|
|
Action deadline: July 8, 2004 The U.S. Forest Service is expected soon to finalize and begin implementing the largest public lands timber sale in modern U.S. history, within the Siskiyou National Forest in southern Oregon, one of the most diverse forest and river ecosystems in the nation. Under the plan, old growth forests and roadless areas are to be cut. Worse, Congress may try to pass legislation that would eliminate any chance for citizens to challenge the project in court. FOLLOW THE STEPS BELOW TO URGE YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO OPPOSE THE LOGGING AND NOT TO PREVENT CITIZENS FROM CHALLENGING IT IN COURT. The project would salvage timber burned in 2002 during the Biscuit Fire - one of our nation's biggest forest fires ever. However, fire is a natural component of the region's ecology and the burned areas are best left to regenerate naturally. In contrast, logging would have devastating consequences for the region's important riparian areas, salmon and trout populations, rare plants, and wildlife. Under the proposal, more than 8,000 acres of ecologically valuable roadless areas would be logged. As a result of the logging, 48,000 acres of roadless land that could have qualified for wilderness designation in the future would no longer be eligible. WWF activists strongly opposed the Forest Service's original Biscuit Fire logging plan -- which called for even more cutting -- generating one third of the nearly 23,000 public comments submitted. Ninety-five percent of the comments received were opposed to the logging. Please forward this alert to your friends and colleagues. **************************TAKE ACTION NOW!********************* POWERFUL OPTION: Personalize your letter. Go to http://takeaction.worldwildlife.org/ctt.asp?u=26681&l=42692 and follow the instructions for adding your own thoughts to your message. Decision makers pay much more attention to personalized messages. QUICK OPTION: If you only have a minute, send the message below, as is, by simply replying to this email. (This option works only if you received this email directly from the Conservation Action Network.) If you have any questions or problems with taking action, contact us at actionquestions@takeaction.worldwildlife.org for help. ***************************LETTER TEXT************************** Dear (your representative's and senators' names will be inserted here): As your constituent and someone concerned about wise management of our national forests, I urge you to oppose the Forest Service's Biscuit Fire salvage logging plan for the Siskiyou National Forest. I also urge you to actively oppose any legislation or riders that would allow large scale logging in the Siskiyous or deprive citizens of their right to participate and use our nation's environmental laws. I urge you instead to support a Siskiyou Wild Rivers conservation alternative that would allow natural recovery on all roadless and environmentally sensitive areas, and would promote restoration of previously managed landscapes. The Siskiyou Wild Rivers area is internationally recognized for its ecological value, including some of the best salmon streams in the lower 48 states, some of the most biologically diverse terrain in the U.S. West, and the greatest concentration of rare plants of any U.S. national forest -- all of which would be seriously harmed by the proposed logging project. The massive logging would intrude on 8,000 acres of roadless areas and, as a result, would disqualify 48,000 acres from possible future wilderness designation and protection. While nearly everyone looks at a burned forest as a catastrophe, fire is a natural part of the Siskiyou Wild Rivers region and has helped shape the area's natural beauty and biological richness for thousands of years. If left alone, the ecosystem will naturally regenerate without the destruction that would be caused by salvage logging. Not only would the proposed salvage logging cost our nation in the damage it does to the environment, but it would cost significantly more to conduct than it would generate in revenue. Moreover, because the logging would occur in prime recreational and ecotourism areas, the local tourist economy and quality of life would be sacrificed to this money-losing timber sale. Please do all you can to protect this irreplaceable natural resource, and support the Siskiyou Wild Rivers conservation alternative. Sincerely, Your name and address will be inserted here **************************END OF LETTER TEXT************************* _____________________________________________________________________ Direct any questions about the WWF Conservation Action Network to actionquestions@takeaction.worldwildlife.org _____________________________________________________________________ The Conservation Action Network is sponsored by World Wildlife Fund-US. Known worldwide by its panda logo, WWF is dedicated to protecting the world's wildlife and the rich biological diversity that we all need to survive. The leading privately supported international conservation organization in the world, WWF has sponsored more than 2,000 projects in 116 countries and has more than 1 million members in the United States. WWF calls on everyone -- government, industry, and individuals -- to take responsibility by taking action to save our living planet. World Wildlife Fund 1250 Twenty-fourth Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 http://www.worldwildlife.org http://takeaction.worldwildlife.org
