U.S. Will Monitor Calls to Lawyers

The Justice Department has decided to listen in on the
conversations of lawyers with clients in federal custody,
including people who have been detained but not charged with
any crime.

NON-TOXIC TIMES, The Seventh Generation Newsletter

Writing in Fireflies, in 1928, Rabindranath Tagore declared that "Trees
are the earth's endless effort to speak to the listening heaven." It's an
apt phrase that sums up our reverence for these mighty plants. Yet trees
do more than bring essential beauty to our lives. In addition to
providing the air we breathe, new studies have revealed that they offer a
number of surprising other benefits. And that, in turn, makes the recent
news of America's tree deficit all the more frustrating.

Recently, we've noticed more news about trees than you can shake a stick
at starting with a new study from American Forests which found that
American cities are running a "substantial tree deficit" and losing more
trees than they're gaining. Using satellite photos taken of 20
metropolitan areas over the last 25 years, researchers found that tree
cover has noticeably diminished as once green spaces have been replaced
with roads, parking lots, buildings and sidewalks. How many trees are we
talking about? Researchers estimate that over 634 million trees would be
needed to fully "re-tree" our country's urban areas and erase the losses
uncovered by the study.

It's an investment we should certainly make because trees in urban areas
perform a variety of useful functions that are often prohibitively
expensive to replicate with infrastructure. For example, trees and the
land they occupy absorb storm water run-off to prevent water pollution
and flooding. Trees also improve air quality by removing pollutants and
giving off fresh oxygen. And the shade they provide can lower air
conditioning costs by between 20-50%.

These, however, are just the obvious benefits of tree-filled spaces.
What's more intriguing about trees is the host of less apparent services
they provide. For example, a fascinating study published this August by
the Human-Environment Research Lab at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign found other a direct correlation between trees and
public safety. The report More Trees, Less Crime? Evidence From the Inner
Cities summarized a two-year examination of 98 buildings at the Ida B.
Wells housing project in Chicago. Researchers found that buildings
surrounded by high levels of trees and grass had 52 percent fewer total
crimes, 48 percent fewer property crimes, and 56 percent fewer violent
crimes than buildings with surrounded by barren ground. This finding
flies in the face of the popular belief that trees create crime by
providing more hiding places for criminals.

An older study at the University of Illinois reached a similar
conclusion. Analyzing two types of housing in Chicago, those with nearby
trees and those without, scientists found that people living in close
proximity to tree-filled spaces reported better relations with their
neighbors and less violence in their homes than people living in nearby
buildings surrounded by concrete.

Such discoveries should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the
Biophilia Hypothesis, a relatively new theory that says people have
evolved to require a closeness to nature in order to achieve both
physical and mental well being. According to theory proponents, chief
among them Pulitzer Prize winning scientist E.O. Wilson who coined the
term "Biophilia" (a love for all living things), human beings have an
inherent biological need to affiliate with nature. Writing in the 1993
book The Biophilia Hypothesis, Dr. Stephen Kellert says the theory
"proclaims a human dependence on nature that extends far beyond the
simple issues of material and physical sustenance to encompass the human
craving for aesthetic, intellectual, cognitive, and even spiritual
meaning and satisfaction." Such thinking is similar to that expressed in
the new field of ecopsychology, a discipline which postulates that ideas
of self and health do not stop at the boundary of our skin, that the
human mind and nature are, in fact, inseparable and that the health of
each depends very much on the health of the other.

The moral of the story is that we simply cannot yet know all we lose when
we lose nature whether it's a single tree cut down or an entire forest
lost. Preserving the earth and the great diversity of life it holds is
not merely about preserving the systems we rely on for our physical
health. As ongoing research is slowly revealing, it may also be very much
about preserving the foundations of our emotional health as well. All the
more reason to protect our environment from harm, lest both our inner
selves be harmed as well.

For a thought-provoking look at the ways that nature heals, and some
activities that can bring such inner restoration into our lives, we
recommend visiting Project NatureConnect at

212 Battery Street Suite A

Burlington, VT 05401-5281

phone 802.658.3773 fax 802.658.1771

The Other Round The Clock War

Passing the baton round the world

Nicholas Watt in London, Julian Borger in Washington, Luke Harding in Islamabad, Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles and Patrick Wintour Saturday November 10, 2001 The Guardian

In the ornate surroundings of Downing Street's state dining room, where prime ministers have entertained visiting heads of state for nearly two centuries, Alastair Campbell gave vent to the frustration of waging a propaganda war against Osama bin Laden.

Seated under a portrait of George II - the last British monarch to lead troops into battle, in 1743 - Tony Blair's communications chief grumbled to European and Arab journalists that Bin Laden enjoyed an unfair advantage.

"Bin Laden just sits in a cave and chucks out videos when it suits him," Mr Campbell said. "Unlike elected governments, he is subject to no scrutiny."

Mr Campbell's outburst gave a rare glimpse of the deep fear in London and Washington that the international coalition against Bin Laden could unravel if the allies lose the battle for "hearts and minds". The allies have watched in dismay as opposition to the war, in the west and throughout the Islamic world, has mounted in response to disturbing scenes of civilian casualties in Afghanistan filmed by the Qatar-based al-Jazeera television station.

Alarmed that they are losing the initiative in the run up to Ramadan, Britain and the US yesterday published glossy pamphlets setting out the case for the military action in Afghanistan. The leaflets, which are to be distributed from embassies around the world, reproduce statements of support from the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, and the Saudi government. Such propaganda tools will be used relentlessly by a series of 24-hour central information centres which are being set up in London, Washington and Islamabad to counter the "Taliban lies" about the allied bombing.

Officials say they want to overcome the problem of stories that "rise in the east". Pakistan is five hours ahead of London and 10 hours ahead of Washington, ensuring that the Taliban's accounts of overnight bombings in Afghanistan dominate the day's news across the globe.

"The Taliban have exploited the time difference to put out lies about overnight bombing raids which then dominate the day's news in Europe and America," one government source said. "It has been an open field for big fat lies and we are going to put an end to that."

Allan Percival, an old Whitehall hand who is the lord chancellor's chief press officer, has spent the last two weeks setting up the Islamabad office from scratch. The office will open next week close to Islamabad's verdant diplomatic enclave.

High-flier

Mr Percival, a former deputy to Mr Campbell in Downing Street, will return home next week. He will be replaced by Tanya Joseph, a bright young high-flier from the Downing Street press office, who will be the chief British representative in the Islamabad centre.

Ms Joseph and her American colleagues will set up the day for the allies when they respond to Taliban claims about overnight bombing raids early in the morning, while the London staff are still asleep. "This is a difficult job because it takes time to carry out battle damage assessments," one Whitehall source said. "But if we can prove that Taliban claims are untrue we want our office in Islamabad to pump that out from first light so that our view plays on the media in the Middle East and the very early morning bulletins in Europe."

They hope that their work will be made easier by new Pakistani restrictions on Taliban diplomats in Islamabad. Under pressure from the Pentagon, Pakistan told the Taliban ambassador, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, earlier this week to stop holding press conferences on the veranda of his suburban embassy.

Over the past four weeks Mullah Zaeef's briefings have become an enjoyable, and sometimes surreal, afternoon ritual. The ambassador would begin by reading out a tirade against America, before giving the latest figures on civilian casualties ("reports are pouring in"). Mullah Zaeef was often seated next to his translator, Ahmad Ratib, with his eye-patch, bushy beard, turban and fingerless right hand.

In response to the Pakistani restrictions, the Taliban are preparing a new PR strategy. There seems little doubt that President Pervez Musharraf, under more pressure from the White House, will soon sever diplomatic links with the Taliban, and send Mullah Zaeef and his colleagues home. Having kept journalists out of Afghanistan for two months, the Taliban have woken up to the fact they will soon be unable to talk to them in Pakistan. Three days ago the Taliban gave permission to the BBC to reopen its Kabul office.

