From silks442 at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 10:39:31 2013 From: silks442 at gmail.com (Shirley Kinoshita) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 08:39:31 -0800 Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Fwd: [Disarm] Pat Hynes Truthout article re Nuclear Power In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To ED Team Worth sharing this. Happy New Year to you all, Shirley Lin Kinoshita WILPF DISARM/EarthDemocracy/BBC issues committeemember San Jose Branch WILPF 408 255-6559 silks442 at gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hattie Nestel Date: Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 5:24 AM Subject: [Disarm] Pat Hynes Truthout article re Nuclear Power To: "Barbara L. Nielsen" , WILPF DISARM < disarm at wilpf.org>, Ellen Thomas , Odile Hugonot Haber < odilehh at gmail.com>, Carol Urner Print this page Climate Silence, Nuclear Silence and Solar Silence: An Unholy Trinity Wednesday, 05 December 2012 00:00 By H Patricia Hynes , Truthout | Op-Ed - - font size [image: decrease font size] [image: increase font size] *"In a climate-disrupted world, nuclear power plants are not reliable partners." - David Kraft, director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service to InsideClimate News * A torrent of editorial comment about climate silence followed in the path of the powerful hybrid storm Sandy - a silence that pervaded the presidential and vice presidential campaign debates and that stubbornly persisted during and since this complexly dangerous storm.[1] The 2012 debates were the only ones since the 1988 debatesto omit any reference to climate change. Climate silence in the debates was matched by editorial silence about President Obama's and his challenger Mitt Romney's mutually steadfast support for nuclear power. A grievous omission given the unprecedented risks this mammoth storm (and earlier extreme climate events in 2012) posed to nuclear plants. More than a dozen nuclear powerplants stood in the mega-storm Sandy's path, some having reactors with the same flawed GE Mark 1 design that failed at Fukushima. The Oyster Creek, New Jersey, nuclear plant was put on alertwhen flood water overwhelmed four of six massive pumps, thus jeopardizing the cooling system for its spent fuel rods, a potential radioactive catastrophe. Threeother reactors went into automatic shutdown because of grid and offsite power issues caused by the storm. These shutdown events, called scrams, induce premature "wear and tear aging reactors can ill afford ." While silent on climate change, both President Obama and Republican contender Romney reserved a sizable niche in their energy independence portfolio for nuclear power. And both tout nuclear power as "clean" - code for no global warming emissions; "safe" - that is, safely managed and regulated; and "reliable" - meaning steady energy output. Nonetheless, the nuclear emperor has no clothes. *Nuclear nemesis* March 2011's meltdown and explosions in three Fukushima nuclear reactors triggered a sea change in much of the world's faith in nuclear power. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012graphically conveys an industry reeling and in decline from the multiple impacts of world recession, the Fukushima disaster, and immense competition from renewable energy development and natural gas, with costs growing and credit ratings and share prices plummeting. Nineteen reactors were shut down in 2011 while only seven came on line. Five industrial countries announced phase-outs of their nuclear power plants: Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Japan [2]. At least five countries that planned for nuclear power have delayed or suspended plans: Egypt, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait and Thailand. Australiais the latest country to opt out of a nuclear energy future. China and other countries have delayed new construction starts. This is merely a partial portrait of the industry in free-fall. Superstorm Sandy could be - and should be - the climate's counterpart of Fukushima for the United States. Coming near the end of a year of record-shattering weather events, with dire assessments of climate change byscientists, the insurance industryand business analysts, the catastrophe of Sandy should compel both major parties to confront the joined-at-the-hip reality that climate change is upon us and that it magnifies risks of nuclear plant accidents. Nuclear power was designed with climate scenarios and risk analysis of the 1950s and 1960s, pre-dating the severe climate change epoch we have entered. Extremes of weather are reducing its reliability and rendering it more dangerous in five interrelated ways: - Reliance on massive amounts of water, more than any fossil fuel plants, thus competing with agriculture for water during extended periods of drought; - Growing production losses and shutdowns from record-breaking heat and drought, causing high water temperatures and low water flow, with consequent reliance on fossil fuels to fill the electricity production gap; - Plant shutdown and potential meltdown due to extreme flooding, with subsequent reliance on fossil fuels; - Overheated cooling water from heat waves causing severe thermal pollution of aquatic ecosystems; and - Threat of drought-induced wildfires potentially spreading radioactive contamination. * * *Intensive water use* Nuclear power as presently configured is a technology designed for a water-rich world. Plants are sited on the shores of lakes, rivers and oceans because vast quantities of water are needed to cool the plant and equipment generating the electricity during operation. Nuclear plants are different from fossil fuel plants in needing water during shutdown and accidents to cool the reactor core so as to prevent a hazardous core meltdown as well as for on-going cooling of the even more highly radioactive spent fuel rods in pools of water stored onsite. A majority of nuclear power plants (60 percent) use the most water-intensive cooling process available, an antiquated open-loop system in which cooling water is drawn in from a water body, circulates through the plant system, and is discharged 20 to 30 degrees warmer back to the water body. A typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant consumes30 to 40 million gallons of cooling water an hour - equivalent to hourly domestic water use for 4 to 5 million residents. Such vast intakes of water suck in debris, seaweed and marsh grasses, and aquatic life that not only clog filtering screens and cause plant shutdowns, but also kill massive amounts of river and marine life in all stages. One power plant can destroy annuallymillions of adult fish and billions of fish eggs and larvae; heated water discharged from the plant further damages surrounding ecosystems. Taken together, these impacts cause billions of dollars in economic losses to fisheries and recreation industries. In 2003, the water drawn into the San Onofre nuclear powerplant in Southern California water entrained and killed nearly 3.5 million fish, essentially functioning as a "giant fish blender." According to the Long Island Soundkeeper's calculations, the Millstone nuclear plant on the Sound is responsible for killing more than 150 billion, from larvae to adult fish, over more than three decades. More specifically, Millstone is responsible for killing "well over 4 billionwinter flounder between 1976 and 2003." The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has failed to enforce regulations for existing steam-electric generating power plants - including nuclear and fossil fuel plants - that require the industries to retrofit their plants with closed loop water-cooling systems. These systems use significantly less water than open loop systems and would kill far fewer aquatic organisms. Seeking to avoid costly water-saving retrofits, the industries have besieged EPA; and the agency has acquiescedto their pressure. What happens when a water-dependent power plant doesn't have enough water to cool its plant and equipment or the intake water is too warm for cooling the plant - while energy demand for air-conditioning is peaking? To wit: the record-shattering summer of 2012. *Drought and Heat* On August 9, the US Drought Monitor's data and maps portrayed a parched continent, with nearly two-thirds of the country under moderate to exceptional drought conditions and one-quarter experiencing severe drought. Much of the drought has been in areas that rely on nuclear plants for energy: the upper Midwest, the Southeast and parts of New England. High water temperatures and low water flow caused by prolonged heat and drought forceda number of power plants to cut production. Many received exemptions to their water discharge permits and are releasing hot water to aquatic systems; one plant had to suspend operations. [image: nuclearpowerplant main]The Millstone nuclear power plant in Waterford, Connecticut. In mid-August 2012, the plant shut down one of its two reactors because seawater was too warm to cool it, something that its designers could not have conceived. (Photo: NRCgov / flickr) In mid-August 2012, the Millstone nuclear power plantin Waterford, Connecticut, shut down one of its two reactors because seawater was too warm to cool it, something that its designers could not have conceived. This was the first time in the reactor's history of 37 years of operation that water withdrawn from Long Island Sound was too warm to use. Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon, Vermont, had to limit energy output four timesin July 2012, and it once reduced power production to 80 percentbecause of low flows in the Connecticut River due to a dry spell and problems with a condenser. The river flow was 50 percent below normal in July in the upstream Vermont and New Hampshire portions of the river. The most deadly impact of heat and drought on nuclear power occurred in summer 2003. The worst heat wave in nearly 500 years gripped half of Europe and killed tens of thousands of people, primarily elderly. Hydro production lessened, and 17 nuclear reactors in France reduced their power output or shutdown. Related impacts included industrial shutdowns, computer systems crashing, harvest failures and excessive cost for replacement energy.