Congress is challenging the Bush administration's dangerous nuclear weapons agenda. The House of Representatives recently cut funds for the most provocative programs to develop new kinds of nuclear weapons. Now the Senate is debating whether to approve funding for these same programs. Please write your senators and tell them to stop the Bush administration's reckless drive for new nuclear weapons. TAKE ACTION: To automatically send the letter below to your senators, hit "reply" and then "send", in your email program. To customize your letter, learn more about this issue, or if this message was forwarded to you visit, http://www.ucsaction.org/ctt.asp?u=44389&l=43275 LETTER: Dear Senator, When you consider the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2005, I urge you to eliminate funds for the most provocative programs in the president's proposed nuclear weapons budget: the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, Advanced Concepts research, the Modern Pit Facility, and enhanced test readiness. These programs all threaten to undermine the United States' leadership role in nonproliferation. We cannot credibly ask other countries to restrain their nuclear weapons programs while we aggressively advance work on new weapons. The House of Representatives has already agreed to eliminate all funds for development of new nuclear weapons. I hope that you will support efforts in the Senate to follow this path and convey a clear message to the president that it is wrong--and counterproductive--to pursue new nuclear weapons while trying to stop others from acquiring them. Sincerely, (your name and address will be inserted)
TO: Defenders of Civil Liberties FROM: Bill of Rights Defense Committee RE: Urgent Phone and Fax Alert July 1, 2004 Urgent Phone and Fax Alert: Cut off funds for library and bookstore searches under USA PATRIOT Act Section 215 Support the Sanders-Paul-Conyers-Otter-Nadler Amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Bill of 2005 with a phone call to your House member. Consider following up with a fax. This amendment could be voted on the House floor as early as Wednesday, July 7, 2004. Points to include in your call or fax: a.. Like the Freedom to Read Protection Act (H.R. 1157) sponsored by Congressman Bernie Sanders (I-VT), this amendment would restore legal standards and warrant procedures for investigations of libraries and bookstores which were in place before passage of the USA PATRIOT Act. H.R. 1157 has the bipartisan support of 145 cosponsors. b.. Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act severely expands the scope of materials the FBI can access with a warrant from the government's secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance ACT or "FISA" court. This section gives the FBI the power to search for any "tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items)" in any location without having to show "probable cause." c.. Many people across the country, including librarians and booksellers, are concerned about the "chilling effect" of this legislation, which encourages users to self-censor their reading choices. Fifty state library associations, four state legislatures, and 331 cities and towns representing more than 52 million people have passed resolutions expressing their concerns with Section 215 and other specific provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act. d.. Passage of this amendment would still allow the FBI to use all constitutionally sanctioned means to obtain warrants and criminal subpoenas to access library and bookstore records pertinent to investigations related to terrorism or criminal acts. The Sanders-Paul-Conyers-Otter-Nadler amendment is part of a national grassroots campaign to protect our cherished civil liberties, which are threatened by the USA PATRIOT Act. The Campaign for Reader Privacy--sponsored by the American Booksellers Association, the American Library Association, and PEN American Center--has built momentum in support of ending the use Section 215 in libraries and bookstores by gathering more than 125,000 signatures in bookstores, libraries, and online at www.readerprivacy.org. People like you in cities and towns across the country must let your elected officials in Washington know that we can have security without sacrificing our constitutional guaranteed rights and liberties. To find contact information for your House member, go to www.house.gov. Please make a call today or no later than Tuesday, July 6. Feel free to pass this alert on to others who may be interested. Nancy Talanian, Director Bill of Rights Defense Committee info@bordc.org 413-582-0110 www.bordc.org
|
| |||
|
Help Support the Fisheries Management Reform Act of 2004! On June 24, 2004, Representatives Nick Rahall (WV) and Sam Farr (CA) introduced H.R. 4706, the Fisheries Management Reform Act of 2004. Over 14 other Members of Congress joined Representatives Rahall and Farr in support of the need to improve governance and management of the nation's oceans. To send a letter to your representative urging them to cosponsor H.R. 4706 visit: http://www.politicaloutreach.com/outreach/conservefish/actionalert.asp For a summary of H.R. 4706 click: http://www.politicaloutreach.com/outreach/conservefish/default.asp In April, the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy released its draft report on the health of America's oceans. The conclusion of this report reinforced what many in the scientific, fishing, and conservation communities have known for some time. Our oceans are in serious trouble. We urgently need to reform the governance of our oceans