The Impossibility of Growth Demands a New Economic System | Common Dreams
On Friday, a few days after scientists announced that the collapse of
the West Antarctic ice sheet is now inevitable(4), the Ecuadorean
government decided that oil drilling would go ahead in the heart of the
Yasuni national park(5). It had made an offer to other governments: if
they gave it half the value of the oil in that part of the park, it
would leave the stuff in the ground. You could see this as blackmail or
you could see it as fair trade. Ecuador is poor, its oil deposits are
rich: why, the government argued, should it leave them untouched without
compensation when everyone else is drilling down to the inner circle of
hell? It asked for $3.6bn and received $13m. The result is that
Petroamazonas, a company with a colourful record of destruction and
spills(6), will now enter one of the most biodiverse places on the
planet, in which a hectare of rainforest is said to contain more species
than exist in the entire continent of North America(7).
The UK oil company Soco is now hoping to penetrate Africa’s oldest
national park, Virunga, in the Democratic Republic of Congo(8); one of
the last strongholds of the mountain gorilla and the okapi, of
chimpanzees and forest elephants. In Britain, where a possible 4.4
billion barrels of shale oil has just been identified in the
south-east(9), the government fantasises about turning the leafy suburbs
into a new Niger delta. To this end it’s changing the trespass laws to
enable drilling without consent and offering lavish bribes to local
people(10,11). These new reserves solve nothing. They do not end our
hunger for resources; they exacerbate it.
The trajectory of compound growth shows that the scouring of the
planet has only just begun. As the volume of the global economy expands,
everywhere that contains something concentrated, unusual, precious will
be sought out and exploited, its resources extracted and dispersed, the
world’s diverse and differentiated marvels reduced to the same grey
stubble.
Thursday
Petition | Save the Red Door | Change.org
Petition | Save the Red Door | Change.org
Red Door Shelter for Homeless Families Threatened by Condominium Development.
The building that houses our long-term home has been put into receivership
and is now being bid on by condo developers, leaving the Red Door Family
Shelter without a concrete future.
Please sign our petition to help save the Red Door!
Since 1982, the Red Door Family Shelter
has provided hope and help for thousands of homeless families that have
come through our red door. We play an integral role in the community,
helping more than 500 families each year to heal and rebuild their lives
so they can live safely and independently.
“Our home has been at 875 Queen Street East for 30 years,” said Bernnitta Hawkins, Executive
Director, Red Door Family Shelter. “We are an integral part of the South
Riverdale community. We do not want to leave, and we certainly do not
want to reduce the number of beds we offer homeless families in need.
The receiver and developer have not given us any answers and we need
them now!”
A permanent solution for our 106-bed shelter must be sought. We want to stay where we are and continue to provide much needed services.
WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW!
We need to send a message to city council, to the developer and to the receiver to let them know that a refuge for homeless families is more important than condos. We have done all we can and have not received any concrete solution. We need your support to make the message heard! Help us reach 1,000 signatures to send a strong message of public support for the Red Door.
Please sign our petition now to help ensure that homeless families still have a refuge at 875 Queen Street East
For more information about the Red Door and how you get involved in the campaign visit www.reddoorshelter.ca/save-the-red-door
The building that houses our long-term home has been put into receivership
and is now being bid on by condo developers, leaving the Red Door Family
Shelter without a concrete future.
Please sign our petition to help save the Red Door!
Since 1982, the Red Door Family Shelter
has provided hope and help for thousands of homeless families that have
come through our red door. We play an integral role in the community,
helping more than 500 families each year to heal and rebuild their lives
so they can live safely and independently.
“Our home has been at 875 Queen Street East for 30 years,” said Bernnitta Hawkins, Executive
Director, Red Door Family Shelter. “We are an integral part of the South
Riverdale community. We do not want to leave, and we certainly do not
want to reduce the number of beds we offer homeless families in need.
The receiver and developer have not given us any answers and we need
them now!”
A permanent solution for our 106-bed shelter must be sought. We want to stay where we are and continue to provide much needed services.
WE NEED YOUR HELP NOW!
We need to send a message to city council, to the developer and to the receiver to let them know that a refuge for homeless families is more important than condos. We have done all we can and have not received any concrete solution. We need your support to make the message heard! Help us reach 1,000 signatures to send a strong message of public support for the Red Door.
Please sign our petition now to help ensure that homeless families still have a refuge at 875 Queen Street East
For more information about the Red Door and how you get involved in the campaign visit www.reddoorshelter.ca/save-the-red-door
Saturday
Soil as Carbon Storehouse: New Weapon in Climate Fight?
Soil as Carbon Storehouse: New Weapon in Climate Fight?