[3] *Thermal Pollution* Power plants in the United States currently account for more than three quarters of total thermal pollution, a severe form of ecological stress that is generally tolerated by public regulatory agencies. Thermal pollutioncauses a decrease in the amount of oxygen in water that, in turn, causes a more rapid metabolic rate in fish and other aquatic animals. They consequently eat more food in less time, creating a damaging imbalance to the aquatic ecosystem. Thermal pollution also triggers reproductive problems in aquatic organisms, massive bacteria and plant growth, and algal blooms. As of July 22, 2012, Illinois issued a record number(29) of exemptions to four nuclear and four coal-fired plants to discharge overheated "cooling" water into rivers and lakes to provide peak demand electricity due to extended use of air-conditioning. State law sets the threshold for discharge water at 90 degrees Fahrenheit but the limit allowed under emergency variance nearly reached 100 degrees - as record numbers of fish were dying across the state from drought and heat effects in aquatic environments. >From the perspective of River Network, whose mission is to protect the country's freshwater resources, "this has been a problem for years, and it's only getting worse." Wendy Wilson, director of rivers, energy and climate for the River Network, said of the this trend, "We have terrible thermal pollution problems in this country, and the result is dead and dying rivers. Nobody's managing the system. We're all just praying for rain." Yet, extreme rains in a climate-changed world pose risks in a nuclear energy world. *Floods* The Fort Calhoun, Nebraska, nuclear power plant has been shut downsince April 2011 due to the plant being partially submerged by extreme flooding from the Missouri River and longstanding safety violations, including deficiencies in flood planning. As for the integrity of the soilunderneath the facility, tests are ongoing and nothing yet has been determined regarding its load-bearing soundness. Nor has there been any study of on-site contaminated soil carried downstream with the floods. The power plant is also downstream of two dams that, if breached, would overwhelm the plant. *Risk of Upstream Dam Failure* A Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reliability and risk engineer-turned-whistleblower, Richard Perkins, recently revealedthat the NRC has concealed the risk of large dam failures capable of causing extreme flooding that could result in a nuclear reactor meltdown. He was lead author of a July 2011 NRC report (four months after Fukushima) assessing risks of dam failures and flood preparedness for nuclear power plants. The assessment concluded that a dam failure upstream of a nuclear power plant could render safety equipment inoperable and cause a reactor meltdown. More than 30 reactors are sited downstream of major dams. In the case of the Oconee plant in South Carolina, another NRC risk engineerstated, "the probability of Jocassee Dam catastrophically failing is hundreds of times greater than [the chance of] a 51-foot wall of water hitting Fukushima Dai-Ichi." Further, it is certain the dam's failure would overwhelm the three downstream Oconee reactors and their containment structures, resulting in core meltdowns. In a letterto the NRC Office of Inspector General, Perkins asserted that the NRC deliberately redacted certain information in the report and mischaracterized it as "security sensitive" to withhold it from the public and avoid public exposure for the agency's failure to exact more stringent flood safety protections in the face of such catastrophic risk. *Wildfires* In August 2010, wildfires caused by record-breaking drought and heat wave consumed huge swaths of western Russia and choked Moscow and other large cities with air pollution. The Russian Emergencies Ministerand other experts warned that fire-induced winds could carry radioactive particles hundreds of miles from the burning trees, plants and forest soil around Chernobyl, reaching cities in Russia and beyond. Given the 30-year half-lives of strontium-90 and cesium-137 released from the core meltdown and explosion at Chernobyl, these radioactive isotopes will take 300 years to fully decay and thus remain hazardous for the growing risk of worsening droughts and fires. In summer 2011, the largest forest fire in New Mexico history burned almost 50,000 acres in and around the nuclear weapons research laboratory and waste storage facilities at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Among the endangered radioactive materials and waste were as many as 30,000, 55-gallon drums of plutonium-contaminated waste stored above ground under fabric tents, awaiting transport to a radiation dumpsite in southern New Mexico. Lest the risks of nuclear power colliding with those of climate change don't convince people that nuclear power is not the clean, safe, and reliable answer to climate change, consider the trends and voices from the industry and market. *Rejection by Industry and Wall Street* *"Enjoying virtually every conceivable advantage at its birth - from high public popularity to lavish government spending to virtually unanimous government support - the commercial nuclear power industry in the United States is . . . moribund."* [4] The US nuclear industry and financial markets are walking away from nuclear power. John Rowe, the former board chair and CEO of Exelon, America's largest producer of nuclear power with 22 nuclear power plants, said in March 2012 that nuclear power is not economically feasible. "I've never met a nuclear plant I didn't like . . . [b]ut it just isn't economic, and it's not economic within a foreseeable time frame." Dominion Resources recently announced the spring 2013 closure of Kewauneenuclear power plant in Wisconsin. Not able to find a buyer, the company acknowledged that the closure is based solely on economics. A domino effect is predicted by nuclear experts, based on the costs of post-Fukushima safety measures and repairs needed on older reactors.[5] Nor will Wall Street invest in it: In 2009, Moody's Investor Services concluded that investment in nuclear power was a "bet the farm"risk. Leaving the door open to nuclear power's survival, though, Moody's added, ". . . we believe regulators will generally continue to support the long-term financial health of the utilities they regulate." Which is why the 60-something-year-old industry survives as a lifelong welfare recipient of the federal government, with taxpayer-funded construction loan guarantees and the Price-Anderson Act underwriting accidents that would bankrupt the industry. It's called "nuclear socialism." *Additional Considerations:* *1. Outdated Geology* Dr. Allison Macfarlane, new Chairwoman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the NRC's first geologist, deems the nuclear industry's risk analysis for earthquakes antiquated and inadequate. Nuclear power plants were designed to survive the strongest earthquake the site has had historically. "[That] will not do," she said. Knowledge of geology has advanced since US power plants were built, and it continues to do so; new earthquake risk studies and new safety measures for nuclear power plants are critical. Dr. Macfarlane also directed her staff to examine the "?broad array of natural events that could affect nuclear power operations in the future,'" including climate change . David Lochbaumof the nuclear watchdog, Union of Concerned Scientists, spoke recently of the NRC's custom of allowing unsafe nuclear reactors to operate, referring to "47 reactors that the NRC knows to violate fire protection regulations and 27 reactors with seismic protection known to be less than the seismic hazards they face. These pre-existing vulnerabilities mean that the American public is protected more by luck than by skill." *2. Carbon Emissions and Nuclear Power Plants* Nuclear power is a wolf in zero-carbon clothing. In its life cycle, a nuclear power plant is equivalent in CO2 emissions to one-quarter of a natural gas plant.[6] Cradle to grave, every step of the nuclear power process - from uranium mining to spent fuel storage, cooling, and reprocessing - uses fossil fuels intensively. New nuclear power is so costly and slow to complete that using cheaper, faster alternatives instead would save about 20 to 40 times more carbon per year. These alternatives are (a) efficiency, (b) renewable sources and (c) cogenerating electricity and heat for factories and buildings.[7] Finally, scrapping nuclear power can speed the transition to renewables. Countries in Europe with the most ambitious solar and wind goals are either phasing out nuclear power (Germany) or have adopted a no-nuclear-power policy (Denmark and Portugal). The age of renewables will arrive when fossil fuels and nuclear power decline irreversibly and renewables increase irreversibly. New generations of safer nuclear power plants that would purportedly reduce the risk of catastrophic Fukushima-like accidents are decades away from market readiness, too late for stemming the climate change juggernaut.[8] *3. Waste and Weapons* Two problems unique to nuclear power - so perilous they should have caused this power source to abort at conception - are nuclear waste, with no long-term storage solution, and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Radioactive waste is the b?te noire of the nuclear industry, most currently so in Fukushima Dai-chi, where spent fuel rods lie in damaged, unsound structures and at risk of a catastrophic fire if another earthquake strikes the region. Bringing the lesson home, nuclear reactors in the United States store on average four times the waste they were designed to handle and far more radiation than in the reactor itself. Overpacked in pools of water without the safety containment measures of the reactor, they are vulnerable to containment failure and fire. A fire in one spent fuel pool in the United States "could render an area uninhabitable that would be as much as 60 times larger than that created by Chernobyl" states nuclear policy specialist Robert Alvarez. Additionally, spent fuel is a deadly target for terrorism: a 2005 federal government study reported that terrorists could mount a successful attack on reactor spent fuel pools. Yet, the FAA allows aircraft to fly within 1,000 feet of nuclear power plants. As for nuclear weapons, every nuclear reactor enables a country to develop its own nuclear weapons because both the uranium mined for nuclear power reactors and the spent fuel from a nuclear reactor can be reprocessed to make plutonium bombs. (This fact has been used to justify Israeli and the US war mongering with Iran.) As early as 1946, a federal report concluded "the development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes and the development of atomic energy for bombs are in much of their course interchangeable and interdependent."[9] It called for a global authority to control all nuclear materials, from mining to waste, to "block the spread of bombs." No such authority exists. What we have in its stead are nuclear "haves" deciding who can and cannot join their nuclear weapons club. "Peaceful nuclear technology" is an oxymoron, a sleight of words that duped the 1950s world into a bargain with the devil. "Nuclear winter" from global or even regional nuclear war would generate unprecedented and catastrophic extremes of climate change, with cold weather and reduced sunlight for a period of years, rendering agriculture impossible. *Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Future: The Best Kept Secret* For leadership , we may have to look beyond our borders to the Danes or the Germans. They have taken stock of who owns oil and gas in the world, carefully reviewed what Japan is suffering in the wake of Fukushima's multiple nuclear meltdowns, and both countries have said: We are committed to going both fossil-free and nuclear-free. The firewall around climate change did not start with Superstorm Sandy. The White House has strategically maintained it since 2009, according to environmentalists convened by the President to discuss the issue. Frame the environmental crisis as an economic opportunity, they were urged, "a chance for job creation and economic growth, rather than a crucial environmental problem." Meet the new "don't ask, don't tell." The press compliantly followed the White House lead: From 2009 to 2011, the number of articles about climate change plummeted 41 percent. Correspondingly, so also has the American public's beliefin the science of climate change - a state of climate change agnosticism and fundamentalist denial belligerently fostered by the oil baron Koch brothers, nuclear and fossil fuel power companies and their trade