to end overfishing, reduce pollution, manage coastal development, and protect marine and coastal ecosystems. Our current governance structures are unable to adequately and effectively manage and protect our marine resources. In response to this crisis, The Fisheries Management Reform Act of 2004 is the first bill introduced in Congress to incorporate recommendations of not only the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, but also the Pew Oceans Commission, which both spent years studying our oceans and coming to the same conclusion, our oceans need help now! The bill addresses several critical problems plaguing fishery management and specifically targets the need to ensure that sound science is the basis for management decisions, broadens representation on the fishery management councils, significantly reduces financial conflicts of interests, and ensures proper training of all new council members. Please show your support for strengthening management of our marine resources throughout the country. Contact your Representatives today and urge them to cosponsor H.R. 4706, the Fisheries Management Reform Act of 2004. Congress needs to hear your voice now. To learn more about H.R. 4706, the Fisheries Management Reform Act of 2004 and to send a letter to your representatives in Congress, visit the Network's Action Center: http://www.politicaloutreach.com/outreach/conservefish/actionalert.asp Thank you for your support for a healthy ocean future! -Marine Fish Conservation Network Staff ---------------------------------------- For more information on H.R. 4706 the Fisheries Management Reform Act of 2004 visit: http://www.conservefish.org/site/capitolhill/fishissues/
 |
|
 |
|
The film “Day After Tomorrow” may not be the most
realistic depiction
of how global warming could wreak havoc upon our environment, but it
couldn’t have been more timely. As early as
TODAY, Congress will be voting on historic legislation that could
help protect our planet from global warming.
Please
contact your Senators TODAY and ask them to support the McCain-Lieberman
bill!
We have a unique opportunity to pass a consensus-based policy that will reduce air pollution and make our planet more secure in the long run. Last year we were only eight votes shy of winning.Please tell your Senators to support this bill today! After you’ve emailed your Senators, please sign this petition sponsored by Environmental Defense that has already generated hundreds of thousands of signatures in support of combating global warming.
Thanks for
making a difference! Rebecca and
Tom Your online team
at
http://democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/2020vision/thankYou.jsp?campaign_KEY=69 Take Action: http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/2020vision/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=69 Global Warming Petition: http://iw.rtm.com/ed/undoit_petition_1.asp?sitecode=uhp Sign Up For alerts! http://democracyinaction.org/2020vision/signUp.jsp |
 | |||||||||
| |||||||||
ETC Group News Release Thursday, 8 July 2004 www.etcgroup.org Nanotech: Unpredictable and Un-Regulated New Report from ETC Group The ETC Group releases a new Communiqué today that provides an update on policy discussions related to nanotech health and safety issues and the glaring lack of regulatory oversight. According to the ETC Group, governments on both sides of the Atlantic are reluctantly and belatedly conceding that current safety and health regulations may not be adequate to address the special exigencies of nano-scale materials. In sharp contrast to the political climate one year ago, the potential health and environmental risks of some nano-scale technologies are being openly discussed in Europe and North America. Since mid-2002, ETC Group has called for a moratorium on the use of synthetic nanoparticles in the lab and in any new commercial products until governments adopt "best practices" for research. The full text of the 12-page report is available online: www.etcgroup.org "Ironically, governments are talking about the need to be proactive, failing to admit that they're at least one decade late: nanotech products are already commercially available and laboratory workers and consumers are already being exposed to nanoparticles that could pose serious risks to people and the environment," says Pat Mooney, Executive Director of ETC Group in Ottawa. The US government estimates that one million new workers will be employed in nanotech-related industries within the next decade. And the global nanotech market is expected to tip $1 trillion in just seven years, according to Mike Roco of the US National Science Foundation. "Only a handful of toxicological studies exist on engineered nanoparticles, but not-so-tiny red flags are popping up everywhere," points out Jim Thomas, ETC Group Programme Officer based in Oxford, England. In May, the world's second largest re-insurance company, Swiss Re, warned that the unknown and unpredictable risks associated with nanotoxicity or nanopollution could make nanotechnology un-insurable. "Will governments that are spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money to promote nanotech research adopt rigorous regulatory oversight or will they simply tinker with existing regulations and propose voluntary guidelines? When will they address seriously the wider concerns related to social and economic impacts of technologies converging at the nano-scale?" asks Kathy Jo Wetter, ETC Group researcher in Carrboro, North Carolina, USA. The new Communiqué also features an