According to Rattan Lal, director of Ohio State University's Carbon
Management and Sequestration Center, the world's cultivated soils have
lost between 50 and 70 percent of their original carbon stock, much of
which has oxidized upon exposure to air to become CO2. Now, armed with
rapidly expanding knowledge about carbon sequestration in soils,
researchers are studying how land restoration programs in places like
the former North American prairie, the North China Plain, and even the
parched interior of Australia might help put carbon back into the soil.
Absent carbon and critical microbes, soil becomes mere dirt, a process
of deterioration that's been rampant around the globe. Many scientists
say that regenerative agricultural practices can turn back the carbon
clock, reducing atmospheric CO2 while also boosting soil productivity
and increasing resilience to floods and drought. Such regenerative
techniques include planting fields year-round in crops or other cover,
and agroforestry that combines crops, trees, and animal
husbandry.
According to Rattan Lal, director of Ohio State University's Carbon
Management and Sequestration Center, the world's cultivated soils have
lost between 50 and 70 percent of their original carbon stock, much of
which has oxidized upon exposure to air to become CO2. Now, armed with
rapidly expanding knowledge about carbon sequestration in soils,
researchers are studying how land restoration programs in places like
the former North American prairie, the North China Plain, and even the
parched interior of Australia might help put carbon back into the soil.
Absent carbon and critical microbes, soil becomes mere dirt, a process
of deterioration that's been rampant around the globe. Many scientists
say that regenerative agricultural practices can turn back the carbon
clock, reducing atmospheric CO2 while also boosting soil productivity
and increasing resilience to floods and drought. Such regenerative
techniques include planting fields year-round in crops or other cover,
and agroforestry that combines crops, trees, and animal
husbandry.
Thursday
Seeds of Freedom | Common Dreams, Vandana Shiva
Seeds of Freedom | Common Dreams
For thousands of years farmers, especially women, have evolved and
bred seed freely with the help of nature to increase the diversity of
what nature gave us and adopt it to the needs of different cultures.
Biodiversity and cultural diversity have mutually shaped one another.
Every seed is an embodiment of millennia of nature’s evolution and
centuries of farmers’ breeding. It is the distilled expression of the
intelligence of the earth and intelligence of farming communities.
Farmers have bred seeds for diversity, resilience, taste, nutrition,
health and to adapt it for local agro-ecosystems.
In times of climate change we need the biodiversity of farmers’
varieties to adapt and evolve. Climate extremes are being experienced
through more frequent and intense cyclones that bring salt water to the
land. To develop resilience against cyclones, we need salt tolerant
varieties of seeds, and we need them in the commons. Along coastal
areas, farmers have evolved flood tolerant and salt tolerant varieties
of rice such as Bhundi, Kalambank, Lunabakada, Sankarchin, Nalidhulia,
Ravana, Seulapuni, Dhosarakhuda.
"By adding one new gene to the cell of a
plant, corporations claimed they had invented and created the seed, the
plant, and all future seeds that were now their property. In other words
GMO meant 'God Move Over.'"
These seeds have been evolved by farmers and need to stay in the commons to gain resilience against climate change.
After the Orissa Supercyclone, Navdanya could distribute salt
tolerant rice to farmers because we had conserved them as a commons in
our community seed bank run by Kusum Mishra and Dr Ashok Panigrahi in
Balasore, Orissa. Hence we were about to donate two truckloads of salt
tolerant seeds to the farmers, who could not grow rice because of the
sea salt deposited on their farms. As I have written in my book—Soil, Not Oil—40
per cent of the greenhouse gases come from an industrialised and
globalised model of agriculture. Having created the crisis,
corporations, who made profits from industrial agriculture, now want to
turn the climate crisis they have contributed to into an opportunity to
control climate resilient seeds and climate data. Corporations like
Monsanto have taken 1,500 patents on climate resilient crops. With these
very broad patents, Monsanto and other corporations can prevent access
to climate resilient seeds after climate disasters since a patent is an
exclusive right to produce, distribute and sell the patented product.
This implies that the farmers’ right to save and share seed is now
defined as “theft,” an “intellectual property crime”...n times of climate change, such monopolies aggravate the disaster by blocking farmers’ rights to seeds they have evolved.
Hence, seed as a common good became a commodity of private seed companies, traded on the open market....
The vision of the corporations and sadly the US government is to
privatise every aspect of life — our seeds and biodiversity, the
atmospheric commons, and the knowledge of the climate and weather as a
public good.
At a time when the world needs to recognise that life forms,
including seeds, are not an invention and the US should correct its laws
to be more in alignment with the Rights of the Earth and with human
rights, the US government is threatening India with trade retaliation to
force us to change our patent laws yet again and introduce the
unethical, unscientific and anti-human laws of patent monopolies on seed
and medicine.