associations, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Meanwhile, an under-the-radar research laboratory within the US Department of Energy (DOE) - the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) - released an initial investigatory report on the potential for renewable energy in July 2012. The report is, in DOE's words: "the most comprehensive analysis of high-penetration renewable electricity of the continental United States to date . . ." The major finding of the Renewable Electricity Futures Study supports a nuclear-free, zero-carbon renewable energy future: Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in 2050 while meeting demand on an hourly basis in every region of the country. Why didn't this crucial finding merit a spot - whether in moderator questions or candidate responses - in the third presidential debate on foreign policy, given the equation between our oil dependence and military policy in the Middle East? And why have the Obama administration and the media failed to reportdramatic growth in US wind and solar power capacity between 2008 and 2012, a growth in energy production equal to nearly 60 nuclear power plants? Wind power capacity has more than doubled, and solar capacity has quadrupled in the last 4 years - outpacing fossil fuels - while nuclear is in decline. The corporate muscle and money of the nuclear and fossil fuel industries have not only silenced dissent, but they also insidiously stymie the possible - energy independencebased on renewable technologies. The contrived frenzy in Congress and the media over the $529 million federal loan guarantee and subsequent bankruptcy of the solar company Solyndra in 2011 eclipsed the solar industry's extraordinary growth. It also covered up the solar industry's record jobs creation, its cost-competitiveness, and its 90 percent success rate in the federal loan guarantee program[10]. Solar's success is the most underreported business successin the United States. Silence about the solar industry catapulting over fossil fuels and nuclear in job creation enabled President Obama to speciously pit jobs against climate change in his first press conferencesince his re-election: "If the message somehow is that we're going to ignore jobs and growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anyone's going to go for that. I won't go for that." Silence about the proven promise of renewable technologies fosters an illiterate press incapable of challenging the President's misleading dichotomy between jobs and climate change. A one-minute fact check would corroborate that renewable technologies and reversing climate change are a "win-win" for job growth, economic growth and the climate fate of the earth. *** *What we have before us are some breathtaking opportunities disguised as insoluble problems.*[11] - Johnson-era Health Secretary John Gardner For more than a century, industrial countries passed up opportunities to build a durable energy economy based on efficiency and renewables. The energy road taken has led us to Chernobyl, Exxon Valdez, Katrina, Deepwater Horizon, Fukushima, Sandy, oil wars and climate change. Responding to immense civil society demand after Fukushima, Germany has taken its eight oldest nuclear reactors offline and has committed to closing the last nuclear power plant by 2022. This follows more than a decade of planning and expanding renewable energy, such that the shift to renewable energy is financially benefiting farmers, small business and investors and will have only small, temporary impacts on energy prices and the economy, according to researchersthere. Further, this shift to renewable energy has finally broken the axiomatic link between nuclear and fossil fuel energy on the one hand and economic well-being on the other. Political and economic realism together with our moral obligation to present and future generations must impel us, after the climate extremes of 2012, toward energy-efficiency and tapping the unlimited power of sun, water and wind. Otherwise, we are hurtling toward greater climate change disasters and nuclear tragedies with no sense of environmental justice for the web of life that sustains us or of intergenerational justice for those who come after. *References* 1. Sandy will likely be dissected less in the national press for its tragically compelling evidence of climate change than for its political effects on the outcome of November 6 elections. As the Associated Press weighed it: Hurricane Sandy dampened early voting; diluted last minute campaigns of both candidates in key states; cut power and, thus, TV ads and automated phone calls in eastern swing states; and gave President Obama "a platform to show leadership in time of crisis." 2. In mid-September 2012, Japan announced a phaseout of nuclear power within 30 years, as demanded by the Japanese public. A week later, the government abandoned the commitment, given extreme pressure by powerful business interests and the US government . (Also see: "Japan drops plans to phase out nuclear power by 2040 " in The Guardian (September 19, 2012) and "Japan's Nuclear Program; Rearranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic, " at The Fukushima Project on SimplyInfo.) Japan's nuclear power network "is not planning to go out of business at homeor overseas, according to the Asia-Pacific journal." 3. Hermann Scheer. Autonomous Energy (2007) London: Earthscan. 4. Arjun Makhijani and Scott Saleska (1999)* The Nuclear Power Deception*. New York: The Apex Press. p.xiv. 5. Talk by nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen, November 12, 2012 Greenfield MA. 6. Ibid. 7. Amory Lovins. Introduction. Stephanie Cooke (2009)* In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age*. New York, Berlin and London: Bloomsbury. p.xv. 8. Arjun Makhijani and Scott Saleska (1999) *The Nuclear Power Deception*. New York: The Apex Press. p.xiv. 9. Lovins. Introduction. *In Mortal Hands*. p.xi. 10. Danny Kennedy (2012) Rooftop Revolution. San Francisco: Berrett Kohler. 11. As quoted by Amory Lovins in *Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era* (2011) Rocky Mountain Institute. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission. H Patricia Hynes H. Patricia Hynes is a retired professor of environmental health from Boston University and chairs the board of the Traprock Center for Peace and Justice . Related StoriesNuclear Plant Safety Rules Inadequate, Group Says By Matthew L Wald, The New York Times| Report Nuclear Disaster in the US: How Bechtel Is Botching the World's Costliest Environmental Cleanup By Joshua Frank, AlterNet| News Analysis Nuclear Hangover: Ghost of Past Power Struggle Haunts Sandy's Victims Today By Gregg Levine, Truthout | News Analysis ------------------------------ Show Comments http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12966-climate-silence-nuclear-silence-and-solar-silence-an-unholy-trinity On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Hattie Nestel wrote: > The file I had won't open and Marcia say's its corrupt and I need it again > thanks, Hattie > -- > Hattie Nestel > hattieshalom at verizon.net > > > > "Hope has nothing to do with success. One acts in hope simply because it > is the right thing to do. Having said that, one never knows when these > lightly noticed acts will manifest into a movement. The movement starts > when change appears possible. But the seeds for the movement are planted by > those who hold out hope for change even when such change seems beyond our > grasp. Without hope, there is no vision. And without vision, the future > looks pretty bleak.? > ?Sister Denise and Brother Utsumi, Nipponzan Myohoji Buddhist Order > > > > _______________________________________________ Disarm mailing list Post to this list by sending an email to this address: Disarm at wilpf.org To unsubscribe or change your options as a user, click here: http://wilpf.org/mailman/listinfo/disarm_wilpf.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/tiff Size: 16206 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pastedGraphic.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 16206 bytes Desc: not available URL: From silk442 at att.net Wed Jan 23 11:54:19 2013 From: silk442 at att.net (Shirley Lin Kinoshita) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:54:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn Message-ID: <3078203.23906118.1358963659471.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2313.prod> LinkedIn ------------ I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Shirley Lin Shirley Lin Kinoshita President at Silicon Valley United Nations Association San Francisco Bay Area Confirm that you know Shirley Lin Kinoshita: https://www.linkedin.com/e/2aa51d-hcarvikh-b/isd/10665608832/NzSfPWlO/?hs=false&tok=1agAeJOlUOCBA1 -- You are receiving Invitation to Connect emails. Click to unsubscribe: http://www.linkedin.com/e/2aa51d-hcarvikh-b/XAa-WVmFXWvwNrnuUpa-ahrQwNvdP_ZuI41RRC/goo/earthdemocracy%40wilpf%2Eorg/20061/I3542014674_1/?hs=false&tok=0-e7jpSyQOCBA1 (c) 2012 LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From silk442 at att.net Wed Jan 23 11:56:06 2013 From: silk442 at att.net (Shirley Lin Kinoshita) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:56:06 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Invitation to connect on LinkedIn Message-ID: <1172695501.23914065.1358963766933.JavaMail.app@ela4-app2313.prod> LinkedIn ------------ I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Shirley Lin Shirley Lin Kinoshita President at Silicon Valley United Nations Association San Francisco Bay Area Confirm that you know Shirley Lin Kinoshita: https://www.linkedin.com/e/2aa51d-hcarxthl-e/isd/10665608832/NzSfPWlO/?hs=false&tok=2cTELYGAkQCBA1 -- You are receiving Invitation to Connect emails. Click to unsubscribe: http://www.linkedin.com/e/2aa51d-hcarxthl-e/XAa-WVmFXWvwNrnuUpa-ahrQwNvdP_ZuI41RRC/goo/earthdemocracy%40wilpf%2Eorg/20061/I3542025982_1/?hs=false&tok=2bCxTfz7AQCBA1 (c) 2012 LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joanbazar at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 24 12:21:55 2013 From: joanbazar at sbcglobal.net (Joan Bazar) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:21:55 -0800 Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Fracking Industry Goes After Promised Land Film Message-ID: <51017BC3.6050704@sbcglobal.net> News from PR Watch Fracking Industry Goes After Promised Land Film by Meher Ahmad --- January 18, 2013 - 8:47am # Topics: Fracking , Propaganda , Public Relations Share/Save Share this Cover for the movie "Promised Land"Before Gus Van Sant's latest film /Promised Land/ even premiered, the energy industry was up in arms, gearing up to counter the film's apparent anti-fracking stance with a barrage of "community" responses (read: thinly veiled corporate PR). James Schamus, chief executive of Focus Features the distributor of the film, expressed shock about the attacks on /Promised Land/: "We've been surprised at the emergence of what looks like a concerted campaign targeting the film even before anyone's seen it." With blogs, astroturf websites, Facebook pages, internet ads, and theater ad buys in advance of the movie, the industry is working hard to spin the conversation in a more fracking-friendly direction. The film chronicles the story of a gas industry salesman, played by Matt Damon, and his attempt to convince the residents of a rural Pennsylvania town to agree to fracking development. The questions raised by actors in the film mirror the debates taking place