Friday, April 30, 2010
Hard lesson in the Gulf of Mexico
Green Party of Canada
The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a terrible lesson in why society needs to move away from petroleum fuels. As a nation, Canada must continue to withstand pressure for oil tankers in British Columbian waters and keep relatively pristine areas such as Georges Bank and the Arctic free of oil and gas development.
"In our desperation to continue our inefficient use of fossil fuels, we have begun drilling in more remote areas, and the costs far outweigh the benefits to our economy," said Green Leader Elizabeth May.
The devastation from the spreading oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico will be widespread. Occurring during spawning and nesting season, countless fish and bird species will be decimated, as well as amphibians, marine mammals, sharks and turtles.
"What is happening to the Gulf Coast as a result of this oil spill is heartbreaking," said May. "The ecological and human costs are staggering-all due to our society's love affair with fossil fuels. It is a wake up call that we must start doing things differently-in terms of where we drill, the safety regulations around rigs, and most importantly, weaning ourselves off this energy source."
"It was Winston Churchill who coined the famous phrase 'The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences'" said Green Natural Resources Critic Cathy MacLellan. "The scene that is playing out in the Gulf of Mexico is a consequence of our need to use the oil that is in the most remote places on the earth. Whether it is kilometres beneath the sea, or in the far North, oil companies with full backing of governments are allowed to minimize the dangers to workers and the planet's natural resources."
"Enbridge declares that 'oil transforms the economy'. This is certainly true and the transformation of the Louisiana economy due to this oil invasion in their fishing waters will be devastating. We do not want this repeated in our Arctic waters," continued MacLellan.
http://www.greenparty.ca/
"In our desperation to continue our inefficient use of fossil fuels, we have begun drilling in more remote areas, and the costs far outweigh the benefits to our economy," said Green Leader Elizabeth May.
The devastation from the spreading oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico will be widespread. Occurring during spawning and nesting season, countless fish and bird species will be decimated, as well as amphibians, marine mammals, sharks and turtles.
"What is happening to the Gulf Coast as a result of this oil spill is heartbreaking," said May. "The ecological and human costs are staggering-all due to our society's love affair with fossil fuels. It is a wake up call that we must start doing things differently-in terms of where we drill, the safety regulations around rigs, and most importantly, weaning ourselves off this energy source."
"It was Winston Churchill who coined the famous phrase 'The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences'" said Green Natural Resources Critic Cathy MacLellan. "The scene that is playing out in the Gulf of Mexico is a consequence of our need to use the oil that is in the most remote places on the earth. Whether it is kilometres beneath the sea, or in the far North, oil companies with full backing of governments are allowed to minimize the dangers to workers and the planet's natural resources."
"Enbridge declares that 'oil transforms the economy'. This is certainly true and the transformation of the Louisiana economy due to this oil invasion in their fishing waters will be devastating. We do not want this repeated in our Arctic waters," continued MacLellan.
http://www.greenparty.ca/
Gulf oil spill offers lessons for Canada's Arctic: WWF
By Randy Boswell
Canwest News Service
The intensifying oil-spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico is a clear warning to other countries — particularly Canada, with its eyes on potential Arctic petroleum riches — to approach offshore oil and gas projects with extreme caution, the World Wildlife Fund contends.
The global environmental group — which earlier this week issued a report calling for an international Arctic treaty to protect the region from over-exploitation — sounded the alarm again on Thursday as the U.S. government declared the Gulf spill a national disaster and American coastal states braced for major threats to wildlife, fisheries and tourism.
"British Petroleum's inability to contain the Gulf of Mexico oil spill highlights the urgent need to improve oil and gas emergency management in all coastal waters — and particularly in the pristine Arctic," WWF-Canada officials said in a statement.
"In Canada, the government approves Arctic oil and gas leases without undertaking any prior environmental assessments, without taking formal risks assessments and without requirements for an emergency management plan to be in place — all required in the U.S."
The catastrophic impacts of a major Arctic oil spill were made clear in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground off the coast of Alaska. More than 40 million litres of crude oil drained from the disabled ship, fouling Alaska's Prince William Sound and creating one of the world's worst environmental disasters.
But interest in exploiting the circumpolar region's vast petroleum reserves — believed to amount to about one-quarter of the planet's untapped resource — has risen dramatically in recent years because melting sea ice promises safer and easier access to undersea deposits.