America’s National Association of Manufacturers — which represents
about 50 US business groups — gave the suggestion to the US Trade
Representatives’ office to designate India a “Priority Foreign Country”,
a tag it gives to worst offenders of intellectual property rights. This
is not just a US-India dispute. It is a fight against corporate
enclosures of the commons. If we have to survive as a species, we need
to reclaim our commons — of seed, of climate, of knowledge and resist
the privatisation of every aspect of life.
We need to create the commons of the seed and cultivate seed freedom
through seed saving, seed exchange and participatory breeding.
For thousands of years farmers, especially women, have evolved and
bred seed freely with the help of nature to increase the diversity of
what nature gave us and adopt it to the needs of different cultures.
Biodiversity and cultural diversity have mutually shaped one another.
Every seed is an embodiment of millennia of nature’s evolution and
centuries of farmers’ breeding. It is the distilled expression of the
intelligence of the earth and intelligence of farming communities.
Farmers have bred seeds for diversity, resilience, taste, nutrition,
health and to adapt it for local agro-ecosystems.
In times of climate change we need the biodiversity of farmers’
varieties to adapt and evolve. Climate extremes are being experienced
through more frequent and intense cyclones that bring salt water to the
land. To develop resilience against cyclones, we need salt tolerant
varieties of seeds, and we need them in the commons. Along coastal
areas, farmers have evolved flood tolerant and salt tolerant varieties
of rice such as Bhundi, Kalambank, Lunabakada, Sankarchin, Nalidhulia,
Ravana, Seulapuni, Dhosarakhuda.
"By adding one new gene to the cell of a
plant, corporations claimed they had invented and created the seed, the
plant, and all future seeds that were now their property. In other words
GMO meant 'God Move Over.'"
These seeds have been evolved by farmers and need to stay in the commons to gain resilience against climate change.
After the Orissa Supercyclone, Navdanya could distribute salt
tolerant rice to farmers because we had conserved them as a commons in
our community seed bank run by Kusum Mishra and Dr Ashok Panigrahi in
Balasore, Orissa. Hence we were about to donate two truckloads of salt
tolerant seeds to the farmers, who could not grow rice because of the
sea salt deposited on their farms. As I have written in my book—Soil, Not Oil—40
per cent of the greenhouse gases come from an industrialised and
globalised model of agriculture. Having created the crisis,
corporations, who made profits from industrial agriculture, now want to
turn the climate crisis they have contributed to into an opportunity to
control climate resilient seeds and climate data. Corporations like
Monsanto have taken 1,500 patents on climate resilient crops. With these
very broad patents, Monsanto and other corporations can prevent access
to climate resilient seeds after climate disasters since a patent is an
exclusive right to produce, distribute and sell the patented product.
This implies that the farmers’ right to save and share seed is now
defined as “theft,” an “intellectual property crime”...n times of climate change, such monopolies aggravate the disaster by blocking farmers’ rights to seeds they have evolved.
Hence, seed as a common good became a commodity of private seed companies, traded on the open market....
The vision of the corporations and sadly the US government is to
privatise every aspect of life — our seeds and biodiversity, the
atmospheric commons, and the knowledge of the climate and weather as a
public good.
At a time when the world needs to recognise that life forms,
including seeds, are not an invention and the US should correct its laws
to be more in alignment with the Rights of the Earth and with human
rights, the US government is threatening India with trade retaliation to
force us to change our patent laws yet again and introduce the
unethical, unscientific and anti-human laws of patent monopolies on seed
and medicine.
America’s National Association of Manufacturers — which represents
about 50 US business groups — gave the suggestion to the US Trade
Representatives’ office to designate India a “Priority Foreign Country”,
a tag it gives to worst offenders of intellectual property rights. This
is not just a US-India dispute. It is a fight against corporate
enclosures of the commons. If we have to survive as a species, we need
to reclaim our commons — of seed, of climate, of knowledge and resist
the privatisation of every aspect of life.
We need to create the commons of the seed and cultivate seed freedom
through seed saving, seed exchange and participatory breeding.
Organic Consumers Association Statement on GMO Labeling Law Victory in Vermont
Organic Consumers Association Statement on GMO Labeling Law Victory in Vermont
INLAND, Minn. – Today, by a vote of 28-2, the Vermont state Senate passed H.112,
a bill to require mandatory labeling of foods sold in Vermont that
contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The bill also makes it
illegal to call any food product containing GMOs “natural” or “all
natural.” Unlike bills passed last year in Maine and Connecticut, which
require four or five other states to pass GMO labeling laws before they
can be enacted, Vermont’s law contains no “trigger” clauses, making it
the first “clean” GMO labeling law in the country.
Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), issued the following statement: "Today’s victory in Vermont has been 20 years in the making. Ever since
genetically modified crops and foods entered the U.S. food supply in the
early 1990s, without adequate independent pre-market safety testing and
without labels, U.S. consumers have fought to require the labeling of
foods containing GMOs.
Consumer demand for mandatory labeling of GMOs spawned a national
grassroots movement that has persevered despite hundreds of millions of
dollars spent by the biotech and food industries to lobby state
lawmakers in Vermont, and to fund anti-labeling campaigns in California
(2012) and Washington State (2013).
Today, consumers and a number of principled legislators in Vermont made
it clear to Monsanto, Coca-Cola and other opponents of consumers’ right
to know: We will not back down. This movement is here to stay
We expect that Monsanto will sue the state of Vermont in order to
prevent enactment of H.112. We also expect that Monsanto will lose, and
the law will go into effect on schedule, on July 1, 2016.
We expect that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a multi-billion
lobbying group representing more than 300 food, pesticide and drug
makers, will try to pass their “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014,”
introduced last week by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), intended to strip
Vermont, and all other states, of their right to pass GMO labeling laws.
And we expect that Congress will not pass this law, dubbed the DARK
(Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, which seeks to deny consumers
the right to know if their food has been genetically engineered, and
deny states the right to enact laws designed to protect public health.
Vermont’s landmark victory today will force food companies to either
label GMOs in all states, or reformulate their products to be GMO-free
in order to avoid stating “this product was produced using genetic
engineering” on their packaging. When Oregon passes a citizens’ ballot
initiative to label GMOs in November, as we believe it will, the biotech
and food industries will have lost, beyond the shadow of a doubt, their
battle to keep consumers in the dark.
The OCA has worked closely over the past several years with the
pro-labeling grassroots movement in Vermont. Today we congratulate
Vermont activists for their passionate pursuit of this law, Vermont
lawmakers for having the courage to pass the law, and Vermont citizens
for being the first in the country to have the benefit of GMO labels on
their food. And we reaffirm our commitment to work with Oregon and other
states to pass similar laws, and to fight any and all attempts by
industry and/or Congress to overturn these laws.
INLAND, Minn. – Today, by a vote of 28-2, the Vermont state Senate passed H.112,
a bill to require mandatory labeling of foods sold in Vermont that
contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The bill also makes it
illegal to call any food product containing GMOs “natural” or “all
natural.” Unlike bills passed last year in Maine and Connecticut, which
require four or five other states to pass GMO labeling laws before they
can be enacted, Vermont’s law contains no “trigger” clauses, making it
the first “clean” GMO labeling law in the country.
Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), issued the following statement: "Today’s victory in Vermont has been 20 years in the making. Ever since
genetically modified crops and foods entered the U.S. food supply in the
early 1990s, without adequate independent pre-market safety testing and
without labels, U.S. consumers have fought to require the labeling of
foods containing GMOs.
Consumer demand for mandatory labeling of GMOs spawned a national
grassroots movement that has persevered despite hundreds of millions of
dollars spent by the biotech and food industries to lobby state
lawmakers in Vermont, and to fund anti-labeling campaigns in California
(2012) and Washington State (2013).
Today, consumers and a number of principled legislators in Vermont made
it clear to Monsanto, Coca-Cola and other opponents of consumers’ right
to know: We will not back down. This movement is here to stay
We expect that Monsanto will sue the state of Vermont in order to
prevent enactment of H.112. We also expect that Monsanto will lose, and
the law will go into effect on schedule, on July 1, 2016.
We expect that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a multi-billion
lobbying group representing more than 300 food, pesticide and drug
makers, will try to pass their “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014,”
introduced last week by Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), intended to strip
Vermont, and all other states, of their right to pass GMO labeling laws.
And we expect that Congress will not pass this law, dubbed the DARK
(Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act, which seeks to deny consumers
the right to know if their food has been genetically engineered, and
deny states the right to enact laws designed to protect public health.
Vermont’s landmark victory today will force food companies to either
label GMOs in all states, or reformulate their products to be GMO-free
in order to avoid stating “this product was produced using genetic
engineering” on their packaging. When Oregon passes a citizens’ ballot
initiative to label GMOs in November, as we believe it will, the biotech
and food industries will have lost, beyond the shadow of a doubt, their
battle to keep consumers in the dark.
The OCA has worked closely over the past several years with the
pro-labeling grassroots movement in Vermont. Today we congratulate
Vermont activists for their passionate pursuit of this law, Vermont
lawmakers for having the courage to pass the law, and Vermont citizens
for being the first in the country to have the benefit of GMO labels on
their food. And we reaffirm our commitment to work with Oregon and other
states to pass similar laws, and to fight any and all attempts by
industry and/or Congress to overturn these laws.