in communities across the country. What type of chemicals are used in fracking? What is the effect of fracking on air and water? While the industry may make a few struggling families rich, what is the cost for the community as a whole? Conveniently, the fracking industry has launched a number of websites to answer these questions for you. Energy in Depth Launches "Real Promised Land" Site The fracking industry was caught unprepared by the brilliant, 2010 documentary /Gaslands/ by Josh Fox, whose indelible images of tap water bursting into flames introduced fracking to the American public. Having learned their lesson, the industry was not eager to repeat its mistakes. Before it was even released, Energy in Depth (EID) took issue with the new movie, which is not a hard-hitting documentary like /Gaslands/ and has more romantic content than factual content. Through a new website titled RealPromisedLand.org , EID rolled out "real stories" from "real Americans" about their positive experiences with fracking. Videos from Ohio, Colorado, Texas, and Pennsylvania highlight seemingly ordinary citizens who have benefited from fracking development in their area. On their glossy Facebook page you can learn that: "the natural gas industry takes all the safety measures possible in order to protect the earth and water from any contamination" and other tall tales. The website does not disclose that EID was launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America to serve as the PR mouthpiece for the gas industry. As CMD has documented , EID is funded by the likes of Shell, BP, Chevron, and XTO Energy, a subsidiary of ExxonMobil. EID has also privately described itself, in a memo, as the "online resource center to combat new environmental regulations." Industry Buys Ads for PA Movie Theaters The Marcellus Shale Coalition, the drilling industry's biggest trade group in Pennsylvania, cut ads to run before the film aired in Pennsylvania theaters. The ads direct viewers to their website, learnaboutshale.org , which seeks to dispel the "complete work of fiction" they call /Promised Land/. Would-be viewers of the film are implored to engage in a "straightforward" and "honest" conversation on natural gas. Folks worried about fracking's impact on water will not be told what chemicals are used or how many wells have been contaminated , but they will be reassured that water sources will be just fine -- as long as the drillers follow all state and federal regulations. "Propaganda Specialists" Fight Anti-fracking Narrative "To be honest," said Schamus of Focus Films, "if I could afford the kind of propaganda specialists the fracking industry has sent after our little movie... They're pretty impressive at what they do." Curiously, none of the countless websites and articles published against /Promised Land/ have countered any of the movie's factual claims about hydraulic fracturing. The attacks against the film are more centered on the notion that the film's narrative is flawed, not that it presents false information. Despite finding no factual errors in /Promised Land/, the gas industry will not take bad PR lying down. In response to /Gasland/, the industry produced a film called /Truthland /. We can't wait to see what their next "blockbuster" will be, /Broken Promises/? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ /Learn more about fracking battles taking place across the nation at Food and Water Watch's Fracking Action Center. / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: share_16_16.png Type: image/png Size: 627 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: promised_land_movie_poster__121115234902.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 35201 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nancytprice39 at gmail.com Thu Jan 24 12:29:33 2013 From: nancytprice39 at gmail.com (nancy price) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:29:33 -0500 Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Fracking Industry Goes After Promised Land Film In-Reply-To: <51017BC3.6050704@sbcglobal.net> References: <51017BC3.6050704@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: The industry in desperate. We have to keep the pressure on and rally around the rights for people, our communities and for Mother Earth. We must safeguard our right to land, air and water that is not pollluted and protect public health. Everywhere across the country communities are rising up and saying no more. They understand the regulations only regulate the level of harm to be done in the corporate name. Rather, we must invoke our right to guardianship of future generations and recognize our rights today to make that a reality for present and future generations. We welcome all WILPFers who want to join us in this effort. Thanks, Nancy Price for the Earth Democracy Issue Group Team and all of us guardians of Mother Earth On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Joan Bazar wrote: > News from PR Watch > > Fracking Industry Goes After Promised Land Film > by Meher Ahmad ? January > 18, 2013 - 8:47am > Topics: Fracking , > Propaganda , Public Relations > [image: Share/Save] Share this > > [image: Cover for the movie "Promised Land"]Before Gus Van Sant's latest > film *Promised Land* even premiered, the energy industry was up in arms, > gearing up to counter the film's apparent anti-fracking stance with a > barrage of "community" responses (read: thinly veiled corporate PR). James > Schamus, chief executive of Focus Features the distributor of the film, expressed > shockabout the attacks on > *Promised Land*: "We've been surprised at the emergence of what looks > like a concerted campaign targeting the film even before anyone's seen it." > With blogs, astroturf websites, Facebook pages, internet ads, and theater > ad buys in advance of the movie, the industry is working hard to spin the > conversation in a more fracking-friendly direction. > > The film chronicles the story of a gas industry salesman, played by Matt > Damon, and his attempt to convince the residents of a rural Pennsylvania > town to agree to fracking development. The questions raised by actors in > the film mirror the debates taking place in communities across the country. > What type of chemicals are used in fracking? What is the effect of fracking > on air and water? While the industry may make a few struggling families > rich, what is the cost for the community as a whole? > > Conveniently, the fracking industry has launched a number of websites to > answer these questions for you. > Energy in Depth Launches "Real Promised Land" Site > > The fracking industry was caught unprepared by the brilliant, 2010 > documentary *Gaslands* by Josh Fox, whose indelible images of tap water > bursting into flames introduced fracking to the American public. Having > learned their lesson, the industry was not eager to repeat its mistakes. > > Before it was even released, Energy in Depth (EID) took issue with the new > movie, which is not a hard-hitting documentary like *Gaslands* and has > more romantic content than factual content. Through a new website titled > RealPromisedLand.org , EID rolled out "real > stories" from "real Americans" about their positive experiences with > fracking. Videos from Ohio, Colorado, Texas, and Pennsylvania highlight > seemingly ordinary citizens who have benefited from fracking development in > their area. On their glossy Facebookpage you can learn that: "the natural gas industry takes all the safety > measures possible in order to protect the earth and water from any > contamination" and other tall tales. > > The website does not disclose that EID was launched by the Independent > Petroleum Association of America to serve as the PR mouthpiece for the gas > industry. As CMD has documented, > EID is funded by the likes of Shell, BP, Chevron, and XTO Energy, a > subsidiary of ExxonMobil. EID has also privately described itself, in a > memo, as the "online resource center to combat new environmental > regulations." > Industry Buys Ads for PA Movie Theaters > > The Marcellus Shale Coalition, the drilling industry's biggest trade group > in Pennsylvania, cut ads to run before the film aired in Pennsylvania > theaters. The ads direct viewers to their website, learnaboutshale.org, > which seeks to dispel the "complete work of fiction" they call > *Promised Land*. Would-be viewers of the film are implored to engage in a > "straightforward" and "honest" conversation on natural gas. Folks worried > about fracking's impact on water will not be told what chemicals are used > or how many wells have been contaminated, > but they will be reassured that water sources will be just fine -- as long > as the drillers follow all state and federal regulations. > "Propaganda Specialists" Fight Anti-fracking Narrative > > "To be honest," said Schamusof Focus Films, "if I could afford the kind of propaganda specialists the > fracking industry has sent after our little movie... They're pretty > impressive at what they do." > > Curiously, none of the countless websites and articles published against *Promised > Land* have countered any of the movie's factual claims about hydraulic > fracturing. The attacks against the film are more centered on the notion > that the film's narrative is flawed, not that it presents false information. > > Despite finding no factual errors in *Promised Land*, the gas industry > will not take bad PR lying down. In response to *Gasland*, the industry > produced a film called *Truthland > *. We can't wait to see what their next "blockbuster" will be, *Broken > Promises*? > ------------------------------ > > *Learn more about fracking battles taking place across the nation at Food > and Water Watch's Fracking Action Center. > * > > _______________________________________________ > Earthdemocracy mailing list > Earthdemocracy at wilpf.org > http://wilpf.org/mailman/listinfo/earthdemocracy_wilpf.