The governments of the five Arctic Ocean coastal countries — Canada, the U.S., Norway, Russia and Denmark — are all expecting to take advantage of offshore oil and gas opportunities in unlocked Arctic waters, but have also pledged not to let economic imperatives trump ecological interests in the region.
U.S. President Barack Obama recently announced his administration was lifting a moratorium on new offshore oil-drilling projects, though only cautious steps were taken to permit future extraction off Alaska's shore.
Both the U.S. and Canada have identified the Beaufort Sea north of Yukon and Alaska as a prime petroleum target, despite a jurisdictional dispute over the maritime boundary between the two countries in that region.
While both countries have auctioned oil-exploration leases in specified sections of the Beaufort, kick-starting projects in the remote region is well known to be an expensive and environmentally risky proposition.
WWF-Canada's Arctic program director, Craig Stewart, said in Thursday's statement that Canada should be closely watching the unfolding Gulf of Mexico catastrophe and learning lessons about the huge risks of offshore oil development in the polar environment.
"The Beaufort is the vanguard of oil and gas development in our Arctic. The BP disaster in the Gulf shows why we (need) better environmental safeguards and emergency management measures if drilling is to proceed in the offshore," Stewart stated.
"If it could happen to BP and TransOcean in the Gulf, it could happen to any operation, anywhere."
The WWF statement made note of the fact that BP recently acquired what it called the "largest offshore lease in Canadian history" — a $1.2-billion payout for the right to develop projects in areas that include "ecologically sensitive" zones of the Beaufort.
"In the Gulf of Mexico, BP's Deepwater Horizon rig wasn't located in such a sensitive area as U.S. regulations would not permit it," the WWF statement said. "Response crews have had some time, at least to try to contain the spill. In the Beaufort, BP wouldn't have the same luxury."
Canwest News Service
The global environmental group — which earlier this week issued a report calling for an international Arctic treaty to protect the region from over-exploitation — sounded the alarm again on Thursday as the U.S. government declared the Gulf spill a national disaster and American coastal states braced for major threats to wildlife, fisheries and tourism.
"British Petroleum's inability to contain the Gulf of Mexico oil spill highlights the urgent need to improve oil and gas emergency management in all coastal waters — and particularly in the pristine Arctic," WWF-Canada officials said in a statement.
"In Canada, the government approves Arctic oil and gas leases without undertaking any prior environmental assessments, without taking formal risks assessments and without requirements for an emergency management plan to be in place — all required in the U.S."
The catastrophic impacts of a major Arctic oil spill were made clear in 1989 when the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground off the coast of Alaska. More than 40 million litres of crude oil drained from the disabled ship, fouling Alaska's Prince William Sound and creating one of the world's worst environmental disasters.
But interest in exploiting the circumpolar region's vast petroleum reserves — believed to amount to about one-quarter of the planet's untapped resource — has risen dramatically in recent years because melting sea ice promises safer and easier access to undersea deposits.
The governments of the five Arctic Ocean coastal countries — Canada, the U.S., Norway, Russia and Denmark — are all expecting to take advantage of offshore oil and gas opportunities in unlocked Arctic waters, but have also pledged not to let economic imperatives trump ecological interests in the region.
U.S. President Barack Obama recently announced his administration was lifting a moratorium on new offshore oil-drilling projects, though only cautious steps were taken to permit future extraction off Alaska's shore.
Both the U.S. and Canada have identified the Beaufort Sea north of Yukon and Alaska as a prime petroleum target, despite a jurisdictional dispute over the maritime boundary between the two countries in that region.
WWF-Canada's Arctic program director, Craig Stewart, said in Thursday's statement that Canada should be closely watching the unfolding Gulf of Mexico catastrophe and learning lessons about the huge risks of offshore oil development in the polar environment.
"The Beaufort is the vanguard of oil and gas development in our Arctic. The BP disaster in the Gulf shows why we (need) better environmental safeguards and emergency management measures if drilling is to proceed in the offshore," Stewart stated.
"If it could happen to BP and TransOcean in the Gulf, it could happen to any operation, anywhere."
The WWF statement made note of the fact that BP recently acquired what it called the "largest offshore lease in Canadian history" — a $1.2-billion payout for the right to develop projects in areas that include "ecologically sensitive" zones of the Beaufort.