update and analysis of the "Grey Goo" debate - the nanotech disaster scenario described by Eric Drexler of the Foresight Institute. ETC Group dismisses Grey Goo as a red herring, but it concludes that the field of nanobiotechnology (the convergence of nano and bio) and the specter of "Green Goo" pose an urgent need for foresight and caution. Will new life forms, especially those that are designed to function autonomously in the environment, open a Pandora's box of unforeseen and uncontrollable consequences? Governments are suffering from myopia when it comes to nanotechnology, warns ETC Group. "Even as governments and industry belatedly accept that engineered nanoparticles may require regulation, they insist that more advanced stages of nanotech are too far over the horizon to consider regulating. They're wrong - we must look beyond nanoparticles to consider more advanced stages such as nanobiotechnology and a host of socio-economic impacts related to human rights, defense and trade," says Jim Thomas of ETC Group. ETC Group concludes that society is not ready for the technological and economic upheaval that nano-scale technologies will deliver. Given the huge amount of government and private sector funding and the accelerated pace of scientific breakthroughs, it is a mistake for governments to focus on a 3-5 year horizon for regulating nanotech. The nanotech industry prides itself on having learned the lessons of biotech, insisting that they won't repeat the missteps and mistakes associated with the introduction of genetically modified crops. Based on current trends, it looks like they're en route to another disastrous technology introduction. ETC Group insists that government regulations are not enough. Society must be fully engaged in a discussion of the socio-economic as well as health and environmental implications of nano-scale technologies. These issues must be considered by civil society in open, informed debates at the local, national and international levels. Rather than being forced to scramble and react to one technological wave after the other, the international community must create a new body dedicated to track, evaluate and accept or reject new technologies and their products through an International Convention on the Evaluation of New Technologies (ICENT). For further information: Pat Mooney, ETC Group (Canada) etc@etcgroup.org, (613) 241-2267 Jim Thomas, ETC Group (UK) jim@etcgroup.org tel +44 (0)1865 201719. mobile: +44 (0)7752 106806 Kathy Jo Wetter and Hope Shand, ETC Group (USA) kjo@etcgroup.org, hope@etcgroup.org tel: +1 919 960-5223 Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (Mexico) silvia@etcgroup.org: 52 55 55 632 664 The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, formerly RAFI, is an international civil society organization headquartered in Canada. The ETC Group is dedicated to the advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights. www.etcgroup.org" designtimesp=11707>
www.etcgroup.org . The ETC Group is also a member of the Community Biodiversity Development and Conservation Programme (CBDC). The CBDC is a collaborative experimental initiative involving civil society organizations and public research institutions in 14 countries.. The CBDC is dedicated to the exploration of community-directed programmes to strengthen the conservation and enhancement of agricultural biodiversity. The CBDC website is www.cbdcprogram.org ETC Group headquarters - NEW ADDRESS: ETC Group 1 Nicholas Street, Suite 200 B Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7 Canada tel: 1-613-241-2267; fax: 1-613-241-2506 ETC Group also has offices in Carrboro (USA), Mexico City (Mexico) and Oxford (UK).
|
As early as tomorrow, the Senate will release a report that finds fault with the way the U.S. intelligence community gathered evidence on Iraq’s weapons and its links to Al Qaeda before the war. Unfortunately, the Senate doesn’t look at the role of one important actor: The White House. If Fahrenheit 9/11 taught us one thing about the Bush administration, it’s that Bush has been keeping Americans in the dark on the war in Iraq. We shouldn’t lay the intelligence failure solely at the feet of the intelligence community. We need to create an independent commission to investigate the role of the White House. Take Action Today! Americans
have the right to know how our intelligence community got it wrong on
We’d also like to give you the chance to hear more about what we’ve been doing to educate people on the local level. Our Executive Director, Tom Collina has spoken on several radio shows about why we need to investigate the role of the White House in the Iraq intelligence failure.Click here to find out more! Best, Tom and Rebecca Your online team at 20/20 Vision |
To: All
Activists
From: American Lands
Alliance
Date: July 8, 2004
The ESA Under Attack: Please Call Resources Committee Members and
Urge Opposition to Anti-Endangered Species Bills
The House Resources
Committee will vote on two bills that would significantly weaken Endangered
Species Act protections next Wednesday, July 21, 2004. We need your
help to stop these bills in Committee. The two bills are
Rep. Dennis Cardoza’s (D-CA) “Critical Habitat Reform Act of 2003” (HR 2933) and
Rep. Greg Walden’s (R-OR) “Sound Science for Endangered Species Act Planning
Act” (HR 1662). These bills would create holes in the designation of critical
habitat and place additional burdens on the scientific process of listing
species under the Endangered Species Act. Committee members need to hear from you today!