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 35201 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 627 bytes Desc: not available URL: From libhutchby at earthlink.net Thu Jan 24 12:49:19 2013 From: libhutchby at earthlink.net (Lib Hutchby) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:49:19 -0500 Subject: [Earthdemocracy] [Teamearthdem] Fracking Industry Goes AfterPromised Land Film References: <51017BC3.6050704@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <247CFB00651F4210A77B2966986ED806@Lib> Well said, Nancy! Now that the Board of Directors of the Sierra Club has finely allowed civil disobedience, the coordination between 350.org, the Sierra Club, Van Jones, etc. will put extraordinary pressure on Obama to stop the KeyStone Pipeline. MORE info. on tomorrow's Americans Against FRacking to follow as TOMORROW is the call-in day regarding fracking. A desperate industry will do desperate things. We will go forward. We, too, are desperate. May we maintain our thoughtful forward direction. Peace with gratitude, Lib ----- Original Message ----- From: nancy price To: Joan Bazar Cc: teamearthdem at wilpf.org ; National Committee Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:29 PM Subject: Re: [Teamearthdem] [Earthdemocracy] Fracking Industry Goes AfterPromised Land Film The industry in desperate. We have to keep the pressure on and rally around the rights for people, our communities and for Mother Earth. We must safeguard our right to land, air and water that is not pollluted and protect public health. Everywhere across the country communities are rising up and saying no more. They understand the regulations only regulate the level of harm to be done in the corporate name. Rather, we must invoke our right to guardianship of future generations and recognize our rights today to make that a reality for present and future generations. We welcome all WILPFers who want to join us in this effort. Thanks, Nancy Price for the Earth Democracy Issue Group Team and all of us guardians of Mother Earth On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Joan Bazar wrote: News from PR Watch Fracking Industry Goes After Promised Land Film by Meher Ahmad ? January 18, 2013 - 8:47am a.. Topics: Fracking, Propaganda, Public Relations Share this Before Gus Van Sant's latest film Promised Land even premiered, the energy industry was up in arms, gearing up to counter the film's apparent anti-fracking stance with a barrage of "community" responses (read: thinly veiled corporate PR). James Schamus, chief executive of Focus Features the distributor of the film, expressed shock about the attacks on Promised Land: "We've been surprised at the emergence of what looks like a concerted campaign targeting the film even before anyone's seen it." With blogs, astroturf websites, Facebook pages, internet ads, and theater ad buys in advance of the movie, the industry is working hard to spin the conversation in a more fracking-friendly direction. The film chronicles the story of a gas industry salesman, played by Matt Damon, and his attempt to convince the residents of a rural Pennsylvania town to agree to fracking development. The questions raised by actors in the film mirror the debates taking place in communities across the country. What type of chemicals are used in fracking? What is the effect of fracking on air and water? While the industry may make a few struggling families rich, what is the cost for the community as a whole? Conveniently, the fracking industry has launched a number of websites to answer these questions for you. Energy in Depth Launches "Real Promised Land" Site The fracking industry was caught unprepared by the brilliant, 2010 documentary Gaslands by Josh Fox, whose indelible images of tap water bursting into flames introduced fracking to the American public. Having learned their lesson, the industry was not eager to repeat its mistakes. Before it was even released, Energy in Depth (EID) took issue with the new movie, which is not a hard-hitting documentary like Gaslands and has more romantic content than factual content. Through a new website titled RealPromisedLand.org, EID rolled out "real stories" from "real Americans" about their positive experiences with fracking. Videos from Ohio, Colorado, Texas, and Pennsylvania highlight seemingly ordinary citizens who have benefited from fracking development in their area. On their glossy Facebook page you can learn that: "the natural gas industry takes all the safety measures possible in order to protect the earth and water from any contamination" and other tall tales. The website does not disclose that EID was launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America to serve as the PR mouthpiece for the gas industry. As CMD has documented, EID is funded by the likes of Shell, BP, Chevron, and XTO Energy, a subsidiary of ExxonMobil. EID has also privately described itself, in a memo, as the "online resource center to combat new environmental regulations." Industry Buys Ads for PA Movie Theaters The Marcellus Shale Coalition, the drilling industry's biggest trade group in Pennsylvania, cut ads to run before the film aired in Pennsylvania theaters. The ads direct viewers to their website, learnaboutshale.org, which seeks to dispel the "complete work of fiction" they call Promised Land. Would-be viewers of the film are implored to engage in a "straightforward" and "honest" conversation on natural gas. Folks worried about fracking's impact on water will not be told what chemicals are used or how many wells have been contaminated, but they will be reassured that water sources will be just fine -- as long as the drillers follow all state and federal regulations. "Propaganda Specialists" Fight Anti-fracking Narrative "To be honest," said Schamus of Focus Films, "if I could afford the kind of propaganda specialists the fracking industry has sent after our little movie... They're pretty impressive at what they do." Curiously, none of the countless websites and articles published against Promised Land have countered any of the movie's factual claims about hydraulic fracturing. The attacks against the film are more centered on the notion that the film's narrative is flawed, not that it presents false information. Despite finding no factual errors in Promised Land, the gas industry will not take bad PR lying down. In response to Gasland, the industry produced a film called Truthland. We can't wait to see what their next "blockbuster" will be, Broken Promises? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Learn more about fracking battles taking place across the nation at Food and Water Watch's Fracking Action Center. _______________________________________________ Earthdemocracy mailing list Earthdemocracy at wilpf.org http://wilpf.org/mailman/listinfo/earthdemocracy_wilpf.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Teamearthdem mailing list Teamearthdem at wilpf.org http://wilpf.org/mailman/listinfo/teamearthdem_wilpf.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/png Size: 627 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 35201 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joanbazar at sbcglobal.net Thu Jan 24 16:02:10 2013 From: joanbazar at sbcglobal.net (Joan Bazar) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:02:10 -0800 Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Carolyn Raffensperger article Message-ID: <5101AF62.3020006@sbcglobal.net> Go to Carolyn Raffensperger: A Prescription for Injuries of the Soul: Healing the Earth Healing Us http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/24-12 to read comments and post your own. Published on Thursday, January 24, 2013 by Common Dreams A Prescription for Injuries of the Soul: Healing the Earth Healing Us by Carolyn Raffensperger (Photo: Pimthida via Flickr)Most people suffer from a sense of moral failure over environmental matters. The mismatch between being told to change our light bulbs when the planet seems in free fall---melting ice caps, polluted water supplies, drought---creates a needling angst and anxiety. We know that we are in deep trouble, but feel that there is little we---or anyone---can do individually. Anne Karpf writing about climate change in the/Guardian/ last year said "I now recycle everything possible, drive a hybrid car, and turn down the heating. Yet somewhere in my marrow I know that this is just a vain attempt to exculpate myself -- it wasn't me, guv." To fully acknowledge our complicity in the problem, but to be unable to act at the scale of the problem creates cognitive dissonance. And this "environmental melancholia," results in hopelessness. It is not apathy we are feeling, but sadness that can be eased only with taking actions, mostly collective, scaled to the problems we face. The moral failure and the inability to act leads to what some now identify as a moral injury, which is at the root of some post-traumatic stress disorders, or PTSD. The U.S. military has been investigating the causes of PTSD because the early interpretations of it being fear-based didn't match what psychologists were hearing from the soldiers themselves. What psychologists heard wasn't fear, but sorrow and loss. Soldiers suffering from PTSD expressed enormous grief over things like killing children and civilians or over not being able to save a fellow soldier. They discovered that at the core of much of PTSD was a moral injury, or a soul wound resulting from the dissonance between their actions and their moral code. The moral injury stemming from our participation in destruction of the planet has two dimensions: knowledge of our role and an inability to act. Our culture lacks the mechanisms for taking account of collective moral injuries and then finding the vision and creativity to address them. The difference between a soldier's moral injury and our environmental moral injuries is that environmental wounds aren't a shattering of moral expectations, but a steady, grinding erosion---a slow-motion relentless sorrow. Environmental lawyer Bob Gough says that he suffers from pre-traumatic stress disorder. Pre-traumatic stress disorder is short hand for the fact that he is fully aware of the future trauma, the moral injury that we individually and collectively suffer, the effects on the Earth of that injury, and our inability to act in time. Essentially pre-traumatic stress disorder, the environmentalist's malady, is a result of our inability to prevent harm. Much of the environmental and health messaging speaks to individuals. Stop smoking, get more exercise, switch from incandescent to LED light bulbs, etc. Sure, we need to do all that we are able as individuals--that is part of preventing any further damage to the planet and our own souls. But that isn't enough. These are not things we can address individually. We have to do them together. Healing the moral injury we suffer individually and collectively from our participation in destruction of the planet will require strong intervention in all spheres of life. Actions like creating a Cabinet level office of the Guardian of Future Generations or 350.org 's campaign for colleges to divest of oil stocks, or revamping public transportation are beginning steps. Can we think of a hundred more bold moves to make reparations and give future generations a sporting chance? Our moral health, our sanity---and our survival---depend on it. Carolyn Raffensperger Carolyn Raffensperger is the Executive Director of the /Science & Environmental Health Network/ , www.sehn.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8215430368_58f79f849a.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 58734 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: carolyn_raffensperger.