This is likely to cancel any advantage allied spinners will gain from the closure of the Taliban embassy in Islamabad. Live reports from Kabul may upset their plans to "pass the baton" of the press operation to London just after lunch, at around 9am British time. From an office in the Foreign Office, which will be overseen by Mr Campbell from across the road in Downing Street, 15 British and US officials will feed "lines" to the media on both sides of the Atlantic for their lunchtime and breakfast news programmes.

Mr Campbell will then "pass the baton" to Washington at 2.30pm London time - 9.30am on the US east coast - when the three centres will hold a telephone conference call. Karen Hughes, Mr Campbell's formidable counterpart in the White House, is already chairing a daily conference call between London and Washington.

Only a handful of people take part in the conference call to ensure that lines of communication are simplified. When the Pakistan operation is up and running, Ms Joseph will join from Islamabad. Peter Reid, the head of communications at the British embassy in Washington, will join in, along with his American counterparts stationed in London.

Mr Reid leads a handful of British officials who are working in the Washington office, which is based in the Old Executive Building, next to the White House. They have been working alongside Dan Bartlett and Jim Wilkinson, two key Bush aides.

The Anglo-American team have set up shop in the building's most ornate chamber, the Indian Treaty Room where the UN charter was signed, with gilt decorations and elaborate painted designs on the wall and an English tiled floor below.

The room is filled with 30 desks and 30 flat-screen computer terminals, a row of televisions showing channels from around the world, apart so far from al-Jazeera (still awaiting a cable connection), and four clocks showing the time in Washington, London, Islamabad and Kabul. The centre piece is an electronic illuminated map of the world, which lights up longitude by longitude with the rising of the sun. It is intended to dramatise the 24-hour nature of the operation. As well as a London desk, there are desks for media-monitoring, terrorist financing, department of defence. On the wall, there is a grid detailing who has been assigned to explain, spin or rebut what at each hour of the day in each corner of the globe.

Amid the clutter of the office sits a New York fire department jacket given to Jim Wilkinson when he visited New York's ground zero. He describes it as "a reminder of the centre's purpose".

As night draws in over Washington's Potomac river, staff will "pass the baton" back to Islamabad at around 9pm US eastern time, which is 7am in Islamabad.

The aggressive new media operation was the brainchild of Ms Hughes and Mr Campbell, who is still haunted by memories of the 1999 Kosovo conflict when Nato bomb attacks on civilians prompted a backlash. The allied press operation in 1999 was initially a shambles, which led Mr Campbell to decamp temporarily to the Nato headquarters in Belgium.

Amid fears that Britain and America were in danger of repeating the same mistakes, Mr Campbell flew to Washington at the end of last month for talks with Ms Hughes. The two agreed that in addition to setting up a Millbank-style rebuttal unit, Britain and America should think of "good news" stories to try to turn round public opinion. A recent example was the millionth food drop over Afghanistan, a fact that was trumpeted by the allies.

The allies are also thinking of ideas "outside the box" to change Middle Eastern perceptions of the west. The state department is drawing up plans to use international sporting figures, musicians and actors to put the US message across.

This is being overseen by Charlotte Beers, one of America's best-known figures in advertising, who now works at the state department. "If I have to buy time on al-Jazeera I would certainly consider it," she said recently. Ms Beers, a 66-year old Texan, said that her task was to redefine the identity of the US "for audiences who are, at best, cynical... This is a war about a way of life and fundamental beliefs and values that we did not expect to ever have to explain and defend, such as freedom and tolerance."

Her plans will be discussed tomorrow when around 40 senior members of the US entertainment industry meet in Beverly Hills at the request of President Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, to discuss how they can best assist in convincing the world and a domestic audience of the rightness of the US cause. The atmosphere in Hollywood has been likened to the period after Pearl Harbour when studios produced such films as Wake Island, about American marines battling to hold a base on a Pacific island, as part of Hollywood's morale-boosting war effort.

The film business finds itself with the time to participate as many projects that dealt with violent themes have been cancelled and there is a reluctance to commit to new projects that may seem vacuous in the light of recent events.

Nervousness

Downing Street is also keen to think beyond the day-to-day demands of the media because of the need to confront the growing opposition to the war and the need to reassure British Muslims. The government showed its nervousness when the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, wrote a two-page article for the Mirror on October 30, the day after the veteran war reporter John Pilger had criticised the war.

"Seven weeks ago today the world was horrified by acts of terrorism never before imagined," Mr Straw wrote, showing the government's determination to counter opponents by offering vivid reminders of the events of September 11. Ministers have been deeply unsettled by the Mirror's sceptical coverage of the war, which has contrasted with loyal support from the Murdoch-owned Sun and the News of the World.

Beyond its work with the media, Downing Street has been refining its own message as it tries to assuage Muslim fears. In a key change, Mr Blair has toned down his message that the west is not waging war on Islam. On the advice of Jordan's King Abdullah, who said that this argument was not working, the prime minister now talks of a war between moderate and extremist wings of Islam.

This is a marked change of emphasis from Mr Blair's message in the immediate aftermath of the American bombings. In an article for the Daily Jang, Pakistan's largest Urdu-language newspaper, a week after the bombings, the prime minister wrote: "Those responsible are not communities nor religions but fanatical individuals."

The prime minister's new approach was echoed by Dr George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who used a trip to the Middle East last week to plead for tolerance between Christianity and Islam. Dr Carey even appeared on al-Jazeera television dressed in full archbishop's regalia.

Downing Street and the White House are fervently hoping that the unprecedented round-the-clock media operation will change their fortunes. But Abul Taher, of the British Asian Eastern Eye newspaper, sounded a note of caution. "The more they spin, the more they appear to be losing it. What matters is the reality. As long as there are casualties there will be opposition to the war."

Brazil's Amazon Jungle Threatened

by Bill Rodgers

An estimated 15 percent of Brazil's huge Amazon rainforest has been destroyed with most of the deforestation occurring during the past 30 years. Deforestation, water, pollution, and other factors are adversely affecting the Amazon environment.

About 550,000 square kilometers of the Amazon jungle have been deforested during the past 30 years, as new roads have brought in farmers who have cleared the land of trees. Using the slash and burn technique - cutting and burning the trees and vegetation - they plant manioc, corn, and other crops.

But much of the land in the Amazon is not suitable for agriculture, because it no longer receives the nutrients that were part of the recycling process that existed when the forest was still standing. Instead, after a few harvests, the acidic soil turns barren and farmers are forced to move on to clear new patches of jungle.

But this process of deforestation is further aggravated; even when patches of primary growth forest remain untouched amidst cleared areas. Scientists are finding that these islands of trees, or forest fragments, are very vulnerable.

Heraldo Vasconcellos coordinates a joint project of the U.S. Smithsonian Institution and Brazil's National Amazonian Research Center, known as INPA, to study the process of forest fragmentation. Mr. Vasconcellos says he and other scientists have found that forest fragments do not survive very well.

"What happens is that once you isolate these fragments you find that wind from the outside, from the pasture areas, blows into the forest and because the trees have shallow roots there is a kind of knockdown effect," Mr. Vasconcellos says. "So you have a lot of trees, especially those near the border of the fragments, that die and as a result you have other trees coming and growing to replace (them). But usually these are what we call 'pioneer species'; species that are pre-adapted to go into large gaps. So you have in fact a change in the structure of the forests, and also you have a change in species composition. You lose species that are typical from the primary forest, and you gain species that are more associated with secondary forest."

These species gradually take over, replacing the deep forest trees that eventually die.

The impact on animal and insect life is similar; species that live in shady, humid habitats disappear. Mr. Vasconcellos says their studies show that of seven types of birds, only one survives in a forest fragment of one hectare.

The danger of this process of forest fragmentation is that over time potentially valuable species of trees and plants are being lost forever.

"If you lose those species you can be losing a lot of information that could be helpful for medicine or things like that," he says. "In some cases you can lose the function of the forest. For instance, if you lose a key pollinator and a given tree really depends on that, then you will lose the tree species as well. So you have a cascade effect as well that tends to multiply."

