Cabot's Sneaky Attack on Pennsylvania Cancer Survivor Reveals Dirty Agenda to Silence Environmentalists
13 February 2019
Insights + Opinion
A Cabot Oil & Gas natural gas drill at a hydraulic fracturing site in South Montrose, Pennsylvania. Spencer Platt / Getty Images
By Wenonah Hauter
Cabot Oil & Gas, a company with $765 million in assets in 2017, doesn't like environmental nonprofits meddling in its dirty business in Pennsylvania. And the company is delivering this message by targeting Ray Kemble—a local 63-year old who just survived his fourth cancer surgery—with a $5 million lawsuit for speaking out about Cabot and fracking.
<p> If corporate injustices were measured on a scale of one to ten, Cabot's latest disgraceful maneuver would be a rock-solid eleven. <u></u><u></u> <u></u><u></u>Back in 2010, Cabot settled a number of lawsuits brought by Dimock homeowners who claimed that the company had poisoned their groundwater, decreased their property values and threatened their health and safety. Kemble was one of those plaintiffs who signed a settlement agreement that included some unknown nondisclosure terms. It's a secrecy provision that Cabot often uses to keep its dirty practices hidden and one that state and federal regulators have cited as a hinderance to a full investigation into the impact of fracking on groundwater and public health.<u></u><u></u> </p><p><u></u><u></u>While its exact terms remain concealed, Cabot's lawyers want us all to take their word for it that Kemble is in violation of the nondisclosure provision of the agreement because he has exercised his First Amendment right to warn others of the risks of fracking and encourage an end to this inherently harmful practice. Kemble's effective advocacy made him a target of Cabot's ire, and now they've taken aim and fired off a lawsuit that seeks to strip him of all he has left in the world, and then some.</p><p> <u></u><u></u> <u></u><u></u>Cabot's recent filing with the court asked the judge to place a <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/cancer">cancer</a> patient with no resources in jail until its lawyers have had a chance to interrogate him. The judge rejected its request and after the hearing, Cabot's spokesperson tried to deflect from the corporation's persecution of Kemble by claiming that it is really just using the courts to go after groups that have provided financial support to Kemble and others who have been victimized by Cabot's irresponsible fracking operations.<u></u><u></u> </p><p><u></u><u></u>The irony of Cabot's claims is rich. While Cabot whines about advocacy groups supporting affected citizens in their work to stop fracking, its spokesperson didn't mention the over $600,000 the company paid out in lobbying and campaign contributions between 2011 and 2014 in Pennsylvania in an attempt to cover up the 265 operating violations it racked up over the same period. </p><p>Elected officials have happily taken campaign money from Cabot to protect its interests in the state.<u></u><u></u> <u></u><u></u><a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a> has been proud to stand alongside Kemble and all the other victims of Cabot and other fracking companies in Dimock, across Pennsylvania and around the country. We've provided funding so that people in Dimock who have had their <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> taken from them have access to clean water, and to assist these courageous frontline advocates who have been fighting hard against crooked companies and bought-and-paid-for elected officials who look the other way. And we will continue to do so even in the face of corporate intimidation. </p><p><u></u><u></u> <u></u><u></u>Cabot can only continue to operate by violating the fundamental rights of others. It threatens the property rights of homeowners whose groundwater is poisoned and whose property values plummet. It even relies on judges to overturn juries who grant Cabot's victims monetary damages for the harm Cabot has caused, while paying off politicians. And now the corporation wants to put an end to people's rights to speak freely about fracking.<u></u><u></u> </p><p><u></u><u></u>It's time to put an end to Cabot's reign of terror in Pennsylvania. The federal Environmental Protection Agency should reopen the investigation into Dimock's groundwater that it abruptly walked away from without explanation. The state legislature should hold hearings on Cabot's business and drilling practices and the use of nondisclosure agreements to silence victims. And the state Attorney General Josh Shapiro should launch an investigation into Cabot's shameless persecution of Kemble and Cabot's misuse of the court system. It's time for these officials to step up and protect residents of Pennsylvania from the abuses of greedy and irresponsible oil and gas companies like Cabot.<u></u><u></u> </p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="a9364" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5EP5JP1576662980"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="954025133571678208" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Fracking Waste Lawsuit Highlights Dangerous Trend of Corporations Targeting Community Rights Defenders… https://t.co/Ft1c3OcU4M</div> — Renewable Search (@Renewable Search)<a href="https://twitter.com/RenewableSearch/statuses/954025133571678208">1516292291.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Wenonah Hauter is executive director of <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
'Absolutely Unconscionable': Trump EPA Refuses to Limit Toxic Chemicals Contaminating Drinking Water
30 January 2019
Health + Wellness
Under the Trump administration, the EPA will decline to regulate a pair of toxic chemicals linked to various forms of cancer. EPA
By Jessica Corbett
In a decision deemed by critics unsurprising but also "absolutely unconscionable," the Trump administration's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reportedly plans to refrain from regulating a pair of toxic chemicals linked to kidney and testicular cancer, even though they are contaminating millions of Americans' drinking water.
Sources familiar with an unreleased draft plan approved last month by acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told Politico that the chemicals PFOA and PFOS will remain unregulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, meaning that "utilities will face no federal requirements for testing for and removing the chemicals from drinking water supplies, although several states have pursued or are pursuing their own limits."
