks and one of the strongest
champions of the North Dakota measure. "Most of the economy in
North Dakota is agriculture," Mr. Leake noted, "and wheat is the
mainstay of that."
To some extent, the North Dakota bill is merely symbolic; the
moratorium would expire on July 31, 2003, probably before any
genetically modified seed would even come to market. And the bill
does not mention enforcement.
Still, that has not prevented Monsanto, which is developing
genetically modified wheat, and some farm groups opposed to the
bill from putting up a stiff fight. So while the bill breezed
through the state's House last month by a vote of 68 to 29, its
passage in the Senate is far from assured.
In other states as well, biotechnology and food companies, not
eager to deal with a patchwork of laws, have lobbied heavily
against some bills, say legislators who proposed them. Many other
bills, however, fail simply for lack of support.
Many farmers like genetically engineered crops because they
contain useful traits, like pest resistance. But critics say that
they have not been studied thoroughly enough to rule out health
problems like allergies or unanticipated ecological effects,
including the killing of monarch butterflies.
The first genetically altered crops =F3 herbicide-resistant soybeans
and pest-resistant corn and cotton =F3 were snapped up by farmers.
About half of the soybeans and a quarter of the corn grown in the
United States last year were genetically modified. And many
farmers, including some in North Dakota, are continuing to grow
these crops, despite a rise in consumer resistance.
But genetically modified crops like wheat that are not already
established are having a harder time catching on because farmers
and food companies fear they will not be able to sell them.
Genetically altered potatoes never gained much of a foothold after
major potato processors and fast-food companies indicated they
would not buy them. Monsanto is discontinuing its potato product.
And farmers in the main tobacco-growing states are refusing to grow
crops that are genetically modified to reduce nicotine. The farmers
and some cigarette companies worry that smokers, particularly in
Europe and Japan, might shun modified cigarettes, even as they
accept the risk of cancer.
Genetically modified wheat probably will not reach the market
before 2003, Monsanto says. The company is developing wheat
resistant to its Roundup herbicide, which would allow the herbicide
to kill weeds while leaving the wheat unscathed.
Still, wheat millers in Europe and Japan have already warned
American industry trade organizations that they would not accept
any wheat that has been genetically modified.
Concerns among wheat farmers have increased in the wake of the
StarLink corn fiasco, in which genetically modified corn not
approved for human consumption found its way into taco shells and
other foods, causing recalls and numerous other disruptions to
farmers, grain elevators and food companies and leading to a
decline in corn exports to Japan.
That is why backers of the North Dakota measure say a moratorium
is needed. If even a few farmers were to plant genetically modified
wheat, they say, the state's whole crop could become contaminated
and exports jeopardized, particularly if competitors like Canada
were to grow only nonmodified wheat.
Neal Fisher, administrator of the North Dakota Wheat Commission, a
marketing group financed by farmers, said that North Dakota's wheat
crop was valued at about $1 billion annually, about half of it
exported. The state is the leading producer of hard red spring
wheat, a premium crop used in breads and rolls.
There have been 77 bills related to agricultural biotechnology
introduced this year in 27 states, said Chip Kunde, vice president
for state affairs at the Grocery Manufacturers of America, which
represents food companies. The list overstates the amount of
legislative activity somewhat because in about 10 cases, the same
piece of legislation introduced into two legislative chambers is
counted as two separate bills. Nonetheless, the number of bills is
up from 50 bills in 16 states last year and only 12 bills in 1999.
Much of the increase, Mr. Kunde said, is from what might be
characterized as pro-biotech bills, in that 19 bills in 15 states
are intended to penalize protesters who tear up genetically
modified crops.
But there are eight bills in six states that would ban or put a
moratorium on the planting of genetically engineered crops,
compared with seven bills in four states last year, Mr. Kunde said.
There are nine bills in seven states that would require foods made
from bioengineered crops to be labeled, up from six bills in five
states last year.
Other bills deal with seed sales. Still, virtually all the crop
moratorium and labeling bills have made little headway. The one
bill that did pass last year was in Mississippi, which required
more extensive labels on bags of genetically modified seeds. That
bill, like the North Dakota one, was backed by farmers.
Douglas Farquhar, a program director at the National Conference of
State Legislatures, said the bills have not progressed because the
federal government "keeps on saying we've got this covered." He
said a state law might be subject to challenge on the grounds that
it interfered with interstate commerce.