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 38029 bytes Desc: not available URL: From silk442 at att.net Thu Jan 24 18:02:54 2013 From: silk442 at att.net (Shirley Kinoshita) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:02:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Carolyn Raffensperger article In-Reply-To: <5101AF62.3020006@sbcglobal.net> References: <5101AF62.3020006@sbcglobal.net> Message-ID: <1359072174.84097.YahooMailRC@web181005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Joan Thanks for sharing with ED team. Very interesting article. I'm also working with Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, who directs the Soul Repair Center in Ft. Worth TX. Her 2012 book "Moral Injury.." focuses on this type situation to explain the epidemic in military suicides. Shirley ________________________________ From: Joan Bazar To: National Committee Sent: Thu, January 24, 2013 2:02:26 PM Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Carolyn Raffensperger article Go to Carolyn Raffensperger: A Prescription for Injuries of the Soul: Healing the Earth Healing Us http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/24-12 to read comments and post your own. Published on Thursday, January 24, 2013 by Common Dreams A Prescription for Injuries of the Soul: Healing the Earth Healing Us by Carolyn Raffensperger (Photo: Pimthida via Flickr)Most people suffer from a sense of moral failure over environmental matters. The mismatch between being told to change our light bulbs when the planet seems in free fall?melting ice caps, polluted water supplies, drought?creates a needling angst and anxiety. We know that we are in deep trouble, but feel that there is little we?or anyone?can do individually. Anne Karpf writing about climate change in theGuardian last year said ?I now recycle everything possible, drive a hybrid car, and turn down the heating. Yet somewhere in my marrow I know that this is just a vain attempt to exculpate myself ? it wasn?t me, guv.? To fully acknowledge our complicity in the problem, but to be unable to act at the scale of the problem creates cognitive dissonance. And this ?environmental melancholia,? results in hopelessness. It is not apathy we are feeling, but sadness that can be eased only with taking actions, mostly collective, scaled to the problems we face. The moral failure and the inability to act leads to what some now identify as a moral injury, which is at the root of some post-traumatic stress disorders, or PTSD. The U.S. military has been investigating the causes of PTSD because the early interpretations of it being fear-based didn?t match what psychologists were hearing from the soldiers themselves. What psychologists heard wasn?t fear, but sorrow and loss. Soldiers suffering from PTSD expressed enormous grief over things like killing children and civilians or over not being able to save a fellow soldier. They discovered that at the core of much of PTSD was a moral injury, or a soul wound resulting from the dissonance between their actions and their moral code. The moral injury stemming from our participation in destruction of the planet has two dimensions: knowledge of our role and an inability to act. Our culture lacks the mechanisms for taking account of collective moral injuries and then finding the vision and creativity to address them. The difference between a soldier?s moral injury and our environmental moral injuries is that environmental wounds aren?t a shattering of moral expectations, but a steady, grinding erosion?a slow-motion relentless sorrow. Environmental lawyer Bob Gough says that he suffers from pre-traumatic stress disorder. Pre-traumatic stress disorder is short hand for the fact that he is fully aware of the future trauma, the moral injury that we individually and collectively suffer, the effects on the Earth of that injury, and our inability to act in time. Essentially pre-traumatic stress disorder, the environmentalist?s malady, is a result of our inability to prevent harm. Much of the environmental and health messaging speaks to individuals. Stop smoking, get more exercise, switch from incandescent to LED light bulbs, etc. Sure, we need to do all that we are able as individuals?that is part of preventing any further damage to the planet and our own souls. But that isn?t enough. These are not things we can address individually. We have to do them together. Healing the moral injury we suffer individually and collectively from our participation in destruction of the planet will require strong intervention in all spheres of life. Actions like creating a Cabinet level office of the Guardian of Future Generations or 350.org?s campaign for colleges to divest of oil stocks, or revamping public transportation are beginning steps. Can we think of a hundred more bold moves to make reparations and give future generations a sporting chance? Our moral health, our sanity?and our survival?depend on it. Carolyn Raffensperger is the Executive Director of the Science & Environmental Health Network, www.sehn.org. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 8215430368_58f79f849a.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 58734 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: carolyn_raffensperger.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 38029 bytes Desc: not available URL: From odilehh at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 03:05:59 2013 From: odilehh at gmail.com (Odile Hugonot Haber) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:05:59 -0500 Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Carolyn Raffensperger article In-Reply-To: <1359072174.84097.YahooMailRC@web181005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <5101AF62.3020006@sbcglobal.net> <1359072174.84097.YahooMailRC@web181005.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thank you this short article, it strikes a note that rings true and is reaching me. I have read Morris Berman on Counterpunch and many analysis and while they are true and correct plunge one into despair. Of course every little ecological steps do not curb our over-comsumption, changing cars and changing light bulbs is not enough, we have to stop consuming and that is main addiction and much harder to stop. Odile On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:02 PM, Shirley Kinoshita wrote: > Joan > > Thanks for sharing with ED team. > > Very interesting article. I'm also working with Dr. Rita Nakashima Brock, > who directs the Soul Repair Center in Ft. Worth TX. Her 2012 book "Moral > Injury.." focuses on this type situation to explain the epidemic in > military > suicides. > > Shirley > ------------------------------ > *From:* Joan Bazar > *To:* National Committee > *Sent:* Thu, January 24, 2013 2:02:26 PM > *Subject:* [Earthdemocracy] Carolyn Raffensperger article > > Go to Carolyn Raffensperger: A Prescription for Injuries of the Soul: > Healing the Earth Healing Us > http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/01/24-12 > to read comments and post your own. > > Published on Thursday, January 24, 2013 by Common Dreams > A Prescription for Injuries of the Soul: Healing the Earth Healing Us > by Carolyn Raffensperger > > (Photo: Pimthida via Flickr)Most people suffer from a sense of moral > failure over environmental matters. The mismatch between being told to > change our light bulbs when the planet seems in free fall?melting ice caps, > polluted water supplies, drought?creates a needling angst and anxiety. We > know that we are in deep trouble, but feel that there is little we?or > anyone?can do individually. Anne Karpf writing about climate change in the > * Guardian* last year said?I now recycle everything possible, drive a hybrid car, and turn down the > heating. Yet somewhere in my marrow I know that this is just a vain attempt > to exculpate myself ? it wasn?t me, guv.? > > To fully acknowledge our complicity in the problem, but to be unable to > act at the scale of the problem creates cognitive dissonance. And this > ?environmental melancholia,? results in hopelessness. It is not apathy we > are feeling, but sadness that can be eased only with taking actions, mostly > collective, scaled to the problems we face. > > The moral failure and the inability to act leads to what some now identify > as a moral injury, which is at the root of some post-traumatic stress > disorders, or PTSD. The U.S. military has been investigating the causes of > PTSD because the early interpretations of it being fear-based didn?t match > what psychologists were hearing from the soldiers themselves. What > psychologists heard wasn?t fear, but sorrow and loss. Soldiers suffering > from PTSD expressed enormous grief over things like killing children and > civilians or over not being able to save a fellow soldier. They discovered > that at the core of much of PTSD was a moral injury, or a soul wound > resulting from the dissonance between their actions and their moral code. > > The moral injury stemming from our participation in destruction of the > planet has two dimensions: knowledge of our role and an inability to act. > Our culture lacks the mechanisms for taking account of collective moral > injuries and then finding the vision and creativity to address them. The > difference between a soldier?s moral injury and our environmental moral > injuries is that environmental wounds aren?t a shattering of moral > expectations, but a steady, grinding erosion?a slow-motion relentless > sorrow. > > Environmental lawyer Bob Gough says that he suffers from pre-traumatic > stress disorder. Pre-traumatic stress disorder is short hand for the fact > that he is fully aware of the future trauma, the moral injury that we > individually and collectively suffer, the effects on the Earth of that > injury, and our inability to act in time. Essentially pre-traumatic stress > disorder, the environmentalist?s malady, is a result of our inability to > prevent harm. > > Much of the environmental and health messaging speaks to individuals. Stop > smoking, get more exercise, switch from incandescent to LED light bulbs, > etc. Sure, we need to do all that we are able as individuals?that is part > of preventing any further damage to the planet and our own souls. But that > isn?t enough. These are not things we can address individually. We have to > do them together. > > Healing the moral injury we suffer individually and collectively from our > participation in destruction of the planet will require strong intervention > in all spheres of life. Actions like creating a Cabinet level office of the > Guardian of Future Generations or 350.org?s campaign for colleges to > divest of oil stocks, or revamping public transportation are beginning > steps. Can we think of a hundred more bold moves to make reparations and > give future generations a sporting chance? Our moral health, our sanity?and > our survival?depend on it. > [image: Carolyn Raffensperger] > > Carolyn Raffensperger is the Executive Director of the *Science & > Environmental Health Network* , www.sehn.org. > > _______________________________________________ > Earthdemocracy mailing list > Earthdemocracy at wilpf.org > http://wilpf.org/mailman/listinfo/earthdemocracy_wilpf.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 58734 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 38029 bytes Desc: not available URL: From libhutchby at earthlink.net Fri Jan 25 13:25:02 2013 From: libhutchby at earthlink.net (Lib Hutchby) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 14:25:02 -0500 Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Fw: [Globalfrackdown] RELEASE: Fracking review flawed, relies on industry information: Council of Canadians Message-ID: Fyi ----- Original Message ----- From: Emma Lui To: 'Globalfrackdown at groups.fwwatch.org' Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 1:36 PM Subject: [Globalfrackdown] RELEASE: Fracking review flawed, relies on industry information: Council of Canadians MEDIA RELEASE For Immediate Release January 25, 2013 Fracking review flawed, relies on industry information: Council of Canadians The Council of Canadians recently obtained a copy of Environment Canada's work plan on shale gas development under an access to information request. The heavily redacted documents, "Activities Related to Shale Gas Development" and "Shale Gas Action Plan," outline the department's work on shale gas including researching emissions, gathering information on chemicals and provincial regulatory requirements, and reviewing existing literature on fracking. The Council of Canadian Academies, which is conducting a second independent review, will examine the potential environmental impacts and technical mitigation options. "We support getting a better understanding of greenhouse gases, provincial regulatory requirements and activities across the country," says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson for the Council of Canadians. "But Environment