Sunday
If Fredericton's Morgentaler Clinic Closes, Women Will Die | Anne Theriault
If Fredericton's Morgentaler Clinic Closes, Women Will Die | Anne Theriault
This cannot happen. We cannot, in good conscience, let this happen.
We need to do everything that we can to allow women to exercise
reproductive freedom. We need to stand up for the right of women in New
Brunswick -- and all across Canada -- to have access to safe,
legal abortion.
Our voices, united, can affect change. There are so many things that
you can do to help create a better future for women in this country;
here are just a few:
1. Reach out New Brunswick's NDP party -- they are actively working
to end the two doctor requirement for abortions, and will happily
provide you with the contact information for members of the legislative
assembly so that you can write to your local representative. Call 1-844-NDP-NPD1 or email info@nbndp.ca
2. Put pressure on your MLA to have the law changed by writing to them, calling them, and emailing them
3. Tweet about this using the hashtag #NBProchoice
4. Share this story on social media -- chances are that many
Canadians are not aware of how limited access to abortion is in New
Brunswick
I want to leave you now with one of my favourite quotes from Dr.
Henry Morgentaler, who was a feminist hero, agitator for women's
reproductive rights and founder of the Morgentaler abortion clinics. D.
Morgentaler was a Holocaust survivor, and his experience at Auschwitz
left him with an enormous desire to make the world a better place. While
receiving an honorary doctorate of law from the University of Western
Ontario, he said:
"By fighting for reproductive freedom, and making it possible, I have
made a contribution to a safer and more caring society where people
have a greater opportunity to realize their full potential."
This cannot happen. We cannot, in good conscience, let this happen.
We need to do everything that we can to allow women to exercise
reproductive freedom. We need to stand up for the right of women in New
Brunswick -- and all across Canada -- to have access to safe,
legal abortion.
Our voices, united, can affect change. There are so many things that
you can do to help create a better future for women in this country;
here are just a few:
1. Reach out New Brunswick's NDP party -- they are actively working
to end the two doctor requirement for abortions, and will happily
provide you with the contact information for members of the legislative
assembly so that you can write to your local representative. Call 1-844-NDP-NPD1 or email info@nbndp.ca
2. Put pressure on your MLA to have the law changed by writing to them, calling them, and emailing them
3. Tweet about this using the hashtag #NBProchoice
4. Share this story on social media -- chances are that many
Canadians are not aware of how limited access to abortion is in New
Brunswick
I want to leave you now with one of my favourite quotes from Dr.
Henry Morgentaler, who was a feminist hero, agitator for women's
reproductive rights and founder of the Morgentaler abortion clinics. D.
Morgentaler was a Holocaust survivor, and his experience at Auschwitz
left him with an enormous desire to make the world a better place. While
receiving an honorary doctorate of law from the University of Western
Ontario, he said:
"By fighting for reproductive freedom, and making it possible, I have
made a contribution to a safer and more caring society where people
have a greater opportunity to realize their full potential."
Monday
Fisheries Act no longer protects fish & fish habitat | The Council of Canadians
Fisheries Act no longer protects fish & fish habitat | The Council of Canadians
The Fisheries Act can still be saved. Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans, Hon. Gail Shea, still has the ability to reject the new rule
for the sake of our swimmable, drinkable, fishable waters. We await her
decision.
On World Water Day, the Council of Canadians sent a letter to Prime Minister hopefuls
Justin Trudeau of the Liberal Party of Canada and Thomas Mulcair of the
New Democratic Party of Canada asking them to rollback the changes the
Harper government made to environmental legislation and recommit funds
needed for water research. The Council gave the Prime Minister hopefuls
until Earth Day, April 22, to respond. It is critical to know how Mr.
Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair plan to address the clawback of our fresh water
protections and so we urge you to do the same.
The Fisheries Act can still be saved. Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans, Hon. Gail Shea, still has the ability to reject the new rule
for the sake of our swimmable, drinkable, fishable waters. We await her
decision.
On World Water Day, the Council of Canadians sent a letter to Prime Minister hopefuls
Justin Trudeau of the Liberal Party of Canada and Thomas Mulcair of the
New Democratic Party of Canada asking them to rollback the changes the
Harper government made to environmental legislation and recommit funds
needed for water research. The Council gave the Prime Minister hopefuls
until Earth Day, April 22, to respond. It is critical to know how Mr.
Trudeau and Mr. Mulcair plan to address the clawback of our fresh water
protections and so we urge you to do the same.
Wednesday
Intel's lead on conflict minerals presents a human rights challenge for business
Intel's lead on conflict minerals presents a human rights challenge for business
Intel Corp has spent more than five years figuring out how to rid its supply chain of minerals that finance violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo region, and now it is offering to show other companies how they can do the same.