Increased population in the Amazon also damages the environment by producing pollution, especially water pollution. Sewage and chemical waste from industries are the main culprits. Geologist Joao Augusto Dantas says they pollute the small streams and rivers around the Amazon's major towns and cities. But Mr. Dantas, who specializes in water issues at the INPA in Manaus, says the huge volume of water flowing in the Amazon River, about 200,000 cubic meters per second, washes away these pollutants.

Still, he expresses concern about the problem. "When you talk about the big rivers, they are in very good health. But the smaller ones are almost dead in the big cities, and I think something has to be done for those small rivers," Mr. Dantas says.

The vast waters of the Amazon could become a more precious resource in the future, which is why Mr. Dantas believes it must be better protected. "The Amazon River is in good health for now, but this should not be a motive to be careless with nature. I think all efforts must be made to preserve this, and knowing that water will be the best merchandise for this century. The century that has just begun will be the century for water," he says.

Water pollution, deforestation, wildfires, and climate changes are all affecting the Amazon environment. Immense, vast stretches of rainforest still exist, virtually untouched. But population growth and development needs are creating greater pressure on the fragile tropical ecosystem.

Paulo Adario of the environmental organization Greenpeace says the future of the Amazon will depend on public awareness, both in Brazil and internationally. "At the end of the day, who can save the Amazon are not environmental organizations like Greenpeace. It is the population, the public. We are the pushers, we form the armies, but the final decision will be taken by the Brazilian population and by the international audience," he says.

While the Amazon rainforest is in no danger of disappearing anytime soon, it is clearly under siege, a siege whose strength will only increase over time.

I've Learned

by Andy Rooney

I've learned.... That the best classroom in the world is at the feet of an elderly person.

I've learned.... That when you're in love, it shows.

I've learned.... That just one person saying to me, "You've made my day!" makes my day.

I've learned.... That having a child fall asleep in your arms is one of the most peaceful feelings in the world.

I've learned.... That being kind is more important than being right.

I've learned.... That you should never say no to a gift from a child.

I've learned.... That I can always pray for someone when I don't have the strength to help him in some other way.

I've learned.... That no matter how serious your life requires you to be, everyone needs a friend to act goofy with.

I've learned.... That sometimes all a person needs is a hand to hold and a heart to understand.

I've learned.... That simple walks with my father around the block on summer nights when I was a child did wonders for me as an adult.

I've learned.... That life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes.

I've learned.... That we should be glad God doesn't give us everything we ask for.

I've learned.... That money doesn't buy class.

I've learned.... That it's those small daily happenings that make life so spectacular.

I've learned... That under everyone's hard shell is someone who wants to be appreciated and loved.

I've learned.... That the Lord didn't do it all in one day. What makes me think I can?

I've learned.... That to ignore the facts does not change the facts.

I've learned.... That when you plan to get even with someone, you are only letting that person continue to hurt you.

I've learned.... That love, not time, heals all wounds.

I've learned.... That the easiest way for me to grow as a person is to surround myself with people smarter than I am.

I've learned.... That everyone you meet deserves to be greeted with a smile.

I've learned.... That there's nothing sweeter than sleeping with your babies and feeling their breath on your cheeks.

I've learned.... That no one is perfect until you fall in love with them.

I've learned.... That life is tough, but I'm tougher.

I've learned.... That opportunities are never lost; someone will take the ones you miss.

I've learned.... That when you harbor bitterness, happiness will dock elsewhere.

I've learned.... That I wish I could have told my Dad that I love him one more time before he passed away.

I've learned.... That one should keep his words both soft and tender, because tomorrow he may have to eat them.

I've learned.... That a smile is an inexpensive way to improve your looks.

I've learned.... That I can't choose how I feel, but I can choose what I do about it.

I've learned.... That when your newly born grandchild holds your little finger in his little fist, that you're hooked for life.

I've learned.... That everyone wants to live on top of the mountain, but all the happiness and growth occurs while you're climbing it.

I've learned ... That it is best to give advice in only two circumstances; when it is requested and when it is a life threatening situation.

I've learned.... That the less time I have to work with, the more things I get done.

On Preventing War

By Thich Nhat Hahn

The most important practice for preventing war is to stay
in touch with what is refreshing, healing, and joyful inside us
and around us. If we practice walking mindfully, being in touch
with the Earth, the air, the trees, and ourselves, we can heal
ourselves, and our entire society will also be healed. If the
whole nation would practice watering seeds of joy and peace
and not just seeds of anger and violence, the elements of war
in all of us will be transformed.

We must prepare ourselves, whether we have one minute,
ten years, or one thousand years. If we don't have time,
there is no use in discussing peace, because you cannot
practice peace without time. If you have one minute, please
use that minute to breathe in and out calmly and plant the
seeds of peace and understanding in yourself. If you have
ten years, please use the ten years to prevent the next war.
If you have one thousand years, please use the time to
prevent the destruction of our planet.

... Just by your way of looking at things and doing things,
you influence others. Approach everyone with love and
patience, and try to water the positive seeds in them.
We have to help each other, being skillful, kind, and
understanding. Blaming and arguing never help.

... In the practice of mindfulness, we nurture the ability to
see deeply into the nature of things and people, and the
fruit is insight, understanding, and love.

 Thich Nhat Hanh, 1991

Terrorism And Nonviolence

by Arun Gandhi, grandson of Mahatma Gandhi

Understandably, after the tragedy in New York and Washington DC on September 11 many have written or called the office to find out what would be an appropriate nonviolent response to such an unbelievably inhuman act of violence.

First, we must understand that nonviolence is not a strategy that we can use in a moment of crisis and discard in times of peace. Non violence is about personal attitudes, about becoming the change we wish to see in the world. Because, a nation's collective attitude is based on the attitude of the individual. Nonviolence is about building positive relationships with all human beings - relationships that are based on love, compassion, respect, understanding, and appreciation.

Nonviolence is also about not judging people as we perceive them to be -that is, a murderer is not born a murderer; a terrorist is not born a terrorist. People become murderers, robbers, and terrorists because of circumstances and experiences in life. Killing or confining murders, robbers, terrorists, or the like is not going to rid this world of them. For every one we kill or confine we create another hundred to take their place. What we need to do is to analyze dispassionately what are those circumstances that create such monsters and how can we help eliminate those circumstances, not the monsters. Justice should mean reformation and not revenge.

We saw some people in Iraq and Palestine and I dare say many other countries rejoice in the blowing up of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. It horrified us, as it should. But, let us not forget that we do the same thing. When Israel bombs the Palestinians we either rejoice or show no compassion. Our attitude is they deserve what they get. When the Palestinians bomb the Israelis we are indignant and condemn them as vermin who need to be eliminated.

We reacted without compassion when we bombed the cities of Iraq. I was among the millions in the United States who sat glued to the television and watched the drama as though it was a made for television film. The television had desensitized us. Thousands of innocent men, women and children were being blown to bits and instead of feeling sorry for them, we marveled at the efficiency of our military. For more than ten years we have continued to wreak havoc in Iraq - an estimated 50, 000 children die every year because of sanctions that we have imposed - and it hasn't moved us to compassion. All this is done, we are told, because we want to get rid of the Satan called Sadam Hussein.

Now we are getting ready to do this all over again to get rid of another Satan called Osama Bin Laden. We will bomb the cities of Afghanistan because they harbor the Satan and in the process we will help create a thousand other bin Ladens.

Some might say, "We don't care what the world thinks of us as long as they respect our strength. After all we have the means to blow this world to pieces since we are the only surviving super-power. Do we want the world to respect us the way school children respect a bully? Is that our role in the world?

If a bully is what we want to be then we must be prepared to face the same consequences a school-yard bully faces. On the other hand we cannot tell the world "Leave us alone..." Isolationism is not what this world is built for.

All of this brings us back to the question: How do we respond nonviolently to terrorism?

The consequences of a military response are not very rosy. Many thousands of innocent people will die both here and in the country or countries we attack. Militancy will increase exponentially and, ultimately, we will be faced with another, more pertinent, moral question: What will we gain by destroying half the world? Will we be able to live with a clear conscience?