TAKE ACTION: Please call
the following Representatives (see below) on the Resources Committee and let
them know that you care about endangered species protection and don’t want
Congress to weaken the Act! Urge
them to vote against both HR 2933-the Cardoza anti-critical habitat bill and HR
1662-the Walden unsound science bill on July 21,
2004.
The Anti-Critical Habitat Bill
Rep. Dennis Cardoza’s (D-CA) “Critical Habitat Reform Act
of 2003”- HR 2933 tries to undermine protections for the places that imperiled
plants and animals need to survive and recover. The bill attempts to make the
designation of critical habitat, the very places endangered species need to
recover, voluntary rather than mandatory as the Endangered Species Act currently
requires, by removing all legal deadlines. It changes the definition of critical
habitat, creates loopholes and makes it increasingly harder for species to
return from the brink of extinction.
Critical habitat is
one of the most important protections in the Endangered Species Act. Scientists tell us
that one of the best ways to protect species it to protect the places they
live. One of
the main reasons why species are becoming endangered is habitat loss. We owe it to our
children and grandchildren to be good stewards of the environment and leave
behind a legacy of protecting endangered species and the special places they
call home.
The Unsound Science Bill
Rep. Walden’s (R-OR) “Sound Science for Endangered Species
Act Planning Act”-HR 1662 seeks to undercut the use of the best science. By requiring
government agencies to “give greater weight” to some kinds of science over
others, it seeks to restrict the use of important methods that scientists
currently use to assess species’ protection, such as statistical tools that
often provide the most telling insights about the species. Scientists, not
Congress, should determine which science best addresses any given issue. The
Endangered Species Act already requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to
use the most rigorous science available in developing balanced solutions to
prevent the extinction of endangered fish, plants and wildlife. Developers, and the
politicians they give money to, are trying to weaken the Endangered Species
Act. They are
manipulating science to fit their political agenda and working to remove the
checks and balances that help protect people from special interests.
More background and
in-depth information is available on the Endangered Species Coalition's website
at: http://www.stopextinction.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=31
Resources Committee Members to Call:
Representative Phone
Jim Saxton,
(R-NJ) 202/225-4765
Wayne T. Gilchrest, (R-MD)
202/225-5311
Rubén Hinojosa, (D-TX) 202/225-2531
Ciro D. Rodriguez, (D-TX) 202/225-1640
Solomon P. Ortiz (D- TX)
202/225-7742
Stephanie Herseth (D-SD) 202/225-6631
Neil Abercrombie, (D-HI) 202/225-2726
Brad Carson, (D-OK) 202/225-2701
Joe Baca, (D-CA) 202/225-6161
Calvin M. Dooley, (D-CA) 202/225-3341
George Miller, (D-CA) 202/225-2095
Grace F. Napolitano, (D-CA) 202/225-5256
Nick Rahall (R-WV) 202/225-6065
Jay Inslee, (D-WA) 202/225-6311
Tom Udall, (D NM) 202/225-6190
Mark Udall, (D-CO) 202/225-2161
Dale E. Kildee(R-MI) 202/225-3611
Ron Kind, (D-WI) 202/225-5506
Frank Pallone, Jr., (D-NJ) 202/225-4671
Raúl M. Grijalva, (D-AZ) 202/225-2435
Edward J. Markey, (D-MA) 202/225-2836
Lisa Dix
National Forest Program Director
American Lands Alliance
ldix@americanlands.org
Ph: 202-547-9105; Fax: 202-547-9213
The Bush Administrations continued its Rainforest Campaign by issuing Threemile Logging Project this week, the first timber sale issued in previously protected area of rainforest TAKE ACTION: Tell Forest Service Chief Bosworth that you OPPOSE ALL ROADLESS AREA LOGGING in the Tongass National Forest! Heres what you can do to help: 1. Email Chief Bosworth - dbosworth@fs.fed.us, you can send online at: http://capwiz.com/awc/issues/alert/?alertid=6099011 OR 2. Call Chief Bosworth (202) 205-1661. Tell the Chief that you oppose ALL logging projects in roadless areas of the Tongass National Forest including the Three Mile project and the soon to be released Gravina Island logging project. ***** The Bush Administration has issued (July 2004) the Record of Decision for the Threemile logging project, the first timber sale in an area of the rainforest which had previously been protected from new road construction and commercial logging. This sale is a sign that the Bush administration is intent on propping up, with taxpayer dollars, a declining commercial timber industry says Laurie Cooper of the Alaska Rainforest Campaign. The public has said logging pristine areas in America's rainforest is the wrong policy and the U.S. House of Representatives has agreed. Unfortunately, the Bush administration refuses to listen. On June 16, 2004 the House voted (222-205) to end taxpayer subsidized road-building and logging in the Tongass National Forest. Before the prohibition can go into effect, the U.S. Senate must approve the measure as well. The proposed Threemile Timber Sale would log over 650 acres of pristine coastal rainforest and would build over 8 miles of new road into the extraordinary Rocky Pass and Camden on north Kuiu Island. Kuiu Island is within the traditional territory of the Kake Tlingit tribe which depends upon the abundant fish and wildlife habitat for hunting, fishing, and gathering of wild foods. The Gravina Island Timber Sale, which also would have been prohibited under the Roadless Rule, is expected to be finalized shortly. For more information on the Alaska rainforest contact: Laurie Cooper, Alaska Rainforest Campaign (laurie@akrain.org)