Intel’s offer to “open source” its methods for verifying that none of its products contain minerals from armed groups involved in the DRC conflict could save other companies significant amounts of
money and give them a head start in meeting new U.S. regulations that require them to certify their products are conflict free.
“For us, this has always been about doing the right thing,” Intel CEO Brian Krzanich said at a meeting in the U.S. Senate offices on Wednesday with DRC officials where he announced the move.
Its decision to work on stanching a multimillion dollar mineral trade - used by rebel groups to finance one of the world’s longest running and most brutal conflicts - stands in contrast to how leading representatives of corporate America have responded to the tragedy.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and National Association of Manufacturers have sued to overturn or limit the conflict minerals rule, adopted by Congress in 2010. They argued
before the U.S. Court of Appeals in January that it is impractical, too costly, and would force them to make political statements about the content of their products, in violation of their First Amendment freedom of speech rights.
At the heart of their arguments is that business should not \be dragged into fundamentally political issues and that they should not be held responsible for righting the wrongs of the world. Strategically their lawsuit is a pushback against the trend for global corporations to take more responsibility for labour conditions, environment, corruption and human rights - issues that traditionally were the realm of the state...
Voluntary accords have succeeded in setting a commonly agreed set of global standards, said Arvind Ganesan, director of the business and human rights division of Human Rights Watch. The technology industry has agreed on privacy standards; security standards have been negotiated. The United Nations has formed the Global Compact for business members who sign up to a common framework for human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption. The U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in 2011 lay out responsibilities.
But voluntary accords can only help so much. “The strain today is that we never intended voluntary accords to be the only ones. Our thinking was that they would become law because we rarely see companies or governments adopt human rights out of enlightened self interest,” Ganesan said...
In the United States, corporate lobbies have challenged both the extractives disclosure and conflict minerals laws in court, arguing they overreach and impose too heavy a burden on business. Certainly they can carry sizable costs. The Securities and Exchange Commission estimates that about 6,000 companies are affected by the conflict minerals rule and it will cost them between $3 billion and $6 billion to check their supply chain, with ongoing annual costs of $207 million to $609 million.
This is where Intel comes in. Carolyn Duran, Intel’s director of supply chain, said it took a long time to develop its system for bagging, tagging and verifying minerals as they reach the smelter. Now the costs are manageable and other companies can benefit by learning from its experience.
Intel Corp has spent more than five years figuring out how to rid its supply chain of minerals that finance violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo region, and now it is offering to show other companies how they can do the same.
Intel’s offer to “open source” its methods for verifying that none of its products contain minerals from armed groups involved in the DRC conflict could save other companies significant amounts of
money and give them a head start in meeting new U.S. regulations that require them to certify their products are conflict free.
“For us, this has always been about doing the right thing,” Intel CEO Brian Krzanich said at a meeting in the U.S. Senate offices on Wednesday with DRC officials where he announced the move.
Its decision to work on stanching a multimillion dollar mineral trade - used by rebel groups to finance one of the world’s longest running and most brutal conflicts - stands in contrast to how leading representatives of corporate America have responded to the tragedy.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and National Association of Manufacturers have sued to overturn or limit the conflict minerals rule, adopted by Congress in 2010. They argued
before the U.S. Court of Appeals in January that it is impractical, too costly, and would force them to make political statements about the content of their products, in violation of their First Amendment freedom of speech rights.
At the heart of their arguments is that business should not \be dragged into fundamentally political issues and that they should not be held responsible for righting the wrongs of the world. Strategically their lawsuit is a pushback against the trend for global corporations to take more responsibility for labour conditions, environment, corruption and human rights - issues that traditionally were the realm of the state...
Voluntary accords have succeeded in setting a commonly agreed set of global standards, said Arvind Ganesan, director of the business and human rights division of Human Rights Watch. The technology industry has agreed on privacy standards; security standards have been negotiated. The United Nations has formed the Global Compact for business members who sign up to a common framework for human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption. The U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights in 2011 lay out responsibilities.
But voluntary accords can only help so much. “The strain today is that we never intended voluntary accords to be the only ones. Our thinking was that they would become law because we rarely see companies or governments adopt human rights out of enlightened self interest,” Ganesan said...
In the United States, corporate lobbies have challenged both the extractives disclosure and conflict minerals laws in court, arguing they overreach and impose too heavy a burden on business. Certainly they can carry sizable costs. The Securities and Exchange Commission estimates that about 6,000 companies are affected by the conflict minerals rule and it will cost them between $3 billion and $6 billion to check their supply chain, with ongoing annual costs of $207 million to $609 million.
This is where Intel comes in. Carolyn Duran, Intel’s director of supply chain, said it took a long time to develop its system for bagging, tagging and verifying minerals as they reach the smelter. Now the costs are manageable and other companies can benefit by learning from its experience.