<p>The chemicals "have been used for decades in products such as Teflon-coated cookware and military firefighting foam, and are present in the bloodstreams of an estimated 98 percent of Americans," Politico pointed out. That means, given that they have "contaminated groundwater near hundreds of military bases and chemical plants," any intensive regulation of them would force companies such as <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/23/political-chemicals-cleanup-3m-1012445" target="_blank">3M</a> as well as the Defense Department to spend billions of dollars on cleanup efforts.</p><p>"If these sources are right, the EPA is essentially telling the more than 110 million Americans whose water is likely contaminated with PFAS: 'Drink up, folks,'" <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/sources-trump-epa-won-t-set-drinking-water-limit-pfas-chemicals" target="_blank">warned</a> Environmental Working Group senior scientist David Andrews, Ph.D. "The most efficient and equitable way to remove these chemicals from the nation's drinking water supply is to use the agency's authority to set legal limits ... It's a national problem, and it needs a national solution."</p><p>"It is absolutely unconscionable for the Trump administration to refuse to even start the process of setting a limit on these poisonous chemicals," <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/media/2019/190128-0" target="_blank">declared</a> Erik Olson of the Natural Resources Defense Council (<a href="https://www.nrdc.org" target="_blank">NRDC</a>). "Communities around the country need swift, meaningful action from the government. Punting responsibility to the private sector and states is a total abdication of EPA's role in protecting the American people."</p><p>"Sadly, it's no surprise the Trump administration is failing to protect Americans from these dangerous chemicals," Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter said in a <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2019/01/29/trump-failing-protect-drinking-water-ignoring-dangerous-chemicals-pfoa-and-pfos" target="_blank">statement</a>.<br></p><p>"It's time for state governments and Congress to step up, since it's obvious we can't rely on Andrew Wheeler and Trump's EPA to protect us from dangerous chemicals in our drinking water," she added, calling on federal lawmakers to enact the Water Accountability, Transparency, Equity, and Reliability (WATER) Act.</p><p>"More than ever, we need strong federal legislation to protect drinking water," Hauter said. <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1673" target="_blank">The WATER Act</a> "would upgrade our aging infrastructure and help keep vital water systems under local public control. But it would also provide funding to help keep drinking water safe from toxins like PFOA and PFOS, in spite of this administration's failure to act."</p><p>The news out of the EPA on Monday came after the agency and White House <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/toxic-chemicals-study-blocked-2569008321.html" target="_blank">blocked</a> the release of a federal study on PFOA and PFOS last year over concerns that it would produce a "public relations nightmare." The move was widely condemned by public health experts, reporters, and American lawmakers, with critics charging that then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt was "more worried about journalists than poisoning millions of Americans."</p><p>Noting that decision and, more broadly, the federal government's failures to protect the American public from industry pollution during the Trump era, Hauter concluded, "This administration prioritizes corporate profits over public safety, pure and simple."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="17fac" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="5SPYB81576663710"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1081299732192997376" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">This year will be pivotal for water and environmental justice. We need as many activists as possible making as much… https://t.co/JI7ILdRzeN</div> — Clean Water Action (@Clean Water Action)<a href="https://twitter.com/cleanh2oaction/statuses/1081299732192997376">1546636920.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/01/29/absolutely-unconscionable-trump-epa-refuses-limit-toxic-chemicals-contaminate" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Advocates of labels for genetically modified food take part in the March Against Monsanto in Washington, D.C. Stephen Melkisethian / Flickr
By Andrea Germanos
Food safety advocates are expressing sharp disappointment with the final federal GMO labeling rule, released Thursday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
While industry-friendly Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue asserted in a press statement that the new standard for foods produced using genetic engineering (GE or GMO) would boost "the transparency of our nation's food system" and ensure "clear information and labeling consistency for consumers about the ingredients in their food," groups like the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP)—and even food giants like Nestlé—say it does nothing of the sort.
<p>"It is obvious that this rule is intended to hide, not disclose, information about genetically modified foods," <a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/usdas-gmo-disclosure-rule-designed-cover-up" target="_blank">said</a> IATP senior attorney Sharon Treat.</p><p>Among the concerns being raised is that the rule, <a href="https://www.iatp.org/documents/usdas-gmo-disclosure-rule-designed-cover-up" target="_blank">published</a> Friday in the Federal Register and with implementation set to begin in 2020, refers not to the widely recognized phrase "genetically-modified food" but rather "bioengineered (BE) food."</p><p>"USDA's prohibition of the well-established terms, GE and GMO, on <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/food/">food</a> labels will confuse and mislead consumers," <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/12/20/long-awaited-final-regulations-gmo-food-labeling-leave-millions-americans-dark" target="_blank">said</a> Andrew Kimbrell, executive director at the Center for Food Safety.</p><p>To make the disclosure, food producers have four options: text, a friendly-looking <a href="https://twitter.com/sustainableag/status/1076204084779249664" target="_blank">symbol</a>, an electronic or digital link, or a text message. <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/12/20/usdas-gmo-labeling-rule-keeps-consumers-dark-sake-big-ag-profits" target="_blank">According to</a> Food & Water Watch executive director Wenonah Hauter, the symbol suggests "to consumers the product is natural and sustainable, when genetically engineered foods are anything but."</p><p>The option for the use of electronic codes, meanwhile, discriminates against those without access to a smartphone, tablet, or reliable internet access, and while the companies would also need to provide a telephone number for a consumer to call, that is onerous, the groups say.</p><p>Moreover, <a href="https://www.nongmoproject.org/blog/americans-deserve-better-than-the-usdas-gmo-labeling-law/" target="_blank">says the NonGMO Project</a>, many products that deserve a label won't have to get one:</p><blockquote>Highly processed ingredients, many products of new genetic engineering techniques such as CRISPR and TALEN, and many meat and dairy products will not require disclosure. Animal feed is not covered by this law; meat, eggs, and dairy from animals fed a GMO diet will not require a disclosure.<br></blockquote><p>In light of such loopholes, Dana Perls, senior food and agriculture campaigner at Friends of the Earth U.S., <a href="https://foe.org/news/usda-releases-shoddy-gmo-labeling-rule/" target="_blank">summed up</a> the new rules as "a disaster."</p><p>"No one should be surprised that the most anti-consumer, anti-transparency administration in modern times is denying Americans basic information about what's in their food and how it's grown," <a href="https://www.ewg.org/release/ewg-gmos-many-foods-will-go-undisclosed-under-trump-s-final-gmo-rule" target="_blank">argued</a> Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs for the Environmental Working Group.</p><p>"At a time when consumers are asking more and more questions about the use of genetic engineering," Faber continued, "today's rule will further undermine the technology by sowing greater confusion among Americans who simply want the right to know if their food is genetically modified—the same right held by consumers in 64 other countries."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="30071" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="93B1KX1576663094"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1076237384440782854" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The USDA has a new GMO label:
"This rule is filled with loopholes that will allow manufacturers to use digital cod… https://t.co/NKzvzydXXl</div> — Food & Water Watch (@Food & Water Watch)<a href="https://twitter.com/foodandwater/statuses/1076237384440782854">1545429962.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/12/21/disaster-critics-pounce-trump-usdas-new-gmo-labeling-rule" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
- GMO Labeling: Public Interest Advocacy Group Sues Trump Over ... ›
- Food Safety Advocates Decry USDA Rule Allowing Big Ag to Self-Regulate on GMOs - EcoWatch ›
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Support Ecowatch
The USDA's approved "BE" symbol.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on Thursday announced its long-awaited rule on the labeling of foods containing genetically engineered, or GMO, ingredients. Just don't expect the letters GMO to appear on these products.
