People Before Profit blog

Coal industry win is temporary, fate of plants still in air

Tue, 30 Jun 2015 16:00:00 +0000

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) -- Coal companies and their supporters scored a courtroom victory with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that said the Obama administration failed to take potential costs into account when it decided to regulate toxic emissions from many power plants.

But officials from New England states downwind of coal plants expressed disappointment, and the industry's legal triumph comes with a major asterisk: The disputed regulation will remain in force while a lower court reconsiders the issue, according to federal officials and outside observers.

That means plants across the U.S. that burn coal and oil to produce electricity remain obligated under an April, 2016 deadline to cut emissions of mercury and other toxic pollutants.

What did the justices say?

The Supreme Court decision applies to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. The EPA has said compliance with the 2012 "MATS" rule could cost up to $9.6 billion annually.

In a 5-4 ruling, the majority of justices said Monday the cost analysis should have been done earlier, when the EPA decided to pursue pollution restrictions more than a decade before they were adopted.

Justices sent the matter back to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. for further consideration.

Most plant operators already have started or completed work needed to comply with the rule. It will remain in place pending further proceedings, EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said in a statement.

Companies with coal-fueled plants in Montana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Connecticut, Arizona, New Jersey, South Carolina and elsewhere planned to continue work to meet the EPA rule while the case is pending or already were in compliance.

How many power plants are involved?

The rule covered an estimated 600 power plants, including 460 that burn coal, according to federal and state officials.

Some coal plants already have been shut down by companies citing the mercury rule. Still unknown is whether any plant closures would be reversed or new pollution controls removed if the industry's argument continues to prevail.

In Wyoming, the nation's leading coal-producing state, Gov. Matt Mead said he hoped the EPA would give more consideration to the rule's potential economic harm.

"Companies and thus customers have already paid in part the price of this," the Republican governor said. "We're hopeful that in the future, that EPA will take a closer look on what the states have asked for."

More than 60 percent of coal plants already were in compliance with the EPA regulation after meeting an initial April, 2015 deadline, according to William Becker, director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. About 170 plants requested a one-year extension of the deadline.

What does burning coal have to do with mercury?

Exposure to mercury can hobble the development of the nervous system, impairing thinking skills. "Mercury is one of the most potent neuro-toxins there is," said Ken Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists . "Putting controls on (coal plants) to lower those emissions is critical."

Coal contains only small concentrations of mercury. Yet because the fuel is burned in such large volumes - roughly a billion tons a year in the U.S. alone - power plants are responsible for 50 percent of the mercury emitted. That makes burning coal the single largest human-made source of contamination, according to the EPA and United Nations .

Mercury emissions from power plants can affect humans when pollution from the air reaches water and contaminates fish. Eating contaminated fish is the primary source of human exposure, according to health officials. Those most at risk include women of child-bearing age, unborn babies and children whose nervous systems are still developing.

The EPA rule was supported by officials in New England states downwind of many coal plants. They argued that the rule's benefits far outweigh the costs. That includes $37 billion to $90 billion annually in savings from reduced sickness, death and lost work time caused by exposure to mercury and other toxins.

Does the court's decision impact other pollution rules?

Coal industry supporters were quick to draw connections between Monday's ruling on mercury and an upcoming EPA rule to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

While justices did not directly address that issue, the industry's Electric Reliability Coordinating Council said their decision offered a warning that EPA must give ample consideration to costs before finalizes its carbon restrictions.

AP writers Ben Neary in Cheyenne, Wyoming; Felicia Fonseca in Flagstaff, Arizona; Jonathan Mattise in Charleston, West Virginia; Bruce Shipkowski in Trenton, New Jersey; Stephen Singer, in Hartford, Connecticut; Claire Galofaro in Louisville, Kentucky; Kantele Franko in Columbus, Ohio and Rik Stevens in Concord, New Hampshire contributed to this report.

Photo: In this July 1, 2013, file photo, smoke rises from the Colstrip Steam Electric Station, a coal burning power plant in Colstrip, Mont. (AP Photo/Matthew Brown, File)

U.S. agrees to pay millions on agent orange claims

Fri, 19 Jun 2015 15:25:00 +0000

WASHINGTON (AP) - Ending years of wait, the government agreed Thursday to provide disability benefits to as many as 2,100 Air Force reservists and active-duty forces exposed to Agent Orange residue on airplanes used in the Vietnam War.

The new federal rule, approved by the White House Office of Management and Budget, takes effect Friday. It adds to an Agent Orange-related caseload that already makes up 1 out of 6 disability checks issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The expected cost over 10 years is $47.5 million, with separate health care coverage adding to the price tag.

"Opening up eligibility for this deserving group of Air Force veterans and reservists is the right thing to do," VA Secretary Bob McDonald said in a statement. His office held a series of private meetings with veterans' organizations and lawmakers Thursday to discuss ways to expedite the delivery of benefits, including to surviving spouses.

The new federal rule covers an expanded group of military personnel who flew or worked on Fairchild C-123 aircraft in the U.S. from 1969 to 1986 and were believed to have been exposed to Agent Orange residue. The planes had been used to spray millions of gallons of the chemical herbicide during the Vietnam War.