"In the Gulf of Mexico, BP's Deepwater Horizon rig wasn't located in such a sensitive area as U.S. regulations would not permit it," the WWF statement said. "Response crews have had some time, at least to try to contain the spill. In the Beaufort, BP wouldn't have the same luxury."
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Real Freedom: Marxism, Anarchism, Liberation
By Sebastian LambAn editor of New Socialist, the publication of the New Socialist Group in Canada.
"So this is freedom — they must be joking." - The Housemartins
"So this is freedom — they must be joking." - The Housemartins
We live in a free society. Or at least that's what we're constantly told.
But it doesn't take much effort to see what's wrong with this claim. How freeare people who live without adequate food and shelter? How free are we in theplaces where we work for pay? Lesbians and gays can marry, but heterosexismstill scars the lives of queer people. Equal rights in law don't translate into real equality for women, people of colour, immigrants, indigenous people andpeople with disabilities.
All this points to an important truth: even in the wealthiest capitalistcountries, such as the Canadian state, we are far from free.
It's not that there's no freedom. In some ways, capitalist societies are freerthan the other class-divided societies they replaced in much of the world. The French Revolution of the 1790s and other revolutions eroded or dismantled some forms of domination that were an obstacle to capitalist development, such as the
rights of nobles and monarchs that restricted the powers of rich "commoners."
These revolutions opened the door to radical people's struggles for freedom. Butsuch struggles were repressed so that capitalists could reap the benefits ofchange without risking the loss of their own property and power.
But while it dismantled some forms of domination and oppression, capitalismreproduced and intensified others. Capitalist colonialism gave rise to a newform of oppression, racism. So it is highly misleading to paint a picture offreedom as the essence of capitalism.
Unfreedom
Sadly, these advances don't come close to making this a free society. Theworkplaces where society's goods and services are produced are managerial dictatorships. Decisions that affect our lives are made by capitalists who are never elected, governments that aren't accountable between elections, and top state officials for whom no one ever casts a ballot. Immigrants excluded from citizenship have even less influence over who governs us.
Sexism, racism, heterosexism and other forms of oppression are still part of thefabric of society. The Canadian state is a colonial settler-state that denies indigenous peoples and the Québecois the right to determine their own destinies without interference from the dominant Canadian nation. The young demonstrators who chanted "The Communist World is not communist, the Free World is not free!" in the late 1960s were right. Almost all of the Stalinist dictatorships that passed themselves off as "Communist" have collapsed. However, the end of the Cold War did not bring about freedom — just ask the people of occupied Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan.
A Radical View
But what would a free society look like? Socialists of different stripes have long argued that capitalism cannot deliver on its promise of freedom, and that it will take a radical transformation of society to realize that possibility.
Unfortunately, most socialists have seen socialism as something that can be achieved by a committed minority (such as a party or army) on behalf of the majority. For such supporters of socialism from above, freedom is at best a secondary concern and at worst merely rhetoric.
A minority of socialists have always disagreed with this. For supporters of socialism from below, a free society — a society without class divisions, state power or oppression — cannot be handed down by a minority, no matter how sincere. It will be achieved as a result of the self-organized struggles of the exploited and oppressed themselves or not at all.
Today, anarchist supporters of socialism from below are more well-known for their commitment to a free society than Marxist socialists. For example, anarcho-communist Alexander Berkman wrote in 1929 that "we can live in a society where there is no compulsion of any kind… freedom from being forced or coerced,
a chance to live the life that suits you best."
Yet certain Marxist traditions have long articulated a strong revolutionary vision of a free society. The following lines appeared in 1847 in a publication of the political group to which Karl Marx then belonged: "We are not among those communists who are out to destroy personal liberty, who wish to turn the world
into one huge barrack or into a gigantic workhouse. There certainly are some communists who, with an easy conscience, refuse to countenance personal liberty and would like to shuffle it out of the world because they consider that it is a hindrance to complete harmony. But we have no desire to exchange freedom for
equality. We are convinced… that in no social order will personal freedom be so assured as in a society based upon communal ownership."
Not all supporters of socialism from below have been as clear as this. But it is in this tradition that we find a truly radical view of freedom.
Real Freedom
Freedom is not just the absence of constraints. Freedom lies in our ability to choose among options and to create new options for ourselves and for others.To say that freedom is inherently social doesn't mean that individual liberty is unimportant. It doesn't mean that individuals need to subordinate themselves to other individuals or to social institutions acting in the name of the common good. There is a big difference between individualism (acting and thinking in one's own narrow self-interest), and individual liberty.