Canada's review relies on industry organizations for information on fracking chemicals and fails to commit to any consultation with Indigenous communities or municipalities on what their experiences with fracking have been. The federal government's review should be independent of industry. And communities hold invaluable information on the impacts of fracking." The reviews rely on the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers for information on fracking chemicals and commit to engaging other "industry stakeholders on ongoing Environment Canada initiatives." The documents do not specify consultation with any Indigenous communities or municipalities who have experienced fracking in their region. "There are a couple of encouraging points in the documents like conducting baseline surface water quality monitoring, setting up monitoring stations in northeastern British Columbia, and considering changing the National Pollutant Release Inventory to include shale gas drilling, which currently exempts oil and gas wells," says Emma Lui, Water Campaigner for the Council of Canadians. "But the fact that they sent us an unsigned and heavily redacted document raises questions of how committed the federal government is to these actions." "The documents also reveal that Environment Canada hopes that 'emissions from the shale gas sector are managed/minimized, consistent with Canada's climate change objectives,' but can this really be genuine when the biggest fracking operations in Canada go to fuel the tar sands?" asks Maryam Adrangi, Energy Campaigner for the Council of Canadians. "Fracked gas, with huge emissions and impacts on our water, is going to fuel oil extraction with even more climate and water impacts." "We would support monitoring of existing fracking operations," adds Lui. "But ultimately fracking needs to be stopped. In no way should a commitment to monitoring be construed as a way to expand fracking operations, which would still contribute to climate emissions and destroy water and land." Neither the Activities nor the Action Plan are signed by Environment Canada's Deputy Minister Paul Boothe or other Environment Canada officials. The Council is raising questions about whether these documents were ever finalized and whether this represents a genuine commitment from the federal government to review fracking. A large number of sections of the Shale Gas Action Plan have been redacted including the purpose and summary. The Council of Canadians is calling for a ban, or at the very least a moratorium, on fracking. -30- For more information: Dylan Penner, Media Officer, Council of Canadians, 613-795-8685, dpenner at canadians.org www.canadians.org | Twitter: @CouncilOfCDNs ____________________________ Emma Lui Water Campaigner Council of Canadians Tel: 613-233-4487 Ext. 239 Fax: 613-233-6776 Email: elui at canadians.org www.canadians.org/water -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "right_to_water" group. To post to this group, send email to right_to_water at googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to right_to_water+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/right_to_water?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ~~~----~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ Manage your Group settings: * To reply to sender (elui at canadians.org): elui at canadians.org * To view sender's profile, click this link: (not available - person not signed in yet) * To post to entire group, send email to: Globalfrackdown at groups.fwwatch.org * To email the group moderator(s) (mschlosberg at fwwatch.org): Globalfrackdown-moderator at groups.fwwatch.org * To UNSUBSCRIBE or change delivery settings, click this link: edit delivery settings * To UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send email to: Globalfrackdown-unsubscribe at groups.fwwatch.org * To remove yourself from this group, send email to: Globalfrackdown-remove at groups.fwwatch.org * To visit this group on the web, click this link: view group Powered by GoLightly, http://www.golightly.com/ ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~~~-~--~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From libhutchby at earthlink.net Mon Jan 28 11:27:34 2013 From: libhutchby at earthlink.net (Lib Hutchby) Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:27:34 -0500 Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Fw: [Globalfrackdown] Fracking activities at World Social Forum Tunis March Message-ID: <4514EE92A67044D79076555922034FCC@Lib> FYI ----- Original Message ----- From: Gabriella Zanzanaini To: Globalfrackdown at groups.fwwatch.org Sent: Monday, January 28, 2013 9:55 AM Subject: [Globalfrackdown] Fracking activities at World Social Forum Tunis March Hi everyone, For those of you following the World Social Forum or are planning to attend it in Tunis in March, the organizers are currently requesting for merged activities based on the proposals they have already received from groups. There are currently 5 proposals related to fracking that have been submitted and we will start a conversation among this group to see how many activities we want to do together or separately. If anyone else on this list is planning to take part or would like to cooperate, please get in touch with me: gzanzanaini at fweurope.org We are also looking forward to promoting the 2013 Global Frackdown with local groups while we are there. Thanks! Gabriella Gabriella Zanzanaini Food & Water Europe Rue d'Edimbourg 26 Brussels 1050 Belgium tel: +32 (0) 2893 1045 mobile: +32 (0)488 409 662 gzanzanaini at fweurope.org www.foodandwatereurope.org ~~~----~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ Manage your Group settings: * To reply to sender (gzanzanaini at fweurope.org): gzanzanaini at fweurope.org * To view sender's profile, click this link: gzanzanaini at fweurope.org * To post to entire group, send email to: Globalfrackdown at groups.fwwatch.org * To email the group moderator(s) (mschlosberg at fwwatch.org): Globalfrackdown-moderator at groups.fwwatch.org * To UNSUBSCRIBE or change delivery settings, click this link: edit delivery settings * To UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send email to: Globalfrackdown-unsubscribe at groups.fwwatch.org * To remove yourself from this group, send email to: Globalfrackdown-remove at groups.fwwatch.org * To visit this group on the web, click this link: view group Powered by GoLightly, http://www.golightly.com/ ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~~~-~--~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From veggiepark at sbcglobal.net Tue Jan 29 09:01:51 2013 From: veggiepark at sbcglobal.net (Linda Park) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:01:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Earthdemocracy] letter to editor Message-ID: <1359471711.19724.YahooMailRC@web181705.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi, I just sent this rant letter to the editor after reading an article in our local paper about the newest plan--solidify fracking waste and put it in landfills.? Obviously it is not a great tome, but I had to vent and hope it will get in the paper. Hope your day starts in a mnore positive way, Linda -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: frack waste letter.doc Type: application/msword Size: 25088 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nancytprice39 at gmail.com Thu Jan 31 20:38:56 2013 From: nancytprice39 at gmail.com (nancy price) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:38:56 -0800 Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Fracking review flawed, relies on industry information Message-ID: Hello All Earthers, Here is a very good report to read as you work on fracking in your state and community. Nancy Price *MEDIA RELEASE** For Immediate Release January 25, 2013***** *Fracking review flawed, relies on industry information: Council of Canadians***** The Council of Canadians recently obtained a copy of Environment Canada?s work plan on shale gas development under an access to information request. The heavily redacted documents, ?Activities Related to Shale Gas Development? and ?Shale Gas Action Plan,? outline the department?s work on shale gas including researching emissions, gathering information on chemicals and provincial regulatory requirements, and reviewing existing literature on fracking. The Council of Canadian Academies, which is conducting a second independent review, will examine the potential environmental impacts and technical mitigation options.**** ?We support getting a better understanding of greenhouse gases, provincial regulatory requirements and activities across the country,? says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson for the Council of Canadians. ?But Environment Canada's review relies on industry organizations for information on fracking chemicals and fails to commit to any consultation with Indigenous communities or municipalities on what their experiences with fracking have been. The federal government's review should be independent of industry. And communities hold invaluable information on the impacts of fracking.?**** The reviews rely on the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers for information on fracking chemicals and commit to engaging other ?industry stakeholders on ongoing Environment Canada initiatives.? The documents do not specify consultation with any Indigenous communities or municipalities who have experienced fracking in their region.**** ?There are a couple of encouraging points in the documents like conducting baseline surface water quality monitoring, setting up monitoring stations in northeastern British Columbia, and considering changing the National Pollutant Release Inventory to include shale gas drilling, which currently exempts oil and gas wells,? says Emma Lui, Water Campaigner for the Council of Canadians. ?But the fact that they sent us an unsigned and heavily redacted document raises questions of how committed the federal government is to these actions.?**** ?The documents also reveal that Environment Canada hopes that 'emissions from the shale gas sector are managed/minimized, consistent with Canada?s climate change objectives,' but can this really be genuine when the biggest fracking operations in Canada go to fuel the tar sands?? asks Maryam Adrangi, Energy Campaigner for the Council of Canadians. ?Fracked gas, with huge emissions and impacts on our water, is going to fuel oil extraction with even more climate and water impacts.?**** ?We would support monitoring of existing fracking operations,? adds Lui. ?But ultimately fracking needs to be stopped. In no way should a commitment to monitoring be construed as a way to expand fracking operations, which would still contribute to climate emissions and destroy water and land.?**** Neither the Activities nor the Action Plan are signed by Environment Canada?s Deputy Minister Paul Boothe or other Environment Canada officials. The Council is raising questions about whether these documents were ever finalized and whether this represents a genuine commitment from the federal government to review fracking. A large number of sections of the Shale Gas Action Plan have been redacted including the purpose and summary.**** The Council of Canadians is calling for a ban, or at the very least a moratorium, on fracking.