Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

THE MILITARY’S UNKNOWN A-WASTE AT HANFORD

Radioactive waste is building daily throughout the United States and the government doesn’t seem to know what to do with it. The failure of the media to fully address the issue of increasing radioactive waste qualifies this story for nomination as the #3 censored story of 1981.

While public interest generally focuses on commercial nuclear power plants, wastes from atomic weapons production accounts for half the radioactivity and more than 90 percent of the volume of nuclear waste in the U.S., including some 7 million gallons of high-level liquid waste that result annually from the manufacture of plutonium. Most of the weapons-related liquid waste is stored in 169 temporary underground tanks at the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state. Since the mid-1950s, there have been more than 20 instances of leakage at Hanford totaling at least 500,000 gallons of radioactive liquid waste.

While the Reagan administration plans to increase nuclear weapons production, it has yet to discover what to do with all the radioactive waste we already have.

This story appeared in the Christian Science Monitor, 12/28/81.

March 30, 2010 Posted by | Environmentalism, Militarism, Nuclear Power, Timeless or most popular | Leave a comment

Mexico: The Lacandona Rainforest is being cleared of its People

By Ahni | Intercontinental Cry | March 13, 2010

The Mexican government is moving ahead with an ambititous new plan to surround the Lacandona Forest in Chiapas, Mexico, with oil palm plantations; while disguising the forest around the plantations with various eco-tourism sites.

In preparing for the two-faced project, the government—still in line with the old amibitous plan—and with the help of various corporations, is clearing the Rainforest of its Indigenous People.

The most recent evictions took place on Jan. 21 and 22 at the indigenous Tselales settlements of Laguna El Suspiro and Laguna San Pedro— “the last one a base community of the Zapatista rebel movement,” explains the WW4Report.

The Zapatista have since come forward to denounce the evictions, stating:

“The bad federal government, the PRD state government of Juan Sabines Guerrero and the municipal president of Ocosingo, Carlos Leon Solorsano Arcia, have carried out a military operation, including federal police accompanied by bad government officials of the Attorney General for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA). During the operation, four helicopters hovered over the community Laguna San Pedro, to scare the population.”

“Participating in this operation were police agents, the Mexican Army and government officials, as well as photographers and journalists of the government. They talked to the men and women, while the police took advantage of this to set the houses of the Zapatista support bases on fire.”

“How is it possible, that the bad government talks about dialogue, while its police and army burn down the belongings of the compañeros Zapatista support bases?”

The Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas Human Rights Center, Fray Pedro Lorenzo de la Nada Human Rights Center, Serapaz and others have also denounced the evictions and demanded that the communities be compensated for their heavy loss.

They also warn that seven more communities are facing imminent eviction, including Nuevo San Gregorio, Nuevo Salvador Allende, Nuevo San Pedro, 6 de Octubre, Poblado Laguna El Suspiro, Ojo de Agua el Progreso and San Jacinto Lacanjá.

Throughout the current and previous administrations in Mexico, nearly fourty communities have been evicted from the Lacandona forest.

For more information, please visit Rainforest Rescue.

March 15, 2010 Posted by | Environmentalism, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | Leave a comment

Trading our environment for wind power

By Nancy O’Toole | March 14, 2010

In 2008, the Kibby project, 44 turbines, miles of roads and hundreds of acres of cleared forest was approved. The Expedited Rule did its job for the developer, streamlining the necessary review since the location is part of over 14 million acres of land opened to wind development.

Now in 2010, TransCanada wants to expand the Kibby project and is proposing 15 turbines on Sisk Mountain, which overlooks the Chain of Ponds.

To do this TransCanada wants to expand the already expedited area of Maine to include the portion of Sisk Mountain not yet within this “umbrella.” TransCanada is petitioning to add another 630 acres to the expedited area, all of it overlooking Chain of Ponds, Big Island, and Massachusetts Bog.

Mountain tops and ridges above 2,700 feet will host all 15 turbines, 3.6 miles of crane road (34 feet wide), 3.6 miles of collector lines, (60 feet wide), 0.6 miles of access road to ridge and miles of “temporary” skidder trails. That does not include upgrades to a number of existing tracks.

A total of 90 wetland areas were identified with 11 Palustrine scrub — shrubs in the path of the collector line corridor. TC surveyed the area for vernal pools and listed 14 significant pools, meaning it has a high habitat value and is home to or has an abundance of threatened or endangered species. All will be impacted to some degree.

Clearing and grubbing will remove 140 acres of forest. Of that, 42 acres is described as fir-heartleaved birch sub-alpine community. Having a statewide S3 ranking means it’s a rare community type of forest and the clearing will isolate and alter the habitat adjacent to the community, allowing sunlight and wind, which removes moisture, deeper into the forest and impacting the rest of the community and altering it forever. The Bicknell Thrush, a threatened song bird, will lose 12.4 acres of critical habitat.

Blasting and excavating estimates are 750,000 cubic yards, with 650,000 cubic yards of fill. This is very significant, given that the soils, hydrology and the steep slopes above 2300 feet are very fragile. It is very difficult to build roads in this zone without significant blasting and it effects the surrounding environment.

Underlying hydrology needs to be identified and protected. This includes water from seeps, springs and streams disrupted by blasting of ledge and rock for roads and turbine placement.

The results from diverting will change the temperature and volume of streams, thus impact salmon in North Branch Dead River, Horseshoe stream and wild brook trout in Clear Brook.

Roads and collector lines will cross 57 perennial and intermittent streams.

Gold Brook is a tributary of the north branch of the Dead River and provides temperature refuge for landlocked salmon and supports wild brook trout. Kibby Stream, a tributary of Spencer Stream, supports wild brook trout. When existing hydrology is disturbed and large amounts of sedimentation is deposited into these streams, significant impacts to our native fish population will occur.

In 2008 Roaring Brook Mayflies were discovered in Gold Brook, whose headwaters are on the southern slope of Sisk. This insect is listed under the Maine Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife as Endangered. First discovered at the base of Mt. Katahdin in the Roaring Brook, it is protected for its entire length in Baxter State Park. It is a significant source of food for the brook trout, bats, dragonflies and other wildlife.

The bog lemming, golden eagle historic nesting area, and Canadian lynx tracks were discovered in the Kibby and Sisk area.

Boreal straw and snowline wintergreen were found, both listed as a S2, imperiled in Maine due to rarity of species. Both grow along the margins of perennial streams.

All these and more species fall under some regulations for protection!

Where is their protection in all this fury to make money? This is an oxymoron if there ever was one — killing endangered species, some due to global warming species, in order to curtail global warming?

Nancy O’Toole is a member of the Friends of the Boundary Mountains, a nonprofit that intervened in the Kibby Mountain project as well as the Sisk Mountain project before LURC now. She has a bachelor of science degree in environmental engineering and 10 years of experience with high mountain road construction and hazardous waste cleanup in towns in Utah. She lives in Phillips.

March 14, 2010 Posted by | Environmentalism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Family-farm advocates call for U.S. to ‘bust up big ag’

By Lynda Waddington – 3/12/10

ANKENY, IOWA — Whether they realized it or not, the roughly 250 family farmers, workers and consumers gathered in Ankeny, Iowa, Thursday night fired off their own point-by-point response to a letter from two Republican senators that urged the U.S. departments of agriculture and justice to maintain the existing status quo in the agriculture industry.

The often rambunctious townhall event was organized by a coalition of groups concerned that everyday people do not have adequate opportunity to express their opinions on the agricultural industry at a joint U.S. Department of Justice and USDA antitrust workshop on Friday. And it had one overarching message: “Bust up big ag.”

“We are here today to make sure that the voices of everyday people are heard loud and clear and send a simple but powerful message to our government regulators and elected officials,” said Barb Kalbach, a fourth generation family farmer from Dexter and board member for Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. “Bust up big ag, pass policies that promote sustainable agriculture and local markets, and put people first during the workshop series by prioritizing public comments and input and adding more family farmers and consumers to panels.”

On Wednesday, however, two Republicans in leadership positions on the Senate Agriculture Committee urged U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to do just the opposite.

“We urge you to ensure that these sessions are balanced and reflect the wide array of producers and business operations in modern-day agriculture,” wrote Sens. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Pat Roberts of Kansas.

After noting that “American agriculture is responsible for feeding the world,” that many industry “segments have become more vertically-integrated” and “other small and successful agriculture businesses have merged” to meet demands, the senators note that change is often met with frustration.

“Such change has led to better income margins for producers and processors as well as lower prices for consumers,” they wrote, adding that competition issues have been “studied extensively by several entities including the United State Congress and, specifically, the Senate Agricultural Committee.”

Although Chambliss and Roberts appear to call for a wide swath of American agriculture to have representation at the meeting, it is difficult to overlook the key point of their correspondence:

“Beyond our interest in a balanced review, we would hope that no correlation is planned between the upcoming workshops and current enforcement activity in your respective Departments. From recent news of lawsuits to undo mergers to heightened scrutiny of pre-merger activity and other investigative activities with agribusiness companies from a variety of sectors, it is readily apparent that both the Department of Agriculture and Department of Justice are already quite engaged in this area. We are concerned there is potential for your workshops to become venues for further fact-finding or public scrutiny of agricultural businesses that are already subject to existing antitrust laws and in some cases are under investigation or prosecution by the federal government.”

As of 2007, more than 45 percent of U.S. beef cattle are slaughtered by four companies (Tyson, Cargill, Swift and National.) Most U.S. Pork is also processed by just four companies (Tyson, Cargill, Swift and Smithfield). Seed corn is controlled predominately by two companies (Pioneer Dupont and Monsanto), and roughly 40 percent of the U.S. fluid milk supply is controlled by one company (Dean’s Foods).

Rhonda Perry, a Missouri livestock and grain farmer, said 30,000 cattle feed lots went out of business in the last 13 years. During the past 20 years, the nation lost 70 percent of its independent family hog farmers — but managed to keep production levels the same.

“We’ve been told that we have to have consolidation, concentration and vertical-integration in order to give consumers the cheap food they desire,” she said. “The reality is, if you look at the pork industry — a prime example because it has become really vertically-integrated in the last 25 years — that between 1985 and 2008 pork prices to consumers went up by 72 percent. At the same time the hog farmers’ share of that consumer dollar went down by 43 percent. So, somebody in this industry, in this consolidation process, is definitely getting rich. It’s working for somebody, but it is not working for producers and consumers.”

Fred Dowered, a Minnesota farmer, told the audience that when he began farming 34 years ago his state had 50 seed companies. Now, however, there are only four.

“When there were 50 seed companies, the price of seed corn was held to its own. Now they just let it go rampant,” he said.

That’s a situation that Jim Kalbach, an Adair Couty grain farmer, knows all too well.

“Monsanto soybean seed was $31 a bag last year. Now they jumped it up one third to $41 a bag — in one year,” he said. “That’s highway robbery.”

Many of the men and women in the audience also took exception to the belief that the U.S. food supply boasts the most healthy and inexpensive food in the world.

“The two things we are going to hear over and over on Friday is that we’ve got the cheapest and safest food supply in the world. Both of these statements are damn lies” said Gary Klicker, a southern Iowa producer that can trace his family’s agricultural roots to 1666.

Klicker believes that taxpayers will be out “billions if not trillions” of dollars cleaning up rivers, nourishing soil and dealing with abandoned animal confinement facilities.

“Have you ever heard of 19 million pound beef recall in Sweden or Germany or Russia or Cuba or anywhere else? The food isn’t safe. We are eating garbage off the floors of our packing houses. It’s being fed to our kids in schools, and it goes into our grocery stores. Most of the people have no idea what they are getting, and wouldn’t know what real food tastes like if they had it. This is a serious, serious situation — one that we will be paying for 100 years from now. It isn’t safe. It isn’t even cheap.”

Although U.S. Sens. Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley are on the schedule for Friday, along with U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell, no federal elected officials attended the townhall meeting in person. A handful of audience members used their very limited comment period to note their disappointment that the officials themselves did not attend, and at least two were openly hostile toward lawmakers who had long-served without providing notable solutions to the competition issues in their industry.

“This was a huge crowd,” Dave Campbell, district representative for Boswell, said following the meeting. “What I’m going to pass on to the Congressman is the fact that were a whole lot of people here who are hurting. He will have an opportunity to hear from both sides, and will hopefully make the best decisions possible.”

John Moreland, staff assistant for Harkin, also said that he would be taking his reflections on the “passion” expressed at the meeting back to his boss.

A notable appearance at the townhall was made by members of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. After the meeting Mark Lauritsen, vice president and director of the UFCW Meatpacking Division, explained that his members understand how closely their livelihood is tied to that of the farmer.

“We should have been getting together back in the 1980s and having these discussions. … Our lives are connected with farmers. Our members’ lives are connected to farmers. Our success rises and falls with the American farmer,” he said.

Producers from at least 10 states traveled to Ankeny for the townhall. Many also plan to attend the workshop, and would like opportunity to speak. Since only one hour at the end of the day has been allotted for public comment, however, it isn’t likely that there will be time for them all. That being said, it also isn’t likely that these motivated individuals are going to go away. Wisconsin Dairy producer Joel Greeno said several groups are already gearing up for the June meeting planned in their state, and that other producers are organizing in relation to the workshops planned for Colorado and Alabama later this year.

“The situation in agriculture these days, even though it has been coming on for a long time, is reaching critical mass,” said Frank Jones, a Missouri owner and producer. “I’m afraid that if we don’t have some type of meaningful change in the way business is done that agriculture will be lost forever.”

March 13, 2010 Posted by | Economics, Environmentalism | 1 Comment

Greenpeace’s Corporate Overreach

Controversial Hire is an Opportunity to Start Building a Democratic Environmental Movement

By DRU OJA JAY, Montreal – March 11, 2010

Greenpeace has come a long way since the Rainbow Warrior, the retrofitted trawler used to challenge nuclear testing and whaling, was enough of a threat that the French government dispatched commandoes to sink her in 1985.

On February 13th, Greenpeace International announced that was hiring ForestEthics founder Tzeporah Berman as director of its global climate and energy campaign. The move has provoked intense outrage among many Greenpeace supporters, staff and activists. The conflict raging within Greenpeace has the potential to be an important first step in addressing two heretofore taboo subjects in the environmental movement: the corrupting influence of corporate cash and the absence of democratic structures.

The announcement marked an acceleration of a long-term drift away from Greenpeace’s origins in direct action environmental and anti-war work. Back in 2007, Greenpeace lauded Coca-Cola for its “commitment to use climate-friendly coolers and vending machines.” (The same year, campaigns against Coke’s complicity in paramilitary assassination of union leaders in Colombia were in full swing, while a year earlier, the government of Kerala had banned Coca-Cola after a revolt over overuse and pollution of groundwater.)

If the Coke deal was Greenpeace testing the waters of corporate collaboration, hiring Berman is Greenpeace jumping in.

The hire marks a full-circle return for Berman, who rose to prominence within Greenpeace but left in 2000 to found ForestEthics, where she broke new ground in the “collaborative approach” to conservation. According to Berman’s ethos, “the notion of activists vs. corporations, of good vs. evil, no longer applies… It’s about creating dialogue, and finding the solutions that will be mutually beneficial to all.”

While heading up ForestEthics, Berman undertook a series of collaborations with companies like Home Depot, Dell, Staples and most recently General Electric. Immediately before being hired by Greenpeace, Berman headed PowerUp Canada, an initiative funded mostly by the Tides and Ivey Foundations that pushed the privatization of British Columbia’s rivers in the name of green energy. She has since backed away from the fruits of her efforts, claiming she does not support the privatization of “all” rivers in BC.

Grassroots environmentalists in Canada were furious at Berman long before she took the Greenpeace job, starting with the elimination of public oversight during her stint as lead negotiator of the Great Bear Rainforest deal. (In the deal that was finally signed, only 32 per cent of the rainforest was protected.)

Berman’s return to Greenpeace as it approaches its 40th year of existence has stoked the ire of the organization’s supporters to white-hot levels.

In an email that has made the rounds of Canadian environmental lists, Greenpeace International co-founder Rex Weyler called Berman’s hire “an all-out betrayal of environmentalism, of the groups and activists who built the environmental movement in Canada and in the world, and a betrayal of the Earth itself.”

70 people have signed a statement calling on Greenpeace to rescind Berman’s hire and “renounce collaboration and partnership with destructive corporations”.

Greenpeace staffers and activists in Canada — where Berman is well-known, and where Greenpeace has a high-profile anti-tar sands campaign underway — have privately expressed a mix of bafflement and rage at the decision.

One anonymous “Greenpeace activist or staff” remarked in testimony posted to http://www.SaveGreenpeace.org: “Greenpeace actually started the Kyoto Plus campaign to battle Power Up, the organization that Tzeporah started. And now they’re hiring her. The hypocrisy blows my mind. It’s astonishing. It’s like they just hired the devil. No one will take us seriously… with decisions like this.”

Greenpeace’s decision comes at a point when questions about Environmental organizations lack of democracy or accountability, and their corresponding closeness with corporations involved in environmental destruction, are looming larger than ever.

A recent report in The Nation ends with a 30-year veteran of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) stating outright: “We’re close to a civil war in the environmental movement. For too long, all the oxygen in the room has been sucked out by this beast of these insider groups, who achieve almost nothing…. We need to create new organizations that represent the fundamentals of environmentalism and have real goals.”

The report, whose author was subsequently interviewed on Democracy Now!, raises issues that are echoed in the anonymous testimonies of disgruntled Greenpeacers. Phrases like “disenfranchised,” “no consultation,” “no transparency,” “more concerned with getting a ‘seat at the table,'” point repeatedly to the same pair of problems: addiction to corporate and foundation cash and a total lack of democracy.

While the debate rages inside Greenpeace, early reports seem to indicate that many on the inside are channeling their frustration at the lack of consultation and their own disempowerment into rage against the small number of people willing to publicly oppose the Berman hire and discuss her record.

The frustration is understandable, but if the goal is a strong, democratic environmental movement, there are much better targets for their rage.

The overreach of Greenpeace’s turn towards corporate collaboration and the ensuing grassroots backlash affords the rarest of moments: an opportunity to articulate and push for demands that normally bounce harmlessly off of the bureaucratic carapace of big organizations like Greenpeace.

It’s an opportunity to demand an end to corporate collaboration, but it’s also an opportunity to demand democratic accountability to a supporting membership that is there because of the organization’s forty years of direct action. Small-scale financial supporters, volunteer activists and staff alike have no formal say in Greenpeace’s strategic direction. Nearly all of their complaints emanate from the frustration created by that contradiction.

At a moment where tensions are at their highest, the irony of an NRDC functionary describing “civil war” and calling for “new organizations that represent the fundamentals of environmentalism and have real goals” while Greenpeacers seethe, lash out at those pointing to Berman’s record, or quit, should not be lost on anyone.

Greenpeace International’s head office has raised the stakes. If the resistance to Berman’s hire is broken, the descent of the organization will be far swifter than the Coked-up years leading to its fortieth birthday. If the resistance continues to grow and spreads to supporters of other unaccountable, corporate-partnered big greens, then we’ll win with Greenpeace or without it.

If Greenpeace’s transformation into another public relations contractor for corporations and foundations is allowed to continue, everyone loses.

Corporate collaboration will never do more than slightly curtail environmental destruction. In many cases, the results of collaboration have been disastrous. The only things that can stop it are organizations rooted in communities and grassroots movements that are immune to “leaders” selling them out for money and ego.

If that’s what folks working with and supporting Greenpeace want, they won’t get a better shot at it than this one.

Tzeporah Berman is slated to start work in April.

Dru Oja Jay is co-author of the report Offsetting Resistance: The effects of foundation funding from the Great Bear Rainforest to the Athabasca River. He is a member of the editorial collective of the Dominion, and lives in Montreal.

March 11, 2010 Posted by | Corruption, Environmentalism | Leave a comment

State mandated “green” energy devastates ecosystem

Until recent decades the Eel river ran clear and cool throughout California’s five month dry season and offered world renowned sport fishing. This swimming hole, cold, large and beautiful lies above the area called Bloody Rock (What the white man did in this watershed is memorialized in the naming of places). These waters are being diverted into a different watershed leaving the lower river only a trickle. – Photo source link

Conservation group challenges PG&E, seeks more water for Eel River

By John Driscoll – The Times-Standard – 03/04/2010

A conservation group is looking to the state to significantly cut back on the diversion of Eel River water to the Russian River in what it says is a last-ditch effort to save crashing salmon and steelhead runs.

The damage to Eel River fisheries is hardly worth the tiny amount of electrical power produced by the Potter Valley Project owned by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., according to Friends of the Eel River’s recent filing with the State Water Resources Control Board. The group wants the state to modify the utility’s water rights, because they allow an “unreasonable use of water.”

The Friends say that a 15-percent reduction in the diversion — ordered by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2002 as part of PG&E’s license requirements through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission — has done nothing to stop the decline of protected coho and chinook salmon and steelhead populations. But NMFS has also concluded that flows in the much smaller Russian River, boosted by water from the Eel, are too high to support salmon and steelhead there.

”Given the (Potter Valley Project’s) toll on threatened and endangered fish in the Eel and Russian rivers,” the petition reads, “and the relatively small amount of electricity it produces, the water rights for the project must be modified in order to protect the public trust resources and prevent the unreasonable use of water.”

The Potter Valley Project was started in 1908 with the building of Cape Horn Diversion Dam, which created Van Arsdale Reservoir, tunnels and a powerhouse. Scott Dam was built about a decade later, creating Lake Pillsbury. The project generates 9.4 megawatts by diverting water in Van Arsdale Reservoir through the powerhouse at the start of the East Branch of the Russian River. A typical commercial windmill produces about 2 mw.

Cities, farms and vineyards in Sonoma, Mendocino and Marin counties rely in part on diversions from the Eel River to the Russian River, mixed with releases from Lake Sonoma and Lake Mendocino, but they have no clear right to Eel River water released through the project. That water right belongs to PG&E, and is up for renewal in 2022.

Sonoma County supervisors in September withdrew a long-studied project to take more water from the Russian River, citing poor economic and shifting environmental conditions. City officials from Santa Rosa and Marin County criticized the decision, which they claimed would sacrifice water rights and impede growth.

The Friends’ petition said that the Russian River should be a self-contained water system, and can be supported by other sources without the diversion of billions of gallons from the Eel River each year. A weighing of various water uses should be undertaken, the petition reads.

Friends Executive Director Nadananda said that time is of the essence, as salmon and steelhead runs are at very low levels, having declined from about 500,000 fish prior to the project to only 15,000 today.

”The river is in really serious trouble,” Nadananda said.

A reduction in the diversion would reduce the amount of power PG&E can generate, and would likely make the project uneconomical, she said.

PG&E spokesman Paul Moreno said that the company has not fully reviewed the petition, but said that the project is operated under strict guidelines developed through the federal relicensing process.

”It is inevitable that different stakeholders have different views,” Moreno said.

He said the hydropower project helps meet state demands for clean, renewable power that is available during peak demand, unlike solar and wind projects.

Spokeswoman Ann DuBay of the Sonoma County Water Agency, which provides water to about 600,000 residents in Sonoma, Mendocino and Marin counties, said only that the agency’s attorneys are reviewing the petition.

Alderon Laird with the Association of California Water Agencies — and board member of the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District — said that any third party can challenge another’s water right in California. The state water board must decide whether to entertain a petition, he said, and it’s possible that could trigger a process to determine the needs of a particular watershed.

Recently passed state law prompted the state water board to begin a “needs assessment” for the massive Sacramento River delta project, Laird said. That is supposed to determine how much water is needed in the delta region for various uses before any water can be exported outside the delta, he said.

”If that’s the philosophy of the state board … it kind of sets a precedent for anywhere else in California,” Laird said.

John Driscoll covers natural resources/industry. He can be reached at 441-0504 or jdriscoll@times-standard.com.

###

The actual diversion tunnel, looking ever so sinister as the machine that turns fish into fertilizer for the Potter Valley farmers delivered on tap. We call Potter Valley fish emulsion green for good reason. It is only in recent years that PG&E was forced to put in screens to stop the fish from entering the tunnel and turbines. Originally eels by the thousands interfered with the turbines so they were electrocuted and hauled away in hay wagons.

Note the shades of yellow and green that identify algae that is a plague to this system. It is hard to believe so lovely a river could change so much and have so much algae in such a short period of time.

Cumulative impact of all diversions, little water and lots of algae dramatically impact California’s third largest river system.

This photo of logging on steep slopes tells the tail of why the Eel River has moved from one of the most pristine rivers in the world, as written up in a 1940’s sportsman magazine, to now carrying a silt tonnage fifteen times greater than the Mississippi. This is our top soil washing off the slopes, filling the river.This area was held together by redwoods with their root network and ability to turn fog into drip contributing water at the end of the long dry summer.
Down river from the confluence with the South Fork Eel. Lots of silt and not enough water to move it. This is what the 90% diversion of headwaters looks like in the summer and fall before the rains. Not enough water for a fish to run on.
Algae abounds even in the fog cooled lower river near Scotia.

Friends of the Eel River

March 7, 2010 Posted by | Environmentalism | 1 Comment

Chagossians face sinister “environmental” ban from homeland

By Catherine Philp | The Times | March 6, 2010

(John Parker/Corbis)

If ever there was an oceanic treasure worthy of conservation, the Chagos archipelago, with its crystal-clear waters and jewelled reefs, is it. Yet the British Government’s plans have split the gentle world of marine conservation, created a diplomatic row with Indian Ocean states and turned the spotlight on to the archipelago’s place in Britain’s darker colonial history.

The British Indian Ocean Territory, as it is officially known, is the ancestral home of the Chagossians, the 2,000 people and their descendents that Britain removed forcibly from the islands in the Seventies to make way for a US air and naval base on the main island, Diego Garcia. Despite Britain repeatedly overruling court judgments in their favour, the exiled Chagossians have continued their struggle. This summer their case will be heard at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. By then, however — if David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, gets his way — the Chagos will have been designated a marine protected area (MPA), where activities such as fishing and construction are banned, denying them any legal means to sustain their lives.

It is, depending on your view, a sinister trick to prevent the Chagossians returning; an easy piece of environmental legacy building by a Government about to lose power; or an act of arrogant imperialism to rob the territory’s true owners of any say in its future.

Perhaps the most compelling case against the plan, however, is made by the swelling cadre of environmentalists opposing the project in the belief that — far from protecting this pristine paradise — it could hasten its destruction. “Even if I didn’t care about human rights, I would say this is a terrible mistake,” said Dr Mark Spalding, one of the world’s foremost experts on reef conservation.

“The world of conservation is littered with failures where the people involved were not consulted. If the Chagossians win the right to return, why should they want to co-operate with the conservation groups running roughshod over them?”

The Government’s proposal acknowledges that the entire plan may have to be scrapped if the Chagossians are allowed to return. “That would make it the shortest-lived protection area in the world,” Dr Spalding said. “So you have to ask: what’s the rush to get this done before [the Strasbourg ruling and] a general election?”

Mr Miliband will begin to examine the cases for and against the reserve next week, after public consultations ended yesterday. A decision is expected within weeks, but the Foreign Secretary already sounds convinced. “This is a remarkable opportunity for the UK to create one of the world’s largest marine protected areas, and double the global coverage of the world’s oceans benefiting from full protection,” he wrote.

Many of the world’s leading conservation groups have thrown their weight behind the proposal, which emphasises the advantage of the islands being “uninhabited”. They are not: the original islanders were removed from Diego Garcia to make way for a military base that houses 1,500 US service personnel, 1,700 civilian contractors and 50 British sailors. The island, which constitutes 90 per cent of the landmass of the Chagos, is, in effect, to be exempt from the protection order.

Peter Sand, a British environmental lawyer who has investigated the US base’s impact, has documented four jet fuel spills totalling 1.3 million gallons since it was built and has lobbied unsuccessfully for information on radiation leakage from nuclear-powered vessels there. “To say that a small group of Chagossians could have a greater impact than the base is just crazy,” Dr Spalding said.

The plan has also sparked a diplomatic row with Mauritius and the Seychelles, from whom the Chagos Islands were taken and to whom Britain has agreed to cede them when they are no longer needed by the US military. Britain faces further embarrassment over allegations that Diego Garcia was used to moor US prison ships where “ghost” prisoners were tortured.

The Prime Minister of Mauritius said last week that he was “appalled” by the decision to press ahead with plans for the reserve, “It is unacceptable that the British claim to protect marine fauna and flora when they insist on denying Chagos-born Mauritians the right to return to their islands all the while,” Navin Chandra Ramgoolam said at the inauguration of a building for Chagossian refugees in the Mauritian capital. “How can you say you will protect coral and fish when you continue to violate the rights of Chagos’s former inhabitants?”

Britain originally offered the US the Aldabra atoll for its base but backed down after uproar from environmentalists. Aldabra, now a World Heritage Site, was uninhabited by humans but home to hundreds of thousands of giant tortoises. “The British had refused to create a base on Aldabra in the Seychelles not to harm its tortoise population,” marvelled Olivier Bancoult, head of the Chagos Refugees Group. “Now they are trying to create a protected area to prevent Chagossians from returning to their native islands.”

Shifting sands

1960s The Chagos archipelago, originally part of Mauritius, is secretly leased to Britain. Together with the Aldabra archipelago, taken from the Seychelles, they become the British Indian Ocean Territory

1970 Britain and the US agree to set up a military base on Diego Garcia, and Britain begins deporting the 2,000 Chagossians to Seychelles and Mauritius

1983 £1m compensation is paid to the refugees on Mauritius

2000 British High Court rules in favour of Chagossians demanding the right to return

2004 Government issues a royal prerogative striking down the court’s decision

2006 The Court of Appeal dismisses the Government’s appeal, saying its methods are unlawful and “an abuse of power”; 102 Chagossians are permitted to visit Diego Garcia for a day to tend relatives’ graves

2008 Law lords vote 3-2 in favour of Government, overruling High Court

2009 Foreign Office launches public consultation on the creation of a protected marine area

2010 The European Court of Human Rights is set to hear the Chagossians’ petition to return this summer

March 7, 2010 Posted by | Environmentalism, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Militarism | Leave a comment

More Stark Evidence of the Hazards of Atrazine

By David A. Fahrenthold | The Washington Post | March 2, 2010

Washington – A new study shows that male frogs exposed to the herbicide atrazine – commonly found in U.S. rivers and streams – can make a startling developmental U-turn, turning female so completely that they can mate with other males and lay viable eggs.

The study will focus new attention on concerns about atrazine, which is applied to an estimated 75 percent of American cornfields. Its manufacturer, the Swiss agricultural giant Syngenta, says the product is safe for wildlife, and for people who are exposed to small amounts in drinking water.

In recent years, however, some studies have seemed to show that atrazine can drive natural hormone systems haywire in fish, birds, rats and frogs. In some cases, male animals exposed to the chemical developed female characteristics.

The study led by Tyrone Hayes, a professor at the University of California, was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It showed an even starker transformation: Among a group of male African clawed frogs raised in water tainted with atrazine, he said, a fraction grew up to look and act like females.

“Ten percent of the chromosomal males become completely, functionally female,” Hayes said in a telephone interview. “They can lay eggs (and) they mate with other males.”

The offspring of those unions were all male, he said, since both parents were genetically male. No female frogs were treated with atrazine in the study.

The other 90 percent of the exposed frogs retained some male features, Hayes said, but often showed signs of “feminization,” including lower testosterone levels and fertility. When pitted head-to-head against males that had not been exposed to atrazine, the atrazine-treated males frequently lost out in competition for female frogs.

Hayes said the reason for these changes could be that atrazine, when absorbed through a frog’s skin, helps produce an enzyme that converts an unusual amount of testosterone into estrogen.

Those findings run counter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s pronouncement in 2007 that atrazine does not cause problems in amphibian development.

March 3, 2010 Posted by | Environmentalism | Leave a comment

Honduras Palm Oil Plantations: Sustainable Development Facade

By Tamar Sharabi | Upside Down World | February 28, 2010

Johnny Rivas is a vocal member of the Unified Movement of Aguan Farmers (MUCA), an organization that claims over 3,500 families demanding the redistribution of land in the North Coast of Honduras. For over five years Rivas has fought for land rights in Aguan, known as the ‘capital of agrarian reform.’ MUCA formed in 2001 in order to reclaim lands that Rivas says “were transferred to corrupt businessmen under fraudulent terms.” Rivas has recently been a target of constant death threats for his participation in the movement.

Palm Oil Cooperatives and Big Business

The Aguan Zone (named after its river), is located in the department of Colon and claims some of the most fertile lands in the country. It is known for its African Palm Oil plantations, which occupy over 90,000 hectares according to a Jan 2008 report by the US Embassy. Palm oil is a common ingredient in many food products and can be used as biodiesel.

In 1962 the Law of Agrarian Reform reallocated land from the hands of transnational companies back to Honduran farmers. Cooperatives formed that managed the palm oil plantations. In 1992, 1994 and 1995 many cooperatives sold their land back to wealthy business owners. In a document presented on April 30, 2009 MUCA asked for the annulment of the sale from 1994, on the grounds that the sale was illegal under the Agrarian Reform Laws. The terms of the sale stipulated that the land would remain state owned, but the farmers could continue to cultivate it. The contract expired in February 2005 and has never been renewed.

As a strategy to apply pressure on authorities to negotiate with the farmers, in May 2009 MUCA occupied a palm oil factory that belonged to Miguel Facusse, one of the largest landowners in Honduras. A new agreement was signed on June 12, 2009 with President Zelaya that guaranteed state resources to resolve the conflict. On June 23, after a follow up meeting on the same factory, a member of MUCA, Fabio Ochoa was shot 7 times.

Coup d’etat Halts Negotiations

Although President Zelaya had shown the political will to deal with the country’s agrarian problems, his term was cut short with a coup d’etat last June. Most of the farmer organizations prioritized their efforts to protesting for his constitutional return, temporarily putting their land struggle on hold. Realizing that after several months of nonviolent resistance on behalf of the nations teachers unions, workers, indigenous groups, and farmers, they were unable to reverse the coup, MUCA resumed the land recuperations in December 2009.

According to Rivas, direct land recuperation is “the only strategy farmers have to be heard.” Living in rigged plastic tents among the palm oil plantations that occupy their land, the farmers participating sometimes eat only once a day, under constant threat from the authorities.

The farmers occupied four cooperatives; La Confianza, La Aurora, San Isidro, and San Esteban Cooperative. The National Agrarian Institute

which deals with the appropriation of land has measured 9,000 hectares that are under dispute thus far.

Since December there have been dozens of confrontations between the farmers and security forces in the area. Under the de facto government

of Roberto Micheletti, military forces were used several times to illegally evict the farmers. There have been dozens of detained farmers and there are over 80 orders of arrest for people involved.

Conflict Intensifies

On the evening Feb. 11 witnesses reported that two unidentified helicopters flew over communities participating in the land recuperations. The next morning crossfire left at least four guards from the private security company dead.

Security forces also entered the community of La Concepcion, a commuinty neighboring a land recuperation. When a pastor of the local Mennonite Church saw aggressive driving almost running over children in the community, he intervened and had a firearm pointed at him.

“They came here intimidating the community, pointing out houses. If one of the farmers is killed we will know who to hold accountable,” he said.

In a formal meeting on Feb. 16 with President ‘Pepe’ Lobo, known to MUCA as ‘the son of the coup,’ Lobo promised to disarm the farmers. MUCA maintains that they are not an armed struggle, but will defend themselves against aggression from security forces. Rudy Hernandez, also a member of MUCA, maintained that “we are not a group of delinquents, we are farmers who are here to claim our land because hunger forces us to be here.”

This week Lobo presented two options to resolve the conflict: either purchase a portion of the cultivated land or farmers will be relocated to neighboring areas. Both options look for an immediate resolution to the problem but do not deal with the underlying issue of the concentration of land ownership or the illegal acquisition in the first place.

Unsustainable Investment

As the second poorest country in Central America, Honduras relies heavily on international financing.

“One of the most important things for those of us in Honduras, is the image that we give to the investor” said Facusse.

Facusse admitted to a Honduran newspaper that the World Bank, the Interamerican Development Bank (BID) and an unnamed German Bank have authorized loans which are currently ‘paralyzed’ due to the situation.

“We paid for the farm and paid well for it, those of the agrarian reform had the money but did not invest and misspent the money, for that I believe that agrarian reform is not the solution,” he added.

Marco Ramiro Lobo, a legal advisor to the National Agrarian Institute (INA), previously the legal advisor to MUCA who presented the demand against Facusse in 1994, stated that Facusse’s business interests were never for the social good of the community.

“There are grand restrictions on the workers, miserable salaries, before they were associates and now they are workers. Now they have a salary less then the minimum wage. Most of the farmers live in extreme poverty, which is what is causing this situation,” said Ramiro Lobo. “I don’t think anyone is arguing that Facusse brings investment to the area, but what we are arguing is the form in which the lands were acquired. In reality there is no sustainable development, this is a business model that looks for lucrative pay, not social investment.”

MUCA has the support of dozens of other farmer organizations in the country, including international organizations such as FIAN and Via Campesina. They are also supported by the National Front of Popular Resistance (FNRP), an organization which grew out of the resistance movement opposed to the coup d’etat against President Manuel Zelaya.

Tamar Sharabi is an environmental engineer and freelance journalist living in Central America. She is working on media empowerment with human rights organizations and on a documentary about the Honduran coup detat. To support her work visit Give Forward .

February 28, 2010 Posted by | Economics, Environmentalism | 1 Comment

DiFi and Blum: a Marriage Marinated in Money

Family Business

By WILL PARRISH and DARWIN BOND-GRAHAM | February 26, 2010

On April 17, 2009, with the edifice of the global economy rotting under an architecture of monumental greed, war deficits, and official hubris, the University of California, Berkeley conducted a groundbreaking ceremony for its Richard C. Blum Center for Developing Economies.  Before a throng of students, faculty, staff, and  PR specialists affiliated with the Center’s new multi-UC campus “Global Poverty & Practice” program, the Blum Center’s namesake was joined on stage by one of the many political heavyweights he counts among his business partners, Al Gore.  The former Vice President praised Blum as a long-time friend and cited the new institute as a key to solving the interlocking problems of global poverty and global climate change, two of the many vexing boogeymen threatening to destabilize the profit-making order.

To paraphrase Upton Sinclair, who published a book on the general subject in 1923, some of the greatest sociopaths in this country’s history have affixed their names to university buildings in an effort to burnish their reputations.

Richard Blum is a San Francisco-based finance capitalist presiding over a business empire that is, to say the least, expansive.  Hedge funds? Blum owns one outright and wields a significant share of various others.  Real estate? His primary investment vehicle, the $7.8 billion Blum Capital Partners, owns the largest real estate brokerage firm on the planet, CB Richard Ellis, of which Blum is chairman of the board. Construction? Until public scandal prompted him to sell off his holdings, Blum was a majority partner in a construction and engineering company that did billions in business with the US military, among other government clients.  Education? Try being the resident Alpha Regent of the largest public university system in the world, the University of California, while also being a primary owner of the world’s second-largest for-profit education firm, Career Education Corporation.

Large land-holding firms? Digital media company of which Al Gore serves as frontman? Health industry corporation fighting to undermine the expansion of public health care? Border-town maquiladora that build weapons components for the Department of Defense? Check, check, check, and check.

deans_message.jpg
Richard Blum (center) with Al Gore – Photo credit UCB

The greatest investment of Blum’s career was undoubtedly his marriage, roughly 30 years ago, to the politically Joe Lieberman-esque US Senate Democrat, Dianne Feinstein.  At the time of this meshing of Blum’s financial interests with Feinstein’s formidable political ambitions, Feinstein was Mayor of San Francisco and Blum — already one of her main financial backers — had much of his fortune staked to various development projects in the City.

Blum’s preferred means of personal enrichment rely on strong nation-state interventions in markets and societies to promote unfettered corporate dominance of national economies and distant lands.  It should come as no surprise, then, that he and “DiFi” are among the leading proponents of the International Monetary Fund/World Bank/US Treasury nexus’ notion of how economies ought best be developed.  This form of economic “improvement” (deriving from the Anglo-French “emprouwer,” meaning “to clear for profit”) involves burying Third World economies under mountains of debt backed by usurious interest rates, facilitating the greatest level of investment possible by rapacious multi-national corporate entities, privatizing government functions, and gutting social services.  Ironically, this agenda of neoliberal “structural adjustment” has decimated and impoverished communities across the planet, causing suffering among the hundreds of millions of people Blum’s heart now bleeds for: poor folks.

The economic and political policies promoted by Richard C. Blum and associates, including Senator Feinstein and other leaders of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, have locked nations and peoples across the planet into a system of de facto colonial bondage whereby their lands and destines are controlled by distant, debt-holding banks and hedge funds – among them, Blum Capital Partners, LLC, and Newbridge Capital, LLC, of which Blum was chairman of the Asia investment division for five years.  The result has been what author and UC Irvine sociologist Mike Davis calls a “planet of slums,” where .23 percent of the world population privately owns more than 50 percent of the land, and 85 percent of urban dwellers in the Third World are consigned to living on illegal squats in hellish shanty towns under conditions of grinding poverty.

Just ask the people of Haiti, whose capital city now greatly resembles a war zone reduced to rubble ala Fallujah, Iraq, or Kabul, Afghanistan, not by virtue of a natural disaster per se, but because the IMF-WTO-US Treasury specialists in immiseration have forced them off their land into desperately sub-standard slum housing, often perched tenuously on the side of deforested hills and ravines.  This “urban geography of mass vulnerability,” as the academic field of disaster sociology refers to it, was created by the destruction of the country’s rural agrarian economy that provided for subsistence, in an economic transformation imposed by international creditors with the constant backing of the US military.

Yet, at UC Berkeley, we have Dick Blum hoisting up “sustainable solutions to the toughest poverty challenges” as his new line of work.

Charles Hurwitz

Blum’s name is a familiar one to those acquainted with the details of the corporate plundering of California north coast forests and communities throughout the ‘80s and ‘90s.  The year was 1995, and Texas corporate raider Charles Hurwitz — whose company, Maxxam, had laid waste to as much ancient forestland as possible, as quickly as possible, for nearly a decade — was looking to cash out of his ownership of the Headwaters forest in central Humboldt County.  Headwaters was the flashpoint of the largest direct action protests in the history of the earth defense movement, as well as lawsuits and legislative initiatives aimed at preserving what little was left of old-growth redwood ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest.  It so happened Hurwitz was an investment partner of Blum from way back.  Blum also happened to be a major donor, fundraiser, and political booster of US President Bill Clinton.

Clinton and the State of California dutifully discharged their duties as proxies of the super-wealthy in general – and, in this case, Blum in particular — by appointing the inviolable “DiFi” to chair a legislative team to negotiate the purchase of Headwaters from Hurwitz.  Feinstein and Hurwitz agreed on a final deal in 1996, hailed by Feinstein’s web site as one of her 10 greatest career accomplishments. Hurwitz gave up very little of real economic value — Maxxam had clear-cut most of the forest in question — in exchange for a $380 million taxpayer-funded payout, or more than four times the market value of the trees at the time.  Much of the money went directly into Hurwitz’s personal bank accounts.  That’s in spite of the fact that all the government really needed to do to protect the acreage in question was enforce the Endangered Species Act.  Regardless of the fact that Headwaters became officially “protected,” the vast majority of California’s remaining old growth and other mature stands of redwood were pillaged by the end of the decade.  Hurwitz’s empire cashed out, like other timber conglomerates, by liquidating the forests and the livelihoods of the North Coast.

Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair later revealed that Blum and another Hurwitz pal, the Houston-based Continental Airlines chairman David Bonderman, had personally met with Clinton at the White House in a “coffee klatsch” fundraiser on December 15, 1995, likely to discuss the details of the Headwaters buy-out, which occurred six months later.  Bonderman and Blum were both directors of the Wilderness Society, the only national environmental organization that praised the buy-out.

For all the fanfare that emerged in the Clinton era about how corporate globalization had rendered the nation-state a bit player in the larger drama of the new, “free trade”-dominated corporate economic order, the nation-state’s role in propping up the global capitalist system has never been more central.  That role is being laid bare as never before with each multi-billion dollar subsidy the federal government passes onto the financial industry — an estimated $5 trillion in total taxpayer money since the bail-out program commenced in fall 2008 (an exact figure is hard to determine).  What is known in academic-speak as “neo-liberalism” represents little more than the sophisticated apex of a governing system refined and perfected over the course of several decades (nay, centuries), which is principally designed to socialize the risks of rapacious capitalism while privatizing public goods to create unprecedented levels of profit for the super-wealthy.

Blum is not only a representative of this system, but one of its most skillful promoters and practitioners.  Throughout his career, and particularly in recent years, he has siphoned off taxpayer money into the coffers of his various personal holdings with a calculated brazenness that would make the most swaggering Cosa Nostra blush.  The Headwaters Forest scam was indicative of exactly how these people have done business for nigh on three decades.  To pull only a handful of examples from the very recent past:

  • In early-2007, investigative reporter Peter Byrne published a groundbreaking series in the North Bay Bohemian, the “Feinstein Files.”  Byrne revealed that as chairperson of the Senate’s Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee from 2001 through 2005, Feinstein supervised the appropriation of more than $1.5 billion for two defense contractors, URS Corporation and Perini Corporation, in which Blum owned a controlling interest.  In the series’ smoking gun, long-time Blum business partner Michael R. Klein told Byrne he regularly took the highly unusual step of supplying Feinstein’s office with lists of Perini’s current and upcoming contractual interests in federal legislation, ostensibly so the senator would abstain from voting on these matters for ethical reasons (which she never did).  “Earmarks, you know, set asides, you name it, there was a system in place which on a regular basis I got notified, I notified her office, and her office notified her,” said Klein, Perini’s vice chairman at the time. Blum later sold his holdings in URS to the tune of more than $100 million in personal profit.
  • In January 2009, Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in federal funding to a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) program designed to forestall home foreclosures by expediting loan workouts and expanding federal loan guarantees.  On the surface, Feinstein’s legislation was a straightforward intervention on behalf of troubled homeowners nationwide. But less than two months prior, the FDIC had also awarded Blum’s real estate company, CB Richard Ellis, a multimillion dollar contract to sell homes the agency had inherited from failed banks.  This move was also highly unusual, since Feinstein is not a member of the Senate committee that oversees the FDIC.
  • This past November, the University of California Board of Regents imposed an “emergency” 32 percent fee increase on undergraduate students, effective in the 2009-10 academic year.  The increase stems not only from severe state-mandated budget cuts, but also a series of decisions by the university’s board of regents – of which Richard Blum is the resident alpha member (although no longer chair of the board), having been appointed to that post by Gray Davis – that have effectively pledged student fee increases to the capital bond market, thereby creating a financial incentive for the Regents to continually raise fees, in a pyramid scheme that raises money for campus construction projects.  It should come as no surprise that URS Corporation, the same company that made $1.5 billion on contracts awarded by Feinstein’s Senate military construction committee, has been the main contractor for the largest university capital projects in recent years: UCLA’s $150 million reconstruction of Santa Monica Hospital, UC Berkeley’s $48 million nanotechnology laboratory, and Berkeley’s $200 million Southeast Campus Integrated Project, which includes a seismic retrofit of Memorial Stadium and an expansion of the Haas School of Business — home of the Blum Center for Developing Economies.  More on this in next week’s AVA.

Blum-Feinstein, Inc. has accomplished these immense transfers of public wealth absent of almost any serious media scrutiny.  But in recent years, the media deep freeze has slowly begun to thaw, beginning with a pair of front-page stories in the San Francisco Chronicle in May 2005.  Chronicle science writer Keay Davidson’s fine reporting was spurred on by a public outing at a UC Regents meeting when students revealed Blum’s conflict of interest as a member of the committee overseeing the two nuclear weapons labs the UC runs on behalf of the US government.  Blum’s URS Corporation had a $125 million, five-year construction and engineering services contract with the UC’s Los Alamos, NM nuclear weapons development compound at the time.  Less than two years later, Peter Byrne’s series regarding Blum’s war profiteering appeared in the North Bay Bohemian.

This past semester, UC Berkeley Visiting Scholar of Geography Gray Brechin co-taught a course on investigative journalism.  Brechin is best known as the author of a superb historical work on Northern California’s ruling elite, Imperial San Francisco.  He has been an observer of Blum-DiFi, Inc. for years.

“I’m very impressed by the reluctance of most journalists to follow a story that has been screaming to be done for years while they have been covering their ears and eyes,” Brechin told us.  “You guys and Peter [Byrne] are about the only ones who understand that behind the billowing smoke appears to be a roaring bonfire.”

Blum-Feinstein’s concentration of power is greatest in their home state, of course, and it stands to reason in any case that Blum’s CB Richard Ellis would be making a killing off the ongoing fire sale of State of California assets.  In October, CBRE secured a contract from the California Department of General Services to broker over $2 billion in office buildings the state intends to privatize.

Blum’s fortunes aren’t entirely a function of Feinstein’s legislative exploits.  Nor are Feinstein’s political powers entirely a result of her Daddy Warbucks.  And the State of California’s economic plight stems not only from the avarice of a small handful of individuals, but from an economic system that is inherently self-destructive and crisis-prone.  Blum and Feinstein, however, have worked hand-in-glove with other members of the state’s banking, real estate, agribusiness, and military-industrial interests to buffer regressive tax and spending policies, helping to devise the very austerity measures currently being hoisted upon the people of California across all public sectors, not just within the University of California.

Therein lies much of the reason Blum is now so quick to tout his anti-poverty bona fides.  Blum, you see, has a public relations problem.  It’s built into the way he does business.  It’s built into the political economy he straddles as one of the US empire’s most connected and wealthy power elites.

Gray Brechin notes that Blum seems to have hired a public relations firm to bolster his personal brand.  “Blum has gotten an extraordinary amount of fawning publicity in a very short time, including a front page feature in the Haas Business School magazine about what a whiz he is. I believe that this coincided with the black tie event at the Palace Hotel where Haas celebrated him as Global Citizen of the Year and I joined others from Cal to protest his actions as Alpha Regent.”

“Then there were the two treacly profiles of him in the San Francisco Chronicle recently. I can’t believe this is all coincidental.”

It isn’t.  Nor is it coincidental that, as Peter Byrne revealed, longtime Blum business partner Michael Klein has founded a nonprofit foundation that makes grants to media organizations that watchdog the federal government.  The organization started after Wikipedia instituted a policy blocking congressional staffers from editing Wiki entries pertaining to their bosses.  Employees from Dianne Feinstein’s office had just been caught editing entries in the online encyclopedia that cast Blum and Feinstein in an unfavorable light.  Thus does one of Blum’s closest business associates now control a significant portion of the budgets of several ostensibly independent organizations that monitor political
corruption.

Blum is also now strongly affiliated with a multi-campus academic program at the UC, centered on an institute at UC Berkeley that Blum founded with $15 million in seed money, designed to put band-aids on the symptoms of global poverty he and his wife have had an instrumental role in creating.  Beyond this exercise in mystifying the causes of poverty in distant lands, the state’s economic elite — with Blum and Feinstein helping to lead the charge — have long been in the process of turning their philosophy of neoliberal privatization, fiscal austerity, and personal enrichment on the State of California itself.  Richard C. Blum Center for Developing Economies, indeed.

Blum is a self-professed Buddhist and friend of the XVIth Dalai Lama.  Many of his anti-poverty efforts are geared toward slum dwellers in Tibet and Nepal.  “Would an actual Buddhist provide the bulk of the funding for a multi-million dollar institute, only to attach his own name to it?” Brechin mused.

The populist anger seething below the surface of the American body politic has not yet boiled over into any sort of coherent rebellion against the elites who have wrought the greatest economic catastrophe since the 1930s.  There is little indication that it will any time soon.  Blum’s own financial empire, however, is now quietly under assault by the hundreds of University of California students who have learned to loathe the man who has done more than any other to structurally adjust their university and price many of the state’s youth out of higher education.  These cognizant students, supported by campus workers paid poverty wages by university leaders like Blum, are now organizing building take-overs and some of the largest student protests on those campuses of the past four decades.

In the next part of this series, we will focus on Blum’s role in gutting the University of California, where the tuition increases extracted in the last four years from Mendocino County residents alone would be large enough to close roughly half the county’s $7 million budget gap.

Readers can contact Will Parrish at wparrish(a)riseup.net and Darwin
Bond-Graham at darwin(a)riseup.net. They originally prepared this series for the Anderson Valley Advertiser (http://theava.com/), one of the very few real newspapers in America and probably soon the last one left standing.

February 26, 2010 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Environmentalism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering | 1 Comment

Mainstreaming Nuclear Waste

Top 25 Censored Stories for 2009

Radioactive materials from nuclear weapons production sites are being dumped into regular landfills, and are available for recycling and resale. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) has tracked the Department of Energy’s (DOE) release of radioactive scrap, concrete, equipment, asphalt, chemicals, soil, and more, to unaware and unprepared recipients such as landfills, commercial businesses, and recreation areas. Under the current system, the DOE releases contaminated materials directly, sells them at auctions or through exchanges, or sends the materials to processors who can release them from radioactive controls. The recycling of these materials—for reuse in the production of everyday household and personal items such as zippers, toys, furniture, and automobiles, or to build roads, schools, and playgrounds—is increasingly common.

The NIRS report, “Out of Control on Purpose: DOE’s Dispersal of Radioactive Waste into Landfills and Consumer Products,” tracks the laws, methods, and justifications used by the DOE to expedite the mandatory cleanup of the environmental legacy being created by the nation’s nuclear weapons program and government-sponsored nuclear energy research. One of the largest and most technically complex environmental cleanup programs in the world, the effort includes cleanup of 114 sites across the country to be completed by the end of 2008.

The DOE has unilaterally chosen allowable radioactive contamination and public exposure levels to facilitate “clean-up” of these sites. Pressure is increasing to allow clearing radioactivity from control in order to legalize the dispensing and disbursing of nuclear waste.

In 2000, the Secretary of Energy banned the commercial recycling of potentially radioactive metal. However, the ban does not apply to the disposal, reuse, or recycling of metal equipment, components, and pipes, or of other materials.

Seven sites of importance were investigated for the NIRS report: Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Rocky Flats, Colorado; Los Alamos, New Mexico; Mound and Fernald, Ohio; West Valley, New York; and Paducah, Kentucky. Of these, Tennessee is said to be the main funnel that pours nuclear weapon and power waste from around the country into landfills and recycling facilities without public knowledge. “People around regular trash landfills will be shocked to learn that radioactive contamination from nuclear weapons production is ending up there, either directly released by DOE or via brokers and processors,” says author Diane D’Arrigo, NIRS’s Radioactive Waste Project director.

EnergySolutions, the company that operates the only private low-level radioactive waste disposal business in the US, disposes of more than 90 percent of the low-level radioactive waste generated in the US. It operates waste processing and disposition facilities in Tennessee, South Carolina, and Utah. The company also operates low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities, vaults, and landfills on the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation in Tennessee.

Amazingly, as the DOE struggles through desperate and irresponsible measures to “disappear” this nation’s nuclear waste by the end of 2008, EnergySolutions has applied for a license in Tennessee to process nuclear waste from Italy.

This application marks the first time in the history of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that a company has asked to dispose of large amounts of foreign-generated low-level radioactive waste in the United States.

In February 2008, Bart Gordon, the Tennessee Democrat who chairs the House Committee on Science and Technology, asked the Northwest Interstate Compact of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management to withhold licensing that he says would put the US on a path to becoming “the world’s nuclear garbage waste dump.”

In an understatement, Gordon argued, “The US already faces capacity issues and other challenges in treating and disposing of radioactive waste produced domestically. We should be working on solving this problem at home before taking dangerous waste from around the world.”

UPDATE BY DIANE D’ARRIGO

The nuclear power and weapons industry and the government agencies that promote, oversee, and regulate nuclear activities are trying to save money by allowing large amounts of man-made, radioactively contaminated materials and property to be redefined as not radioactive. They don’t want to pay to try to isolate nuclear waste, including metal, concrete, asphalt, plastic, soil, equipment, and buildings, so they have developed ways to send the waste to regular landfills or even into commercial recycling that could end up in daily-use items the public makes contact with regularly.

This story is increasingly important as old nuclear weapons sites and power reactors close and the companies seek relief from responsibility and liability for the long-lasting nuclear waste they generated. It is especially dangerous as new nuclear power and weapons facilities are proposed, which will dramatically increase the amount of waste generated that could get into the public realm.

Although the US federal agencies have not generally allowed nuclear waste to be released from controls, they are still working on it. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have proposed rules in the wings, likely to emerge at any time. NRC is encouraging case by case releases of nuclear waste. The DOE has procedures to allow some radioactive waste out of controls but claims to be preventing radioactive metal from getting into the commercial metal market. A programmatic environmental review could overturn that prohibition, and internally DOE has many loopholes to let nuclear wastes out.

The story wasn’t covered much in the mainstream news. One notable exception was the investigative team led by Demetria Kalodimos on Channel 4 WSMV, Nashville’s NBC affiliate, who reported on the story and did over twenty follow-ups in the Nashville area (see http://www.nirs.org for links). Public awareness led to legislative attention and a commitment by the landfill operator who was taking nuclear waste to stop taking it. Kalodimos received three journalism awards for reporting and following up on the story herself.

The community is not satisfied with this voluntary commitment, because the Tennessee State Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) still allows nuclear waste to be released from controls. TDEC licenses companies to import nuclear waste from around the country and world for “processing,” including incineration and metal melting and reuse.

The report identified TDEC and Tennessee as leaders in releasing nuclear waste out of control.

The situation has worsened since last year. One of the processors is proposing to import a huge portion of Italy’s nuclear power waste to burn, process, melt and dump in the US (Tennessee and Utah).

Action against this can be taken by contacting your state governors to oppose it and by supporting federal legislation that would prohibit the US from importing foreign nuclear waste.

Citizens can also contact their state officials to find out if their state is allowing nuclear waste into the solid waste streams in their communities.

###

Sources:
Nuclear Information and Resource Service, May 14, 2007
Title: “Nuclear Waste in Landfills”
Author: Diane D’Arrigo

Environment News Service, May 14, 2007
Title: “US Allows Radioactive Materials in Ordinary Landfills”
Author: Sunny Lewis

Environment News Service, February 4, 2008
Title: “US Company Seeks Permit to Import Nuclear Waste”
Author: Sunny Lewis

Student Researchers: Derek Harms and Cedric Therene

Faculty Evaluator: Noel Byrne, PhD

dianed@nirs.org for more information.

February 24, 2010 Posted by | Environmentalism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Nuclear Power | Leave a comment

Report omits cancer chemical in Marines’ water

Press TV – February 18, 2010

The level of a cancer-causing chemical found in tap water at a military base in North Carolina was intentionally not reported, an AP review finds.

An environmental contractor deliberately did not report the level of the dangerously high levels of benzene at Camp Lejeune for a federal health review.

Benzene has been traced to massive leaks from fuel tanks at the base, according to recently disclosed studies.

For years, Marines who served at Camp Lejeune on the North Carolina coast have blamed their families’ cancers and other ailments on tap water tainted by dry cleaning solvents, and many accuse the military of covering it up.

A July 1984 report said benzene was found 380 parts per billion in the water supply. In 1991 another contractor warned the Navy of the health hazards posed by such levels of benzene.

By 1992 a third contractor, the Michael Baker Corp., released a draft report on the feasibility of fixing the overall problem. The citing of the 1984 level of 380 parts per billion changed to 38 parts per billion.

One sample from a series of tests conducted from June 2007 to August 2009 registered 3,490 parts per billion, according to a report from a fourth contractor.

Kyla Bennett, who spent 10 years as an enforcement officer for the Environmental Protection Agency before becoming an ecologist and environmental attorney, reviewed the different reports and said it was difficult to conclude innocent mistakes were made in the Baker Corp. documents.

“It is weird that it went from 380 to 38 and then it disappeared entirely,” she said. “It does support the contention that they did do it deliberately.”

David Higie, a spokesman for Baker Corp., declined to discuss the company’s reports or why its employees might have revised the benzene levels. He has referred questions to the military.

Source

February 18, 2010 Posted by | Deception, Environmentalism, Militarism | 1 Comment