The flowering of true individuality requires a society in which everyone is free. There must be free time — time in which people are free to do whatever they choose, so long as this doesn't involve harming others. This requires a reduction in the time people spend producing the services and goods that society needs.
For this to happen, the world of work would have to be transformed. Workplaces would have to be democratized, so that workers manage themselves. Production would be for need, not for profit. The goals and products of labour would be determined through democratic planning, guided by ecological concerns. The overall organization of workplaces and the content of jobs would need to be reorganized in order to undermine divisions among workers such as those between manual and mental labour, and between unpleasant and more enjoyable tasks.
All across society, authoritarian hierarchies would have to be replaced by democratic structures for making and implementing decisions. As the anarchist socialist Murray Bookchin argued, "A free society will either be democratic, or it will not be achieved at all."
An inconsistent commitment to socialist democracy in theory and practice has weakened the struggle for a free society. Such inconsistency can be seen in the functioning of many Marxist and anarchist groups. It is also evident in the writings of influential Marxist socialists Frederick Engels, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky and major anarchist socialists such as Emma Goldman.
An Impossibility?
Yet what is striking about much of contemporary anarchism is that it is not dedicated to the struggle for a free, democratic, socialist society.
Take, for example, writer Derrick Jensen. He argues that "civilization" (by which he means societies with cities) "is not and can never be sustainable. This is especially true for industrial civilization… Civilization is not redeemable… civilization turns the entire world into a labour camp, then a death camp… the endpoint of civilization is assembly-line mass murder." So much for the possibility of freedom.
As Bookchin argued against earlier anti-civilization anarchists, to denounce civilization as inherently oppressive of humanity in fact serves to veil the specific social relations that privilege exploiters over the exploited and hierarchs over their subordinates." It is not civilization but capitalism that has caused a global ecological crisis, thanks to its cancerous profit-driven expansion. Capitalism, not urban society, made the Nazi killing machine possible.
The politics of Canadian anarchist Richard Day are not reactionary like Jensen's, but he too rejects the struggle for a free society. His book Gramsci is Dead dismisses all politics of revolutionary social transformation (which he caricatures) and the possibility of a society without exploitation and oppression. In this, he openly follows two French thinkers: Michel Foucault, who saw revolutions as leading inevitably to new forms of domination and Jean Baudrillard, with whom Day agrees that "the masses" in the advanced capitalist countries have no "political potential."
Day reaches this conclusion without anything resembling a careful study of the actual history of the past century of social struggles. Since he sees a free society as impossible, he argues that the best that can be hoped for is small-scale moments of freedom in the here and now, from battles against oppression to the creation of "alternative economies" like worker-run small businesses.
It should come as no surprise that ideas like Day's are appealing to some people in societies like Canada. In this time and place, ecological crisis, exploitation and oppression are all too visible. However, the low level of
popular resistance and the weakness of the radical left make mass movements and revolutionary change seem impossible.
Another World Is Possible
So long as we believe that it is not impossible, there is good reason to do whatever we can to make this possibility more likely.
Fortunately, there are still people who refuse to abandon the slogan "Another World is Possible!" made famous by the global justice movement before the events of September 11, 2001. There are still voices insisting that this possible world must be a society of real freedom, beyond capitalism and the forms of oppression intertwined with it.
Hope in the possibility of real freedom has been extinguished even among many of those who clearly see the horrors that capitalism has unleashed, and dread the greater horrors it promises to deliver in the future. The few who maintain a revolutionary vision of freedom differ among ourselves on many issues. But small in number as we are, we would be wise to get clear about what we agree on and what we can do together.
By all means, we should discuss and debate our disagreements, but let's keep these in perspective. The most fundamental political division among radicals today is not between "anarchists" and "Marxists." People who accept these labels disagree among themselves more than they agree. The real division is between anti-capitalists who believe that liberation is possible and worth fighting for and those who, influenced by the despair and political confusion of our times, are resigned to the present reality of unfreedom.
Arctic oil drilling threatens Norway government
Gwladys Foche
OSLO, Tue Apr 13, 2010
Credit: Reuters
A classic battle pitting the oil industry against environmentalists and fishermen in Norway's Arctic seas is set to intensify on Thursday when the most thorough environmental study of the project to date is released.
"If I were to point to one conflict that could spell the end of the present government, it would be this issue," said Frank Aarebrot, professor of comparative politics at the University of Bergen.
The Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, has kept the door open for drilling and has in the past been a supporter of the oil industry. But Labour's coalition partners, the Socialist Left and the Center party, are against.
The report commissioned by the environment ministry will assess conditions in the seas off the Arctic islands and assess the potential risks posed by oil and gas activities.
The area off Lofoten could hold some 20 percent of all remaining undiscovered reserves on the Norwegian continental shelf, according to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD), at a time when petroleum production is on the decline.
Oil production in Norway peaked in 2001.
"In the long run Norway cannot afford not to investigate what is out there," Oystein Michelsen, Statoil's head of exploration and production in Norway, said.
"It's important for the country, there is a lot of value there. We should benefit from it," he told Reuters.
Not everyone is welcoming a potential oil boom in the region, however.
The seas off the islands are home to the spawning grounds of the world's largest cod stock and fishermen and environmentalists fear oil activities could endanger them.
"If any marine areas in Europe should be protected against the risk of oil exploration, these are the first candidates," said Rasmus Hansson, Secretary General of the World Wildlife Fund in Norway.
"They are the most productive and most valuable marine areas in Europe, no doubt about it," he told Reuters.
Thursday's report will be followed Friday with NPD's own report evaluating how much oil and gas could potentially be found in the areas, the result of seismic surveys it conducted.
The government is expected to make a decision on the issue by the end of 2010.
Aarebrot anticipated that Labour would be willing to break up the governing coalition on the issue as it could continue governing in a minority government.
In addition, he said, the politicians ruling northern Norway, a Labour stronghold, are in favor of oil drilling.
"It will be very difficult for Labour to deny the people in the North to have the same possibilities as the people in the West (where the oil industry in based) because they have many representatives in that region," he said.
About the Socialist Left Party
The red and the green is the basis for the Socialist Left Party of Norway’s (with the Norwegian abbreviation SV) policy.
“Change the world, it needs it”, was the appeal from Bertold Brecht. SV works for a fundamental change of the society. The differences between the richest and the poorest in the world are enormous. We live in a world where the 500 biggest companies own more than the 50 poorest countries. We live in a world where over a thousand million people have to survive on less than a dollar per day. Norway is one of the richest countries in the world. Still we have poverty. Still we experience that schools and other public services are declining. Furthermore, the global environmental challenges are huge. We know that the greenhouse effect can lead to big, negative changes in the world’s climate and environment. If we are to prevent this, we have to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, especially in the richest part of the world. SV is working for solid and just solutions on these challenges.
Different people. Equal opportunities.
Read about our main objectives in this leaflet made for the 2009 election
Election Manifesto of the Socialist Left Party of Norway (SV), (English).pdf 452,05 kB
OSLO, Tue Apr 13, 2010
Credit: Reuters
A classic battle pitting the oil industry against environmentalists and fishermen in Norway's Arctic seas is set to intensify on Thursday when the most thorough environmental study of the project to date is released.Extracting oil from the chilly waters off the Lofoten and Vesteraalen islands is so divisive it could wreck the ruling Labour Party's coalition in this Nordic state that is the world's fifth largest oil and third largest gas exporter but also sees itself as a leader in environmental policies.
"If I were to point to one conflict that could spell the end of the present government, it would be this issue," said Frank Aarebrot, professor of comparative politics at the University of Bergen.
The Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, has kept the door open for drilling and has in the past been a supporter of the oil industry. But Labour's coalition partners, the Socialist Left and the Center party, are against.
The report commissioned by the environment ministry will assess conditions in the seas off the Arctic islands and assess the potential risks posed by oil and gas activities.
The area off Lofoten could hold some 20 percent of all remaining undiscovered reserves on the Norwegian continental shelf, according to the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD), at a time when petroleum production is on the decline.
Oil production in Norway peaked in 2001.
"In the long run Norway cannot afford not to investigate what is out there," Oystein Michelsen, Statoil's head of exploration and production in Norway, said.
"It's important for the country, there is a lot of value there. We should benefit from it," he told Reuters.
Not everyone is welcoming a potential oil boom in the region, however.
The seas off the islands are home to the spawning grounds of the world's largest cod stock and fishermen and environmentalists fear oil activities could endanger them.
"If any marine areas in Europe should be protected against the risk of oil exploration, these are the first candidates," said Rasmus Hansson, Secretary General of the World Wildlife Fund in Norway.