We must acknowledge our role in helping create monsters in the world and then find ways to contain these monsters without hurting more innocent people and then redefine our role in the world. I think we must move from seeking to be respected for our military strength to being respected for our moral strength.

We need to appreciate that we are in a position to play a powerful role in helping the "other half" of the world attain a better standard of life not by throwing a few crumbs, but by significantly involving ourselves in constructive economic programs.

For too long our foreign policy has been based on "what is good for the United States." It smacks of selfishness. Our foreign policy should now be based on what is good for the world and how can we do the right thing to help the world become more peaceful.

To those who have lost loved ones in this and other terrorist acts, I say I share your grief. I am sorry that you have become victims of senseless violence. But let this sad episode not make you vengeful because no amount of violence and killing is going to bring you inner peace. Anger and hate never do. The memory of those victims who have died in this and other violent incidents around the world will be better preserved and meaningfully commemorated if we all learn to forgive and dedicate our lives to helping create a peaceful, respectful, and understanding world.

Arun Gandhi

Founder Director, M. K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence

650 East Parkway South

Memphis TN 38104

"War cannot be humanized,
 it can only be abolished."
Albert Einstein


"Part of the happiness of life consists not
 in fighting battles but in avoiding them.
 A masterly retreat is in itself a victory."
 Norman Vincent Peale


"Faith is the bird that feels the light
 when the dawn is still dark."
Sir Rabindranath Tagore


"All we are saying is
 Give Peace a Chance."
John Lennon

The Gods of Economic Growth Transcend the Threat of Terrorism

by Naomi Klein

   Growth is the only god at these negotiations and any measures that
could slow profits even slightly are being treated by believers as if
they are on the side of the infidels and evil doers.

by Kevin Reikes

   Why aren't Democrats defending our values? Why are they caving in to
corporate welfare? Is it their need to raise money from many of the same
donors that fund the GOP?

   AUDIO and TEXT produced by Steven Rosenfeld.

LOSING THE PR BATTLE

Overdrawing Our Account in the Bank of International Sentiment

by David Corn

   The solution to America's image problem is not just a matter of
refining our message and hiring expensive messengers. It's eliminating
the dissonance between our words and our deeds.

Insurance Industry Makes the Case for Corporate Welfare

by Steven Rosenfeld

   The insurance industry -- which sees itself as a pillar of the
private sector and a stalwart defender of the 'free market' -- wants to
become another "welfare queen" in pinstripes and fancy shoes.

by M. W. Guzy

   "We can unite in the face of human carnage, but the old divisions
reappear when it comes time to slaughter a cash cow."

   AUDIO and TEXT produced by Sharon Basco.

"Buy Now, Save Later" Follows the Money

A Joint Report by Citizens for Tax Justice, Public Campaign, and the
Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy

   Campaign contributions are a great investment, offering donors a
return in good times and bad. A new report shows the payoff is
especially good right now, in war time.

Draconian Law Enforcement is not a Solution to Terrorism
by Michael Ratner

   "The domestic consequences of the war on terrorism include massive
arrests of immigrants ... and the passage of legislation granting
intelligence and law enforcement agencies much broader powers to intrude
into our private lives."

A Vulnerable Target

by Brian Halweil

   Attacking the nation's food supply would be easy and potentially
devastating. So why aren't we ready for it?

by Olivia Wu

   "Flags on posters and shopping bags shows us how our country is able
to turn almost everything into a marketing tool."

   AUDIO and TEXT produced by Sharon Basco.

Tips, Leads, and Links

by The TomPaine.com Staff

   Right Wing Watch ... Exponential Hunger ... Recession-Proof
Investment ... Election Reform 101 ... WTO all Wet ... and more.

San Francisco Solar Plant

Press Conference City Hall, San Francisco

Local Power is currently preparing several California cities to build some of the largest renewable energy projects in the world in response to the state's energy crisis. While continuing in its groundbreaking national work on community-wide electricity purchasing laws, we view the state's energy crisis as an unprecedented opportunity for large-scale community-based conservation and renewable resource development. Our work consists of educating local governments about building solar, wind and other renewable resources in the immediate term, offering technical assistance to local officials throughout a city or county's solicitation process, and developing (unprecedented) generic "Community Power" bidding document and contract templates adapted to the particular budgetary, risk management, and revenue bonding conditions facing local governments.

As "Community Choice" legislation (AB48x by Assemblymember Migden-SF) awaits passage in the state legislature, we are now offering policy guidance and technical assistance for the energy crisis to city officials throughout California, focusing our efforts in the San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles County, and San Diego County.

Our leading project is sponsored by the President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Tom Ammiano has announced his support of Local Power's proposal that the City initiate competitive bidding for construction of a 50 MW solar photovoltaic "Community Power" network.

This will be the world's largest solar utility.

It will produce six times the output of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District's system, currently the largest. Depending on the technology used, the Plant will cover at least 138 acres of rooftops throughout the city. In terms of scalability, this could serve 50,000 apartments with 1kw systems, 450 large commercial buildings with 125kw systems, 167 extremely large commercial buildings with 300kw systems, or 50 Walmart-scale monster buildings with 1MW systems. The Plant will serve 5% of the entire community's peak electricity consumption, - the threshold for a Stage 2 Alert - and result in a massive greenhouse gas reduction.

The 1997 Kyoto treaty set a 7% reduction target by 2012, but U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have increased significantly since then. With the Bush administration calling for more domestic oil drilling and nuclear power development as the answer to climate change, the San Francisco Solar Plant will serve as a model for other cities looking to protect their communities against blackouts and address climate change at the same time.

Community Power

We are now preparing similar proposals for other cities and counties in our network throughout California. The RFP model, which we call "Community Power" for its resemblance to Community Choice, is a model for large-scale development of renewable distributed generation by local governments. (1) Like Community Choice, the Community Power RFP transfers the risks associated with energy supply to the private sector, a major parameter for risk-averse local governments. (2) Community Power can operate under a variety of energy crisis outcomes for cities, including a Community Choice law, public power takeover, or neither. (3) In the likely event that the Community Choice bill becomes law in coming months, Community Power will provide a needed stimulus to trigger bulk wholesale power competition in a failed deregulated energy market.

California faces not one energy crisis but two: an electricity price crisis and an electric pollution crisis. The electric industry is the largest contributor to global warming. While the U.S. has patently failed in its efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions that have, in fact, increased since the Kyoto treaty, California's energy crisis offers a unique opportunity for an offensive strategy to build renewable energy and conservation on an unprecedented scale, and to show that there can be a light at the end of the Climate Change tunnel. Local Power's efforts to promote Community Choice have already resulted in Kyoto compliance for one metropolitan area, and the San Francisco project alone will approach Kyoto-level reduction targets - if not actually meet them.

While the opportunity to do something about global warming is new to California cities, the issue is not new. Cities were singled out at the 1992 Rio Summit as the key government level in the effort to reduce greenhouse gases, in response to which California cities currently consume more than half of the green power sold in California for their municipal facilities. Unfortunately - until Community Choice becomes law - these "Green RFPs" are limited to municipal facilities. While green-powered municipal facilities comprise 2-5% of a community's consumption and are too small to have any appreciable impact on global warming, they demonstrate a mainstream political will to meet the Rio Summit challenge at the local level. Given the opportunity with resources and authority (Community Choice and Community Power), they will do just that.

The premise of the Community Power project is that a low-risk, revenue-bondable municipal RFP for massive renewable energy deployment is an unprecedented opportunity to both protect communities against blackouts and raise the bar on the scale of public commitment in the fight against global warming. California's energy market crisis provides an historic window of opportunity for cities to meet the challenges made at Rio in 1992. With blackouts looming, the political will to build solar, wind, and other clean energy capacity on an unprecedented scale will be at its height this Summer. With five years of local government networking and education around Community Choice in place, Local Power is poised to lead this effort.