ETC Group News Release Sunday, July 11, 2004 www.etcgroup.org The Precautionary Prince II Prince Charles' cautionary note brings "control and ownership" of nanotechnology, social issues and impacts on the South to the fore "Prince Charles' thoughtful article in the Independent on Sunday (UK) is an impressive service to society and science in the unfolding public debate on nanotechnology," according to Jim Thomas of the ETC Group's Oxford office. "Not only does the Prince set aside the fictional notion of 'grey goo,' but he also sensibly reminds us that there are important unanswered questions relating to the control and ownership of these technologies," said Thomas. Go here to view the Prince's article on nanotechnology: http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=539977 >From ETC's international headquarters in Ottawa, Canada, Pat Mooney, Executive Director, adds, "It is especially significant that the Prince highlights the need for a precautionary approach, the need for a wider societal debate and draws attention to what nanotechnology may mean for the gap between rich and poor nations." ETC Group is concerned about the potential for emerging technologies to destabilize the economies of poor countries in the global South, which could imperil the livelihoods of workers and basic producers everywhere. Until now, points out Mooney, the debate has focused narrowly on health and environmental concerns. "As important as these issues are, the regulations that will address them will no doubt be heavily influenced by whoever owns and controls nanotech. When 26 governments met in Washington last month to discuss nanotechnology development, [http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=466 ], the emphasis was on environmental safety regulations and not on the regulations needed to prevent new corporate monopolies and technology cartels; nor to critical new issues related to human rights, privacy, and military applications." In the view of the ETC Group, the Prince's article sets out the global landscape that will engage not only the United Nations but also all of civil society in the debate on this new technological revolution. ETC Group dismisses the threat of "grey goo" - where self-replicating nano-scale robots run amok - as a red herring. But serious attention must focus on the rapidly advancing field of nanobiotechnology, the current darling of nanotech venture capitalists. Nanobiotechnology refers to the merging of the living and non-living realms at the nano-scale to make hybrid materials and organisms. Researchers aim to harness nature's self-replicating 'manufacturing platform' for industrial uses - rather than try to engineer robots to mimic it. According to ETC Group, it's the spectre of "Green Goo" - not "Grey Goo" - that poses an urgent need for foresight and caution. For more information, see: http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/livingcolorfinal.pdf In his article, Prince Charles asks if there is a danger of awarding patents on Nature. "The answer is yes," according to Hope Shand, Research Director of ETC Group based in Carrboro, North Carolina, USA. "We're already seeing monopoly patents on the building blocks of nature." Glenn Seaborg, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, set a dangerous precedent when he won US patent #3,156,523 for the chemical element Americium (element no. 95 on the periodic table) in 1964. A front-page article in the Wall St. Journal last month reports on the "intensifying race" to file nanotech patent applications. In the US alone, the number of nanotech patents awarded annually has tripled since 1996.(1) Major nanotech patent holders include IBM, L'Oréal, Dow, Xerox, Philips Electronics, Sony, Proctor & Gamble, University of California and Rice University, among others. The US government predicts that nanotech markets will exceed $1 trillion by 2011. "With governments worldwide spending [US]$5-6 billion per year on nanotech R&D, virtually all Fortune 500 companies involved, scores of products on the market and hundreds more in the pipeline, the questions raised by Prince Charles - such as who wins and who loses? what are the risks and who will bear them? - are extremely relevant," adds Shand. >From GMOs to AMOs? In 1996 Prince Charles brought public attention to his concerns about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and agriculture. What impacts will nanotech's atomically modified organisms (AMOs) have on food and agriculture? Though it has escaped public notice, the food and agriculture sector is among the most intensely researched areas of nano-scale science. These applications will extend the reach of industrial agriculture and alter the way our food is grown and produced, processed, packaged and even eaten. According to Helmut Kaiser