"They are the most productive and most valuable marine areas in Europe, no doubt about it," he told Reuters.
Thursday's report will be followed Friday with NPD's own report evaluating how much oil and gas could potentially be found in the areas, the result of seismic surveys it conducted.
The government is expected to make a decision on the issue by the end of 2010.
Aarebrot anticipated that Labour would be willing to break up the governing coalition on the issue as it could continue governing in a minority government.
In addition, he said, the politicians ruling northern Norway, a Labour stronghold, are in favor of oil drilling.
"It will be very difficult for Labour to deny the people in the North to have the same possibilities as the people in the West (where the oil industry in based) because they have many representatives in that region," he said.
About the Socialist Left Party
The red and the green is the basis for the Socialist Left Party of Norway’s (with the Norwegian abbreviation SV) policy. The red symbolises that we want a society without class differences and social injustice. The green symbolises our work for an ecological sustainable society for the generations to come. All SV’s work in the Parliament, in local councils and in the party organisation, aim at a more just society with better environment.
“Change the world, it needs it”, was the appeal from Bertold Brecht. SV works for a fundamental change of the society. The differences between the richest and the poorest in the world are enormous. We live in a world where the 500 biggest companies own more than the 50 poorest countries. We live in a world where over a thousand million people have to survive on less than a dollar per day. Norway is one of the richest countries in the world. Still we have poverty. Still we experience that schools and other public services are declining. Furthermore, the global environmental challenges are huge. We know that the greenhouse effect can lead to big, negative changes in the world’s climate and environment. If we are to prevent this, we have to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, especially in the richest part of the world. SV is working for solid and just solutions on these challenges.
Different people. Equal opportunities.
Read about our main objectives in this leaflet made for the 2009 election
Election Manifesto of the Socialist Left Party of Norway (SV), (English).pdf 452,05 kB
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Environmental protesters accuse RBS of 'deplorable' lending policies
By Alistair Dawber
The Independent
April 29, 2010
Protesters who accuse Royal Bank of Scotland of financing tar sands oil projects in Canada, which have been described as having a "devastating effect on the environment," said yesterday that the bank had failed to address their concerns.
Eriel Tchekwie Deranger said that Sir Philip Hampton, RBS's chairman, had not answered her questions during yesterday's AGM in Edinburgh, describing the bank's decision to lend to companies involved in tar sands oil exploration, as "deplorable". She asked Sir Philip to justify the RBS's decision to lend to companies that violate the human rights of the people living close to exploration projects in Canada.
Green groups claim that production of tar sands oil damages local habitats, and quickens the pace of climate change. The World Development Movement has claimed that RBS, which is 84 per cent owned by the UK taxpayer, has lent £1bn to companies involved in tar sands oil exploration projects.
RBS said that Sir Philip had addressed the questions, and that it did not provide specific project financing for tar sands oil exploration. He is due to meet with a number of environmental campaigners later today.
The Independent
April 29, 2010
Eriel Tchekwie Deranger said that Sir Philip Hampton, RBS's chairman, had not answered her questions during yesterday's AGM in Edinburgh, describing the bank's decision to lend to companies involved in tar sands oil exploration, as "deplorable". She asked Sir Philip to justify the RBS's decision to lend to companies that violate the human rights of the people living close to exploration projects in Canada.
Green groups claim that production of tar sands oil damages local habitats, and quickens the pace of climate change. The World Development Movement has claimed that RBS, which is 84 per cent owned by the UK taxpayer, has lent £1bn to companies involved in tar sands oil exploration projects.
RBS said that Sir Philip had addressed the questions, and that it did not provide specific project financing for tar sands oil exploration. He is due to meet with a number of environmental campaigners later today.
Climate Change – The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis
Human Impact Report: Climate Change – The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis (VNR)
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Climate Scientist Sues National Post
The Guardian
Andrew Weaver with the IPCC's 2007 report on which he was a lead author. Photograph: Ray Smith
One of the world's leading climate scientists has launched a libel lawsuit against a Canadian newspaper for publishing articles that he says "poison" the debate on global warming.
In a case with potentially huge consequences for online publishers, lawyers acting for Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller at the University of Victoria, Canada, have demanded the National Post removes the articles not only from its own websites, but also from the numerous blogs and sites where they were reposted.