Community Choice

Since 1996, Local Power has been developing structural, quantifiable solutions for local governments to meaningfully impact the problem of Global Warming. Paul Fenn drafted and filed the original Community Choice law for Massachusetts in 1995 when he directed the state's Senate Energy Committee. Community Choice authorizes local governments to aggregate their electricity customer base and to contract with a supplier to provide energy. The second state to pass the law, Ohio (1999), demonstrates the significance of large volume purchasing through local government. Under the state's Community Choice law, one hundred cities in the Cleveland area of Cuyahoga County recently signed a contract for their 450,000 customers with Green Mountain Power. The contract resulted in three dramatic outcomes, (1) those cities collectively reduced their output of carbon dioxide emissions by 30%, (2) did it for a lower price than they had previously paid for an energy mix of 60% coal and 40% nuclear, and (3) increased Green Mountain's national customer base from 100,000 to 550,000 overnight, representing a massive new opportunity in the green electricity market.

With technical support from Local Power, 12 California cities passed resolutions asking for a Community Choice bill in 1999-2000. Legislation was drafted by Paul Fenn in January 2000 and sponsored by Assemblymember and Appropriations Committee Chair Carole Migden (D-SF) in January 2001. AB48x passed the Assembly Energy Costs and Availability Committee in March with a vote of 19 to 1 and the Assembly Appropriations Committee in May with a unanimous vote. With broad support this legislation is expected to become law some time this summer. Local Power's coalition of cities and counties for Community Choice now provides fertile ground for the Community Power project.

City officials including Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, San Francisco Board of Supervisors President Tom Ammiano, Marin County Board of Supervisors President Hal Brown, and Southern California Cities Joint Powers Consortium Executive Director Albert Vera, as well as the League of California Cities, the California Association of Counties, and 30 California cities and counties led by San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Marin County and the Los Angeles County-based Consortium (representing 500,000 residents), have endorsed the legislation, many by municipal and county resolutions. Organizations including CALPIRG, League of Women Voters of California, Greenpeace, TURN (The Utility Reform Network), Global Exchange, as well as Ralph Nader, have also endorsed. Industry groups such as the Western Power Trading Forum and Green Mountain Power now recognize the need for Community Choice as a key structural reform to AB1890, and are counted as strong supporters.

Many members of the coalition of 30 cities and counties endorsing of the California Community Choice bill are now looking to Local Power for education and technical support on the energy crisis. Many are now deciding whether to rubber stamp permits for natural gas fired power plants, or consider alternative energy sources. Community Power is essentially the second phase of Community Choice, moving the same solicitation-based model from bulk power procurement to new infrastructure development. Given the volatility of the state's wholesale power market, many cities view local power generation as the first step in establishing rate security for their communities. The opportunity to pursue a sustainable energy policy is therefore immediate.

The Community Choice coalition will prove significant in building public support for solar, wind, and other renewable resources on a scale that has not been seen before. Specifically, Local Power is positioned to get projects on the books that will demonstrate the viability of large-scale renewable energy as a serious, big business solution to both the energy crisis and global warming.

Staff

Paul Fenn is the Director of Local Power, based in Oakland, California. Fenn authored the original "Community Choice" bill, Senate 447, in 1994, while serving as director of the Massachusetts Senate Committee on Energy under the chairmanship of Senator Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford). He organized a coalition of municipalities, consumer, environmental and good government groups in opposition AB1890 in 1996, acted as advisor in the drafting of Ohio's Community Choice law in 1999, and more recently drafted the California Community Choice bill, AB48x, sponsored by California Assemblywoman Carole Migden (D-San Francisco). Beginning in January 2001, Fenn organized support among political leaders in San Francisco to build the world's largest solar utility (50 MW) in response to the energy crisis. Fenn also wrote the platform and propaganda for Jerry Brown's 1998 mayoral bid in Oakland, California. Fenn also has substantial experience in the design, permitting, real estate acquisition, and deployment of wireless telecommunications systems such as cellular, PCS and GSM. He has worked as a contractor for General Cellular, Western Wireless, and Voicestream in the U.S., and for Motorola, and Lucent Technologies, and the International Committee of the Red Cross in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Macedonia. Fenn received his Masters degree in Intellectual History from the University of Chicago in 1992.

Julia Peters, Manager of Local Power, began organizing and fundraising for political causes in 1986 as a canvasser with the Ralph Nader-inspired Public Interest Research Group (PIRG). After serving as the Administrative Director and then Statewide Canvass Director for the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG), she was promoted to National Canvass Director for the Boston-based Fund for Public Interest Research, the training and technical arm of the PIRGs, in 1991. Before leaving the PIRGs in 1995, Peters organized political action and fundraising campaigns for national environmental and consumer protection legislation in 16 states. In 1996 Peters returned to California to become the statewide field director for the radical Campaign Finance Reform initiative, Proposition 212. Sponsored by the coalition, Californians Against Political Corruption, 212 called for $100 contribution limits, mandatory spending limits, and a 75% in-district contribution requirement on political fundraising. 212 received 49% of the vote. In 1998 Peters became campaign manager for former California Governor Jerry Brown's Oakland mayoral bid, which received 59% of the vote in the June primary in a field of eleven candidates, electing him to Mayor.

Local Power

4281 Piedmont Avenue

Oakland, California 94611

http://www.local.org

mailto:paulfenn@local.org

mailto:jpeters@local.org

510 451 1727

Police State

by Kelly Patricia O'Meara

If the United States is at war against terrorism to preserve freedom, a new coalition of conservatives and liberals is asking, why is it doing so by wholesale abrogation of civil liberties? They cite the Halloween-week passage of the antiterrorism bill - a new law that carries the almost preposterously gimmicky title: "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA PATRIOT Act). Critics both left and right are saying it not only strips Americans of fundamental rights but does little or nothing to secure the nation from terrorist attacks.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, one of only three Republican lawmakers to buck the House leadership and the Bush administration to vote against this legislation, is outraged not only by what is contained in the antiterrorism bill but also by the effort to stigmatize opponents. Paul tells Insight, "The insult is to call this a 'patriot bill' and suggest I'm not patriotic because I insisted upon finding out what is in it and voting no. I thought it was undermining the Constitution, so I didn't vote for it - and therefore I'm somehow not a patriot. That's insulting."

Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote - at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote."

And why would that be? "This is a very bad bill," explains Paul, "and I think the people who voted for it knew it and that's why they said, 'Well, we know it's bad, but we need it under these conditions.'" Meanwhile, efforts to obtain copies of the new law were stonewalled even by the committee that wrote it.

What is so bad about the new law? "Generally," says Paul, "the worst part of this so-called antiterrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants." He is referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peak" provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted. Before the USA PATRIOT Act, the government had to obtain a warrant and give notice to the person whose property was to be searched. With one vote by Congress and the sweep of the president's pen, say critics, the right of every American fully to be protected under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures was abrogated.

The Fourth Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is joining with conservatives as critics of the legislation, the rationale for the Fourth Amendment protection always has been to provide the person targeted for search with the opportunity to "point out irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the police may be at the wrong address or that the warrant is limited to a search of a stolen car, so the police have no authority to be looking into dresser drawers." Likely bad scenarios involving the midnight knock at the door are not hard to imagine.

Paul, a strict constructionist (see Picture Profile, Sept. 3), has a pretty good idea of what Americans may anticipate. "I don't like the sneak-and-peak provision because you have to ask yourself what happens if the person is home, doesn't know that law enforcement is coming to search his home, hasn't a clue as to who's coming in unannounced . and he shoots them. This law clearly authorizes illegal search and seizure, and anyone who thinks of this as antiterrorism needs to consider its application to every American citizen."

The only independent in the House, Rep. Bernie Sanders from Vermont, couldn't support the bill for similar reasons: "I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I'm concerned that voting for this legislation fundamentally violates that oath. And the contents of the legislation have not been subjected to serious hearings or searching examination."

Nadine Strossen, president of the ACLU and professor of law at New York University, tells Insight, "The sneak-and-peak provision is just one that will be challenged in the courts. We're not only talking about the sanctity of the home, but this includes searches of offices and other places. It is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and poses tremendous problems with due process. By not notifying someone about a search, they don't have the opportunity to raise a constitutional challenge to the search."