But that is not clear. States can enact regulations that are
stricter than federal ones, unless federal law specifically
prohibits them, Mr. Kunde said. He said he was not aware of any
pre-emptive federal rule related to bioengineered crops.
The North Dakota bill, introduced by Representative Phillip
Mueller, a wheat farmer himself, allows a committee of state
officials and farm representatives to lift the ban earlier if
Canada approves genetically engineered wheat. Research would be
exempt from the ban.
In lobbying against the bill, Monsanto has told legislators that a
moratorium by a major wheat-growing state would discourage the
company from doing research on improved wheat, particularly for
varieties grown in North Dakota.
Mark Buckingham, a Monsanto spokesman, said a moratorium was not
needed because the company was willing to work with farmers to
resolve their concerns. "It is absolutely not in our intentions to
press forward with a product until it's wanted," he said.
A similar bill proposing a two-year moratorium on genetically
modified wheat appears to have died in Montana. The North Dakota
bill is now before the Senate Agriculture Committee. Terry Wanzek,
a Republican and the chairman of the committee, said he had sensed
some momentum to defeat the bill and instead require a study of the
issues.
"A lot of farmers are for the bill and a lot of farmers are
against it," said Mr. Wanzek, another farmer. "It's not an easy
position to be in the middle of right now."
===================================================================
From: "Greenpeace Press Releases" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001
:
:
Subject: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FISH THREATEN WORLD'S OCEANS
:
GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FISH THREATEN WORLD'S OCEANS
=AD GREENPEACE CALLS FOR GE-FREE SEAS
Boston/London/Ottawa, 27th March, 2001 =AD Greenpeace activists today
sealed off a research facility containing genetically engineered (GE)
salmon, owned by A/F Protein, in Prince Edward Island, Canada.
The international environmental organisation demanded a global
rejection of the world's first application to commercially produce GE fish,
and a global ban on all releases of genetically engineered organisms into
the oceans.
GE fish have the potential to cause irreversible damage to wild fish
stocks and to the wider marine environment. Leading marine biologists
have expressed grave reservations and warned that even a small number
of GE fishes released into the wild can have potentially devastating
effects. Researchers at Purdue University in Indiana, the United States,
estimate that 60 fertile GE fish introduced into a natural population of
60,000 could annihilate the natural stock in 20-30 years. (1)
"Deformed heads, greedy, GE fish are a danger to the environment and
potentially to human health. They are an iconic example of the genetic
engineering experiment that is being conducted with our environment
and food supply. As fish do not obey national boundaries, any release
of GE fish into the wild will be an issue of international concern and in
breach of international law," said Lindsay Keenan, Genetic Engineering
Campaigner for Greenpeace.
A/F Protein's application to commercialise GE salmon for the
aquaculture industry worldwide is currently being considered by the
United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under their
regulation on 'animal drugs', and a ruling is expected anytime this year.
The permit would set a precedent for approvals of other types of GE fish
that are already being developed, including trout, catfish, lobster, carp
and striped bass. The company A/F Protein claims that it already has
orders for 15 million GE fish eggs for delivery as soon as the FDA gives
the go-ahead.
Escapes from fish farms are frequent and virtually impossible to prevent.
In the past ten years over half a million fish escaped from just a handful
of facilities in the US and Canada (2). To date, there are no published
studies on the health risks of engineered fish, nor are there specific
regulations governing the release of GE fish into the wild.
A/F Protein has manipulated the GE Atlantic Salmon with an additional
gene for growth hormone production and an anti-freeze gene promoter
sequence. As a result, instead of only growing during the summer
months, the GE salmon grows all year around developing two to three
times faster than a normal salmon. (3)
Greenpeace delivered its warning about the GE fish to fishing and
aquaculture industry representatives at the International Boston Seafood
Show urging them to support the appeal for seas free from genetically
modified organisms (GMOs).
"It is outrageous that the United States is about to advocate global
contamination with highly hazardous transgenic fish based only on an
assessment of their Food and Drug Administration and even under a
completely inadequate regulation on 'animal drugs'. As the oceans, the
planet's largest ecosystem knows no boundaries, the international
community needs to immediately stop this reckless action. We call upon
the citizens, governments and industry of the world to support our
appeal for GMO free seas," Keenan added.
For more information: In the US: Lindsay Keenan, Genetic Engineering
Campaigner, Greenpeace International, Tel: +1 202 2517884; Kimberly
Wilson, GE Campaigner, Mob +14152971032;
In Canada: Amy Katz, Grenpeace Canada Press Officer, Mob.