Elizabeth May to John Kerry on Keystone
Support Elizabeth's Letter to John Kerry | Green Party of Canada
lizabeth May has written to US Secretary of State John Kerry to urge him to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
- Keystone hurts the Canadian economy:
The Keystone pipeline -- along with the other proposed pipelines across
the country -- would carry unrefined bitumen mixed with “diluents”
(dilbit). These projects would make Canada's economy even more dependent
on the export of unprocessed fossil fuels, leaving us in a vulnerable
position when the carbon bubble bursts.
- Keystone doesn’t promote North American energy security:
As proposed, the diluents which are added to make dilbit would come
from Saudi Arabia, so dilbit would not be the 100% Canadian product
being advertised. Since the diluents which are added to make dilbit
would come from Saudi Arabia, shipping raw bitumen by pipeline would do
nothing to unplug North American from Middle East energy dependency.
- Keystone won’t replace rail transportation:
We can do the math -- if Stephen Harper succeeds with his plan to
increase oil sands production to 6 million barrels per day (mbd), then
even with Keystone’s capacity of 0.8 mbd and Enbridge’s 0.5 mbd we would
be well short of transporting it all by pipeline. In fact, bitumen
transport by rail would have to increase, creating an even larger load
on our already struggling rail infrastructure
- Keystone limits our ability to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
There is no doubt, based on the US State Department’s report, that
Keystone will lead to growth in the oil sands. And that is what this
issue is about. Reaching Stephen Harper’s goal of 6 mbd is simply not
possible without Keystone XL. At Copenhagen, Canada promised to reduce
CO2 emissions from our 2005 level of 737 megatons (MT) to 607 MT by
2020. Under Stephen Harper’s leadership our emissions are on track to be
734 MT -- all progress on emission reduction at the provincial level is
being wiped out by oil sands growth.
Canada needs a domestic energy strategy and a real climate plan that makes sense.
Add your name in support of Elizabeth’s letter to John Kerry. Together we
can send a message to the Obama administration that this pipeline is in
neither of our countries’ best interest.
lizabeth May has written to US Secretary of State John Kerry to urge him to reject the proposed Keystone XL pipeline.
- Keystone hurts the Canadian economy:
The Keystone pipeline -- along with the other proposed pipelines across
the country -- would carry unrefined bitumen mixed with “diluents”
(dilbit). These projects would make Canada's economy even more dependent
on the export of unprocessed fossil fuels, leaving us in a vulnerable
position when the carbon bubble bursts.
- Keystone doesn’t promote North American energy security:
As proposed, the diluents which are added to make dilbit would come
from Saudi Arabia, so dilbit would not be the 100% Canadian product
being advertised. Since the diluents which are added to make dilbit
would come from Saudi Arabia, shipping raw bitumen by pipeline would do
nothing to unplug North American from Middle East energy dependency.
- Keystone won’t replace rail transportation:
We can do the math -- if Stephen Harper succeeds with his plan to
increase oil sands production to 6 million barrels per day (mbd), then
even with Keystone’s capacity of 0.8 mbd and Enbridge’s 0.5 mbd we would
be well short of transporting it all by pipeline. In fact, bitumen
transport by rail would have to increase, creating an even larger load
on our already struggling rail infrastructure
- Keystone limits our ability to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
There is no doubt, based on the US State Department’s report, that
Keystone will lead to growth in the oil sands. And that is what this
issue is about. Reaching Stephen Harper’s goal of 6 mbd is simply not
possible without Keystone XL. At Copenhagen, Canada promised to reduce
CO2 emissions from our 2005 level of 737 megatons (MT) to 607 MT by
2020. Under Stephen Harper’s leadership our emissions are on track to be
734 MT -- all progress on emission reduction at the provincial level is
being wiped out by oil sands growth.
Canada needs a domestic energy strategy and a real climate plan that makes sense.
Add your name in support of Elizabeth’s letter to John Kerry. Together we
can send a message to the Obama administration that this pipeline is in
neither of our countries’ best interest.
Monday
Could Toronto be the next Lac-Mégantic disaster? | The Council of Canadians
Could Toronto be the next Lac-Mégantic disaster? | The Council of Canadians
A poll released by Forum Research this weekend shows that two thirds of Toronto residents feel rail shipments of flammable crude oil should not be allowed through Toronto.
The Toronto Star Reports that, "out of 1,271 Torontonians aged 18 years or older, 69 per cent said the
dangerous good should not be carried by rail through Toronto."
“Most Torontonians don’t know the train that exploded in Lac-Mégantic was scheduled to pass through Toronto on the old CP rail line north of Dupont St. a few days later,” said Forum president Lorne Bozinoff.