Under the new "National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard," such items will feature the term "bioengineered" or BE foods.
<p>
From Jan. 1, 2022, food companies will have four options to make this disclosure, according to the <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/resources/industry-fact-sheet-national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard" target="_blank">USDA's fact sheet</a>:
</p><ul class="ee-ul">
<li>On-package text, e.g. "Bioengineered Food," or "Contains a Bioengineered Food Ingredient."<br></li>
<li><span></span>Electronic or digital disclosure—must include instructions to "Scan here for more food information" or similar language, and include a phone number<br></li>
<li>Text message disclosure<br><br> </li>
<li>Or a USDA-approved symbol:<br><br> </li>
<span></span>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xOTAyMzM1OS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYxODA5NjU0NH0.QAUjb9Z2zJlRcRmi7xJlj6EiCAk-LfE0nElXAGelIt0/img.jpg?width=980" id="1a212" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="6ec8a79b77251b2c60b448c583a9eef8" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">USDA</small>
</p>
</ul><p>After years of a contentious battle that pitted food and chemical giants against state-level GMO mandates, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/president-obama-expected-to-sign-industry-backed-gmo-bill-into-law-1921861535.html">President Obama signed a law</a> in July 2016 that directed the Secretary of Agriculture to come up with a national labeling standard for products that contain genetically modified ingredients.</p><p>
Critics of the new labeling standard say it allows food companies to use QR codes, a website URL or 1-800 numbers for this disclosure rather than a clear, national labeling standard.
</p><p>
"This rule is filled with loopholes that will allow manufacturers to use digital codes and other technology that make GMO disclosure more difficult for consumers than simple on-package labels. Many people don't have access to smartphones needed to scan QR codes, or access to a good signal while shopping," <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a> executive director Wenonah Hauter said in an emailed statement.
</p><p>
In today's <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/12/20/establishing-national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard" target="_blank">announcement</a>, Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said the new labeling standard increases the transparency of the nation's food system, and ensures clear information and labeling consistency for consumers about the ingredients in their food.<br>
</p><p>
"The standard also avoids a patchwork state-by-state system that could be confusing to consumers," he added.
</p><p>
But Gregory Jaffe of the <a href="https://cspinet.org/" target="_blank">Center for Science in the Public Interest</a> (CSPI), which advocated for term "genetically engineered" on packaging, <a href="https://cspinet.org/news/final-usda-rule-labeling-bioengineered-foods-may-lead-consumer-confusion-says-cspi-20181220" target="_blank">argued</a> that the new labeling standard could sow confusion as consumers might not be familiar with the term "bioengineered."<br>
</p><p>
Secondly, Jaffe said, the new standard allows an exemption for highly processed ingredients such as sugar and vegetable oils that are chemically indistinguishable from their non-GMO counterparts.
</p><p>"Most studies have shown that consumers expect highly processed ingredients to be labeled and many food manufacturers want to provide that information. CSPI agrees with the decision to disclose highly processed ingredients as 'derived from bioengineering' but disagrees with USDA's decision to not mandate that disclosure," he wrote. <br></p><p>The vast majority of sugar beet, corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered for insect resistance or herbicide tolerance, <a href="https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/11754-usda-issues-gmo-disclosure-rules" target="_blank">Agri-Pulse</a> noted.</p><p><span></span>Representatives for corn, soybean and sugar beet growers approved of the final regulations. "America's corn farmers need a consistent, transparent system to provide consumers with information without stigmatizing important, safe technology," National Corn Growers Association president Lynn Chrisp of Nebraska said, as quoted by Agri-Pulse.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="c4dc6" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="M2WCBZ1576662595"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1075768892658597900" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">🚨 Just announced 🚨 The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard will provide a nationally uniform way to off… https://t.co/skeXN1njou</div> — Dept. of Agriculture (@Dept. of Agriculture)<a href="https://twitter.com/USDA/statuses/1075768892658597900">1545318265.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
Cheryl Walsh Bellville
By Eleanor Bravo
Imagine: a deep, pristine aquifer persists without incident for more than 11,700 years in the Valley of San Augustin. It is revered and left unmarred by the community members who know of its existence, utilizing it respectfully and sustainably, leaving it intact—from the Ice Age until 2008. That is when a New York-based company, Augustin Plains Ranch LLC, owned by an Italian billionaire, decided to set up its operation and apply for a permit to invade the aquifer by extracting 54,000 acre feet of water per year.
<p>
Located in west-central New Mexico, the groundwater present in the aquifer dates back to the latest Ice Age and is fed by no permanent streams. The basin is
<a href="https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/publications/openfile/downloads/0-99/51/ofr_51.pdf" target="_blank">replenished primarily from the intense thundershowers</a> during late summer months. Southern New Mexico generally averages less than 10 inches of rain a year. For more than 10 years, neighbors of the ranch have fought to oppose water mining and potential destruction of the aquifer. With present <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drought">drought</a> conditions and rising temperatures, it's possible that if allowed, this volume of extraction would render the aquifer non-existent.
</p>
<p>
This lengthy battle has united improbable allies: conservative ranchers, indigenous people, small business owners, rural residents and conservationists in a broad coalition of local opposition. Why? New Mexicans get 85 percent of their drinking water from groundwater. Water mining in huge quantities eventually causes a "cone of depression." As water continues to be pumped at an unsustainable rate, the underground flow moves toward the wells that are pumping. As nearby wells begin to dry up, the cone of depression widens, and more and more wells go dry.
</p>
<h4>Where Would the Water Go?</h4>
<p>
Only about 700 people live in the area of the San Augustin Valley. It is a sparse but elegant landscape, also home to the Very Large Array (VLA), a component of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). The VLA comprises 27 independent antennae, 25 meters in diameter each weighing 209 metric tons. It is a multi-purpose instrument designed to allow investigations of astronomical objects. The Association has been one of the parties protesting against Augustin Plains Ranch's permit applications.
</p>
<p>
After many bumps and turns, opponents and proponents of the project awaited yet another ruling by the State Engineer after three applications by the company. This was clearly a last-ditch effort by Augustin Plains Ranch, in hopes that the present administration and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, with their favoritism toward big business, would produce a different outcome.
</p>
<p>
The plan, if approved, called for 17 billion gallons of water per year to be extracted through 37 wells. A
<a href="https://geoinfo.nmt.edu/resources/water/amp/brochures/D2_07_Alex_Rinehart.pdf" target="_blank">geological study</a> concluded that "data used to generate storage estimates, aquifer properties, subsurface geology are sparse, making it difficult to accurately assess impact of the proposed project." This prehistoric underground lake could potentially be drained, leaving residents, livestock and wildlife with no water source and changing the fragile desert ecosystem forever.
</p>
<p>
Where would this extracted water go? That has been a question that has not been definitively answered all these years. According to the company, water pumped from the aquifer would be piped 140 miles to Bernalillo County, which is adjacent to the Rio Grande River, and could be purchased by anyone along the way to supplement water shortages, enhance stream flows and benefit fish and wildlife. But environmentalists do not support stealing water from one area to procure water for the Rio Grande.
</p>
<p>
Rio Rancho, a growing community outside of Albuquerque, was one of the possible destinations. Sandoval County where Rio Rancho is located is presently considering permits for horizontal drilling from oil and gas companies. The Sandoval County Commission is considering zoning the county and making some rural, less densely populated areas available for drilling and protecting other areas in a discriminatory policy that benefits wealthier, more populated areas. Horizontal drilling and subsequent fracking are highly water-consumptive processes, and Rio Rancho public utility water bills have skyrocketed. The possibility that the aquifer's wealth of water is being targeted in order to prop up fracking needs is very real. Agriculture is another potential destination—shoring up the New Mexico chile industry was mentioned as an option.
</p>
<h4>The Billionaire's Bad Luck—For Now</h4>
<p>
Ultimately, the State Engineer denied this third application for permit calling the venture "speculative." The Office of the State Engineer explained their decision: "After carefully considering all aspects of the application, the State Engineer determined that the applicant failed to identify specific quantities of water for specific identified beneficial uses which are requirements under state law for a water right to be developed."
</p>
<p>
Carol Pittman, a resident of the area for 20 years who has led the opposition, rejoiced at the decision, saying: "Rural communities throughout the state can celebrate the denial of the Augustin Plains Ranch LLC's application to mine water in the aquifer of the Plains of San Augustin. Should the application have been approved, every rural community would be vulnerable to the threat of water being moved from a rural area to an urban area, a prospect not even supported by urban areas." As a founding member of the San Augustin Water Coalition, Pittman and other members also regularly traveled to Albuquerque to register their opposition to the proposed Santolina planned community that would have ultimately purchased the San Augustin Plains water.
</p>
<p>
The fight for water has not come to an end, and the decision is facing an appeal, but the proper management of our natural resources has come into question. We cannot bow to the short-sighted demands of private entrepreneurs wanting to make a profit from the commons while compromising fragile ecosystems. The Water Coalition is hopeful that there will be no more applications and that the Plains are finally free to replenish as they have for thousands of years.
</p>
<p>
Food & Water Watch is proud to have assisted the members of the Water Coalition in this long-term struggle. Carol Pittman has become a great friend to us and we appreciate her acknowledgement:
</p>
<blockquote>
"To help save our water resources in the Plains of San Augustin, New Mexico Food and Water Watch provided support to our rural community. Without such help the prospect of our small population winning the battle against an international corporation would have been much more difficult."
</blockquote>
<p>
<em><a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/bio/eleanor-bravo" target="_blank">Eleanor Bravo</a> is Food & Water Watch's National Pipeline Campaign Manager, based in Albuquerque, New Mexico. </em><br/>
<span></span>
</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODc5MDM4MS9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzMDExMjA3OH0.y31sH4FqyHulkrLdtBksdWz9oL21a3HA7GrZkLgZc8A/img.jpg?width=980" id="67aaa" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="85ac0ce9227ef5183f0ac689b41742df" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Read More
Show Less
Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Agencia de Noticias ANDES
Mexico's president-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador said he will end the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, once he enters office on Dec. 1.
"We will no longer use that method to extract petroleum," the populist politician said Tuesday at a press conference, as quoted by the Associated Press.
<p>
This is a setback for the energy industry that has eyed Mexico's shale-rich Burgos Basin in the north,
<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/08/01/lopez-obrador-ban-fracking" target="_blank">DeSmog</a> reported. It was only less than a year ago when Mexico's national energy ministry <a href="https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32592" target="_blank">opened</a> the onshore portion of the Burgos Basin for natural gas exploration and development by private companies.