Even before the ink on the president's signature had dried, the FBI began to take advantage of the new search-and-seizure provisions. A handful of companies have reported visits from federal agents demanding private business records. C.L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho), another of the three GOP lawmakers who found the legislation unconstitutional, says he knew this provision would be a problem. "Section 215 authorizes the FBI to acquire any business records whatsoever by order of a secret U.S. court. The recipient of such a search order is forbidden from telling any person that he has received such a request. This is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourth Amendment protection of private property."

Rep. Otter says the PATRIOT law gives federal agents unconstitutional police powers. Otter added that "some of these provisions place more power in the hands of law enforcement than our Founding Fathers could have dreamt and severely compromises the civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. This bill, while crafted with good intentions, is rife with constitutional infringements I could not support."

Like most who actually have read and analyzed the new law, Strossen disagrees with several provisions not only because they appear to her to be unconstitutional but also because the sweeping changes it codifies have little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism. "There is no connection," insists Strossen, "between the Sept. 11 attacks and what is in this legislation. Most of the provisions relate not just to terrorist crimes but to criminal activity generally. This happened, too, with the 1996 antiterrorism legislation where most of the surveillance laws have been used for drug enforcement, gambling and prostitution."

"I like to refer to this legislation," continues Strossen, "as the 'so-called antiterrorism law,' because on its face the provisions are written to deal with any crime, and the definition of terrorism under the new law is so severely broad that it applies far beyond what most people think of as terrorism." A similar propensity of governments to slide down the slippery slope recently was reported in England by The Guardian newspaper. Under a law passed last year by the British Parliament, investigators can get information from Internet-service providers about their subscribers without a warrant. Supposedly an antiterrorist measure, the British law will be applied to minor crimes, tax collection and public-health purposes.

Under the USA PATRIOT Act in this country, Section 802 defines domestic terrorism as engaging in "activity that involves acts dangerous to human life that violate the laws of the United States or any state and appear to be intended: (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping."

The ACLU has posted on its Website, www.aclu.org, a comprehensive list of the provisions and summarizes the increased powers for federal spying. The following are a sample of some of the changes as a result of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation:

a.. minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities.

b.. expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches.

c.. gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any noncitizen who belongs to them.

d.. grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime.

e.. leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes.

More specifically, Section 203 (Authority to Share Criminal Investigative Information) allows information gathered in criminal proceedings to be shared with intelligence agencies, including but not limited to the CIA - in effect, say critics, creating a political secret police. No court order is necessary for law enforcement to provide untested information gleaned from otherwise secret grand-jury proceedings, and the information is not limited to the person being investigated.

Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted telephone and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies. No court order is necessary to authorize the sharing of this information, and the CIA is not prohibited from giving this information to foreign-intelligence operations - in effect, say critics, creating an international political secret police.

According to Strossen, "The concern here is about the third branch of government. One of the overarching problems that pervades so many of these provisions is reduction of the role of judicial oversight. The executive branch is running roughshod over both of the other branches of government. I find it very bothersome that the government is going to have more widespread access to e-mail and Websites and that information can be shared with other law-enforcement and even intelligence agencies. So, again, we're going to have the CIA in the business of spying on Americans - something that certainly hasn't gone on since the 1970s."

Strossen is referring to the illegal investigations of thousands of Americans under Operation CHAOS, spying carried out by the CIA and National Security Agency against U.S. activists and opponents of the war in Southeast Asia.

Nor do the invasion-of-privacy provisions of the new law end with law enforcement illegally searching homes and offices, say critics. Under Section 216 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Modification of Authorities Relating to Use of Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices), investigators freely can obtain access to "dialing, routing and signaling information." While the bill provides no definition of "dialing, routing and signaling information," the ACLU says this means they even would "apply law-enforcement efforts to determine what Websites a person visits." The police need only certify the information they are in search of is "relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."

This does not meet probable-cause standards - that a crime has occurred, is occurring or will occur. Furthermore, regardless of whether a judge believes the request is without merit, the order must be given to the requesting law-enforcement agency, a veritable rubber stamp and potential carte blanche for fishing exhibitions.

Additionally, under Section 216, law enforcement now will have unbridled access to Internet communications. The contents of e-mail messages are supposed to be separated from the e-mail addresses, which presumably is what interests law enforcement. To conduct this process of separation, however, Congress is relying on the FBI to separate the content from the addresses and disregard the communications.

In other words, the presumption is that law enforcement is only interested in who is being communicated with and not what is said, which critics say is unlikely. Citing political implications they note this is the same FBI that during the Clinton administration could not adequately explain how hundreds of personal FBI files of Clinton political opponents found their way from the FBI to the Clinton White House.

And these are just a few of the provisions and problems. While critics doubt it will help in the tracking of would-be terrorists, the certainty is that homes and places of business will be searched without prior notice. And telephone and Internet communications will be recorded and shared among law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, all in the name of making America safe from terrorism.

Strossen understands the desire of lawmakers to respond forcefully to the Sept. 11 attacks but complains that this is more of the same old same old. "Government has the tendency," she explains, "to want to proliferate during times of crisis, and that's why we have to constantly fight against it. It's a natural impulse and, in many ways, I don't fault it. In some ways they're just doing their job by aggressively seeking as much law-enforcement power as possible, but that's why we have checks and balances in our system of government, and that's why I'm upset that Congress just rolled and played dead on this one."

Paul agrees: "This legislation wouldn't have made any difference in stopping the Sept. 11 attacks," he says. "Therefore, giving up our freedoms to get more security when they can't prove it will do so makes no sense. I seriously believe this is a violation of our liberties. After all, a lot of this stuff in the bill has to do with finances, search warrants and arrests."

For the most part, continues Paul, "our rights have been eroded as much by our courts as they have been by Congress. Whether it's Congress being willing to give up its prerogatives on just about everything to deliver them to an administration that develops new and bigger agencies, or whether it's the courts, there's not enough wariness of the slippery slope and insufficient respect and love of liberty."

What does Paul believe the nation's Founding Fathers would think of this law? "Our forefathers would think it's time for a revolution. This is why they revolted in the first place." Says Paul with a laugh, "They revolted against much more mild oppression."

Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an investigative reporter for Insight.

A Turn In The War

by Jonathan Mark

The taking of Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan by forces opposed to the Taliban is significant. It provides land access to Uzbekistan, where American soldiers are stationed, to expand military and humanitarian operations. But this reason, alone, is not what inspired the title of this analysis report. Recently, bin Laden gave an interview, which was published in a reputable Pakistani newspaper, in which he claimed to have access to nuclear and chemical weapons. Bin Laden (during that same interview) also encouraged dissent in America, as during the Vietnam War. You got to be kidding! Is bin Laden working in cahoots with US forces? His comments would make one wonder. The results of his statements will only serve to fuel those justifying the war in Afghanistan, and against the threat of state-sponsored terrorism. This whole war seems to be like one giant scheme to manipulate democracy and freedom by a pseudo democratic government working in cahoots with terrorist forces. They are playing their games, and the result is making the few richer, and the rest of the world more impoverished and controlled.

Just the fact that President Bush used this war to justify missile defense is reason enough to know that the US is committed to a dominating military policy, not a world coalition for peace and the end of terror. By expanding the (offensive/defensive) arms race the US jeopardizes its own nation and the world by continuing policies that add to the proliferation and development of all weapons of mass destruction. This direction of dominance (and fiscal irresponsibility), during an age where civilization has too many vulnerabilities, will never be successful. The war against terrorism has to include an internal struggle for each nation and individual to release fear from guiding us down a road to ruin.

The turn in the House, with the Republican-led Appropriation's Committee denying funding for a key component of missile defense is another significant marker that occurred this week.(1) This is one of the issues leading to a call from the US Pentagon to meet with leaders of industry involved with missile defense. Now is the time to contact these parties to urge them to transform their policies to honor disarmament treaties, and real coalitions and actions for the peaceful use of space.

Please write and call government, military and industrial leaders to support the passing of the Preservation of Space Act of 2001(2) and World Treaty to Ban Space-Based Weapons.(3) By uniting with these efforts, we have the opportunity to transform acts of terrorism into becoming an isolated part of our history. The Act would cap the arms race and lead to a restructuring of the profit incentive for war and ineffective domination, into becoming a vehicle for commercial and environmental growth for a sustainable direction for humankind and many other species of life.

ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE

Governments Agree On Final Climate Protocol Rulebook

MARRAKECH, Morocco, November 10, 2001 (ENS) - They negotiated the terms of a new climate change agreement through the night, and at dawn the exhausted delegates achieved success. In a plenary session held at six this morning, government officials signed off on a deal that finalizes the terms for implementing the Kyoto Protocol.

With the United States watching from the sidelines, environment ministers and senior officials from 171 countries agreed to specific legally binding rules for enforcing the protocol, signed in December 1997 in an effort to limit six greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

The Marrakech conference, which is the seventh session of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP-7), was attended some 4,500 participants. The agreement opens the way to widespread ratification by governments and the protocol's early entry into force.

"After several years of tough negotiation, the institutions and detailed procedures of the Kyoto Protocol are now in place. The next step is to test their effectiveness in overseeing the five-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by developed countries over the next decade," said Michael Zammit Cutajar, the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), of which the protocol is a part.

"The Marrakech results send a clear signal to business, local governments and the general public that climate friendly products, services, and activities will be rewarded by consumers and national policies alike," said Zammit Cutajar, who after 10 years in his post will be stepping down at the end of the year.

Under the protocol, 38 industrialized nations have agreed to cut their emissions of six greenhouse gases the most abundant of which is carbon dioxide. Thirty-nine nations were to have been governed by the original agreement signed in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, but the Bush administration in March said that the United States would not ratify the protocol.

The finalized Kyoto Protocol rulebook specifies how to measure emissions and reductions. It delineates the extent to which carbon dioxide absorbed by carbon sinks such as forests can be counted towards the legally binding emissions targets.

The deal sets forth the rules governing how the joint implementation and emissions trading systems will work, and the rules for ensuring compliance with commitments. The 38 countries governed by the protocol must reduce emissions of carbon dioxide to an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the five year period 2008 to 2012. The accord contains rules on a compliance regime with enforceable and binding consequences for countries that do not meet their commitments to limit emissions.

Marking the transition out of the negotiating stage to an operational regime, the conference elected 15 members to the Executive Board of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). This will ensure a prompt start to the CDM, whose mandate is to promote sustainable development by encouraging investments in projects in developing countries that reduce or avoid emissions. Developed countries then receive credit against their Kyoto targets for emissions avoided by these projects.

Rules were finalized for Joint Implementation projects under which industrialized countries will earn carbon credits by investing in cleaner technologies in each other's countries.

Ministers completed the final details of the package for reporting and reviewing countries' inventories of greenhouse gases, setting in place a system based on methods set forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of climate scientists from around the world.

Today's agreement formalizes the pledge made at the last round of climate talks in Bonn channeling an additional euro 450 million annually to developing countries from 2005.

"The phoenix of the Kyoto Protocol has risen in Marrakech," said Jennifer Morgan, director of WWF's Climate Change Campaign. "There can be no further excuse for governments to delay taking the next step of ratifying the treaty before next September's Johannesburg Summit."

WWF's focus will now shift to widening business and public involvement in measures that achieve Kyoto's emission reduction goals, placing the emphasis on an enormous range of a string of cost effective domestic actions, said Morgan.

Concerned about the weaknesses of the protocol, environmental groups in Marrakech pledged to prevent damaging projects from going ahead that exploit loopholes already written into the document.

Despite its weaknesses, agreement on the operational details for the protocol was widely seen as an essential prerequisite for its ratification and entry into force.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol will enter into force and become legally binding after it has been ratified by at least 55 Parties to the Convention, including industrialized countries representing at least 55 percent of the total 1990 carbon dioxide emissions from this group.

European Union Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom tired from constant negotiating. The EU stood firm on the urgent need to finalize a strong, binding protocol.

So far, 40 countries have ratified, including two industrialized countries -Romania and the Czech Republic. New Zealand, previously a critic of key aspects of the treaty, was among countries announcing in Marrakech that it would ratify the treaty.

Many governments have called for the protocol's entry into force to take place in 2002 before the World Summit on Sustainable Development set for September in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Delegates adopted the Marrakech Ministerial Declaration as an input into the World Summit on Sustainable Development. The Declaration emphasizes the contribution that action on climate change can make to sustainable development and calls for capacity building, technology innovation, and cooperation with the biodiversity and desertification conventions.

The Eighth Conference of Parties, COP-8, will be held from October 23 to 1 November 1, 2002. India has offered to be the host.

Environment A Non-Issue At World Trade Talks

DOHA, Qatar, November 10, 2001 (ENS) - The World Trade Organization's 4th Ministerial Conference approved today by consensus the text of the agreement for China's entry into the organization. China will become legally a member 30 days after the World Trade Organization (WTO) receives notification of the ratification of the agreement by China's Parliament.

The 142 member governments of the WTO are meeting at the Qatar International Exhibition Centre. It is the first WTO ministerial conference since anti-globalization protesters, concerned that environmental and labor protections may be lost as international trade expands, shut down the WTO meeting in Seattle in 1999.

Opening this WTO session Friday, Director General Mike Moore made mention of Seattle but made no mention of the environment as an issue of concern during this meeting. The WTO objectives, Moore said, "are the further liberalization of trade, the creation of more jobs, the strengthening of the multilateral system and the extension of the full benefits of that system to countries now marginalized by poverty."

"The issues facing Ministers this week are essentially the same as those we faced and failed to resolve at our conference in Seattle two years ago, but we are now vastly better prepared to deal with them. This is largely thanks to the extraordinary process of consultation and debate which has dominated the work of the WTO throughout the past two years," Moore said referring to clarification of issues that took place at the WTO headquarters in Geneva.

"We learned lessons in Seattle which we applied in the Geneva process," Moore said, "and which we must not forget over the next few days."

"The world economy needs the signal of confidence in open markets and commitment to international cooperation which agreements here will deliver," Moore said.

Welcoming the delegates to his country, His Highness Shaikh Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Prime Minister of Qatar, said the multilateral trade system has contributed to the growth of world economy and over the past 20 years has helped some developing countries to boost their economic and social development.

"However, the benefits were not uniformly spread," the sheik said, and have bypassed many developing countries. This can be seen if we look at income distribution across the world, which is still skewed in favour of the few in an unacceptable manner. Eighty percent of the world population consumes only 15 percent of the resources of the world, while the other 20 percent consume about 85 percent of those resources," he said.

The international environmental group Greenpeace has the same imbalance in mind as it lobbies WTO participants to hold the United States accountable for the greenhouse gases it emits burning fossil fuels to power its economy.

The Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior, sailed into Doha with the purpose of challenging the WTO to use this ministerial conference "to force the United States to commit to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change."

The operations rulebook for the Kyoto Protocol was finalized early this morning in Morocco by governments of 171 countries, without the agreement of the United States.

"The WTO in its own charter claims to promote the use of the world's resources for sustainable development," said Greenpeace International Executive Director, Gerd Leipold, on board the Rainbow Warrior.

"That claim is nonsense if they do not actively promote efforts to combat climate change through the Kyoto Protocol. By allowing the U.S. to remain outside the protocol, the WTO is effectively handing them a multi-billion dollar trade subsidy. This makes a mockery of the organization's own rules."

Trade unions and their members are organizing and participating in around 70 anti-globalization actions in 45 countries.

"Many of the worst effects of globalization are felt in the developing world, and the broad participation of workers in the non-industrialized countries, shows just how widespread the discontent is," said Bill Jordan, general secretary of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). Jordan, who is leading a 50 member trade union delegation in Qatar, pointed out that roughly half of the actions are taking place in developing and transition countries.

Moore told delegates inside the hall that this conference will initiate the next stage in the development of the trading system, "whose focus must be the fuller integration of the developing world."

"We know that trade and trade liberalization are not ends in themselves," he said. "Nor will trade - or economic growth itself -eradicate poverty. But we also know that protectionism will create poverty, as it always has, and will increase international tension and conflict, as it always has."