Consultancy, some 200 transnational food companies are currently investing in nanotech and are on their way to commercializing products. The list includes many of the world's largest companies, such as: Ajinomoto, Campbell Soup, ConAgra, General Mills, H. J. Heinz, Kraft Foods, McCain Foods, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Sara Lee and Unilever. The following examples offer a preview: Nanoseeds: In Thailand, scientists at Chiang Mai University's nuclear physics laboratory have rearranged the DNA of rice by drilling a nano-sized hole through the rice cell's wall and membrane and inserting a nitrogen atom. So far, they've been able to change the colour of the grain, from purple to green. Nanoparticle pesticides: Monsanto, Syngenta and BASF are developing pesticides enclosed in nanocapsules or made up of nanoparticles. The pesticides can be more easily taken up by plants if they're in nanoparticle form; they can also be programmed to be "time-released." Nano Chicken Feed: With funding from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), Clemson University researchers are feeding bioactive polystyrene nanoparticles that bind with bacteria to chickens as an alternative to chemical antibiotics in industrial chicken production. Nano Ponds: One of the USA's biggest farmed fish companies, Clear Spring Trout, is adding nanoparticle vaccines to trout ponds, where they are taken up by fish. Little Brother: The USDA is pursuing a project to cover farmers' fields and herds with small wireless sensors to replace farm labour and expertise with a ubiquitous surveillance system. Nano foods: Kraft, Nestlé, Unilever and others are employing nanotech to change the structure of food - creating "interactive" drinks containing nanocapsules that can change colour and flavour (Kraft) and spreads and ice creams with nanoparticle emulsions (Unilever, Nestlé) to improve texture. Others are inventing small nanocapsules that will smuggle nutrients and flavours into the body (what one company calls "nanoceuticals"). Nano packaging: BASF, Kraft and others are developing new nanomaterials that extend food shelf life and signal when a food spoils by changing colour. Coming Soon: Nanotech for Tummies In the coming months, ETC Group will release a series of Communiqués on the socio-economic impacts of nanotech, including a primer on the implications on nanotechnology for food and agriculture, "Nanotech for Tummies." For further information: Pat Mooney, ETC Group (Canada) etc@etcgroup.org , (613) 241-2267; mobile: (613) 261-0688 Jim Thomas, ETC Group (UK) jim@etcgroup.org tel +44 (0)1865 201719; mobile: +44 (0)7752 106806 Hope Shand and Kathy Jo Wetter and, ETC Group (USA) kjo@etcgroup.org , hope@etcgroup.org tel: +1 919 960-5223 Silvia Ribeiro, ETC Group (Mexico) silvia@etcgroup.org 52 55 55 632 664 Notes to Editors: The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration, formerly RAFI, is an international civil society organization headquartered in Canada. The ETC Group is dedicated to the advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights. www.etcgroup.org For a basic introduction to nano-scale technologies and an analysis of their implications, see The Big Down, From Genomes to Atoms: Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf For an 8-page introduction to nano-scale technologies, an abbreviated version of The Big Down: http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/littlebigdown.pdf For a critique of the strategy of converging technologies and an analysis of its implications, see "The Little BANG Theory" http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/comBANG2003.pdf For an introduction to the issues surrounding the toxicity of engineered nanoparticles, see "No Small Matter!" and ETC Group's Occasional Paper "Size Matters!" for a more detailed analysis and a list of products containing nanoparticles. http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/Occ.Paper_Nanosafety.pdf For a short list of the most worrying scientific findings involving nano-scale technologies, see Ten Toxic Warnings in "Nano's Troubled Waters" http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/GT_TroubledWater_April1.pdf For a brief analysis of nanotech governance, see "26 Governments Tiptoe Toward Global Nano Governance" http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/globalgovfinal.pdf For ETC Group's most recent Communiqué (May/June 2004) on the policy debate surrounding nanotechnology health and safety issues, see: http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/livingcolorfinal.pdf To view an unofficial document generated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) listing well over 100 commercial products based on nanotechnologies, see: http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/nanoproducts_EPA.pdf) ETC Group headquarters - NEW ADDRESS: ETC Group 1 Nicholas Street, Suite 200 B Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7 Canada tel: 1-613-241-2267; fax: 1-613-241-2506 ETC Group also has offices in Carrboro (USA), Mexico City (Mexico) and Oxford (UK). Endnote: (1) Antonio Regalado, "Nanotechnology Patents Surge as Companies Vie to Stake Claim," Wall Street Journal, June 18, 2004; Page A1.