"It's great news," said retired Tech. Sgt. Ed Kienle, 73, of Wilmington, Ohio, who worked on a C-123 plane as a flight mechanic from 1972 to 1980.

Kienle, who developed skin cancer, respiratory problems and has indications of prostate cancer, said he was already lining up the paperwork to receive compensation, having previously been turned down by the VA. He is among reservists in the "Buckeye Wing" stationed in Ohio who pushed for C-123 benefits.

"I'm going to be calling up all the guys this evening to celebrate," Kienle said.

It is the first time the VA has established a special category of Agent Orange exposure for troops who weren't on the ground or didn't serve on inland waterways in Vietnam. Still, citing weaker scientific evidence, the VA said it will not cover roughly 200,000 "Blue Water" veterans who say they were exposed to Agent Orange while serving aboard deep-water naval vessels off Vietnam's coast.

An Institute of Medicine study released in January concluded that some C-123 reservists stationed in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts had been exposed to Agent Orange residues in the planes and suffered higher risks of health problems as a result.

Undertaking a review of military records, the VA said it subsequently determined that pilots, mechanics and medical personnel who served at seven other locations in the U.S. and abroad also were potentially affected - Florida, Virginia, and Arizona, as well as Taiwan, Panama, South Korea and the Philippines.

Those affected individuals under the new rule will now be eligible to receive disability aid including survivor benefits and medical care. The veterans must show they worked on a contaminated plane and later developed any of 14 medical conditions such as prostate cancer, diabetes and leukemia that the VA has determined to be connected to Agent Orange.

Affected veterans may begin to submit applications for benefits immediately, with VA processing to begin Friday. Pending C-123 claims to the VA do not need to be resubmitted.

Veterans' groups expressed tempered relief, expressing hope it would signal a new government willingness to acknowledge a wider range of toxic health risks undertaken by military personnel, such as Gulf War neurotoxins and burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Before requesting the IOM report in 2014, the VA had repeatedly denied claims submitted since 2011 by C-123 reservists, saying it was unlikely they could have been exposed to Agent Orange from the residue.

Rick Weidman, executive director of the Vietnam Veterans of America, described Thursday's announcement a "new day" in the VA's handling of toxic exposure cases. He called on McDonald to re-examine the VA's position as well on coverage for Blue Water veterans. "It's time to make full amends to surviving spouses and families."

The VA said those seeking more information can call an agency hotline, 1-800-749-8387, go online to http://www.benefits.va.gov/COMPENSATION/AgentOrange-C123.asp or send an email to VSCC123.VAVBASPL(at)va.gov.

Photo: Retired Air Force reserve tech Sgt. Ed Kienle, 73, holds a picture of himself, left, and fellow reservists during an interview at his home. The government says U.S. Air Force reservists who became ill after being exposed to Agent Orange residue while working on planes after the Vietnam War would be eligible for disability benefits. | John Minchillo/AP

The Pope tackles climate change in new encyclical

Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:48:00 +0000

Pope Francis' much-anticipated encyclical on climate change ("Laudato Si, On Care for Our Common Home") was issued in Rome on Thursday, June 18. The 192-page document addresses not only the Catholics of the world but all people, calling in vigorous moral and religious terms for everyone to care for the planet. He calls for science and religion to work together.

Issued six months in advance of the UN-sponsored talks this fall in Paris, the encyclical places the Pope and the Catholic Church officially and squarely on the side of the scientists who have proven that human activity is the main cause of the global warming we are now experiencing. The Pope calls for serious and immediate action to address climate change and other environmental crises. The encyclical addresses issues of water stress, biodiversity, pollution, the declining quality of life, economic inequality, and more.

The Pope has also taken to social media, tweeting short, pithy statements such as "the earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth." Many quotes form the encyclical will be used over the coming years to help persuade those of religious faith to join in common action with "every person," saying that "the environment is a common patrimony of all humanity."

While the Pope in some places argues against the wasteful and greedy actions of the economies of developed countries, in other places he lays the blame on a more generalized "human selfishness." The encyclical says "The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life." This lets the fossil fuel industry, responsible for much of the greenhouse gas emissions at present and over the last two hundred years, partially off the hook.

Republican presidential candidates and right-wing talking heads have been quick to condemn the Pope and to reject his moral leadership on this issue. Jeb Bush, who converted to Catholicism 20 years ago, said religion "ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting into the political realm." He continued, "I don't get my economic policy from my bishops or my cardinals or my pope." Right-wing pontificator Michael Savage said on his radio program that the Pope "is a danger to the world." Savage claims that "the Pope is a Marxist" and that he is "a wolf in pope's clothing; a stealth Marxist in religious garb." Rick Santorum, another Catholic presidential candidate, also distanced himself from the Pope's teaching, as soon as a version of the encyclical was leaked on Tuesday.

Many from the climate movement welcome the Pope's active engagement on these issues. Naomi Klein, on Democracy Now, says that "A lot of the language of the climate justice movement has just been adopted by the Pope." Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders pointed out that it is "no longer acceptable" to deny climate science. Sanders goes on to say that "Pope Francis' powerful message on climate change should change the debate around the world and become a catalyst for the bold actions needed to reverse global warming," Sanders said in a statement. "The pope helps us all see how those with the least among us will fare the worst from the consequences of climate change."

While some U.S. Catholics and most Republicans reject the idea of science-based policy on climate change, the encyclical is likely to have a big impact around the world. Heavily Catholic countries, like the Philippines, are already seeing significant climate change demonstrations and calls for action. Father Edwin Gargiguez of the Philippines, a leader of environmental campaigns in that country, says that "If it is wrong to wreck the planet, then it is wrong to benefit from its wreckage; a growing global movement to divest from fossil fuels takes this ethos to heart." The Pope's advocacy will also accelerate the process of developing interfaith environmental coalitions.

The Pope says, "I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet. We need a conversation which includes everyone, since the environmental challenge we are undergoing, and its human roots, concern and affect us all. The worldwide ecological movement has already made considerable progress and led to the establishment of numerous organizations committed to raising awareness of these challenges."

The Pope, while acknowledging the role and conclusions of scientific study, grounds his arguments in the Bible, the religious teaching of the Catholic Church, and various statements by previous popes. He notes that "my predecessor Benedict XVI likewise proposed 'eliminating the structural causes of the dysfunctions of the world economy and correcting models of growth which have proved incapable of ensuring respect for the environment.'"

The encyclical goes on: "The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. At the global level, it is a complex system linked to many of the essential conditions for human life. A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it."

Continuing, the encyclical notes that many of the problems caused by climate change will disproportionally affect the poor, and that Catholics are called to address this injustice. "Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods. It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day. Its worst impact will probably be felt by developing countries in coming decades. Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and ecosystemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. They have no other financial activities or resources which can enable them to adapt to climate change or to face natural disasters, and their access to social services and protection is very limited." It goes on: "Our lack of response to these tragedies involving our brothers and sisters points to the loss of that sense of responsibility for our fellow men and women upon which all civil society is founded."

Condemning aspects of the capitalism responsible for much of the environmental problems humanity faces, though it is ascribed to the "technological paradigm." The Pope says that, "in the meantime, economic powers continue to justify the current global system where priority tends to be given to speculation and the pursuit of financial gain, which fail to take the context into account, let alone the effects on human dignity and the natural environment. Here we see how environmental deterioration and human and ethical degradation are closely linked. Many people will deny doing anything wrong because distractions constantly dull our consciousness of just how limited and finite our world really is. As a result, "whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenceless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule".

Critics note, correctly, that the Vatican has not yet divested its considerable funds from the fossil fuel industry, and that while the Pope is progressive on many issues including climate, the Catholic Church continues to be backward on issues of reproductive health, women's choice, same sex marriage, and other issues.

Nonetheless, Laudato Si represents contribution to the global movement to address climate change, which much unite religious believers and denominations with scientists, citizen activists, unions and working class communities, and many environmental struggles and organizations.

Photo: AP

Today: World Day to Combat Desertification

Wed, 17 Jun 2015 11:58:00 +0000

The World Day to Combat Desertification is observed on June 17 every year, as proclaimed by the UN General Assembly on December 19, 1994, under Resolution 49/115). The day addresses both drought and desertification, and is meant to help implement the UN Convention to Combat Desertification.

The focus in 2015 is "attainment of food security for all through sustainable food systems."

With the slogan, "No such thing as a free lunch. Invest in healthy soil," the 2015 observance calls for:

(1) A change in our land use practices through smart agriculture and adaptation to changing climate, especially in the dry fragile parts of the world where food shortages are becoming more and more severe.

(2) Access to technology and land rights for small holder farmers who safeguard the environment and meet the food needs of millions of households, especially among the poorest households.

(3) A balance in the land use for ecology and consumption, drawing on the best practices.

(4) More investments in sustainable land practices so that sustainable food systems become the normal practice, and

(5) More effective action on desertification, whose effects on security, peace and stability are invisible yet real for the affected countries due especially to food and water scarcity and environmentally forced migration.

Some 805 million people in the world lacked sufficient nutritious food between 2012 and 2014, according to the 2014 State of Food Insecurity report. That is about one in every eight people. The vast majority lived in developing countries. Although significant progress has been made toward meeting the Millennium Development Goal hunger target, progress across regions and countries is still uneven.

Tackling hunger requires a multi-faceted approach - from economic development, nutritional intake to managing natural disasters. Still, a focus on land is critical. More than 99.7 percent of our food calories comes from the land. With the competition for productive land growing even as the global population rises, land for food production will get scarcer. We need to recover degraded and desertified land to remain food secure.

Hunger is most prevalent in the developing country dryland areas where water retention is poor, and the land is highly vulnerable to natural and human destruction. The vast majority of the dryland people survive on local foods. Sub-Saharan Africa has made some progress in eradicating hunger, but still has the highest prevalence of undernourishment.