Coalition Demands Shutdown Of Indian Point Reactors

by Cat Lazaroff

WASHINGTON, DC, November 9, 2001 (ENS) - The nuclear reactors of the Indian Point power plant should be closed indefinitely, a coalition of environmental and civic groups and elected officials said Thursday. The coalition told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the plant, located just 40 miles north of New York City, poses far too great a risk to the nation's largest city in the event of a terrorist attack.

With a petition filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the coalition called on the agency to order an immediate shutdown of the Indian Point facility and to keep it closed until a full review of the plant's vulnerabilities and safety systems is conducted. Indian Point's two functioning nuclear reactors are located on the Hudson River about 40 miles north of mid-town Manhattan.

Citing catastrophic risks to public health and safety and to the world's financial center, the coalition stated that the events of September 11 "clearly demonstrate that the plant's status needs to be reexamined."

While not calling for a permanent shutdown at this stage, the coalition argued that the enormous safety risks Indian Point poses to the region cannot be justified by the plant's limited economic benefit - namely providing a cheap source of power in the summer months when electricity demand is high. The coalition pointed out that with summer over, now might be the best time to close down both Units 2 and 3 and take the opportunity to study the plant's ability to operate safely.

"In light of the September 11th suicide bombing and Indian Point's proximity to the country's most densely populated metropolis, prudence dictates that the plant be shut down until Entergy demonstrates that it can protect the public from a terrorist attack," said Alex Matthiessen, executive director of Riverkeeper, one of the groups leading the campaign.

Entergy Corporation purchased the Indian Point 1 and 2 reactors from Consolidated Edison in September. Indian Point 1 has been shut down and in storage since the early 1970s. Entergy purchased Indian Point 3 from Con Edison in November 2000.

The petitioners are asking the NRC to assess the vulnerability of Indian Point to terrorist attacks, review the adequacy of existing security systems and evacuation plans, and to make recommendations on how to minimize the facility's risks to public safety.

The coalition also asked the NRC to order an immediate transfer of the plant's highly radioactive spent fuel rods from a wet cooling pool system, where they are now, to a dry cask system - a technology that could significantly increase the security of the spent fuel.

"The plant's vulnerability to a major terrorist attack has never been studied," noted Matthiessen. "Yet we do know the risks are real and grave. Some 20 million Americans live within Indian Point's 50 mile fall out zone that could be irradiated following a meltdown or spent fuel fire. At the time Indian Point 2 was licensed in 1974, one of the Atomic Energy Commission's own officials said that siting a plant so close to New York was 'insane.'"

On September 11, when two hijacked airplanes were flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, some experts immediately wondered what the effect would have been if the terrorists had targeted a nuclear power plant. While the NRC at first said the heavily shielded containment towers around all reactors would protect against the release of nuclear radioactivity, the agency later changed its tune.

The NRC admitted last month that it "did not specifically contemplate attacks by aircraft such as Boeing 757s or 767s" - the types of planes used to destroy the World Trade Center towers and heavily damage the recently fortified Pentagon.

While the containment buildings that shelter nuclear reactors are able to withstand severe events including hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes, "nuclear power plants were not designed to withstand such crashes," the agency said in a statement. "Detailed engineering analyses of a large airliner crash have not yet been performed."

Entergy spokesperson Jim Steets said closing the Indian Point plant would not make it safer, and noted that the plant is a far smaller target than the massive, 110 story tall World Trade Center towers. Even a direct hit by a plane would not necessarily lead to a meltdown of the reactors' nuclear fuel, or a widespread release of radiation, Streets said.

If a meltdown did result, the plant has an evacuation plan, as required by the NRC, and that plan accounts for even the worst case scenarios, Streets argued. The federal government reviews such plans every two years, and requires that they include the complete evacuation of all people within a 10 mile radius of the plant within eight to 10 hours after an accident - a proposal not everyone believes is feasible.

"If the United Airlines jet that traveled down the Hudson Valley en route to the twin towers had instead banked a left turn into one of Indian Point's twin reactors, the resulting disaster would have been even more horrific than the World Trade Center catastrophe," said Robert Kennedy, Jr., chief prosecuting attorney for Riverkeeper. "Given the southerly direction of prevailing winds in the Hudson Valley, a meltdown or major radioactive release at Indian Point could result in death and chronic radiation sickness for thousands if not tens of thousands of the region's citizens and render much of the New York metropolitan area permanently uninhabitable."

Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute (NCI), noted that simply shutting down the reactors would not substantially reduce the consequences of a radioactive release, were terrorists to successfully penetrate the plants and destroy their essential safety systems. But during a shutdown of just 20 days, Leventhal argued, officials could take steps that would reduce the number of people who might die immediately after a core meltdown and containment breach by 80 percent.

The number of potential long term cancer deaths could be slashed by 50 percent during a brief shutdown, according to a preliminary analysis by NCI.

Leventhal pointed out that removing the fuel from the reactors -something than can be done between six and eight days after shutdown - would allow security forces to focus their protection on the spent fuel pools where this highly radioactive fuel, as well as all fuel previously removed from the reactors, is now stored.

Most of the radiation at Indian Point is stored in spent fuel pools designed as only a temporary repository for the nuclear waste. Spent fuel pools are particularly vulnerable because they lie outside the containment domes and tend to be poorly protected in cement or metal buildings.

In 1982, Congress directed the federal government to identify a centralized site to safely store the nation's spent fuel. A controversial site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is currently the only site under consideration as a permanent repository for spent nuclear fuel, but the facility is years away from being ready to accept nuclear wastes.

"Taking the straightforward step of a temporary reactor shut down to reduce the risks and consequences of a successful terrorist assault will help the 20 million people who live and work in the New York metropolitan area sleep a little easier," said NCI's Leventhal. "It will also allow the plant operator and public officials at all levels to develop and to test defensive measures for the reactor and the spent fuel pool that are sufficient to repel the new terrorist threat."

"That threat, made manifest on September 11, is at least 19 suicidal and sophisticated terrorists attacking from four different directions," noted Leventhal. "Until Indian Point can be protected against that threat, it should not be allowed to operate. Unless Indian Point is shut down, there will not be the financial and political imperative to get the job done right."

Indian Point's two reactors supply 1800 megawatts of power to New York City and Westchester County, enough to power 1.8 million homes. The Pace University Energy Project contends that because there are numerous sources of power around the region, removing Indian Point from the grid would not affect energy reliability, even in the peak summer months.

As to the price of electricity, "During the non-summer months of September through May, an absence of Indian Point power would have a negligible effect on the region's electricity prices," said Dick Ottinger, dean emeritus and professor of law at the Pace Energy Project.

"With the new circumstances we face, there's absolutely no justification for not shutting the reactors down, at least until next summer, and using the time to get a better handle on the risks," Ottinger said.

The coalition believes that a successful attack on the spent fuel pools could lead to a catastrophic fire and a widespread release of radiation. Depending on the size of the fire and wind direction, New York City could be cloaked in radioactive material.

Coalition members pointed to a 1982 NRC study that attempted to estimate the "peak" number of deaths and casualties that would result from a meltdown at Indian Point. Under a meltdown scenario at Indian Point 3 alone, the agency predicted up to 50,000 non-cancer radiation sickness deaths within a year of an accident, up to 14,000 additional deaths over time due to cancer, and up to 167,000 cases of ongoing radiation related health problems.

The group also pointed to another 1982 NRC study on the economic impacts on Westchester County. According to the study, a meltdown at Indian Point 3 would result in a loss of $314 billion, in 1982 dollars, to Westchester's property and commercial interests. Adjusted for inflation and a quadrupling of real estate prices since 1982, the figure could be closer to $2.3 trillion, in 2000 dollars, the coalition said.

Including the effect on New York City and other surrounding counties would result in a figure in the tens of trillions of dollars in economic losses.

The petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is available at:

http://www.nci.org/01NCI/11/NRCPetition.htm

RiverKeeper: http://www.RiverKeeper.org