**** -30-**** For more information:**** Dylan Penner, Media Officer, Council of Canadians, 613-795-8685, dpenner at canadians.org www.canadians.org | Twitter: @CouncilOfCDNs**** ** ** ** ** ____________________________**** Emma Lui**** Water Campaigner**** Council of Canadians**** Tel: 613-233-4487 Ext. 239**** Fax: 613-233-6776**** Email: elui at canadians.org www.canadians.org/water **** ** ** -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "right_to_water" group. To post to this group, send email to right_to_water at googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to right_to_water+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/right_to_water?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. **** ~~~----~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~ Manage your Group settings: * To reply to sender (elui at canadians.org): elui at canadians.org * To view sender's profile, click this link: (not available - person not signed in yet) * To post to entire group, send email to: Globalfrackdown at groups.fwwatch.org * To email the group moderator(s) (mschlosberg at fwwatch.org): Globalfrackdown-moderator at groups.fwwatch.org * To UNSUBSCRIBE or change delivery settings, click this link: edit delivery settings * To UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send email to: Globalfrackdown-unsubscribe at groups.fwwatch.org * To remove yourself from this group, send email to: Globalfrackdown-remove at groups.fwwatch.org * To visit this group on the web, click this link: view group Powered by GoLightly, http://www.golightly.com/ ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~~~~-~--~ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nancytprice39 at gmail.com Thu Jan 31 20:40:22 2013 From: nancytprice39 at gmail.com (nancy price) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 18:40:22 -0800 Subject: [Earthdemocracy] Lawsuit filed against fracking as oil lobbyist says it's 'safe' In-Reply-To: <6F19511A-49CB-4A23-9578-B621604283F6@fishsniffer.com> References: <07DD011F0D8A112B01F9@mo1.osimail4.us> <6F19511A-49CB-4A23-9578-B621604283F6@fishsniffer.com> Message-ID: Here's another good report.... We must help to education each other. Nancy Price ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dan Bacher Date: Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:07 PM Subject: Lawsuit filed against fracking as oil lobbyist says it's 'safe' To: * http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/31/1183605/-Lawsuit-filed-against-fracking-as-oil-lobbyist-says-it-s-safe *** http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/lawsuit-filed-against-fracking-as-oil-lobbyist-says-its-safe/ ** *The power of the oil industry in California is demonstrated by the alarming fact that the same oil lobbyist who is now leading the industry charge to expand fracking also chaired the panel that created "marine protected areas" in Southern California. * Photo of Farmers Market Drill Site courtesy of California Department of Conservation. *farmersmarketdrillsite_de...* Lawsuit filed against fracking as oil lobbyist says it's 'safe' by Dan Bacher As a lawsuit was filed to stop unregulated fracking in California, Catherine Reheis-Boyd, the President of the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and former Chair of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Blue Ribbon Task Force for the South Coast, claimed that fracking causes no environmental harm in the state. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a rapidly spreading, environmentally destructive new method of oil and gas extraction that is drawing growing opposition throughout the state by environmentalists, fishermen, tribal members, family farmers and consumer advocates. "WSPA?s position on hydraulic fracturing is well known and well documented: in the 60 years that the practice has been in use in California, there has been no evidence that it has caused harm to public health or to the environment," said Reheis-Boyd in her blog on the WSPA website. "Hydraulic fracturing is also subject to strict rules and oversight by various government agencies, with the industry working with regulators to further strengthen safety and transparency requirements." (* http://www.wspa.org/blog/index.php/wspa-message/the-other-side-of-the-hydraulic-fracturing-debate/ * ) "And many independent economists and analysts have concluded that hydraulic fracturing can produce enough energy to meet not only the needs of American consumers but to make us a leading exporter, freeing us from dependence on unstable foreign sources, and ushering in a new era of prosperity which may solve many of our nation?s and our state?s fiscal challenge," Reheis-Boyd gushed. *Oil lobbyist oversaw implementation of "marine protected areas" * In an overt conflict of interest, Reheis-Boyd, who is also lobbying for new offshore oil drilling, the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and the weakening of environmental laws, oversaw the creation of alleged "marine protected areas" in Southern California that went into effect on January 1, 2012. It's no surprise that these so-called marine protected areas fail to protect the ocean from fracking, offshore oil drilling, pollution, military testing, wind and wave energy projects and all other human impacts on the ocean other than fishing and gathering. Reheis-Boyd also served on the MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Forces that developed marine protected areas on the North Coast, North Central Coast and Central Coast. Many grassroots environmentalists and fishermen believe that Reheis-Boyd was appointed to the task forces to make sure that the oil industry's interests were protected and to ensure that recreational and commercial fishermen and seaweed harvesters, the most vocal opponents of offshore oil drilling and fracking, were removed from many areas on the ocean to clear a path for ocean industrialization. David Gurney, independent journalist and co-chair of the Ocean Protection Coalition, slammed Reheis-Boyd's role in pushing for increased fracking in California. (*http://noyonews.net/?p=8215* ) "It's clear that government and petroleum officials want to 'frack' in the very same areas Reheis-Boyd was appointed to oversee as a 'guardian' of marine habitat protection for the MLPA 'Initiative,'" revealed Gurney. *Environmental group goes to court to protect California from fracking * Opposition to fracking is building momentum throughout California. On January 24, the Center for Biological Diversity went to court to compel California regulators to enforce an existing state law that should protect people and the environment from fracking. A lawsuit filed in Alameda County Superior Court says the California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources has allowed fracking to expand without legally required oversight, according to a news release from the Center. (* http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2013/fracking-01-24-2013.html * " The Center said California law applies safeguards and disclosure requirements to any underground injection carried out by the oil and gas industry, the lawsuit points out, and fracking clearly involves injection. Yet the state does not yet regulate or even monitor this controversial practice. ?A looming fracking boom threatens to transform California, creating serious pollution risks to our air, water and climate,? said the Center?s Vera Pardee. ?Existing rules clearly cover fracking, but state officials don?t regulate or even track this dangerous way of extracting oil and gas. The state needs to stop ignoring the law and start protecting our environment.? Fracking, as exposed in the documentary film Gasland (* http://www.gaslandthemovie.com/whats-fracking*), involves blasting massive amounts of water and industrial chemicals, mixed with sand, deep into the earth at pressures high enough to crack apart geologic formations, causing fractures that let oil and gas move into the wells and to the surface. *Over 600 wells fracked in 2011 * The Center said more than 600 wells in at least nine California counties were fracked in 2011 alone. Recent advances in fracking techniques are driving a growing interest in the Monterey Shale, a geological formation holding an estimated 15 billion barrels of oil. "Reports have documented the dangers of fracking, including more than 1,000 instances of water contamination around the country," according to the Center. "Fracking also emits hazardous air pollutants and methane, a potent greenhouse gas. It has the potential to induce seismic activity in one of the nation?s most earthquake-prone states." California?s existing oil and gas regulations cover all forms of underground injection and clearly apply to fracking. Fracking was exempted from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005 by what is known as the ?Halliburton loophole" in the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill, but no such exemption exists in California law. "Compliance with California?s existing oil and gas regulations would require disclosure of all fracking chemicals, as well as engineering studies and tests to evaluate the potential for underground migration of fracking fluids. State regulators would also need to ensure that fracking is conducted in a way that prevented, as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, and California?s water and other natural resources," the group said. In response to growing public concern, state regulators have issued a ?discussion draft? of new regulations that would cover fracking, but these regulations have not yet been formally proposed, much less finalized, Pardee noted. ?At present, industry fracks whenever and however it deems fit, and that practice has to stop,? added Pardee. ?State regulators must implement the requirements that are already in place to provide better protection for the air we breathe and the water we drink.? *State officials refuse to address conflicts of interest, terminally flawed science * The power of the oil industry in California is demonstrated by the alarming fact that the same oil lobbyist who is now leading the industry charge to expand fracking also chaired the panel that created "marine protected areas" (MPAs) in Southern California and served on the task forces that created the MPAs on the North Coast, North Central Coast and Central Coast. Shamefully, Natural Resources Agency and Department of Fish and Game (now Department of Fish and Wildlife) officials, the mainstream media and corporate "environmental" NGOs and foundation representatives greenwashed the key role that a powerful oil lobbyist played in "marine protection" in California. This only increased the oil industry's already powerful position in California politics. Natural Resources Secretary John Laird, Department of Fish and Wildlife Director Chuck Bonham and other state officials have refused to address the central role that Reheis-Boyd and other corporate operatives with numerous conflicts of interest, including a coastal real estate developer and marina corporation executive, played in the implementation of the MLPA Initiative. They have also failed to address the terminally flawed and incomplete science the initiative was based upon, the overt violation of the Yurok Tribe's traditional harvesting rights and the private funding behind that initiative that have made the MLPA into one of the most bizarre cases of greenwashing in California history. For more information, go to: * http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/new-marine-reserve-network-doesnt-protect-ocean * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 57709 bytes Desc: not available URL: