THIS WAS FORWARDED FROM KBOO PM NEWS DIRECTOR JENKA SODERBERG:
Dear all:
I (Zahra Alkabi) have been informed from the
Catholic Charities that we will have some Iraqi
refugees in Portland at the end of this month and
the beginning of Aug 2008. They do need a place
to stay at least for the first 3 months and they do
need your hospitality and your welcoming attitude.
I know we will have 1 single woman, 2 or 3
single men so each one of them need a room with
a family or individuals. We will be able to pay
$250 per month for each person. We will also have
a big family of 9 persons and they do need a house
to stay in. If you have a house or know a private
owner that owns houses you may contact this
person and let me know how much should we pay
for the rent.
Iraqi refugees need your help and your kindness.
It's a good opportunity to know about Iraqis
and Iraqi culture for most of you. I have been
telling stories of many Iraqi families who live as
refugees in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.
NOW it's the time to help and contribute to
those who come to Portland seeking a stable life
and security. They need your help, they deserve
your help. Please help them.
If you have any question or concerns please feel
free to contact me direct either by email or by phone.
Thanks a lot for your cooperation and kind ,
every thing you offer is highly appreciated
PS: we just started the Iraqi - Portland solidarity
community if you want to be part of this
community you can contact us , welcoming Iraqi
refugees in Portland is the first action that
shows our solidarity.
Yours in the struggle for peace, Zahra AlKabi
Director and Founder www.saverefugees.org
Help Iraqi Refugees 503-422-7321
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Story Assignment: Stagflation -- The Military Drain
Institute for Public Accuracy
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
* Stagflation * The Military Drain
Interviews Available
DOUG HENWOOD, dhenwood@panix.com,
Henwood is author of the book "Wall Street" and editor of Left
Business Observer. He said today: "The U.S. economy continues to be
dominated by the contradictory forces of stagnation and inflation -- a
reincarnation of that 1970s monster, stagflation. This morning we
learned that inflation is running at a 5 percent annual rate. But just
yesterday, the president took the unusual step of reminding the public
that bank deposits are insured up to $100,000, a bit of reassurance made necessary by the sight of depositors lining up to withdraw money from a failing bank, IndyMac. All this is the culmination of some very serious long-term problems -- the chronic trade deficit, the polarization of rich and poor, the use of debt to compensate for falling incomes. It always looked unsustainable, but somehow we managed to get by with a
short-term fix or a new bubble. But now it's looking like the Bank for
International Settlements, the central bankers' club, had it right when
they said recently that 'the unsustainable has run its course.'"
ERIK LEAVER, erik@ips-dc.org,
Leaver is a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. He
said today: "Too little attention is being paid to one of the largest
drains on the economy. The Iraq war is costing $12 billion a month.
These funds could be put to use back here at home.
"Part of McCain�s plan to balance the budget includes a military
draw-down in Iraq. But he's planning on increasing the size of the
military, as is Obama. Both candidates are also discussing plans to
send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan. So neither candidate is
talking about relieving the largest drain on the economy -- the
enormous military costs."
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
* Stagflation * The Military Drain
Interviews Available
DOUG HENWOOD, dhenwood@panix.com,
Henwood is author of the book "Wall Street" and editor of Left
Business Observer. He said today: "The U.S. economy continues to be
dominated by the contradictory forces of stagnation and inflation -- a
reincarnation of that 1970s monster, stagflation. This morning we
learned that inflation is running at a 5 percent annual rate. But just
yesterday, the president took the unusual step of reminding the public
that bank deposits are insured up to $100,000, a bit of reassurance made necessary by the sight of depositors lining up to withdraw money from a failing bank, IndyMac. All this is the culmination of some very serious long-term problems -- the chronic trade deficit, the polarization of rich and poor, the use of debt to compensate for falling incomes. It always looked unsustainable, but somehow we managed to get by with a
short-term fix or a new bubble. But now it's looking like the Bank for
International Settlements, the central bankers' club, had it right when
they said recently that 'the unsustainable has run its course.'"
ERIK LEAVER, erik@ips-dc.org,
Leaver is a research fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. He
said today: "Too little attention is being paid to one of the largest
drains on the economy. The Iraq war is costing $12 billion a month.
These funds could be put to use back here at home.
"Part of McCain�s plan to balance the budget includes a military
draw-down in Iraq. But he's planning on increasing the size of the
military, as is Obama. Both candidates are also discussing plans to
send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan. So neither candidate is
talking about relieving the largest drain on the economy -- the
enormous military costs."
Story Assignment: Can the President Detain Anyone Indefinitely?
FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ACCURACY:
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Can the President Detain Anyone Indefinitely?
Interviews Available
Ali Al-Marri, who was living in Peoria, Illinois, with his wife and children, was awaiting trial in 2003. A month before his trial, he was
deemed an 'enemy combatant' by the president. He has been held in
solitary confinement ever since. On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the president has the authority to detain anyone deemed an 'enemy
combatant' indefinitely. (See Glenn Greenwald, "Al-Marri and the power
to imprison U.S. citizens without charges," Salon)
MICHAEL RATNER,
mratner@michaelratner.com, http://www.ccr-ny.org
President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Ratner said
today: "The core of the Bush administration's excesses and illegalities
in the so-called 'Global War on Terror' is the authority he has asserted to detain anyone anywhere in the world as an 'enemy combatant.' The president claims this authority for anyone detained in the 'Global War on Terror' even if that detention was far from a battlefield and the person had nothing to do with a war as traditionally known. It's the assertion that acts of terrorism or affiliation with a terrorist group can be treated as acts of war and alleged terrorist can be held in a way analogous to how POWs are held in a real shooting war. In other words such alleged terrorists can, according to Bush, be held indefinitely until the end of the 'Global War on Terror.' In normal circumstances such people would be tried for crimes in federal courts, but not today.
"Two issues arise from this. The first is what has finally been decided in the Gitmo cases -- assuming the president has the claimed authority to detain people as 'enemy combatants,' can those people at least challenge their detention as 'enemy combatants' and in that challenge what process is due and what is the definition of enemy combatant? This is an important issue, but if we only win that we have lost the bigger battle -- for what we would then have is a preventive detention scheme for alleged terrorists -- albeit one in which the detainee can challenge that detention.
"The second issue to arise is the key one: Can a person who is alleged to commit or plan acts of terrorism or claimed to have affiliation with a terrorist group (as in al-Marri's case) be held indefinitely as an 'enemy combatant' and never tried for a crime -- in other words can he be preventively detained without a criminal trial?
The Supreme Court has not ruled on this either in the Gitmo cases or domestic ones, which is only al-Marri at this point.
"The Fourth Circuit (5-4) has now held that a U.S. resident or lawful immigrant (the reasoning would apply to citizens as well) can be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant and never need be tried (yes he can test that detention -- but the question asked at the hearing is whether he is an enemy combatant -- once that is answered he can be held indefinitely.)
"In al-Marri, the bad part of the decision is based on a congressional statute -- the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which addressed the use of force against al-Qaeda. It is that statute which the court said authorized the detention at issue -- even though the detention took place in the U.S.
"It is a very, very dangerous decision. It literally means citizens in the U.S. can be detained as 'enemy combatants' in solitary confinement indefinitely and, while they can get a hearing, they never need be tried.
"The court in the narrow decision has put its imprimatur on the most dangerous departure from fundamental rights: the administration's treatment of what should be serious crimes as acts of war and its departure from fundamental protections of our constitution that should apply to those who are alleged to have engaged in criminal conduct. The claimed legal underpinning of the brutality of the administration
toward the detainees -- from torture to rendition to special trials -- stems
from its claim to be fighting a war on terror, when in fact it should be prosecuting crimes and giving suspects the protections of a civilized society."
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Can the President Detain Anyone Indefinitely?
Interviews Available
Ali Al-Marri, who was living in Peoria, Illinois, with his wife and children, was awaiting trial in 2003. A month before his trial, he was
deemed an 'enemy combatant' by the president. He has been held in
solitary confinement ever since. On Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit ruled that the president has the authority to detain anyone deemed an 'enemy
combatant' indefinitely. (See Glenn Greenwald, "Al-Marri and the power
to imprison U.S. citizens without charges," Salon)
MICHAEL RATNER,
mratner@michaelratner.com, http://www.ccr-ny.org
President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Ratner said
today: "The core of the Bush administration's excesses and illegalities
in the so-called 'Global War on Terror' is the authority he has asserted to detain anyone anywhere in the world as an 'enemy combatant.' The president claims this authority for anyone detained in the 'Global War on Terror' even if that detention was far from a battlefield and the person had nothing to do with a war as traditionally known. It's the assertion that acts of terrorism or affiliation with a terrorist group can be treated as acts of war and alleged terrorist can be held in a way analogous to how POWs are held in a real shooting war. In other words such alleged terrorists can, according to Bush, be held indefinitely until the end of the 'Global War on Terror.' In normal circumstances such people would be tried for crimes in federal courts, but not today.
"Two issues arise from this. The first is what has finally been decided in the Gitmo cases -- assuming the president has the claimed authority to detain people as 'enemy combatants,' can those people at least challenge their detention as 'enemy combatants' and in that challenge what process is due and what is the definition of enemy combatant? This is an important issue, but if we only win that we have lost the bigger battle -- for what we would then have is a preventive detention scheme for alleged terrorists -- albeit one in which the detainee can challenge that detention.
"The second issue to arise is the key one: Can a person who is alleged to commit or plan acts of terrorism or claimed to have affiliation with a terrorist group (as in al-Marri's case) be held indefinitely as an 'enemy combatant' and never tried for a crime -- in other words can he be preventively detained without a criminal trial?
The Supreme Court has not ruled on this either in the Gitmo cases or domestic ones, which is only al-Marri at this point.
"The Fourth Circuit (5-4) has now held that a U.S. resident or lawful immigrant (the reasoning would apply to citizens as well) can be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant and never need be tried (yes he can test that detention -- but the question asked at the hearing is whether he is an enemy combatant -- once that is answered he can be held indefinitely.)
"In al-Marri, the bad part of the decision is based on a congressional statute -- the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which addressed the use of force against al-Qaeda. It is that statute which the court said authorized the detention at issue -- even though the detention took place in the U.S.
"It is a very, very dangerous decision. It literally means citizens in the U.S. can be detained as 'enemy combatants' in solitary confinement indefinitely and, while they can get a hearing, they never need be tried.
"The court in the narrow decision has put its imprimatur on the most dangerous departure from fundamental rights: the administration's treatment of what should be serious crimes as acts of war and its departure from fundamental protections of our constitution that should apply to those who are alleged to have engaged in criminal conduct. The claimed legal underpinning of the brutality of the administration
toward the detainees -- from torture to rendition to special trials -- stems
from its claim to be fighting a war on terror, when in fact it should be prosecuting crimes and giving suspects the protections of a civilized society."
Story Assignment: Implications of Torture
FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC ACCURACY:
Friday, July 18, 2008
Implications of Torture
Interviews Available
RICK SHENKMAN, editor@hnn.us, http://hnn.us
Editor of the History News Network, Shenkman is author of the
just-released book "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the
American Voter."
He said today: "Despite Watergate, Republicans have never given up
their belief in an imperial presidency. If the president does something,
it's not illegal, was Nixon's line of defense. It might as well be
Bush's and Cheney's, though they are careful never to admit it publicly.
President Bush violated the law numerous times during his presidency
without once expressing remorse at having done so. Violate the law by
going around the FISA court? No problem. Torture terrorist suspects by
waterboarding them? No problem (even as his own attorney general
designate opined that torture is illegal under the Constitution as a
violation of the 14th Amendment)."
LISA HAJJAR, lhajjar@lawso.ucsb.edu,
Hajjar, a professor in the Law and Society Program at the University of California-Santa Barbara, Hajjar said today: "The problem-ridden and
illegitimate military commissions at Guantanamo offer one among many
examples of the adverse consequences of using torture on prisoners. The
fact that the U.S. has adopted a policy of torture is now beyond
dispute, as is the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of totally
innocent people have been subjected to officially sanctioned torture
and abuse. However, supporters of the administration are arguing that if
some 'errors' were made, they were done with good intentions to benefit
American security, and they produced invaluable information. There
evidence that any good intelligence was produced through torture;
people knowledgeable about the interrogations of KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]
and Abu Zubaydah, for example, have said that any information they
provided came during non-coercive interrogations. But because they were
tortured, the use of this information for their prosecutions becomes
problematic. To understand why the U.S. got to this place, it is
important to appreciate that Cheney and other top officials were
motivated by the goal to roll back the legal constraints on the
executive branch instituted in the wake of Watergate, and to repudiate
international law as ostensibly 'unAmerican.' ...
"Torture is a crime. Now is the time for 'law and order' types to
'get tough on crime' and demand special prosecutors and prosecutions
for those who have authorized the illegal policies of torture that have
destroyed America's reputation and the very institutions responsible
for keeping us safe."
Hajjar is author of the book "Courting Conflict" and co-editor of
"Human Rights: Critical Concepts in Political Science."
Friday, July 18, 2008
Implications of Torture
Interviews Available
RICK SHENKMAN, editor@hnn.us, http://hnn.us
Editor of the History News Network, Shenkman is author of the
just-released book "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the
American Voter."
He said today: "Despite Watergate, Republicans have never given up
their belief in an imperial presidency. If the president does something,
it's not illegal, was Nixon's line of defense. It might as well be
Bush's and Cheney's, though they are careful never to admit it publicly.
President Bush violated the law numerous times during his presidency
without once expressing remorse at having done so. Violate the law by
going around the FISA court? No problem. Torture terrorist suspects by
waterboarding them? No problem (even as his own attorney general
designate opined that torture is illegal under the Constitution as a
violation of the 14th Amendment)."
LISA HAJJAR, lhajjar@lawso.ucsb.edu,
Hajjar, a professor in the Law and Society Program at the University of California-Santa Barbara, Hajjar said today: "The problem-ridden and
illegitimate military commissions at Guantanamo offer one among many
examples of the adverse consequences of using torture on prisoners. The
fact that the U.S. has adopted a policy of torture is now beyond
dispute, as is the fact that hundreds, if not thousands of totally
innocent people have been subjected to officially sanctioned torture
and abuse. However, supporters of the administration are arguing that if
some 'errors' were made, they were done with good intentions to benefit
American security, and they produced invaluable information. There
evidence that any good intelligence was produced through torture;
people knowledgeable about the interrogations of KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed]
and Abu Zubaydah, for example, have said that any information they
provided came during non-coercive interrogations. But because they were
tortured, the use of this information for their prosecutions becomes
problematic. To understand why the U.S. got to this place, it is
important to appreciate that Cheney and other top officials were
motivated by the goal to roll back the legal constraints on the
executive branch instituted in the wake of Watergate, and to repudiate
international law as ostensibly 'unAmerican.' ...
"Torture is a crime. Now is the time for 'law and order' types to
'get tough on crime' and demand special prosecutors and prosecutions
for those who have authorized the illegal policies of torture that have
destroyed America's reputation and the very institutions responsible
for keeping us safe."
Hajjar is author of the book "Courting Conflict" and co-editor of
"Human Rights: Critical Concepts in Political Science."
Monday, June 9, 2008
Story Assignment -- Scott McClellan Book and John Bolton Citizen's Arrest
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Accountability: Scott McClellan and John Bolton Citizen Arrest
Interviews Available
The Washington Post has on its front page a piece headlined "Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq."The British newspaper The Telegraph features a piece today: "John Bolton To Be Target of Citizen's Arrest at Hay Festival: John Bolton, the
former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, faces a citizen's arrest when he addresses an audience at the Hay Festival in Wales this evening." The piece begins: "George Monbiot, the journalist and activist, is planning the action because he believes Mr. Bolton is a 'war criminal.'" www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/28/9236
RICHARD FALK, rfalk@princeton.edu,http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/tff/people/r_falk.html
Falk is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and distinguished visiting professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is the author of more than 20 books including "The Costs of War: International Law, the UN, and World Order after Iraq."
He said: "As we see from today's news, even former White House spokesperson McClellan is admitting that the administration orchestrated events and information to push for the invasion of Iraq in defiance of the UN Charter. This amounts to an aggressive war. Attempts by citizens like George Monbiot to hold officials accountable stem from the fact that the governmental institutions have failed in their duty to hold such individuals accountable for violations of international law. The Center for Constitutional Rights formally urged the prosecution of Rumsfeld in Germany and France, but those cases were dismissed for political reasons. There were attempts to do citizen arrests against [then-Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger and other U.S. officials during the Vietnam War. Having structures to ensure accountability of
government officials for international crimes of state are an elementary facet of a real democracy in our globalized world."
GEORGE MONBIOT, [in Britain]
g.monbiot@zetnet.co.uk, http://www.monbiot.com
Monbiot is author of numerous books including "The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order." His office released a statement: "Bolton was one of the key initiators of the war against Iraq. ...
"This appears to be the first time that a citizen's arrest of one of the architects of the Iraq war has been attempted. ... John Bolton was instrumental in preparing and initiating the Iraq war, by disseminating false claims through the State Department and by orchestrating the sacking of an official who tried to provide a negotiated settlement.
"The Nuremberg Principles, which form the basis of customary international law concerning armed action, state that the following action is a crime punishable under international law: 'participation in a common plan' for the 'preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.'
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that 'to initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime.'
"The 2003 war with Iraq launched by the United States and the United Kingdom qualifies under international law both as a war of aggression ... and as a war in violation of international treaties (primarily the UN Charter).
"In the Guardian Tuesday, Mr. Bolton denies that he is a war criminal.
"Many people accept that the launching of the Iraq war was an international crime, but no one has yet been prepared to act on it by arresting one of the perpetrators. Monbiot intends to arrest John Bolton as he comes off the stage after speaking at the festival and to hand him over to the police."
Monbiot posted "Arresting John Bolton: The Charge Sheet" on
his web page: www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/27/arresting-john-bolton.
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Accountability: Scott McClellan and John Bolton Citizen Arrest
Interviews Available
The Washington Post has on its front page a piece headlined "Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled U.S. on Iraq."The British newspaper The Telegraph features a piece today: "John Bolton To Be Target of Citizen's Arrest at Hay Festival: John Bolton, the
former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, faces a citizen's arrest when he addresses an audience at the Hay Festival in Wales this evening." The piece begins: "George Monbiot, the journalist and activist, is planning the action because he believes Mr. Bolton is a 'war criminal.'" www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/28/9236
RICHARD FALK, rfalk@princeton.edu,http://www.transnational.org/SAJT/tff/people/r_falk.html
Falk is professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and distinguished visiting professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is the author of more than 20 books including "The Costs of War: International Law, the UN, and World Order after Iraq."
He said: "As we see from today's news, even former White House spokesperson McClellan is admitting that the administration orchestrated events and information to push for the invasion of Iraq in defiance of the UN Charter. This amounts to an aggressive war. Attempts by citizens like George Monbiot to hold officials accountable stem from the fact that the governmental institutions have failed in their duty to hold such individuals accountable for violations of international law. The Center for Constitutional Rights formally urged the prosecution of Rumsfeld in Germany and France, but those cases were dismissed for political reasons. There were attempts to do citizen arrests against [then-Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger and other U.S. officials during the Vietnam War. Having structures to ensure accountability of
government officials for international crimes of state are an elementary facet of a real democracy in our globalized world."
GEORGE MONBIOT, [in Britain]
g.monbiot@zetnet.co.uk, http://www.monbiot.com
Monbiot is author of numerous books including "The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order." His office released a statement: "Bolton was one of the key initiators of the war against Iraq. ...
"This appears to be the first time that a citizen's arrest of one of the architects of the Iraq war has been attempted. ... John Bolton was instrumental in preparing and initiating the Iraq war, by disseminating false claims through the State Department and by orchestrating the sacking of an official who tried to provide a negotiated settlement.
"The Nuremberg Principles, which form the basis of customary international law concerning armed action, state that the following action is a crime punishable under international law: 'participation in a common plan' for the 'preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances.'
"The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg ruled that 'to initiate a war of aggression ... is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime.'
"The 2003 war with Iraq launched by the United States and the United Kingdom qualifies under international law both as a war of aggression ... and as a war in violation of international treaties (primarily the UN Charter).
"In the Guardian Tuesday, Mr. Bolton denies that he is a war criminal.
"Many people accept that the launching of the Iraq war was an international crime, but no one has yet been prepared to act on it by arresting one of the perpetrators. Monbiot intends to arrest John Bolton as he comes off the stage after speaking at the festival and to hand him over to the police."
Monbiot posted "Arresting John Bolton: The Charge Sheet" on
his web page: www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/05/27/arresting-john-bolton.
Story Assignment -- Nuclear Subsidies
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
$544 Billion in Subsidies for Nuclear Industry
Interviews Available
KARL GROSSMAN, kgrossman@hamptons.com, www.envirovideo.com
Grossman just wrote the piece "Half-Trillion Dollars for Nukes!"
which states: "With Wall Street unwilling to finance new nuclear plants, U.S. Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and John Warner of Virginia have cooked up a scheme to provide $544 billion -- yes, with a 'b' -- in subsidies for new nuclear power plant development.
"Their move will be debated on the floor of the Senate Tuesday,
June 3.
"A Lieberman aide describes the plan as 'the most historic incentive for nuclear in the history of the United States.'
"The Lieberman-Warner scheme is cloaked in a climate change bill -- the claim being that nuclear power plants don't emit greenhouse gases and thus don't contribute to global warming. However, the overall 'nuclear cycle' -- which includes mining, milling, fuel enrichment and fabrication, and reprocessing -- has significant greenhouse gas emissions that do contribute to global warming." www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/29/9268
Grossman is a professor of journalism at the State University of
New York/College at Old Westbury, author of several books on nuclear
technology and host of the nationally syndicated TV program Enviro
Close-Up.
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
$544 Billion in Subsidies for Nuclear Industry
Interviews Available
KARL GROSSMAN, kgrossman@hamptons.com, www.envirovideo.com
Grossman just wrote the piece "Half-Trillion Dollars for Nukes!"
which states: "With Wall Street unwilling to finance new nuclear plants, U.S. Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and John Warner of Virginia have cooked up a scheme to provide $544 billion -- yes, with a 'b' -- in subsidies for new nuclear power plant development.
"Their move will be debated on the floor of the Senate Tuesday,
June 3.
"A Lieberman aide describes the plan as 'the most historic incentive for nuclear in the history of the United States.'
"The Lieberman-Warner scheme is cloaked in a climate change bill -- the claim being that nuclear power plants don't emit greenhouse gases and thus don't contribute to global warming. However, the overall 'nuclear cycle' -- which includes mining, milling, fuel enrichment and fabrication, and reprocessing -- has significant greenhouse gas emissions that do contribute to global warming." www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/29/9268
Grossman is a professor of journalism at the State University of
New York/College at Old Westbury, author of several books on nuclear
technology and host of the nationally syndicated TV program Enviro
Close-Up.
Story Assignment -- Global Warming "Debate"
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Global Warming Solutions and Shams:
* Public Transit * Cap-and-Trade Interviews Available
The Senate is debating global warming and a "cap-and-trade" proposal.
HARVEY WASSERMAN,harvey@freepress.org, http://www.solartopia.org
Wasserman is author of the new book "SOLARTOPIA: Our Green-Powered Earth, A.D. 2030." He said today: "With gas prices going through the roof, where's the discussion about public transit? Here in Ohio, the federal government just spent $500 million to widen the freeway between Cleveland and Columbus. For a tenth of that money, we could have re-instated train service. ..."
[Background: On Monday, USA Today reported in its lead story: "Ridership on mass transit breaks records."]
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-01-mass-transit_N.htm
Wasserman added: "Wind and solar are booming -- the American Wind Energy Association is currently having their convention and it's huge. We will be able to get our electricity from wind and solar. Nuclear is a pre-failed option. McCain has backed that; Obama has verbally said he would consider nuclear, but he has spoken against the subsidies -- but nuclear can't subsist with massive subsidies."
MICHAEL DORSEY, mkdorsey@dartmouth.edu
Professor of global environmental policy at Dartmouth College, Dorsey said last week: "Trading carbon and other market-based proposals will not avert the looming global climate catastrophe. Indeed, the market approaches under consideration on the Hill and the green business leaders promoting them are pushing us closer to catastrophe.
"The architects of the Kyoto Protocol were inspired by the trading system sanctioned by the reauthorized 1990 Clean Air Act, which came into effect under President Bush's father. This program was relatively successful inside the United States. It reduced the amount of sulfur dioxide emissions that cause acid rain. That program succeeded because there were few sources to monitor (about 2,000 smokestacks in the Midwest) and a national legal system by which to enforce the mandated
limits. By contrast, there are far too many carbon source points around the world to monitor, and there is no international legal system or global environmental organization to measure, let alone enforce, emissions limits.
"Thousands of credit-generating projects are being realized under corporate self-monitoring, dangerously relying on the polluters' own integrity. These potential conflicts of interest were at the heart of the Enron and Arthur Andersen scandals, both pioneers in emissions trading.