The government's shooting of Mexican wolf No. 574 over the weekend reduces the number of radio collared and monitored lobos in the wild to fourteen. Male 574 was the only wild wolf from the Aragon lineage of Mexican wolves. His killing reduces the genetic diversity of a population that was established through captive breeding and reintroduction on the basis of just seven founding animals. Trapping is now underway for a wolf family in the Cibola National Forest consisting of two wild-born parents and their wild-born pup -- simply because they are not living within the official recovery area. The Mexican gray wolves need your help to end the ongoing mismanagement and give them a real opportunity for recovery. You can take action on this alert via the web at: http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/lobo1/8gxg5d4aj6ix3n Visit the web address below to tell your friends about this. http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/lobo1/forward/8gxg5d4aj6ix3n We encourage you to take action by July 31, 2004 Save the Mexican gray wolf INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPOND VIA THE WEB: If you have access to a web browser, you can take action on this alert by going to the following URL: http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/lobo1/8gxg5d4aj6ix3n Your letter will be addressed and sent to: Regional Director Dale Hall ----THIS LETTER WILL BE SENT IN YOUR NAME---- Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here], Please inititate the process for a federal rule change in accordance with the recommendations of the June, 2001 Paquet Report, also known as the Mexican Wolf Three-Year Review. The 86-page Paquet Report, written by independent scientists, warned that the rules in place were hindering recovery. The current restrictive rules require Mexican wolves not to establish territories outside the recovery area, which consists of the Gila and Apache National Forests. But wolves can't read maps drawn by politicians. Biologists say they need freedom to roam if they are to survive and maintain the balance of nature. The rules also do not provide the same level of protection for Mexican wolves as the wolves in Yellowstone and central Idaho were granted for the first eight years of that reintroduction program. The rules for northern wolves forbade control actions against depradating wolves drawn to an area because of livestock carcasses, while the rules for the Southwest provide an incentive for ranchers to bait wolves: the wolves' subsequent removal. The Paquet Report projected a 39% chance of the population declining if these rules weren't changed, and in the intervening three years the number of monitored wolves has gone down from 27 to 14 animals. The population as a whole may have declined commensurately. Please heed the science rather than the political pressure from the livestock industry, and give the lobo a real chance for recovery. Initiate the rule change procedure without further delay. ----END OF LETTER TO BE SENT----
| | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Tell-a-Friend!
When a lobbyist joins
the Bush administration, you'd think they would sever all ties
to their former clients. Not 
2. Victory in Arizona! Protections for
the endangered Pygmy Owl continue! 
Amid a storm of
criticism from environmental groups and some state
governments, the Bush administration is reconsidering rules
that allow power plants to delay installing 
Under
pressure by the speed boat industry and despite thousands of
emails, Florida Governor Jeb Bush has signed SB 540,
legislation that will harm endangered manatees.
Congress appears
poised to move the massive transportation funding bill after
much wrangling about the bill's price tag. Also on the table
are several key environmental provisions designed to reduce
the impact road-building projects have on animals and habitat
as well as protect animals as they cross high traffic roads.
Defenders played an instrumental role in getting those
provisions inserted into the bill and will work to make sure
they remain part of the legislation. 
The last remaining
acres of national forests that are free of roads may soon have
both new roads and active logging if a 
The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is planning to drop Endangered Species Act
protections for wolves in the eastern United States, despite
the fact that the removal of protections would likely preclude
the 
Help save the
dolphin-safe tuna label by 
Defenders of
Wildlife and several other wildlife and conservation groups
recently joined forces with Reps. Clay Shaw (R-Florida), Tom
Udall (D-New Mexico), Ed Royce (R-California) and John Tanner
(D-Tennessee) to introduce the "Great Cats and Rare Canids
Act"—legislation that will provide $5 million annually to
protect foreign feline and canine species, including lions,
leopards, African wild dogs, cheetahs, and other species.