Weaver says the articles, published at the height of several recent controversies over the reliability of climate science in recent months, contain "grossly irresponsible falsehoods". He said he filed the suit after the newspaper refused to retract the articles.
Weaver said: "If I sit back and do nothing to clear my name, these libels will stay on the internet forever. They'll poison the factual record, misleading people who are looking for reliable scientific information about global warming."
The four articles, published from December to February, claimed that Weaver cherrypicked data to support his climate research, and that he tried to blame the "evil fossil fuel" industry for break-ins at his office in 2008 to divert attention from reported mistakes in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on which he was lead author.
The lawsuit also highlights several claims in the articles that attempt to question or undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, including that annual global mean temperatures have stopped increasing in the last decade and that climate models are "falling apart".
Such statements, the lawsuit says, would lead readers to conclude that Weaver "is so strongly motivated by a corrupt interest in receiving government funding that he willfully conceals scientific climate data which refutes global warming in order to keep alarming the public so that it welcomes... funding for climate scientists such as himself."
Weaver said: "I asked the National Post to do the right thing, to retract a number of recent articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held. To my absolute astonishment, the newspaper refused."
A spokesman for the National Post said: "Beyond saying that we intend to defend the article, we do not comment on such suits."
Weaver is suing for libel three writers at the newspaper, as well as the newspaper as a whole and several, as-yet unknown, posters on the paper's online comment section. Such comments, typical on articles about global warming, included claims that Weaver was "as big a hypocrite as he is a fraudster" and a rat leaving a sinking "ship of lies, red-herrings and hysteria". One poster suggested he should be thrown under a bus.
McConchie Law Corporation, acting for Weaver, said that the National Post articles had "gone viral on the internet" and were reproduced on dozens of other websites, including prominent climate-sceptic sites Climate Audit and Watts Up With That.
The lawsuit says the newspaper "expressly authorised republication" of the articles by including online links that invited readers to email the story to others, and share it through tools such as Facebook.
McConchie Law said it was seeking an "unprecedented" court order that would require the newspaper to help Weaver remove the articles from across the internet. Media law experts said that such demands were becoming increasingly common in complaints to publishers, but this could be the first time they were tested in court.
Weaver's libel action follows an official complaint made last month by a leading UK scientist to the Press Complaints Commission over a story published in the Sunday Times. Simon Lewis, an expert on tropical forests at the University of Leeds, claimed the story published in January was misleading because it gave the impression that the IPCC made a false claim in its 2007 report that reduced rainfall could wipe out up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest. He said he told the newspaper that the IPCC's statement was "poorly written and bizarrely referenced, but basically correct".
Andrew Weaver with the IPCC's 2007 report on which he was a lead author. Photograph: Ray Smith
One of the world's leading climate scientists has launched a libel lawsuit against a Canadian newspaper for publishing articles that he says "poison" the debate on global warming.
In a case with potentially huge consequences for online publishers, lawyers acting for Andrew Weaver, a climate modeller at the University of Victoria, Canada, have demanded the National Post removes the articles not only from its own websites, but also from the numerous blogs and sites where they were reposted.
Weaver says the articles, published at the height of several recent controversies over the reliability of climate science in recent months, contain "grossly irresponsible falsehoods". He said he filed the suit after the newspaper refused to retract the articles.
Weaver said: "If I sit back and do nothing to clear my name, these libels will stay on the internet forever. They'll poison the factual record, misleading people who are looking for reliable scientific information about global warming."
The four articles, published from December to February, claimed that Weaver cherrypicked data to support his climate research, and that he tried to blame the "evil fossil fuel" industry for break-ins at his office in 2008 to divert attention from reported mistakes in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on which he was lead author.
The lawsuit also highlights several claims in the articles that attempt to question or undermine the scientific consensus on climate change, including that annual global mean temperatures have stopped increasing in the last decade and that climate models are "falling apart".
Such statements, the lawsuit says, would lead readers to conclude that Weaver "is so strongly motivated by a corrupt interest in receiving government funding that he willfully conceals scientific climate data which refutes global warming in order to keep alarming the public so that it welcomes... funding for climate scientists such as himself."
Weaver said: "I asked the National Post to do the right thing, to retract a number of recent articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held. To my absolute astonishment, the newspaper refused."
A spokesman for the National Post said: "Beyond saying that we intend to defend the article, we do not comment on such suits."