A leading rail transportation expert Greg Gormack, who has done research for CP, CN and the Canadian government, recently stated, “I’m not an alarmist, but a derailment can occur anywhere. What would happen if a train derailed say over the bridge across Yonge St. or Avenue Rd, right in the heart of the city? It would be cataclysmic!”
Even more alarming is numerous studies have indicated that the dangerous DOT-111 tank cars — the type involved in July's fiery explosion at Lac Megantic, Quebec — caring highly flammable crude are, "trundling on rail lines through the heart of Toronto in aged tank cars widely recognized as substandard." This mixture is more volatile than gasoline according to the recent Transportation Safety Board of Canada Report.
DOT-111 cars were flagged as problematic beginning in the 1990s due to their tendency to breach in a derailment. Yet, oil shipments by rail have increased dramatically in Canada to an estimated 140,000 in 2013, Bakkan crude which explosive than traditional crude.
"Also rising in number are the tank cars using the Canadian Pacific rail line that runs through Toronto from the Junction neighbourhood along Dupont St. before curving northward just west of the Don Valley."
A poll released by Forum Research this weekend shows that two thirds of Toronto residents feel rail shipments of flammable crude oil should not be allowed through Toronto.
The Toronto Star Reports that, "out of 1,271 Torontonians aged 18 years or older, 69 per cent said the
dangerous good should not be carried by rail through Toronto."
“Most Torontonians don’t know the train that exploded in Lac-Mégantic was scheduled to pass through Toronto on the old CP rail line north of Dupont St. a few days later,” said Forum president Lorne Bozinoff.
A leading rail transportation expert Greg Gormack, who has done research for CP, CN and the Canadian government, recently stated, “I’m not an alarmist, but a derailment can occur anywhere. What would happen if a train derailed say over the bridge across Yonge St. or Avenue Rd, right in the heart of the city? It would be cataclysmic!”
Even more alarming is numerous studies have indicated that the dangerous DOT-111 tank cars — the type involved in July's fiery explosion at Lac Megantic, Quebec — caring highly flammable crude are, "trundling on rail lines through the heart of Toronto in aged tank cars widely recognized as substandard." This mixture is more volatile than gasoline according to the recent Transportation Safety Board of Canada Report.
DOT-111 cars were flagged as problematic beginning in the 1990s due to their tendency to breach in a derailment. Yet, oil shipments by rail have increased dramatically in Canada to an estimated 140,000 in 2013, Bakkan crude which explosive than traditional crude.
"Also rising in number are the tank cars using the Canadian Pacific rail line that runs through Toronto from the Junction neighbourhood along Dupont St. before curving northward just west of the Don Valley."
Friday
Action Alert: Ontarians, support the legislation to stop for-profit blood collection | The Council of Canadians
Action Alert: Ontarians, support the legislation to stop for-profit blood collection | The Council of Canadians
The World Health Organization recommends a 100% voluntary blood collection
system for safety. Canadian Blood Services does occasionally advertise
when the blood supply is low, but for the most part they’ve been able to
meet their demands, even closing down a clinic in Thunder Bay because there was no need for additional blood....
There is simply no need for for-profit plasma clinics and it puts Canada’s current blood supply at risk. During the 1980s 20,000 Canadians were infected with hepatitis C, 11,000 with HIV.
TAKE ACTION!
The Ontario Liberal government has announced that they will introduce
legislation to stop the practice of for-profit plasma collection.
Please email or call your MPP today to support strong legislation
ensuring the safety of Ontario’s blood supply by making it our goal to
have 100% voluntary blood collection. We need all political parties to
support this very important legislation.
To find the contact information for your MPP please go to: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/members_current.do?locale=en
For Twitter users, please tweet your MPP asking for their public support of a 100% voluntary blood collection system in Ontario.
The World Health Organization recommends a 100% voluntary blood collection
system for safety. Canadian Blood Services does occasionally advertise
when the blood supply is low, but for the most part they’ve been able to
meet their demands, even closing down a clinic in Thunder Bay because there was no need for additional blood....
There is simply no need for for-profit plasma clinics and it puts Canada’s current blood supply at risk. During the 1980s 20,000 Canadians were infected with hepatitis C, 11,000 with HIV.
TAKE ACTION!
The Ontario Liberal government has announced that they will introduce
legislation to stop the practice of for-profit plasma collection.
Please email or call your MPP today to support strong legislation
ensuring the safety of Ontario’s blood supply by making it our goal to
have 100% voluntary blood collection. We need all political parties to
support this very important legislation.
To find the contact information for your MPP please go to: http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/members/members_current.do?locale=en
For Twitter users, please tweet your MPP asking for their public support of a 100% voluntary blood collection system in Ontario.
Tags:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)