Photo: North Sahara anti-sand shields. | Wikimedia (CC)

Kayaktivists in Seattle blockade Shell’s Alaska-bound oil rig

Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:33:00 +0000

SEATTLE - Thirteen activists in kayaks have blockaded Shell's Arctic drilling rig, the Polar Pioneer, as it attempted to leave Seattle's Puget Sound. The Greenpeace activists have secured themselves in place with enough supplies to last for hours while additional protests take place on shore. Shell plans to use the Polar Pioneer to drill for oil in the Alaskan Arctic in less than two weeks.

Annie Leonard, the Executive Director of Greenpeace U.S., said,"Shell wants to haul its 40,000 ton Arctic destroyer to Alaska as soon as possible, but these courageous individuals are saying, 'Shell No.' Every minute that brave protesters can delay Shell's Arctic drilling plans is another chance for President Obama to reconsider his disastrous approval of oil drilling in Alaska. The President's decision on Arctic drilling will be a dealbreaker for his climate legacy, but it's not too late for him to stop this catastrophe before it starts."

In April, six activists intercepted the same oil rig in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, 750 miles north-west of Hawaii and scaled the 40,000 ton platform, occupying the rig for nearly a week. Since then, there has been a broad movement in Seattle and beyond to stop Shell's rigs from leaving for the Arctic, including a protest of several thousand people, 500 on kayaks.

Paloma Henriques, one of the kayaktivists in the blockade, said, "I'm just one voice out here, but I know I'm not alone. I believe that confronting Shell will encourage more people to take a strong stand against them and other companies who are seeking to destroy this planet for profit. We are here to send a message to President Obama that it's not too late to stop Shell from destroying the Arctic."

In May, the Obama administration approved Shell's plan to drill for oil in the Chukchi Sea in the Alaskan Arctic. Since that approval, both Shell's rigs, the Polar Pioneer and the Noble Discoverer have failed routine inspections.

The Noble Discoverer is one of the oldest drill ships in the world. In December 2014, Noble Drilling, one of Shell's biggest Arctic sub-contractors and owner of the Noble Discoverer, pleaded guilty to eight felonies related to Shell's failed attempts to drill in the Arctic Ocean in 2012.

"We are grateful and stand with the protesters in Seattle who are determined to stop Arctic Drilling before it starts. Shell's Arctic venture is seriously reckless. This company has no capability to address an oil spill in unpredictable ice conditions and has proven in previous attempts that they are not equipped for the harsh and volatile conditions of the Chukchi Sea," said Faith Gemmill, executive director of Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands.

"The future of the Inupiat way of life is on the table, how can this company be so callous with their decisions? Not only is Shell's plans risky, but also detrimental to all Alaska Natives that share the burden of current climate chaos," Gemmill said. "We stand with those that want to protect their Inupiat ancestral way of life, and we will continue to support them facing down this giant, we call on all those of conscience to raise their voice in opposition to this insane venture now."

In an environmental analysis, the Obama administration predicts 75 percent chance of a major oil spill if Shell develops its leases in the Chukchi Sea.

Photo: Greenpeace/Flickr

Leo Gerard: Fast Track wrong for workers and environment

Thu, 11 Jun 2015 12:41:00 +0000

WASHINGTON - Before the U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote on Trade Promotion Authority-also known as Fast Track-the BlueGreen Alliance urged members of the House to reject the proposal because it removes critically important checks and balances.

"Approving Fast Track would be bad for our economy and our environment," said Leo W. Gerard, International President of the United Steelworkers (USW). "The USW is not against trade, but unfortunately the history of trade agreements is clear: I don't know anyone who can name an agreement passed under fast track that has resulted in a net gain of jobs for working Americans."

"The Sierra Club and our 2.4 million members and supporters oppose Fast Track, and we're in good company," said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. "Leaders from environmental, labor, civic, and faith groups agree-Fast Track is a bad deal for our climate and our communities, and the House should reject it."

Under Fast Track, Congress gives up its constitutional authority over trade negotiations and trades away its ability ensure that trade deals protect communities, workers, and the environment. The groups argued that Fast Track would encourage a race to the bottom and could lead to allowing companies to have expanded rights to challenge our environmental and other laws in a special trade tribunal outside the U.S. court system.

"Fast track gives little opportunity for the public or the Congress to weigh in substantively on agreements that could reshape U.S. environmental policy. We are especially concerned about the process the agreements may include to enable companies to challenge the effects of U.S. laws that protect health and the environment," Peter Lehner, Executive Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"Future trade agreements must always prioritize what is in the best interest of hard working American families first," said Mary Kay Henry, President of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). "Fast tracking away from regulations and protections put our workforce, our jobs, our economy and our environment in jeopardy."

"Fast Track will offshore jobs, cut wages, close factories and threaten the well-being of our communities," said Amalgamated Transit Union President Larry Hanley. "Time and again we've seen those set to gain the most from trade deals tell us that they'll make the lives of average Americans better and time and again they've been wrong. Fast Track is the wrong track for America."

The House vote comes just a few weeks after the Senate approved Fast Track. However, a strong bipartisan effort to reject the measure has gained ground in the House in recent months. A broad and growing movement of workers, environmentalists, people of faith, consumers, and community activists has been pushing to stop Fast Track.

"AFT continues to stand with a broad coalition of labor, environmental, and consumer and patient rights organizations against fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Fast Track limits transparency and rigorous debate over our trade policy. American workers deserve a voice, especially around initiatives that would have such far-reaching and lasting economic impacts," said Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

"Fast Track would virtually guarantee the passage of trade deals that ship jobs overseas and give corporations more power over our lives," said Michael Langford, National President of the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA). "Working families can't afford more bad trade deals."

"These trade negotiations have the potential to seriously undermine science-based public health, safety and environmental protections in the United States and for our trading partners. It is simply unacceptable that risky provisions are being negotiated in secret when the public has so much at stake," said Dr. Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"We need fair trade not trade deals that are hidden from the public's view," said Joseph Sellers, Jr., General President of the International Association of Sheet Metal Air Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART). "Workers and families deserve to know what's in these deals and our elected representatives should not abandon their duty to protect our workers and environment."

"The House should reject Fast Track to ensure we have fair trade agreements that don't engage us in a race to the bottom," said James Boland, President of the International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers (BAC).

"This is a critical vote. Trade agreements should be fair, uphold labor standards that protect workers and their jobs, preserve environmental protections, and ensure consumer safeguards aren't weakened," said Kim Glas, Executive Director of the BlueGreen Alliance. "Fast Track would deny the ability of Congress to amend deals to achieve those things. Our message to House members is simple: Don't let Fast Track put America on the wrong track; vote no."

Photo: Activists with the Sierra Club demonstrate in solidarity with workers against Fast Track. | Robin Everett/Sierra Club

Protests against Peru's Tia Maria Mine bolstered by international solidarity

Thu, 11 Jun 2015 11:27:00 +0000

What does it take to stop a transnational corporate giant in its tracks when it threatens workers, farmers and communities? The people of Arequipa, Peru have an answer.

Unionists, rural workers, popular movements, and environmentalists are coming together in this region of southern Peru to halt the proposed Tia Maria copper mine. The mine project belongs to Southern Copper Corporation, a subsidiary of Grupo Mexico.

Mine opponents are demanding respect for workers rights, community democracy and involvement in development decisions and protection for the ecosystem and rural farmers. Tia Maria would be a large pit mine projected to have a 20 year life span. Protesters are concerned about the likelihood of contamination of the region's water supply.

The federal government has declared martial law and sent troops into the region. It has also called for a 60-day pause in mine development.

Police forces are under contract with Southern Copper to protect the mine, which places in question their commitment to public safety. So far three protesters have been killed in demonstrations against the mine, and more than 200 have been wounded.

Grupo Mexico is a transnational corporation operating mines in Peru, Chile, Mexico and the United States. It is the world's third largest copper producer. Its subsidiaries include Southern Copper Corporation, with offices in the US, Mexico and Peru, and the U.S.- based ASARCO mining corporation.

Grupo Mexico has a history of anti-union activities including the violent suppression of the strike in Cananea, Mexico where it has brought in scab workers and facilitated the formation of a fake company union. Common practices on the part of Grupo Mexico and Southern Copper in both Peru and Mexico include mass firings of workers, replacement with "temporary" and contract workers, violent suppression of protests and unsafe working conditions. In the United States, ASARCO is refusing to negotiate in good faith with the union at its copper mine near Tucson, Arizona.

Grupo Mexico's environmental record is truly abysmal. Its subsidiary ASARCO has been found responsible by the Environmental Protection Agency for 20 superfund sites in the United States. (Superfunds are sites recognized by the US government for their dangerous levels of contamination. They are cleaned with taxpayer money, another exaple of privatizing profits while socializing debt.)

In Mexico, on August 6, 2014, Southern Copper Corporation's Cananea mine spilled 10.5 million gallons of sulfuric acid and heavy metals into the watershed of the Rio Sonora, the largest environmental disaster in Mexico's modern history. The company did not alert the local community for two full days, and then only after the river's water began to turn orange and residents started to develop rashes and show evidence of exposure to contaminants. Juan Rebolledo, Grupo Mexico's vice president of international relations denied the toxicity of the acid and even declared "there's no problem, nor any serious consequence for the population."

A report by the Peruvian Society for Environmental Law cites "six reasons why the mining company Southern has generated distrust in Arequipa" including repeated instances of contamination of waterways and its constant release of sulfuric dioxide into the air at rates up to four and a half times those permitted. The report notes that Southern is one of the ten most fined extractive companies by the Peruvian government's Organism for Environmental Evaluation and Assessment (OEFA), which has sanctioned Southern twelve times since 2008.

Grupo Mexico and its subsidiaries may be transnational, but they do not have a monopoly on globalism. International solidarity among working people can mount powerful challenges against those who put profits before people and planet

An example is the May 18, 2015 statement of solidarity with Peru's mining union by the United Steelworkers (USW), representing US and Canadian workers, and the National Union of Mine, Metal, Steel and Related Workers of the Mexican Republic (SNTMMSSRM). The statement calls for worker safety, an increase in wages for contract workers, an end to mass firings and other measures to improve work conditions. It closes declaring that,

"As representatives of workers and communities that have suffered vicious anti-union repression and environmental catastrophe due to the actions of Grupo Mexico, the owner of Southern Copper in Peru and Asarco in the United States, we join with the FNTMMSP [National Federation of Mine, Metal and Steel Workers of Peru] in condemning the brutal military repression directed by the Peruvian government and Grupo Mexico/Southern Copper against the people of Arequipa who oppose the Tía María mining project. The mineral wealth of a country should be used to benefit the people, including the workers, and not to destroy the environment for the benefit of corporations and politicians.