Weaver is suing for libel three writers at the newspaper, as well as the newspaper as a whole and several, as-yet unknown, posters on the paper's online comment section. Such comments, typical on articles about global warming, included claims that Weaver was "as big a hypocrite as he is a fraudster" and a rat leaving a sinking "ship of lies, red-herrings and hysteria". One poster suggested he should be thrown under a bus.
McConchie Law Corporation, acting for Weaver, said that the National Post articles had "gone viral on the internet" and were reproduced on dozens of other websites, including prominent climate-sceptic sites Climate Audit and Watts Up With That.
The lawsuit says the newspaper "expressly authorised republication" of the articles by including online links that invited readers to email the story to others, and share it through tools such as Facebook.
McConchie Law said it was seeking an "unprecedented" court order that would require the newspaper to help Weaver remove the articles from across the internet. Media law experts said that such demands were becoming increasingly common in complaints to publishers, but this could be the first time they were tested in court.
Weaver's libel action follows an official complaint made last month by a leading UK scientist to the Press Complaints Commission over a story published in the Sunday Times. Simon Lewis, an expert on tropical forests at the University of Leeds, claimed the story published in January was misleading because it gave the impression that the IPCC made a false claim in its 2007 report that reduced rainfall could wipe out up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest. He said he told the newspaper that the IPCC's statement was "poorly written and bizarrely referenced, but basically correct".
The Ecology of Socialism
Eriel Deranger at May Day Event
Eriel Deranger was raised in a family of activists and spent much of her youth attending rallies, protests and social justice conferences. Much of her activity was rooted in the struggles facing Indigenous peoples. Specifically, she has worked on Indigenous land claims in Canada. This eventually led to an interest and involvement in broader global issues.
“While working on these issues I found myself becoming more interested in the fact that the systems that we are currently living in are fraught with inequities and that change was needed….I found that change would only come from international pressure that asserted our Indigenous sovereignty.”
Read more here.
Monday, April 26, 2010
May Day in Regina: Activists and socialists discuss rebuilding the left
As a follow up to the successful January 30th meeting in Regina, the Committee for Rebuilding the Left is sponsoring an educational and discussion meeting in celebration of May Day.
Speakers are Greg Albo from the Socialist Project, Eriel Deranger, a tar sands and aboriginal activist, and Peter Garden, the administrator for the Actupinsask Independent Media website and owner of the Turning the Tide bookstore in Saskatoon.
For further information, click here.
Speakers are Greg Albo from the Socialist Project, Eriel Deranger, a tar sands and aboriginal activist, and Peter Garden, the administrator for the Actupinsask Independent Media website and owner of the Turning the Tide bookstore in Saskatoon.
For further information, click here.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Massive “Climate Action Now” Banner unfurled
DELTA, BC - GatewaySucks.org and the Council of Canadians (Delta/Richmond chapter) unfurled a massive banner today that reads "CLIMATE ACTION NOW" on land slated for freeway construction.
Historic homes are being demolished, and ancient indigenous sites are under threat from the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR) project here on the Fraser River bank. The est. $2 billion SFPR is part of the controversial Gateway program, which would greatly increase greenhouse gas emissions in BC.
The action took place at River Road and Centre Street in Delta. It coincides with the multi-faith Pilgrimage to Burns Bog, and is visible from the pilgrimage route across the Alex Fraser Bridge. Pilgrims and activists aim to raise awareness about Burns Bog, a large, carbon-sequestering peat bog also under threat from the SFPR freeway.
“Our neighbours are being forced out of their homes, and ecosystems are being bulldozed,” says Delta resident Ernie Baatz. “Schools and programs are being cut across the province to pay for this climate changing freeway. We have to stand up to this appalling waste.”
Baatz and fellow activists also planted trees at the site today, to highlight the area's potential as a riverfront park, not a riverfront freeway. Although preparatory work has begun on some sections of the SFPR, no build contract is in place. A request for proposals was issued by the Ministry of Transportation in April 2009.
Today's action is part of a week of events dubbed “Earth Action Week” by GatewaySucks.org and the Council of Canadians (Delta/Richmond chapter). For the full list of events see www.gatewaysucks.org/earth-action-week-april-1826
Photographs are available at http://www.gatewaysucks.org/
Follow www.twitter.com/gatewaysucks for updates
Interviews and media inquiries: call 604-588-4203 or email gwsux@riseup.net
For more information about the Pilgrimage to Burns Bog see http://www.pilgrimage2burnsbog.org/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)