Friday, May 30, 2008

BIG OIL SCREWS EVERYONE

Every time Sohaila Rezazadeh rings up a sale at her Exxon station on
Chain Bridge Road in Oakton, USA her cash register sends the information
to Exxon Mobil's central computers. If she raises the price of gasoline
a couple of pennies, chances are that Exxon will raise the wholesale
price she pays by the same amount. Through a password-protected Web
portal, Exxon notifies Rezazadeh of wholesale price changes daily. That
way the oil giant, which is earning about US$3.3 billion a month,
fine-tunes the pump prices at the franchise Rezazadeh has owned for 12
years.

Now, however, Rezazadeh says she cannot stay in business. Credit-card
fees are eating her profit margins. Exxon, which owns the station land,
last week handed Rezazadeh a new lease raising her rent about 30 percent
over the next three years. She stuck a copy on the window of her station
to show customers who are angry about soaring pump prices. Rezazadeh has
told Exxon that she cannot make money with the rent that high. Her
territory manager's reply, she said, was simple: "When you go, leave us
the keys..." - Washington Post


Monday, May 12, 2008

High-stakes battle over mining rights

High-stakes battle over mining rights
Century-old law giving prospectors right to drill on private land unites natives and non-natives
May 12, 2008 04:30 AM
Peter Gorrie
Environment Reporter

OMPAH, Ont.–Frank Morrison knew immediately what the red metal tag meant. He didn't understand why it was on his land.

It was a crisp, sunny morning in October 2006. Morrison, retired from the advertising industry, was cutting wood on the rolling, 40-hectare property, 100 kilometres north of Kingston, that he and his wife Gloria moved to six years ago.

The tag was attached to a tree that had been chopped to just over a metre high. A straight row of pink ribbons ran from it into the bush. Other trees had been crudely blazed.

All this meant that a prospector, without permission, had claimed the site for a potential mine.

Calls to the provincial Ministry of Northern Development and Mines confirmed that Oakville-based Frontenac Ventures Corp. had staked the claims – in fact, to 80 per cent of the Morrisons' property and, eventually, about 12,000 hectares in the area. The company was looking for uranium.

Under Ontario's century-old Mining Act, and across Canada and most of the world, all this is legal. In fact, secret staking is considered crucial to the industry.

"We found out very quickly that there is no help. The mining industry trumps everything," Morrison said recently in the couple's log home – partly finished and with construction at a standstill while the mine remains a threat.

The Morrisons are part of a gathering protest over mining rights that is uniting non-natives and Indians, and causing a major headache at Queen's Park.

The mining industry has long operated out of sight, and mind. Not any more: Soaring prices for uranium, platinum and other minerals have touched off a claims-staking rush across much of Ontario.

The race for resources has put the spotlight on the Act, which, under a system known as free entry, allows prospectors and mine developers almost unhindered access to public lands and much private property as well.

Indians say they're fighting for the right to control development on their traditional lands. The Morrisons and other non-natives are incensed that prospectors can arrive, unannounced, and dig for minerals under their feet.

The controversy has grown so high profile that Premier Dalton McGuinty promises to "modernize" the creaky law.

Much is at stake: Queen's Park is courting mining companies to boost the province's economy. Industry officials warn mining would die without free entry.

Prospectors depend on secrecy, said Neal Smitheman, lawyer for Frontenac Ventures. "They don't want to share information before staking ... It's easy to have your claim jumped."

On the other side, seven people are in jail for protesting mine developments, and more might join them next month.

AFTER FINDING THE METAL

Morrison contacted a local Indian group, the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation, whose land claim covers most of the proposed mining territory.

After months of research and phone calls, non-natives and Indians joined forces.

On last year's national aboriginal day of protest, the Algonquins set up a blockade camp at Frontenac's base, a few kilometres from the Morrisons' place, where exploratory drilling was to be done. A short-term event became a peaceful vigil that continued for months. Non-native supporters, who refer to themselves as settlers, brought food and supplies, and communicated the story to the rest of the province.

Meanwhile, at Frontenac's request, a Kingston judge issued an injunction against the protest. In October, several Algonquins and non-natives, including Morrison, were charged with violating the order.

The case went to court in February. While charges against the non-natives were withdrawn, Associate Chief Justice Douglas Cunningham told the Algonquins to submit to the injunction or go to jail.

All but one agreed. The exception was Bob Lovelace, 59, a former chief who teaches at Queen's University in Kingston.

"I am in a dilemma," he told the court. "I want to obey Canadian law, but Algonquin law instructs me that I must preserve Creation. I must follow Algonquin law."

"There can only be one law – the law of Canada as expressed in this court," Cunningham replied as he imposed a six-month jail term and a $25,000 fine.

That wasn't the end of it. For technical legal reasons, a second set of charges was laid later last fall against the same group. A June 2 hearing has been set.

The camp continued until February, when the court ordered opponents to stay at least 200 metres away. The OPP charged four non-natives: They, too, are to be in court next month.

One of the Algonquins who will again stand before Cunningham is Harold Perry, 78, an honorary chief who moves and speaks slowly after a couple of strokes and heart attacks. He didn't want to comply with the order last time but acquiesced for friends worried he'd die in jail. He'll respond differently if issued the same ultimatum next month, he said over tea and sandwiches in the rural lakeside home he built nearly 50 years ago in a village called Ompah, 100 kilometres southwest of Ottawa.

"There comes a point at my age when if you don't stand up for your rights, what are you living for?"

Around the same time Lovelace was jailed, up in Thunder Bay, six members of Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug, or KI, an Indian community in Ontario's far north, got six-month terms for protesting development of a platinum mine.

In Eastern Ontario, critics fear the health and environmental impacts of an open-pit uranium mine, particularly that radioactive waste would ruin water sources and that the project would kill the tourism and cottage economy. But the heart of the dispute is who determines where mines are built.

Staking raises different issues on private and public land.

Like the Morrisons, most private property holders own just the surface rights to their land. Prospectors can stake for minerals without permission. If exploratory drilling or other work is to be done, landowners can negotiate for compensation. But if they object, they can't simply say "No." They must take their case to the provincial Mining Commissioner to decide.

"When your land is staked, what it really means is that you really have no rights at all," Gloria Morrison said. The claim staking has destroyed the value of their property, she said, but, far more, the experience shattered a lifetime of certainties.

"You believe in democracy, freedom of speech and justice in the courts. Then you're faced with one assault after another. It's like the ground is pulled out from under you."

On public, or Crown, land, mining can go ahead as long as the province approves, and it usually does.

Reserves are off-limits to miners, but the Act is an issue when Indians claim additional territory, which usually means Crown land.

In 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, on a dispute in British Columbia, that Indians must be consulted before development occurs. Ontario's Liberal government says it concurs. But it and the courts interpret consultation as simply offering information and discussing how projects should proceed.

The Ardoch Algonquins and KI members argue that's not enough: "The government's view is that there will be consultation but at the end of the process there will be mining exploration," says Ardoch co-chief Mireille Lapointe. "That's not consultation. There needs to be the possibility it will lead to no exploration."

Now that free entry has moved out of the shadows, a reportedly divided Liberal cabinet is trying to figure out how to respond.

To defuse the controversy, the government says it supports freeing Lovelace and the "KI Six."

On the bigger issue: "We need to modernize the Act so that it is in keeping with our values and expectations at the beginning of the 21st century," McGuinty said in a recent written response to critics.

But it appears unlikely free entry will be abandoned, or that consultation will include a veto for Indians.

The government has no desire to curtail development, and some communities welcome it, Mines Minister Michael Gravelle said in a recent interview. "The real issue is how do we find the balance between the requirement to have consultation that's viewed as legitimate by First Nations and the need to maintain the investment climate, which is extremely positive in Ontario. It's a bit of a tightrope."


--  http://www.haliburtonfolk.com http://www.environmenthaliburton.ca ---------------------------------------------- `·.¸ ><((((º> .·´¯`·.¸.·<º))))><¸.·´¯·.¸ `·.¸.·´¯`·.¸ ><((((º> ¸.·´¯`·.¸><((((º> <º))))><·.¸.·´¯`·.¸><((((º>·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸ ·..·´¯`·. <º))))><.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·<º))))><   Eric Lilius Box 27 (1563 Eagle Lake Road) Eagle Lake, ON  K0M 1M0 CANADA W78.34.12/N45.07.09 705-754-9873 705-754-9860 (fax) --------------------------------------------------------------  The solution to your problem is to see who has it.  Ramana Maharshi     

Monday, April 21, 2008

Fwd: Living on Earth as if we want to stay

Who: Mike Nickerson, author of:
Life, Money & Illusion; Living on Earth as if we want to stay


What: Discussion on Sustainability and a way forward

Where: Haliburton Fish Hatchery - 66712 Gelert Road

When: Thursday, April 24, 2008, 7 - 9 pm

Sponsor: Gaia Centre, gaiacentre@sympatico.ca
www.gaiacentre.org
Carol Kilby
705-754-2474
____________________________________________

"Living on Earth as if we want to stay" is an international speaking tour drawing attention to the challenge of the day. Lanark, ON resident, three-time author, Mike Nickerson is facilitating workshops and participating in discussions around the theme of Nickerson's latest book, "Life, Money & Illusion; Living on Earth as if we want to stay" He and his wife, uranium activist, Donna Dillman are visiting communities across Canada and in the USA, from the last week of March until the end of September and will be in Haliburton at the Fish Hatchery, 66712 Gelert Rd, on April 24th from 7 to 9 p.m.

"Cures do not result from treating symptoms. The cause must be addressed. While Climate Change has captured public attention, it is a symptom of a greater challenge. That challenge is that the human species has grown to fill its planet," says Nickerson, who has spent his entire adult life, almost four decades, educating on sustainability issues.

"It is odd," he continues, "at a time when our biggest problems are the result of our size, that our leaders maintain that more growth is the solution. Like adolescents approaching adulthood, our society clings to its carefree past. Since most adults have been able to make that transformation successfully, there is good reason to believe that our society will also accept its maturity. With willingness to face the problems, the answers need not be complicated."

Nickerson's latest book, "Life, Money & Illusion: Living on Earth as if we want to stay," details the differing views on how to be successful in our changing times. One, the "Life" perspective, says we need to preserve and enhance ecosystems and communities, the other, the "Money" perspective, says we need to continuously ex pand production and consumption. These two approaches differ significantly on how they would deal with today's most serious problems.

Life, Money & Illusion, a 2007 Nautilus Book Award finalist, distributed by New Society Publishing, suggests a way forward, offering up new ways of organizing mutual provision (the economy) and a change in priorities that can lead to a long and joyous future.

For more information, see:
http://www.SustainWellBeing.net/LMI/Welcome.html
http://www.SustainWellBeing/LMI/tour_to_come.html for tour details.
www.uraniumcitizensinquiry.com
www.ccamu.ca
Contact
Donna Dillman
613-259-9988



  

Monday, March 31, 2008

Plan would change outflows from Lake Ontario

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080329.LAKE29/TPStory/Environment
NTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION: REGULATING WATER LEVELS

Plan would change outflows from Lake Ontario

IJC wants to reduce risk of flooding in low-lying areas; environmentalists complain goal comes at the expense of wetlands

ENVIRONMENT REPORTER

The International Joint Commission has issued a new proposal for regulating water levels on Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River that critics say sacrifices environmental concerns in favour of the interests of shoreline property owners.

The IJC, a Canadian-U.S. body that oversees shared boundary waters, released a proposal yesterday that would attempt to change water outflows from the lake to reduce risk of flooding in low-lying areas. But the plan comes at the expense of rehabilitating wetland areas that have been severely damaged by the current water management regime.

Alone among the five Great Lakes, water levels on Lake Ontario are amenable to a high degree of human control, mainly through a massive power dam straddling the St. Lawrence River at Cornwall, Ont.

In the 1950s, when the current plan for managing outflows was drafted, the environment wasn't a top-of-mind issue, and the goal was to reduce water-level fluctuations for flood control, shipping, and hydropower development. But the approach has degraded more than half the lake's wetlands, an extensive area of riparian habitat about 133 square kilometres in size.

At a news conference yesterday, an IJC official said adopting a more environmentally friendly water management approach would likely increase losses due to flooding by about $2.75-million a year. But he also warned that those living around the lake and the river, Canada's most heavily populated region, would be more vulnerable to infrequent, catastrophic flooding that would cost more than $100-million. These losses would occur primarily in low-lying areas of Ontario, New York, and in Quebec around Montreal and Sorel.

The IJC official, engineering adviser Russ Trowbridge, said devastating flooding would be a risk at times when high water levels in the fall are followed by heavy spring runoff and difficulty allowing increased water flows due to ice conditions.

The IJC has spent five years and $20-million considering various water regulation options for Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence, including one that would have placed wetland habitat recovery as a major goal by restoring part of the lake's pattern of natural water fluctuations, but demurred. "The potential damages to some interests were too great for us to implement it at this time," said Irene Brooks, acting chairwoman of the U.S. section of the commission.

She said governments would have to provide more funding to mitigate risks to shoreline property before the IJC would consider revising its approach.

Environmentalists condemned the IJC. "It really showed me that the real concern [of the IJC] is the protection of property values," said John Jackson, program director for Great Lakes United, an environmental group based in Montreal and Buffalo. "We are really distressed."

The IJC proposal hasn't been closely followed by Canadian governments, unlike in the United States where it has faced intense scrutiny.

New York Governor David Paterson issued a letter highly critical of the IJC to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, urging her to force the organization to adopt rules with more priority on the environment.

"The current protocol for water-level management has had a very negative impact on the ecology of Lake Ontario, severely damaging more than half of the wetlands (33,000 acres) bordering the lake," the letter said.

At the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, an aide to minister Donna Cansfield was unaware of it and couldn't comment. The Department of Foreign Affairs, which must concur with any IJC proposal before it can be adopted, was unable to comment. The IJC proposal is open for 90 days of public comment and will be subject to public hearings in June.

Friday, February 29, 2008

MINDEN:Free workshop in Minden on drinking water protection, septic maintenance and available grants

The workshop will be held at the following:
Minden, Royal Canadian Legion, Hwy 35 & 21, Thursday, March 6th, 6 to 9 p.m.

(Fenelon Falls, Ontario) Property owners can learn how to protect their drinking water and access grants for eligible projects at a free workshop in Minden, Royal Canadian Legion, Hwy 35 & 21, Thursday, March 6th, 6 to 9 p.m.

Experts from Kawartha Conservation, the Haliburton Kawartha Pine Ridge Health Unit and Well Aware will be talking about and answering questions on proper septic maintenance, groundwater protection, well maintenance, well water testing and what projects are eligible for and how to access grants.

WHAT:
Free workshop for property owners on drinking water protection and available grants
WHEN:
Thursday, March 6th from 6 to 9 p.m.
WHERE:
Minden, Royal Canadian Legion, Hwy 35 & 21, Thursday,
  • Sasha Lambrinos, Kawartha Conservation Stewardship Coordinator
  • Anne Elmhirst, Haliburton Kawartha Pine Ridge District Health Unit
  • Brenda Ibey, Well Aware

For more information, contact Sasha Lambrinos at 1-800-668-5722 or slambrinos@kawarthaconservation.com.


Kawartha Conservation
is a watershed-based environmental organization focused on providing abundant clean water within a healthy landscape. It is one of 36 conservation authorities in Ontario providing natural resources management. The Kawartha Watershed intersects portions of the City of Kawartha Lakes; Township of Scugog; Township of Brock; Municipality of Clarington; Township of Galway-Cavendish & Harvey; and Township of Cavan-Monaghan.


www.kawarthaconservation.com

"Leading the way to abundant clean water within a healthy landscape"

Outspoken scientist dismissed from panel on chemical safety - Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-epa29feb29,0,6191299.story

Deborah Rice, an award-winning toxicologist, was removed from a group of experts researching a widely-used flame retardant after industry lobbyists complained that she was biased.
By Marla Cone
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

February 29, 2008

Under pressure from the chemical industry, the Environmental Protection Agency has dismissed an outspoken scientist who chaired a federal panel responsible for helping the agency determine the dangers of a flame retardant widely used in electronic equipment.

Toxicologist Deborah Rice was appointed chair of an EPA scientific panel reviewing the chemical a year ago. Federal records show she was removed from the panel in August after the American Chemistry Council, the lobbying group for chemical manufacturers, complained to a top-ranking EPA official that she was biased.

The chemical, a brominated compound known as deca, is used in high volumes worldwide, largely in the plastic housings of television sets.

Rice, an award-winning former EPA scientist who now works at the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, has studied low doses of deca and reported neurological effects in lab animals. Last February, around the time the EPA panel was convened, Rice testified before the Maine Legislature in support of a state ban on the compound because scientific evidence shows it is toxic and accumulating in the environment and people.

Chemical industry lobbyists say Rice's comments to the Legislature, as well as similar comments to the media, show that she is a biased advocate who has compromised the integrity of the EPA's review of the flame retardant.

The EPA is in the process of deciding how much daily exposure to deca is safe -- a controversial decision, expected next month, that could determine whether it can still be used in consumer products. The role of the expert panel was to review and comment on the scientific evidence.

EPA officials removed Rice because of what they called "the perception of a potential conflict of interest." Under the agency's handbook for advisory committees, scientific peer reviewers should not "have a conflict of interest" or "appear to lack impartiality."

EPA officials were not available for comment Thursday.

Environmentalists accuse the EPA of a "dangerous double standard," because under the Bush administration, many pro-industry experts have served on the agency's scientific panels.

The Environmental Working Group, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, reviewed seven EPA panels created last year and found 17 panelists who were employed or funded by the chemical industry or had made public statements that the chemicals they were reviewing were safe. In one example, an Exxon Mobil Corp. employee served on an EPA expert panel responsible for deciding whether ethylene oxide, a chemical manufactured by Exxon Mobil, is a carcinogen.

Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst at the Environmental Working Group, called it "deeply problematic from the public interest perspective" for the EPA to dismiss scientists who advocate protecting health while appointing those who promote industry views.

Lunder said it is unprecedented for the EPA to remove an expert for expressing concerns about the potential dangers of a chemical.

"It's a scary world if we create a precedent that says scientists involved in decision-making are perceived to be too biased," she said.

Rice was unavailable for comment Thursday.

In addition to her testimony for the Maine Legislature, Rice has been quoted in media reports saying there is enough scientific evidence to warrant bans on deca. "We don't need to wait another five years or even another two years and let it increase in the environment, while we nail down every possible question we have," she told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer last March.

In a May letter to an assistant administrator at the EPA, Sharon Kneiss, a vice president of the American Chemistry Council, called Rice "a fervent advocate of banning" deca and said she "has no place in an independent, objective peer review." She told the EPA that Rice's role on the panel "calls into question the overall integrity" of the EPA's evaluation of chemicals and that Rice may have influenced the other panelists in their review of deca.

Top EPA officials met with the industry group's representatives in June and promised to take action, according to a letter that EPA Asst. Administrator George Gray sent to the group last month. In that letter, Gray said the EPA found "no evidence" that Rice "significantly influenced the other panelists."

Environmentalists are concerned that Rice's removal could result in a less protective standard.

After EPA officials dismissed her from the five-member panel, they removed her comments from the panel's report on deca and removed all mention of her. Three months later, at the request of the chemical industry group, the EPA added a note to the panel report that Rice was removed "due to a perception of a potential conflict of interest" and that none of her comments were considered in their review of the chemical.

EPA documents show that Rice's comments while serving on the panel focused on technical, scientific issues. For example, she advised the EPA to consider the cumulative effects of not just deca, but chemicals with similar neurological effects.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said he was disturbed by Rice's dismissal and the Environmental Working Group's findings about pro-industry panelists.

"If this information is accurate, it raises serious questions about EPA's approach to preventing conflicts of interest on its expert scientific panels," Waxman said.

The conflict of interest policies of another environmental institute, the National Toxicology Program, also has come under fire. Last March, a major consultant for a federal center that evaluates reproductive hazards of chemicals was fired after The Los Angeles Times reported that the firm had financial ties to 50 chemical companies or associations.

Rice specializes in neurotoxins -- chemicals that harm developing brains. Before she went to work for the state of Maine, she was a senior toxicologist at the EPA's National Center for Environmental Research, where she had a major role in setting the EPA's controversial guideline for exposure to mercury in fish.

In 2004, the EPA gave Rice and four colleagues an award for what it called "exceptionally high-quality research" for a study that linked lead exposure to premature puberty in girls.

Many toxicologists and other environmental scientists have said they are highly concerned about flame retardants known as PBDEs, polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

In laboratory tests, PBDEs have been found to skew brain development and alter thyroid hormones, slowing the learning and motor skills of newborn animals.

Two of the compounds, called penta and octa, were banned in 2004. Before the ban, amounts in human breast milk and wildlife were doubling in North America every four to six years, a pace unmatched for any contaminant in at least 50 years. Now they are decreasing.

Scientists had initially thought that the deca compound was not accumulating in people and animals as the other PBDEs were. But it appears that deca turns into other brominated substances when exposed to sunlight, and now many scientists say it, too, is building up in the environment worldwide. Deca has similar effects on animals' developing brains as the banned PBDEs.

The chemical industry contends that low doses pose no danger and that the compound is necessary to prevent fires in many consumer products. In addition to TVs and other electronics, deca is used in furniture textiles, building materials and automobiles. About 56,000 tons were used worldwide in 2001, mostly in the United States and Asia.

Only Maine and Washington state restrict use of deca; both passed laws last year that phase out some uses. Similar bills have been introduced in California but have not passed.

marla.cone@latimes.com