You can count on our solidarity in this strike and in all of your struggles."

Equally important to international worker solidarity is the intersection of labor movements with environmentalists, community democracy advocates and farming families. Historically this kind of coalition has achieved tremendous successes and mounted a challenge capable of shaking the foundations of big corporations.

A well known example is the labor-environmental unity against the World Trade Organization during its meetings in Seattle in 1999. A more recent manifestation has been the blue-green unity developing around the struggle for climate justice.

Just as workers and popular movements have temporarily halted development of the Tia Maria mine in Southern Peru, a coalition of farmers, community activists, environmentalists and striking union members were able to halt production last April at Southern's Cananea mine.

Cross movement and international worker solidarity is especially important now, given the possible passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP includes the U.S., Mexico and Peru and nine other Pacific rim countries. The agreement would seriously hurt workers rights and the ability for nations to pass and enforce environmental protection laws.

When asked how the TPP would affect movements like those against Grupo Mexico's Southern Copper Corporation, Arthur Stamoulis of the Citizen's Trade Campaign responded,

"The TPP seeks to further cut the legs out from under labor, environmental and social movements against unfettered corporate greed and destruction. There warning signs throughout Latin America of just how dangerous these neoliberal trade agreements are to sustainability, to democracy and to life itself. Thankfully, there is a transnational movement-of-movements working hard to derail the TPP."

Transnational corporations have many obstacles to throw in the way of workers and popular movements. What they cannot control is the power of an awakened movement of workers and their allies. To this end, Peruvian unions and social movements are calling for a national strike to take place on July 9, 2015. That strike will not take place in isolation. From Tucson, Arizona, where ASARCO miners are demanding a fair deal from Grupo Mexico, to Cananea, Sonora to Arequipa, Peru, miners, farmers, front line communities and environmentalists are demanding with one voice a better deal for workers and respect for communities and the ecosystems where they live.

James Jordan is national coordinator of the Alliance for Global Justice.

Photo: Street protest against Peru's Tia Maria mining project. | Global Voices Online (CC)

Maryland bans fracking, coinciding with new EPA report

Wed, 10 Jun 2015 13:53:00 +0000

What began in Maryland on Apr. 6 - legislation imposing a moratorium on fracking - has now resulted in an official ban on the harmful practice, as on June 1, Gov. Larry Hogan declined to veto the bill. Though he did not approve the measure either, it will still become law on Oct. 1, as it passed in both the state House and Senate with over two-thirds of the vote.

The ban will remain in effect until October, 2017. In terms of victories for the environment, this one is something of a sleeper hit, with momentum now starting to build as environmental groups celebrate another triumph over dangerous natural gas drilling.

The achievement is largely credited to a local grassroots movement composed of activists and local businesses, which, according to Inside Climate, flooded their local representatives' offices with calls and letters, and held several small anti-fracking rallies outside the Maryland State House in Annapolis.

"After months of campaigning, a bill that prohibits fracking for two and a half years passed overwhelmingly in the Maryland legislature," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "This is a testament to the growing movement to protect our community from the dangers of fracking. Conventional wisdom in the state was that we could never get a moratorium passed in Maryland, just as we were also told we could never get a ban in New York. But [the] nay saying just inspired us all to work harder."

It's worth noting that Hogan, a Republican, has historically been pro-fracking, remarking last year that the practice was "an economic gold mine." Perhaps it could also be seen as an ecological landmine, if the years' worth of devastating health effects on people and environment, and potential culpability in various earthquakes are any indication.

Meanwhile, a new EPA assessment released by the Obama administration on June 5, concluded what we already know: that there are numerous "specific instances" when fracking "led to impacts on drinking water sources, including contamination of drinking water wells." In other words, the EPA, while still outwardly playing catch-up to scientists, activists, and environmental organizations, has finally admitted that fracking is a toxic practice.

"The EPA confirmed what communities living with fracking have known for years: fracking pollutes drinking water," said Earthworks policy director Lauren Pagel. "Now the Obama administration, Congress, and state governments must act on that information to protect our drinking water, and stop perpetuating the oil and gas industry's myth that fracking is safe."

Though the report acknowledged that fracking is accident- and disaster-prone, it ultimately concluded that "we did not find evidence that these mechanisms [of contamination] have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the U.S." Despite this, the analysis at least ends the EPA's former hypocrisy on the fracking issue, back when top officials like former administrator Lisa Jackson insisted there was no evidence that fracking had fouled drinking water, even as the EPA's own scientists were simultaneously concluding that such pollution was occurring.

For now, Maryland can add itself to the list of states that will be spared fracking's dirty consequences, and for that, many are heaving sighs of relief.