+14168757055;
Michael Khoo, Genetic Engineering Campaigner, Greenpeace Canada,
Tel: +1 4167068408;
Greenpeace International Press Office, Teresa Merilainen, Media Officer,
Tel: +31205236637
Video available from Greenpeace US, Tel: +1 2023192403;
Pictures available from Greenpeace International Photo Desk, Tel: +31
20 55249580; more information http://www.greenpeace.org
Notes to the editors:
(1) The American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists (an
organisation dedicated to the scientific study of fishes, amphibians and
reptiles) and the Royal Society of Canada recently recommended a
moratorium on rearing genetically engineered fish in aquatic facilities.
(2) December 2000, 100,000 farm-bred fish escaped from a facility in
Maine in the US. Approximately 300,000 fish escaped from a single
Washington State fish farm in the summer of 1999. Between 1991 and
1999 over 280,000 fish escaped from fish farms in British Columbia.
(3) The Convention for the Conservation of Salmon in the North Atlantic
Ocean (NASCO) has expressed concerns about possible irreversible
effects of trangenic fish in the oceans, and called upon its members,
including the United States, to prevent any of such releases. It has also
established guidelines for action on transgenic salmon that have been
completely ignored by the US FDA so far.
More information:
http://www.bostonseafood.com
http://www.aquabountry.com
For information on Greenpeace please visit:
http://www.greenpeace.org
High-bandwidth users can view current and archive streaming
Greenpeace videos at:
http://www.tappedintogreenpeace.org
For more information on this press release please contact:
Greenpeace International Press Office
T: ++ 31 20 5249515
F: ++ 31 20 5236212
===================================================================
NGOS LAMBASTE WORLD BANK FOR IGNORING DAM GUIDELINES
By Gumisai Mutume
Inter Press Service
March 23, 2001, Friday
WASHINGTON -
Nearly 100 non-governmental organizations have criticised the World Bank
for refusing
to adopt guidelines recommended by the groundbreaking World Commission on
Dams report
last year which were aimed at limiting the construction of destructive
large dams.
The World Commission on Dams (WCD), an independent body which the Bank had
a hand in
establishing, announced in November that priority be put on optimizing
existing water
and energy facilities rather than on new large dam projects and that all
decisions to
build new dams be based on agreements with affected communities.
At the report's release, Bank President James Wolfensohn described it as
impressive,
saying it showed that common ground could be found "among people of good
faith coming
from very diverse starting points."
But, now the World Bank is singing a different tune, saying it will only
use the
guidelines proffered by the WCD as reference points rather than adopt them
as rules
governing its operation.
"We believe that the position which the World Bank and its representatives
have taken
on the WCD is ill-advised, disappointing and in parts inappropriate," notes
a letter
sent out to Wolfensohn this week by a network of 87 organizations and
movements from
30 countries.
"If the Bank simply builds its position on the views of dam- building
governments it
should refrain from being an honest broker, but should make it clear that it
represents one interest group in a conflictive debate," says the letter
initiated by
Swiss-based NGO, the Berne Declaration, and the South Asia Network on Dams,
Rivers and
People.
The NGOs charge that following the release of the report a Bank task-force
studied it,
management consulted with a number of governments supporting big dams and
came up with
the new stance, even though the Bank together with the World Conservation
Union were
behind the establishment of the WCD.
The WCD consisted of 12 prominent figures representing diverse views on big dam
construction, including those of activists. It was headed by South African
government
minister Kader Asmal. Its objectives were to review the development
effectiveness of
large dams and develop international standards for planning, designing
construction
and decommissioning of dams.
After two years of study, WCD concluded that large dams have largely failed
to provide
as much electricity, as much water or control as much floods as their
backers claim.
Instead they have produced massive forced resettlements, environmental
degradation and
most often benefited those at the top at the expense of poor rural communities.
The WCD therefore recommended that no dam be built without the agreement of
affected
people, that comprehensive and participatory needs assessments be developed
before new
dams were built and periodic reviews be done on existing dams to assess
their safety
and where necessary decommission some. Furthermore, ways of paying
reparations for
those who suffered from big dam constructions had to be found.
The WCD estimates that between 40 and 80 million people have been displaced
by large
dams (defined as being higher than 15 meters), and in India and China
alone, as many
as 58 million people could have been displaced between 1950 and 1990.
Responding to questions on whether the Bank would adopt the WCD guidelines
its senior
water specialist John Briscoe said "no we are not going to comply with
them, the
majority of our borrowers say they are not implementable and the chairman
of the
commission himself, Asmal, says the guidelines are not meant to be binding."
"We will use it as a reference but not as a set of conditions to be
complied with,"
says Briscoe noting that the Bank is an institution governed by its
shareholders and
borrowers -- some 182 governments. "Every borrower we have consulted says
forget it,
these guidelines are not realistic."
Some of the Bank's biggest clients such as India and China have
categorically stated
they will not respect the findings of the WCD. China is among the Bank's 10
largest
borrowers that accounted for 62 percent of the Bank's total lending in 1999.
The Bank itself holds the reputation of being the largest single source of
financing
for large dam construction around the world, even though its involvement
has waned in
the face of intense public pressure.
According to the WCD, the Bank has provided an estimated $75 billion (in
1998 dollars)
for about 540 large dams in 92 countries including many of the world's
largest and
most controversial projects.
In the late 1970s the Bank averted its eyes from the massacre of 400 Maya
villagers by
Guatemala's military government. Residents of the village of Rio Negro were
refusing
to leave their ancestral homes to make way for the construction of the
Bank-funded
Chixoy Dam.
The Bank's silence over the massacre was only broken in 1996 when human
rights groups
exposed the atrocities. An internal Bank investigation subsequently
absolved the Bank
of responsibility, but affected communities are still seeking reparations from
Washington.
Patrick McCully, campaigns director of the California-based International
Rivers
Network says how the Bank treats the WCD report will influence whether or
not other
international organizations engaged in big dam projects integrate the
recommendations
into their own polices.
"While the Bank says it is building fewer dams now, it is still an
important actor and
its policies are viewed as the international standard by other development
agencies,"
says McCully.
In their letter, the NGOs called on the Bank to adopt the recommendations,
establish
independent reviews of its planned and ongoing dam projects and provide
reparations to
communities harmed by its dam projects.
"If the Bank does not implement the consensus recommendations which were
reached by
the WCD, but uses dialogue only to deflect opposition, NGOs will likely
distrust any
future multi-stakeholder process promoted by the Bank," says Christine
Eberlein of the
Berne Declaration.
===================================================================
March 23, 2001
Eleventh oil worker dies in rig disaster
By PETER MUELLO
Associated Press Writer
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP)
Oil refinery workers protested nationwide for higher safety standards
Thursday,
as an 11th worker died of burns from the explosion that sent the world's
largest oil
rig to the bottom of the ocean.
Sergio Santos Barbosa, 41, died Thursday morning at the Air
Force Hospital in Rio, the oil workers' union Sindipetro said.
Barbosa was burned on 98 percent of his body, including in his
lungs, and died of multiple organ failure, the union said.
Barbosa was aboard the rig, 75 miles (120 kilometers) from the
Brazilian coast, when three explosions on March 15 killed at least
two workers and forced the other 175 to evacuate. Eight workers are
missing and presumed dead, state oil giant Petrobras said.
Efforts to right the crippled rig with injections of nitrogen
and compressed air failed, and on Tuesday it went down in 4,455
feet (1,350 meters) of water near Macae, 120 miles (190 kilometers)
northeast of Rio.
Irani Varela, the company's chief of safety and environment,
said Petrobras ``presumed'' that 316,000 gallons (1.2 million
liters) of diesel oil aboard the rig had leaked into the sea,
because the fuel tanks would collapse under water pressure at that
depth.
Still, an oil slick that appeared near the spot where the rig
went down apparently contained only about 92,000 gallons (350,000
liters), Petrobras and environmentalists said. Just 525 gallons
(2,000 liters) were left in the water on Thursday, the company
said, and robots with cameras were checking the sunken rig to see
whether all the fuel had leaked.
Twelve ships were at the spill site, throwing detergent-like
chemicals in the water and churning the surface with their
propellors to speed evaporation. Sea currents and winds were
pushing the oil northeast, out to sea and away from the coast,
Varela said.
The rig also had some 79,000 gallons (300,000 liters) of crude
oil, mostly contained in the 6-mile-long (10-kilometer-long) hoses
that connected the wells to the rig. The hoses crumpled to the sea
bottom ``like cooked spaghetti'' when the rig sank, Varela said,
and there was no sign that they had broken or that the crude oil in
them had leaked.
Meanwhile, many refinery workers stopped work briefly on
Thursday in protest. Petrobras has come under fire from unions for
massive layoffs that they say led to a rise in accidents.
A congressional committee met Thursday with Petrobras executives
and said the rig had reported equipment trouble days before the
accident.
``It seems Petrobras had information about problems with
equipment and the need to halt production three days before the
accident,'' said Rep. Jandira Feghali.
Petrobras later released reports from March 12-14, including one
that mentioned a problem with air vents on the rig. It said that
that ``probable cause is the blockage of the flame buffers,'' used
to reduce the flames on the flare towers that act as safety valves,
burning off excess gas.
Still, the explosion occurred in a supporting column below deck,
far from the flare tower, and probably had no connection to the
blocked buffers.
``The problem had nothing to do with the explosion,'' said
George Hawrylyshyn, editor of the trade magazine Brazil Energy.
``The two are well removed and not easily related.''
===================================================================
GREENS THREATEN BOYCOTT OF US FIRMS
Environmental groups have called for a boycott of companies that back
President George Bush's repudiation of the Kyoto treaty on global
warming, as the EU reported a growing gulf between Europe and the US
on climate change. EU officials described this week's talks in
Washington as "depressing" with Kyoto "a dirty word" for the
administration. Greenpeace said it had written to corporations
calling on them to oppose US policy or "face the consequences".
Full story - Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,469182,00.html
Related story: How do you solve a problem like America? - Time
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,104512,00.html
Special report: Global warming - Guardian Unlimited
http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalwarming/0,7368,395145,00.html
Campaign: Focus on technology solutions - Global Climate Coalition
http://www.globalclimate.org/newsroom/NR-01-0329-Technology.htm
Press release: Time for EU to lead - Greenpeace, 30.3.01
http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/
===================================================================
April 6, 2001
Drilling Studied in Off-Limits Areas of Rockies
<http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/06/politics/06DRIL.html>
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, April 5 - An energy task force headed by Vice President Dick
Cheney is reviewing a draft
plan that will open millions of acres of public land to new oil and gas
development, much of it in the Rocky Mountains.
Along with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, which President
Bush has already identified as a target, the plan mentions as candidates
for new drilling several large tracts in the Rockies with off- limits
status that could be revoked by the Interior Department without
Congressional approval. These could include parts of the Lewis and Clark
National Forest in Montana and Wyoming's Jack Morrow Hills.
In addition, the plan proposes that the administration work with Congress
to free at least some of the 17 million acres of federal land in 11 Western
states that is under temporary protection from energy development. Congress
is studying whether to grant this land permanent protection as a wilderness
area.
The 25-page draft report reflects recommendations from nearly a dozen
Interior Department working groups created by Gale A. Norton, the interior
secretary, administration officials said. A department spokesman, Mark
Pfeifle, described the report as "an early draft" whose contents included
"numerous options that may or may not be considered." But the breadth and
detail of the plan, whose contents were first reported this morning in USA
Today, leave little doubt that the group is homing in on lands in the West
as a source of new energy supplies.
The focus on the Rocky Mountain West reflects the fact that the region
contains the lion's share of onshore natural gas reserves in the lower 48
states, administration officials said. But it also appears to reflect what
Mr. Bush himself conceded last week to be formidable opposition in Congress
to the idea of permitting oil and gas drilling in the Arctic refuge.
During his presidential campaign, Mr. Bush argued that too much of the
country's public land had been placed off limits to development. In a
meeting with a small group of reporters last month, Mr. Bush made the point
even more directly, saying:
"There's a mentality that says you can't explore and protect land. We're
going to change that attitude."
Until now, major environmental organizations opposed to the
administration's energy plans have devoted the bulk of their time and money
to trying to head off the plan for drilling in the Arctic refuge. Now, the
environmentalists have begun to shift their battle to the Rockies, where
they argue that the quantities of oil and gas available are too
insignificant to justify any easing of the current lands protections.
"What they're proposing simply is not necessary," said Bill Meadows,
president of the Wilderness Society, a research and advocacy group based in
Washington. "There's no need to destroy our nation's wilderness areas,
because it will not do anything to address our nation's energy needs."
As evidence of the need to open new Rocky Mountain lands to energy
development, officials of the oil and gas industry and members of the Bush
administration have pointed to a 1999 study by the National Petroleum
Council, a semiofficial body appointed by the Energy Department.
That report concluded that 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough
to supply the United States for at least six years at current rates of
consumption, lay beneath public lands in the Rockies that were subject to
access restrictions.
Of that total, 29 trillion cubic feet of gas resources were said to be
entirely closed to development, and that number would grow by another 10
trillion cubic feet if a forest-protection plan developed by the Clinton
administration took effect.
But people opposed to opening new lands to drilling say those numbers
obscure that the vast majority of public land is already open to drilling,
even if under some restrictions.
Still, in spelling out their goals, the authors of the Interior Department
plan made clear that they were not satisfied with the status quo. It called
for modifications of "those planning decisions which unnecessarily close or
restrict energy development," and said its overall objective was to
"enhance land-use planning processes and procedures in a manner which will
enhance federal energy development on Department of the Interior and Forest
Service administered lands."
Mr. Cheney's task force includes the secretaries of the treasury, interior,
agriculture, commerce, transportation and energy, along with the
administrator of the environmental protection agency and several White
House officials.
Some of the actions described in the report could be carried out by the
administration unilaterally, including changes that would ease restrictions
on public land that the oil and gas industry saw as obstacles to drilling.
But other actions, including changing the wilderness study areas, would
almost certainly require Congressional approval.
Its members and their staff have been conducting their review behind closed
doors. Juleanna Glover Weiss, a spokeswoman for Mr. Cheney, declined to
comment on the recommendations today except to say that the draft plan had
"not been formally presented" to the group.
"It's still early in the process," she added, "and we don't expect to have
any announcements until later this spring."
===================================================================
Published on Sunday, April 1, 2001 in the Observer of London
Global Warming: The World in 2050
by Robin McKie and Priscilla Morris
It is the year 2050, and April blizzards have gripped southern
England for the third successive year while violent storms batter
the North Sea coast. The Gulf Stream, whose warming waters
once heated our shores, has long since disappeared, destroyed
by a deluge pouring south from the melting Arctic ice cap.
In the United States, much of Alaska has turned into a quagmire
as permafrost and glaciers disintegrate. In Colorado, chair lift
pylons stand rusting in the warm drizzle, reminders that the
nation once supported a billion-dollar ski industry, while the
remnants of Florida are declared America's second island state.
Africa is faring badly. Its coastline from Cairo to Lagos is
completely flooded and many of the major cities have been
abandoned. Tens of millions of people have been forced to flee
and are struggling to survive in a parched, waterless interior.
In Asia there is a similar, terrifying picture. Bangladesh is almost
totally inundated and the East Indies have been reduced to a few
scrappy islands. Tens of millions stand on the brink of death.
The Ugly American
President George W. Bush is seen during a press conference in
the White House Briefing Room on March 29, 2001. Bush has
decided to walk away from the Kyoto agreement on pollution
because it isn't in America's "economic interest." (Win
McNamee/Reuters)
see: US Economy Comes First, Says Bush
It is a startling scenario worthy of a science fiction disaster film.
And it would be easy to dismiss, were it not for the
uncomfortable fact that these visions are the result of rigorous
scientific analysis by some of the world's most distinguished
climatologists.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
points out in its recent Climate Change 2001 report, global
warming is likely to trigger a cascade of unpleasant effects:
elderly people will suffer and die in smoggy, polluted cities;
crops will fail; and wildlife and livestock will perish on a scorched
and miserable planet. That report was the combined work of
several thousand of the world's leading meteorological experts,
scientists whose views George Bush has now dismissed as
'questionable' and whose work in creating the Kyoto protocol has
been utterly undone.
The US decision to pull out of the international accord on climate
change has caused predictable international alarm, though it is
important to note it will have no direct effect on levels of carbon
dioxide now circulating in the atmosphere. Kyoto merely pledged
developed countries to restrict their industrial output. 'It was an
excellent first step towards reversing climate change,' according
to Southampton University's Professor Nigel Arnell. Kyoto was, in
effect, a statement of intent. The industrial nations which had,
after all, initiated the problem of global warming, would show
their commitment by making the first crucial, self-sacrificing
moves. Then the Third World could be drawn in, and the first
decreases in carbon-dioxide emissions agreed over the next few
years. 'Bush has now made the attainment of these next crucial
steps much more difficult,' says Arnell. In fact, most experts
believe he has made them impossible. If the West won't act, why
should the rest of the world? If no action is taken, the
consequences are likely to be calamitous. Before the industrial
revolution, the atmosphere was made up of 250 parts per million
of carbon dioxide. Now that figure has reached 366 and is
already producing meteorological effects: a steady increase in
devastating storms across Britain, rising sea levels, and
dwindling glaciers and ice-caps. And that is just the start.
Carbon dioxide levels will inevitably reach 450, even if
governments closed every factory tomorrow. 'Plants absorb
carbon dioxide and when they die they release that gas,' says Dr
David Griggs of the IPCC's science working group. 'Similarly, the
oceans absorb and release carbon dioxide.' These carbon
dioxide stores mean that we could not stop atmospheric levels
rising for future decades, no matter what we did. 'The climate is
changing and will continue to change, regardless of what
George Bush says,' comments Dr Mike Hulme of the Tyndall
Centre for Climate Change in Norwich.
In any case, closing down factories is not on the cards. With the
nation responsible for a quarter of all global carbon dioxide
emissions refusing to limit its output by the merest fraction,
levels will inevitably reach 550 parts per million - double their
pre-industrial revolution figure - by about 2050. By then the
world's temperature will have increased by 1.4 degrees
Centigrade, triggering the mayhem outlined in the IPCC report. 'It
is very difficult to make hard predictions,' adds Griggs. 'All we can
say is that the future is going to be very uncertain, highly variable.'
Britain provides an excellent example of the problem. We may
swelter - or, if icy Arctic waters divert the Gulf Stream, we may
shiver. Either way, the consequences will mean millions of
homes will be refused insurance, native wildlife will perish and
great chunks of coastline will be inundated.
And, say meteorologists, it now looks as if there is nothing we
can do about it.
===================================================================
EU votes to ban animal-tested cosmetics
By CONSTANT BRAND, Associated Press
BRUSSELS, Belgium (April 3, 2001) - On Tuesday the European
Parliament voted to ban sales of all new cosmetic products tested on
animals, including makeup, shampoos and shower gels.
Pending approval from the 15 European Union member nations, the legislation
would immediately prohibit cosmetics for which alternative testing exists.
By January 2005, the ban also would apply to all new cosmetics using
animal-tested ingredients, even if alternative tests have not been
developed.
"Those products should no longer be sold," said German socialist member
Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, who wrote the bill.
The ban also would apply to imported products. The 8,000 animal-tested
cosmetic ingredients already on the market would not be affected.
The 626-member European Union assembly meeting in Strasbourg, France, easily
approved about 30 amendments to strengthen EU rules on cosmetics. The
Parliament also passed an amendment to label animal-tested products rather
than those using alternative methods such as clinical cell or bacterial
testing.
The European Parliament and the European Commission have been wrangling over
the issue since they postponed a 1998 plan to ban animal-tested products
because companies lacked alternative methods.
The only EU countries that ban cosmetic animal testing are Britain, Austria
and the Netherlands. Most of Europe's cosmetic testing is done in France and
Italy.
The European cosmetic industry, with annual sales around $39 billion, has
opposed the ban, arguing that they still do not have many alternatives to
animal testing.
The legislation goes the 15 EU governments for consideration and return to
the Parliament for a final vote.
===================================================================
Timber Ad Cut
By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tue, 3 Apr 2001
We've long accepted as a truism that freedom of the press exists mostly
for those who can afford to buy one.
But we assumed that a corollary was that the freedom extended as well to
those who could afford to rent one, and buy ads.
That may not be so.
Consider the recent experience of Forest Ethics, a Berkeley,
California-based advocacy group that works to protect the ancient
rainforests of British Columbia and endangered forests of North America by
redirecting U.S. markets toward ecologically sound alternatives.
Campaigns run by coalitions that include Forest Ethics, Rainforest Action
Network American Lands Alliance, Forest Action Network, Student
Environmental Action Coalition, Earth First!, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, the
Natural Resources Defense Council and many others have pressured Home
Depot and other major wood sellers to stop selling wood products from
old-growth forests. As a result, the timber industry is on the run.
The recalcitrant members of the American Forest & Paper Association have
responded to forest activists' successful campaigns and the shifting
market for wood by creating their own certification system, the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). Forest campaigners say SFI is a
sham, and are urging wood buyers to give preference to wood certified by
the Forest Stewardship Council, an independent organization.
To highlight its concerns with the SFI, Forest Ethics decided to place an
advertisement in the Seattle Times during the Green Building Conference, a
recent meeting held in Seattle that attracted major U.S. homebuilders.
The group's proposed ad mocked the SFI's claim to represent a "bold
approach to sustainable forest management" with a picture of an ancient
temperate rainforest clearcut in British Columbia by the Interfor company,
which SFI recently certified as "sustainable." Asking whether SFI was
promoting green wood or a greenwash, the Forest Ethics ad also criticized
the SFI certification of Boise Cascade. "SFI's endorsement of Boise
Cascade, the largest logger of old growth in the U.S., is further evidence
of SFI's toothless standards," the ad's text read.
The Seattle Times refused to run the ad.
The sticking point, according to Todd Paglia, Forest Ethics campaigns
director, was the mention of Interfor and Boise Cascade.
As an aside, we should mention that we are generally not fans of issue
advertisements, which we think far too often drain advocacy groups'
budgets for little payback, and are a poor substitute for grassroots
organizing. But the ads tend to be most effective when used as part of a
larger campaign and with the specific purpose of singling out and shaming
a particular company or corporate executive.
That is exactly what Forest Ethics intended. Paglia says the Seattle Times
offered that the group could run the ad so long as corporations were not
mentioned by name. But "at that point, the ad is worthless," Paglia says.
And so the ad didn't run.
The Seattle Times disputes Paglia's version of events. Lloyd Stull,
national sales manager for the paper, says the Seattle Times only
requested documentation to support Forest Ethics' assertions. Paglia
insists that the paper was uninterested in either documentation for its
claims that the companies' are clearcutting or in suggesting word changes
to avert libel concerns.
In any case, we checked on the claims directly. Spokespersons for Interfor
and Boise Cascade readily acknowledge the companies are clearcutting. We
were not able on short notice to definitively determine whether Boise
Cascade is the number one old-growth logger in the United States.
Meanwhile, Forest Ethics directed its attention to the East Coast, and
sought to place an ad in the Boston Globe targeting Staples, the office
supply company.
"The ugly truth is that thousands of acres of forest are needlessly
destroyed every year to supply Staples with cheap, disposable paper
products," the proposed ad said.
It urged readers to "call Tom Stemberg [Staples' CEO] at 508-253-7143 and
ask him to stop destroying our forests, or send him a fax at
www.StopStaples.com. And when Staples tells you they sell hundreds of
recycled products, know that in truth 97 percent of their copy paper comes
from clearcut forests."
To Paglia's surprise, the Boston Globe refused to run the ad. Taking out
the phone information was not enough to satisfy the paper -- the Globe
refused to run an ad that mentioned Staples by name. Dennis Lloyd, an
advertisement manager at the paper, says only that the paper was not
comfortable with the way Forest Ethics "expressed" its views in the ad.
The New York Times, by contrast, says that it will run opinion ads so long
as they do not constitute libel. A Times representative says the paper
would have no problem with the substance of the Staples ad and the mention
of the company's name.
In recent weeks, right-winger David Horowitz has generated a storm of
controversy by seeking to place ads in college newspapers opposing
reparations for the descendants of slaves and being refused by some
college outlets.
Here's what the Boston Globe had to say about the controversy: "The ideas
against slavery reparations contained in an advertisement placed in
student newspapers around the country may well be insulting to minorities
on campus. But they are only ideas. Far more dangerous than offensive
ideas is their censorship, because censorship knows no ideology and will
Eventually muzzle the views of the minorities as well."
So why the double standard? The Globe should be consistent and carry the
Forest Ethics ad. The paper's refusal to carry truthful advertisements
criticizing corporations mocks the spirit of the First Amendment and the
notion that the press will serve as an institutional check on abuses of
power.
-------------
Russell Mokhiber is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based Corporate Crime
Reporter. Robert Weissman is editor of the Washington, D.C.-based
Multinational Monitor. They are co-authors of Corporate Predators: The
Hunt for MegaProfits and the Attack on Democracy (Monroe, Maine: Common
Courage Press, 1999).
===================================================================
"Treat the Earth well. It was not given to you by your parents.
It was loaned to you by your children."
-Kenyan Proverb
======================================================
"We cannot solve the problems that we have created with the same
thinking that created them."
-Albert Einstein
======================================================
"The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders."
-Edward Abbey
______________________________________________________________
To subscribe/unsubscribe, send appropriate email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
______________________________________________________________
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