"The current leading climate change bill and related proposals are akin to putting the mafia in charge of the court system. Polluting industry has effectively dialed in a series of 'new cost containment' provisions that would delay short-term emissions reductions, when all known science says that we must reduce carbon pollution immediately.
"On a global scale, carbon trading is little more than an untested economic experiment that may not avert climate catastrophe in time. The industry-lauded European Union Emission Trading Scheme, the largest regulated carbon market, has failed to reduce greenhouse gases, and is beset by legal challenges from firms and EU members. Just last year, the Financial Times launched an investigation into carbon trading that uncovered numerous problems with trading and offset schemes. 'The rush
to go green suggests easy money for investors in projects that reduce carbon dioxide output,' the FT reported. As recently as last fall, British tax authorities are also investigating fraudulent trading firms. Similar discussions are already underway in Canada, which inaugurated its Montreal Climate Exchange last Friday.
Dorsey is completing a forthcoming book on climate justice for
publication in early 2009. Last year he wrote "Carbon trading won't
work," which was published in the Los Angeles Times
and "Green Market Hustlers" for Foreign Policy In Focus:
www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4313.
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Global Warming Solutions and Shams:
* Public Transit * Cap-and-Trade Interviews Available
The Senate is debating global warming and a "cap-and-trade" proposal.
HARVEY WASSERMAN,harvey@freepress.org, http://www.solartopia.org
Wasserman is author of the new book "SOLARTOPIA: Our Green-Powered Earth, A.D. 2030." He said today: "With gas prices going through the roof, where's the discussion about public transit? Here in Ohio, the federal government just spent $500 million to widen the freeway between Cleveland and Columbus. For a tenth of that money, we could have re-instated train service. ..."
[Background: On Monday, USA Today reported in its lead story: "Ridership on mass transit breaks records."]
www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-01-mass-transit_N.htm
Wasserman added: "Wind and solar are booming -- the American Wind Energy Association is currently having their convention and it's huge. We will be able to get our electricity from wind and solar. Nuclear is a pre-failed option. McCain has backed that; Obama has verbally said he would consider nuclear, but he has spoken against the subsidies -- but nuclear can't subsist with massive subsidies."
MICHAEL DORSEY, mkdorsey@dartmouth.edu
Professor of global environmental policy at Dartmouth College, Dorsey said last week: "Trading carbon and other market-based proposals will not avert the looming global climate catastrophe. Indeed, the market approaches under consideration on the Hill and the green business leaders promoting them are pushing us closer to catastrophe.
"The architects of the Kyoto Protocol were inspired by the trading system sanctioned by the reauthorized 1990 Clean Air Act, which came into effect under President Bush's father. This program was relatively successful inside the United States. It reduced the amount of sulfur dioxide emissions that cause acid rain. That program succeeded because there were few sources to monitor (about 2,000 smokestacks in the Midwest) and a national legal system by which to enforce the mandated
limits. By contrast, there are far too many carbon source points around the world to monitor, and there is no international legal system or global environmental organization to measure, let alone enforce, emissions limits.
"Thousands of credit-generating projects are being realized under corporate self-monitoring, dangerously relying on the polluters' own integrity. These potential conflicts of interest were at the heart of the Enron and Arthur Andersen scandals, both pioneers in emissions trading.
"The current leading climate change bill and related proposals are akin to putting the mafia in charge of the court system. Polluting industry has effectively dialed in a series of 'new cost containment' provisions that would delay short-term emissions reductions, when all known science says that we must reduce carbon pollution immediately.
"On a global scale, carbon trading is little more than an untested economic experiment that may not avert climate catastrophe in time. The industry-lauded European Union Emission Trading Scheme, the largest regulated carbon market, has failed to reduce greenhouse gases, and is beset by legal challenges from firms and EU members. Just last year, the Financial Times launched an investigation into carbon trading that uncovered numerous problems with trading and offset schemes. 'The rush
to go green suggests easy money for investors in projects that reduce carbon dioxide output,' the FT reported. As recently as last fall, British tax authorities are also investigating fraudulent trading firms. Similar discussions are already underway in Canada, which inaugurated its Montreal Climate Exchange last Friday.
Dorsey is completing a forthcoming book on climate justice for
publication in early 2009. Last year he wrote "Carbon trading won't
work," which was published in the Los Angeles Times
and "Green Market Hustlers" for Foreign Policy In Focus:
www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4313.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