"Almost every week a new study emerges pointing to the alarming health and environmental effects of fracking," said delegate David Fraser-Hidalgo, the House's sponsor of the banning legislation. "To open up Maryland to fracking at this time would simply be reckless."

Photo: Anti-fracking demonstration in Maryland, days prior to the governor's decision to decline a veto of the bill that would ban fracking until Oct. 2017. | Don't Frack Maryland

Today in history: World Oceans Day!

Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:56:00 +0000

The United Nations General Assembly has designated June 8 annually as World Oceans Day, following the passage of Resolution 63/111 on Dec. 8, 2008. The Assembly noted that ecosystem approaches to ocean management should be focused on managing human activities in order to maintain and, where needed, restore ecosystem health. The aims are to sustain goods and environmental services, provide social and economic benefits for food security, support livelihoods in the furtherance of international development goals, and conserve marine biodiversity.

World Oceans Day was first proposed in 1992 by Canada at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

Today it is recognized by an increasing number of countries as an annual opportunity to celebrate our world ocean and our personal connection to the sea. The Ocean Project, working closely with the World Ocean Network, helps to coordinate events and activities with aquariums, schools and businesses.

This year's World Oceans Day theme is "Healthy oceans, healthy planet."

The ocean is the heart of our planet. Like your heart pumping blood to every part of your body, the ocean connects people across the Earth, no matter where we live. The ocean regulates the climate, feeds billions of people every year, produces oxygen, is home to an incredible array of wildlife, provides us with important medicines, transportation routes and opportunities for sport and entertainment, and much more. In order to ensure the health and safety of our communities and future generations, it's imperative to take the responsibility to care for the ocean as it cares for us.

Everyone's health depends on a clean, productive ocean. Various governments, as well as private partners and friends, have scheduled events and programs to protect the ocean and safeguard vulnerable communities and places. This year in particular WorldOceansDay.org is providing special resources on plastic pollution. The ocean and its wildlife are choking on plastic: We need to both stop this pollution at the source, and clean it up from the coasts.

From your sink - straight to the ocean

If you already avoid disposable plastic bags, consider going to the next level - cut out microbeads! Cleaning products with microbeads are used daily by millions of people - products like facial cleansers, scrubs, and toothpaste which often contain "microplastics," tiny plastic beads. One single bottle of product may contain more than 350,000 tiny beads. In some cases, the combined microbeads contain more plastic than the container they came in! The plastic container can be recycled, but the beads cannot.

All these plastic microbeads are washed down the drain when you use these products. Waste water treatment plants are not designed to remove the plastic beads washed down your sink because they are often too small to be filtered out or recycled. Consequently, they flow directly to the ocean. In the U.S., billions of microbeads from wastewater plants end up in the Great Lakes and coastal environments.

Plastic pollution is a serious threat because it degrades very slowly, polluting waterways for a very long time. In addition, plastic pollution impacts the health of aquatic fauna because animals, including zooplankton, mistake the microbeads for food. Scientists also fear the health impact on humans who consume seafood.

In order to protect ocean and lake environments and meet international requirements to reduce marine litter sources, the use of microbeads in hygiene and care products must stop. The Beat the Microbead campaign, started by Dutch NGOs Plastic Soup Foundation and Northsea Foundation in 2012, has been very successful in raising awareness. The campaign is currently supported by 66 NGOs from 32 countries.

Legislative measures are necessary to manage microbead plastic waste. Several U.S. states have banned products with microbeads, and political discussions on the issue are currently being held in Canada and the European Union.

A number of multinational firms have pledged to phase out microplastics. However, their strategy is often to replace plastic microbeads made of synthetic polymers like polyethelene with biodegradable plastics, such as PLA. But these alternatives do not degrade in cold water. The only reliable way to get rid of microbeads is to replace them with natural alternatives.

Adapted from Peace History Index, worldoceansday.org, and other sources.

Photo: worldoceansday.org

Push for solar energy on public land destroys sacred Mohave site

Thu, 04 Jun 2015 11:44:00 +0000

An ancient, sacred Mohave Indian tribal site has been destroyed as a result of the Obama administration's push for solar development on public land. The facility at issue is the Genesis Solar Energy Project plant at Blythe, Calif., which sits in part on the site.

The destruction of this site was vehemently opposed by the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT), headquartered on the reservation at Parker, Ariz., which includes 300,000 acres along the Colorado River in Arizona and California. CRIT is composed of over 4,000 members from the Mohave, Chemehuevi, Hopi, and Navajo peoples. The predominant tribe is Mohave.

Artifacts from the site are being held in a San Diego warehouse and the authorities' plans are to transfer the ancient items to a San Bernardino museum. The tribes want to rebury the artifacts in accordance with traditional beliefs of the Mohave people.

This is a matter of particular concern for me because I have lived and worked on that reservation as an attorney for CRIT, and my wife and son are enrolled members of that nation.

The site in question is about 25 miles west of Parker. It is comprised of 125 acres of public land, off the reservation, managed by the federal Bureau of Land Management. It is part of the area inhabited by the Mohave people in ancient times. Occupation of the site goes back over 10,000 years. Some authorities estimate the Mohave people have lived in the area for 23,000 years.

The developer of the solar plant is Florida-based NextEra Energy Resources, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, which also owns Florida Power & Light, the third-largest electric utility in the U.S.

Members of CRIT said the Obama administration allowed the developer to destroy the remains of the ancient Mohave village. Federal authorities said the site wasn't archaeologically significant enough to justify changing the project.

But the following facts are not in dispute.

Nearly 3,000 artifacts were found during the construction of the 1,950 acre solar plant, most of which came from the 125-acre site that CRIT wanted to preserve. These artifacts included hundreds of metates, heavy flat stones used by Native women in ancient times to grind mesquite beans into meal and flour. A cremation site was also found on the site, said CRIT members. The Mohaves traditionally cremated the deceased and in fact cremate to this day. The artifacts also included many other tools that ancient Mohaves used to hunt, gather and prepare food.

The site is next to the ancient shore of what is now called Ford Dry Lake. Over thousands of years the lake held water during periods for as long as a century at a time. When it had water, the lake attracted waterfowl and other game and wild rice grew there. The lakeside village is described in traditional Mohave songs that have been passed from generation to generation for thousands of years. The area is along Native American travel and trade routes traveled by Mohave runners. These runners carried news and messages between Mohave settlements over vast stretches of desert.

An investigation by area media found that the Obama administration's rush to quickly approve and subsidize this large solar project on public land resulted in the destruction of the age-old site.

The project was approved by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar in 2010. In November 2011, discovery of the artifacts on the plant's construction site compelled the Bureau of Land Management to meet with tribal representatives. Construction was halted on the 125-acre site because of the high density finding of the artifacts.

In May 2012, the BLM made the decision to allow construction to resume. The BLM stated it found no "conclusive evidence" of habitation, human remains or funerals. But tribal officials said the BLM had ignored Mohave culture. The Mohave people cremated their deceased and burned the dead person's possessions and home, which was made of wood. Hence, there would be no evidence of human remains or homes. But, there was evidence of a crematorium which would mean that funerals were obviously held and there was the burning of remains and possessions. Tribes felt the BLM was pulling a "fast one" in its decision.

Nonetheless, NextEra was required by the BLM and state energy officials to develop websites and educational materials explaining the culture of the ancient site.

The chairman of the Colorado River Indian Tribes, Dennis Patch, characterized these decisions as absurd because they amounted to destroying the site and then deciding that it would be studied.

In May 2012, shortly after the BLM' s adverse decision the tribes took the case to U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, seeking to get NextEra to bypass the 125-acre area where most of the 3,000 artifacts were found. But District Judge George H. Wu affirmed the BLM decision, ruling that the solar plant could proceed, despite the claim from CRIT that the site was sacred. NextEra argued that avoiding the site would be too costly and technically difficult.

So, despite the vehement objections of the tribes, with federal approval giant earthmovers plowed through the ancient site in the summer of 2012. Only an area the size of a table - thought to be an ancient crematorium - was left undisturbed. Many of the metates were broken into pieces in the process. To make up for the archaeological destruction, NextEra was ordered to spend $3 million on an ethnographic study of the site and scholarships for American Indian students.

CRIT tribal officials and elders traveled to the San Diego storage room last May to view the artifacts taken from the ancient site. NextEra officials have not indicated when the artifacts will be moved to the San Bernardino County Museum.

The items now being held in San Diego include 364 metates and metate fragments; 277 manos, the handheld grinding stone used with metates; 69 hammer stones; 63 flake tools, including projectile points and scrapers; 122 stone cores and 786 flakes from tool-making. The artifacts are estimated to date back 10,000 years or more. CRIT wants possession of the artifacts so they can be reburied to restore the sacred connection of their ancestors to the land.

The Genesis solar plant, costing $1.2 billion, has been hailed as a success in the Obama administration's efforts to reduce U.S. reliance on foreign oil and combat climate change. The solar plant went into operation full steam last year. It generated enough electricity for 88,000 California homes.

But note must be taken that the U.S. is currently producing more oil than ever before in its history and is a major oil producer internationally. Hence, reliance on foreign oil has already been reduced without the destruction of ancient Native American sites in the process.

Moreover, the Genesis plant was highly subsidized with tax credits that covered 30 percent of its cost, and more that $800 million in federal loan guarantees that put the project's risk of any financial jeopardy onto the U. S. taxpayer. Sounds like the developers are making out quite well financially.

These artifacts are sacred and belong to the tribes. The authorities are adding further insult to injury by apparently planning to put the ancestral items on display to be viewed by a gawking public. No greater callous disrespect and sacrilege could be shown to the tribes.

Moreover, the BLM has acted in violation of federal cultural conservation laws that protect Native American burial and historic sites.

Now the BLM is preparing an application to add the site and the surrounding Ford Dry Lake area to the National Register of Historic Places. But this is in contradiction to the BLM decision that the area was not archaeologically significant enough to save. According to the BLM the area is expected to qualify as a historic site because it contains important information about ancient life.

The sacred artifacts must be returned, post haste.

Photo: Part of the Genesis Solar Energy Project at Blythe, Calif. Wikipedia