</p><p>
<span></span>The horizontal drilling technique is used to unlock oil and natural gas deposits from shale beds. Fracking has significantly ramped up natural gas extraction and has aided local economies, but opponents say that fracking pollutes the air and groundwater, among other environmental and public health concerns. The technique has been banned in many U.S. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/how-we-banned-fracking-in-new-york-1882001710.html">municipalities</a> and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/ireland-ban-fracking-2450255362.html">countries around the world</a>.
</p><p>
The "plan to ban fracking in Mexico represents the latest common-sense decision by a world leader to prohibit this inherently toxic, polluting practice,"
<a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/" target="_blank"> Food & Water Watch</a> executive director Wenonah Hauter told DeSmog.
</p><p>
<span></span>"President-elect Obrador is moving in the right direction on many issues, including energy and the environment," Hauter added. "He can move even farther by pledging to transition Mexico to a fully clean, renewable energy future, thereby setting a remarkable example for its neighbors to the north."
</p><p>
According to the AP, Lopez Obrador also spoke against private electricity generation contracts that have displaced the state-owned Federal Electricity Commission, or CFE.
</p><p>
"The neoliberal governments deliberately closed the CFE plants in order to buy electricity from foreign companies at very high prices," Lopez Obrador said. "All of that will be corrected."
</p><p>
<span></span><a href="http://www.utsa.edu/experts/expertDetails.cfm?eid=419" target="_blank">Thomas Tunstall</a>, Research Director for the University of Texas at San Antonio's Institute of Economic Development, pointed out to DeSmog that Mexico's potential fracking ban is mostly symbolic.
</p><p>
"Near-term, a ban on hydraulic fracturing in Mexico would have no impact, economically or environmentally. Unlike the United States, Mexico has substantial untapped conventional oil and gas reserves: shallow water, deep water and even onshore conventional," Tunstall said. "In addition, most of the unconventional/shale opportunities lie in Northern Mexico, which lacks significant infrastructure (housing, roads, rail, skilled workforce). Best estimates are that any unconventional oil and gas production activity in Mexico is at least 5-10 years away, no matter what government policy is."
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="25e7f" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="WPYE3P1576662183"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="998951355200008192" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Trump Opens Door to Dangerous Fracking in Northern Arizona https://t.co/TOV5ngCmu9 #fracking #Arizona #publiclands… https://t.co/xPu1aUGS8G</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/998951355200008192">1527003537.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
'Privatization Is Not the Answer': Grave Warnings as Wall Street Vultures Circle Puerto Rico's Water System
27 June 2018
Popular
San Juan, Puerto Rico on Dec. 2, 2017. Prayitno / CC BY 2.0
By Jake Johnson
Previous attempts by Wall Street financiers and government officials to privatize Puerto Rico's water system have produced "disastrous results," but private equity vultures are exploiting the death and destruction caused by Hurricane Maria to plow ahead with yet another privatization effort—one that environmentalists warn could further imperil the island's public water infrastructure.
<p>"While the water system urgently needs repairs and upgrades following the destructive Hurricane Maria, privatization is not the answer," <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/06/26/water-privatization-adds-insult-injury-puerto-rico" target="_blank">declared</a> <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a> executive director Wenonah Hauter on Tuesday after Puerto Rico's Public-Private Partnerships Authority officially <a href="http://www.p3.pr.gov/assets/rfq-prasa-june-2018.pdf" target="_blank">kicked off the process</a> (pdf) of partially privatizing the Puerto Rico Aqueducts and Sewers Authority (PRASA), a government-owned entity responsible for water quality and management.</p><p>"Responsible, public control of the system is the best way to ensure that every person on the island has access to safe and affordable water and that PRASA operates in the service of the people, not in the service of profits," Hauter added. "With the privatization of Puerto Rico's water authority, we expect Wall Street profiteers and corporate water operators will seek to extract wealth without addressing the long-standing issues with the commonwealth's water system."</p><p>Citing the Puerto Rican government's <a href="http://www.p3.pr.gov/assets/rfq-prasa-june-2018.pdf" target="_blank">newly unveiled bid</a> to begin the privatization process, Food & Water Watch <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/06/26/water-privatization-adds-insult-injury-puerto-rico" target="_blank">notes</a> that island officials are looking to "crack down on 'illegal' access to water, a troubling sign that the bid is focused on profits, not remedying the systemic issues plaguing the water system that is hampering accessibility to safe, clean <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/drinking-water">drinking water</a> for all Puerto Ricans."</p><p>While access to clean water on the island appears to be improving slowly in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, many Puerto Ricans are still being forced to boil their water, and the island's infrastructure still faces systemic problems that existed prior to last year's Category 4 hurricane.</p><p>According to a <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/threats-on-tap-drinking-water-puerto-rico-ip.pdf" target="_blank">report</a> (pdf) released by the <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/" target="_blank">Natural Resources Defense Council</a> last year, "99.5 percent of Puerto Rico's population was served by community water systems in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act" in 2015.</p><p>Privatization, Hauter argued on Wednesday, would exacerbate these systemic issues while leading to "excessively high water bills for households and businesses already struggling to rebuild in the wake of the climate disaster."</p><p>"PRASA can't afford another privatization failure now," Hauter concluded. "It should instead focus on basic services and ensure that every Puerto Rican has access to safe public water."</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="dc028" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="9448951576663714"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="963482525782945794" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Puerto Rico Needs Your Help for Recovery, But Also for Reform https://t.co/NZX5J6ujJu #PuertoRico @greenpeaceusa… https://t.co/ujYYcd844Z</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/963482525782945794">1518547109.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/06/26/privatization-not-answer-grave-warnings-wall-street-vultures-circle-puerto-ricos" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Victory for Whistleblowers in North Carolina: Court Reinstates Constitutional Challenge to 'Anti-Sunshine' Law
06 June 2018
Politics
Overlooking Cowee Mountain in the Great Smoky Mountains of NC, from the Blue Ridge Parkway. Mary Anne Baker / CC BY 2.0
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled Tuesday that a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of North Carolina's anti-sunshine law can go forward, reversing the decision of the federal district court. The law was designed to deter whistleblowers and undercover investigators from publicizing information about corporate misconduct, and a coalition including animal welfare, press freedom, food safety, and government watchdog groups is challenging the law's constitutionality.
<p>In its decision, the Fourth Circuit determined that plaintiffs' First Amendment rights were harmed if forced to "refrain[ ] from carrying out their planned investigations based on their reasonable and well-founded fear that they will be subject to significant exemplary damages." The fact that North Carolina has not yet enforced the anti-sunshine law and that the law imposes civil rather than criminal penalties does not prevent the plaintiffs from seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights. The state, the court writes, cannot pass a law that "by its terms [ ] prohibit[s] Plaintiffs' planned activities and [ ] subject[s] them to civil liability" and argue that the plaintiffs cannot sue to protect their freedom of speech.</p><p>The state legislature overrode a veto of the bill by Governor Pat McCrory in June 2015, and the law took effect in January 2016. Under the law, organizations and journalists who conduct undercover investigations, and individuals who expose improper or criminal conduct by North Carolina employers, are susceptible to suit and substantial damages if they make such evidence available to the public or the press.</p><p>The North Carolina law is part of a growing number of so-called 'ag-gag laws' passed by state legislators across the country. The bills, which are pushed by lobbyists for corporate agriculture companies, are an attempt to escape scrutiny over unsafe practices and animal abuses by threatening liability for those who expose these improper and, in many cases, illegal practices. North Carolina's version is written so broadly that it would also ban undercover investigations of all private entities, including nursing homes and daycare centers. The North Carolina law threatens to silence conscientious employees who witness and wish to report wrongdoing.</p><p>The plaintiffs in the suit, represented by Public Justice, are People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (<a href="https://www.peta.org" target="_blank">PETA</a>), the <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/" target="_blank">Center for Food Safety</a>, <a href="http://aldf.org" target="_blank">Animal Legal Defense Fund</a>, <a href="https://www.farmsanctuary.org/" target="_blank">Farm Sanctuary</a>, <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a>, the <a href="https://www.whistleblower.org" target="_blank">Government Accountability Project</a>, <a href="https://www.farmforward.com/" target="_blank">Farm Forward</a>, and the American Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (<a href="https://www.aspca.org/" target="_blank">ASPCA</a>).</p><p>This legal challenge is the first in the nation to make claims under both the U.S. Constitution and a state constitution.</p><p>The plaintiffs are represented in this appeal by David S. Muraskin and Leslie A. Brueckner of Public Justice in Washington, DC and Oakland, CA; Daniel K. Bryson and Jeremy Williams of Whitfield, Bryson & Mason LLP in Raleigh, NC; and in-house counsel for plaintiff organizations.</p>
Read More
Show Less
Trending
'Merger From Hell' Reportedly Approved by DOJ, Pushing Agrichemical Chokehold on Food System
10 April 2018
Food
Bayer Crop Science Innovation Center. NCSUPlantPathology / Flickr
By Andrea Germanos
Watchdog groups sounded alarms on Monday after the Wall Street Journal reported that the proposed mega-merger of Bayer and Monsanto has cleared its final regulatory hurdle in the U.S.
The reported approval from the Justice Department came "after the companies pledged to sell off additional assets," the Journal reported, and despite concerns raised by hundreds of food and farm groups. It also comes weeks after the European Commission gave its thumbs up.
<p>"The approval of the third supersized seed merger, after ChemChina-Syngenta and Dow-DuPont," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a>, "leaves farmers vulnerable to price gouging for seeds and other supplies and strengthens the hold a few dominant corporations have over the entire food system."</p><p>"The Justice Department's rubber stamping of these three seed mega-mergers transforms the already concentrated agrichemical and seed market, effectively reducing the number of competitors from six to three," she added.</p><p>Because it will make it harder for farmers to acquire non-genetically modified seeds to plant, it "makes it harder for agriculture to get off the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/">GMO</a>-chemical treadmill that just keeps increasing in speed," she said.</p><p>With its reported stamp of approval, the pending merger shows that "the federal government is not taking the impact of corporate control of our food supply seriously. It's time for Congress to establish a moratorium on mega-mergers in the food system," Hauter argued.</p><p>Jason Davidson, food and technology campaign associate with <a href="https://foe.org/" target="_blank">Friends of the Earth</a>, was equally critical in his reaction to the development.</p><p>"The Department of Justice has decided that corporate profits matter more than the interests of consumers and farmers. This decision will massively increase the power of major <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/agribusiness">agrichemical companies</a> that already have a stranglehold on our food system," he declared in a statement.</p><p>He went on to lament that "American farmers will see increased seed prices, fewer options, and decreased bargaining power." Echoing Hauter's warning, he argued. "This merger from hell will further entrench the failing model of toxic, chemical intensive agriculture, which is poisoning people and the planet."</p><p>A recent <a href="https://www.farmaid.org/issues/corporate-power/farmers-overwhelmingly-oppose-bayer-monsanto-merger" target="_blank">poll</a> found that nearly 94 percent of farmers expressed concern that a Bayer-Monsanto merger would have a negative impact on independent farmers and their communities. It also found that 89 percent of farmers said they believe the merger would lead to increased pressure for chemically-dependent farming.</p><p>Shares of Monsanto, meanwhile, <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/monsanto-shares-soar-after-report-that-doj-will-allow-bayer/article_1dc75d87-bf8e-5617-b4e9-820256510c69.html" target="_blank">jumped</a> 6.6 percent following the Journal's reporting on the $66 billion takeover by Bayer.</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="cf20a" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="ORB87N1576661843"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="976484074750709760" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">EU Approves Controversial Bayer-Monsanto Merger https://t.co/uncjPdAHo9 @GMWatch @OrganicConsumer @regeneration_in… https://t.co/wckl8EsUDv</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/976484074750709760">1521646920.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
<p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/04/09/merger-hell-reportedly-approved-doj-warnings-agrichemical-chokehold-food-system" target="_blank">Common Dreams</a>.</em><br></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trump Taps Climate Denier Pompeo to Replace Exxon CEO Tillerson as Secretary of State
13 March 2018
Popular
President Donald Trump announced Tuesday morning that he is nominating CIA Director Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson as U.S. Secretary of State.
"We got along actually quite well, but we disagreed on things," Trump said today. The president noted that the Iran nuclear deal was a point of contention, but there were other issues where the two famously clashed, including Trump's withdrawal of the U.S. from the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
<p>
However, it appears Tillerson found out about his firing like this rest of us—via Twitter.
</p><p>
"The Secretary did not speak to the President this morning and is unaware of the reason, but he is grateful for the opportunity to serve, and still believes strongly that public service is a noble calling and not to be regretted," Under Secretary of State Steve Goldstein said in a statement.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="d25ee" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="NABEEE1576683839"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="973540316656623616" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Mike Pompeo, Director of the CIA, will become our new Secretary of State. He will do a fantastic job! Thank you to… https://t.co/bQrfIvM6iT</div> — Donald J. Trump (@Donald J. Trump)<a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/statuses/973540316656623616">1520945073.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p>
The Trump administration has gone through several high-level personnel changes during the president's first year in office. <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/fossil-fuels-advocate-mike-pompeo-may-replace-exxonmobil-ceo-rex-tillerson-as-secretary-of-state-2514044018.html">Earlier reports</a> suggested that the former <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/exxon" target="_blank">ExxonMobil</a> CEO—who <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/374463-tillerson-again-refuses-to-say-whether-he-called-trump-a-moron" target="_blank">reportedly</a> called his boss a "moron"—would soon be on his way out.
</p><p>
During his short tenure at State, <a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/03/13/climate-deal-critic-pompeo-replace-tillerson-us-secretary-state/" target="_blank">Tillerson focused</a> on cutting costs and eliminating staff, including the crucial position of U.S. climate envoy. Many positions at the department remain unfilled.
</p><p>
<span></span>"Although the Trump administration is packed with billionaires and industry lobbyists, we can't say we're surprised to see Rex Tillerson's stilted and awkward tenure as Secretary of State end," said Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a>. "America's premier oil and gas booster should have no role in U.S. diplomacy at a time when we urgently need to transition off of fossil fuels."
</p><p>
Critics have previously spoken against Tillerson's personal and <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tillerson-trump-exxon-saudia-arabia-2426730392.html">business ties</a> with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his company's storied <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/exxon-climate-science-2476585995.html">history of climate deception</a>—even though Exxon <a href="http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position" target="_blank">admits</a> climate change is real now.
</p><p>
While Pompeo does not head a giant fossil fuel corporation, he has received millions in <a href="https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cycle=Career&type=I&cid=N00030744&newMem=N" target="_blank">campaign funds</a> from the billionaire <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/koch-brothers">Koch brothers</a>, criticized the Paris climate deal as a "costly burden," and described the assertion that climate change is a national security threat as "ignorant, dangerous and absolutely unbelievable."
</p><p>
"Mike Pompeo is a <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/climate-denier">climate denier</a> and should not be leading the State Department," Hauter noted. "He's been referred to as 'the Koch Brothers' Congressman.'"
</p><p>
Naomi Ages, <a href="https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/" target="_blank">Greenpeace USA</a> Climate Director, similarly added: "Donald Trump has now somehow picked someone even worse than Rex Tillerson to run the State Department. Greenpeace has been opposed to Tillerson as Secretary of State from the moment he was nominated, and we continue to believe that the U.S. government cannot and should not be run by fossil fuel industry flunkies. Mike Pompeo, though, is uniquely unqualified to be Secretary of State in an entirely different way than Rex Tillerson was. In addition to being a climate denier, like his predecessor, Pompeo is a Koch brothers' shill and a dangerous choice who will continue to denigrate the United States' reputation abroad and make us vulnerable to threats at home."<span></span>
</p><p>
Hauter also denounced the former Kansas congressman for <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/rep-pompeo-to-introduce-koch-funded-monsanto-backed-voluntary-gmo-food-1881884972.html">authoring legislation</a> that preempted state <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/">GMO</a> labeling laws, "and would likely continue the U.S. state department's role in promoting genetically modified crops around the world."
</p><p>
"We urge the Senate to reject his nomination," Hauter said.
</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="bcfce" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="JO9BPQ1576683839"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="973558810118950912" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Tillerson was ineffective at State but Pompeo could be even worse. I served with him in the House – he denies the r… https://t.co/bz35XdznAM</div> — Rep. Barbara Lee (@Rep. Barbara Lee)<a href="https://twitter.com/RepBarbaraLee/statuses/973558810118950912">1520949482.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Trending
50+ Groups Back Landmark Effort to Halt 'Out of Control' Factory Farming in Iowa
09 February 2018
Animals
Tim Geers / Flickr
By Jessica Corbett
More than 50 groups are demanding that Iowa lawmakers urgently pass landmark legislation to enact a moratorium on factory farm expansion in a state that is home to more than 10,000 of them.
<p style="">"Across the nation, <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/factory-farming-pigs-2522752633.html">factory farming</a> destroys communities and contaminates drinking water supplies and air quality," said Krissy Kasserman, the national factory farm campaigner at <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a>, one of the groups behind the effort. "A stop to the expansion of factory farming needs to happen now. It <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/iowa--factory-farms-2530551992.html">begins with Iowa</a>."</p><p style="">In a <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/sites/default/files/iowa_sign-on_letter_support_moratorium.pdf" target="_blank">letter</a> to members of Iowa's General Assembly on Thursday, dozens of local, state and national groups wrote that a ban on new and expanded factory farms would give lawmakers "an overdue opportunity to evaluate the public health, economic and societal impacts of factory farms while providing Iowa's communities with important statutory protections from further expansion of this industry."</p><p>"Iowa is in the midst of a serious water pollution crisis," the letter declares, citing <a href="http://www.iowadnr.gov/Environmental-Protection/Water-Quality/Water-Monitoring/Impaired-Waters" target="_blank">research</a> from 2014 that found 750 bodies of water in the state, or more than half tested, contained pollutants or showed other conditions tied to factory farming‚ "including E. coli, excessive algal growth and diminished aquatic life."</p><p style="">The letter chastises the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/" target="_blank">Environmental Protection Agency</a> and state officials who, for decades, "have failed to regulate the environmental impacts of factory farms," and illustrates how existing regulations are "failing Iowa's communities" with a series of examples:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">Family farmers and rural residents are often left feeling like prisoners in their own homes, unable to hold family gatherings or hang laundry outside to dry due to the overwhelming stench and air pollution. Retirees are left with the realization that their homes and properties—often their nest eggs—are depreciated due to the decline in property values associated with living next to a factory farm. Research has shown that Iowans living near factory farms are more likely to experience respiratory problems, headaches, diarrhea, burning eyes, nausea and more serious health problems as a result of factory farm air pollution.</p><p>Cherie Mortice, board president of <a href="http://iowacci.org/" target="_blank">Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement</a>, said even though "state agencies and lawmakers are failing to protect our communities and environment," it is "clear to Iowans that the factory farm industry is out of control." She noted that the state is "seeing a massive expansion" in factory farming, and warned: "we're at a tipping point and need to put a stop to this industry immediately."</p><p style="">Food & Water Watch <a href="https://www.factoryfarmmap.org/" target="_blank">maps out</a> where factory farms are most concentrated in the country:</p>
<p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzE4ODExOC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTY1OTA2NDk4MX0.OExn9Ob6hnbBoRkUOxIpLSrjamSaZacJQWtCBnXVFis/img.png?width=980" id="50666" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8ed7016aaa1b40cdd7f47c78fca6347e" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
</p>
<p style="">In an editorial exploring multiple policy proposals, including a moratorium, the Des Moines Register <a href="https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/2017/09/29/hog-wild-iowa-pork-industry-growth/716489001/" target="_blank">wrote</a> last fall that "pressing pause may be the only way Iowa can catch up to this fast-growing industry." The newspaper pointed to <a href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2017/09_28_2017.php" target="_blank">a U.S. Department of Agriculture</a> report that showed a "record number of hogs and pigs were on Iowa farms as of Sept. 1: 22.9 million, up 3 percent from a year ago," and noted, "That's about 7.3 times more pigs than people in the state."<br></p><p>"Our call for a moratorium is a call for the return of plain, old common sense," explained Chris Peterson, an independent Iowa hog farmer and regional representative for the Socially Responsible Agricultural Project, another signatory on the letter. "Iowa is suffering under the enormous weight of a business that has no respect for the people, environment, animals and future of the state."</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/02/08/50-groups-back-landmark-effort-halt-out-control-factory-farming-iowa">Common Dreams</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Green roof of the Denver Environmental Protection Agency. Denver Green Roof Initiative
Denver is the latest city to mandate rooftop gardens or solar installations on new, large buildings, joining San Francisco, New York, Paris, London and other cities around the world with similar green roof measures, the Associated Press reported.
The Colorado capital ranks third in the nation for highest heat island and eighth in the nation for worst ozone/particulate pollution, according to the Denver Green Roof Initiative, a grassroots group that advocated for the city's green roof ordinance, Initiative 300.
<p>Although the official tally is not in, the ballot initiative had 54 percent approval as of Thursday, signaling that the measure is headed towards victory. The vote will be certified on Nov. 24.</p><p>Initiative 300 creates a new building code that requires green roofs or solar panels for most buildings 25,000 square feet or larger that are constructed after Jan. 1, 2018. </p><p>The Associated Press noted that the measure is more stringent than other green roof mandates, as it requires many existing buildings to be retrofitted with green roofs when the old roof wears out. Older buildings that cannot support the load of a green roof can get an exemption.<br></p><p>"These required building improvements would significantly reduce long term operating costs by lowering energy consumption and increasing the longevity of a roof," the Denver Green Roof Initiative <a href="http://www.denvergreenroof.org/2017/10/23/to-the-people/" target="_blank">stated</a> on its campaign website. "A green roof lasts 2-3 times as long as a traditional roof because the waterproofing membrane is protected from damage by the elements and workers by covering it with a growing medium and plants."</p><p>The measure did not have an easy road to passage. Denver Mayor Michael Hancock opposed the initiative over worries that it could drive up the costs of construction projects. Also, several Denver businesses <a href="http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/11/08/green-roof-initiative-denver/" target="_blank">spent $250,000</a> in an advertising push against the plan. </p><p><span></span>Department of Community Planning and Development spokeswoman Andrea Burns told the <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/2017/03/05/denver-rooftop-garden-heat-island-effect/" target="_blank">Denver Post</a> in March that the department would prefer to give architects and engineers "the flexibility to design a roofing system that works best for their needs and their budgets."</p><p>Following the vote, however, Burns conceded to <a href="http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/11/08/green-roof-initiative-denver/" target="_blank">CBS4</a> that "it will be a little bit of work in the next few weeks, but green roofs are already possible in Denver. It's just a matter of making those agreements that are part of Initiative 300 work with our system now. We're going to make this work for the people of Denver." </p><p>The Denver Green Roof Initiative admits that green roofs cost about $15 more per square feet than a traditional black roof but pointed out that the green roof will pay for itself in about six years. <br></p><p>"Even though the extra cost would be offset in as soon as 6.2 years, most developers choose not to incorporate them because they build the building then sell it," the group <a href="http://www.denvergreenroof.org/the-project/" target="_blank">said</a>. "They don't see those energy and storm-water savings. They don't save the money from roof longevity. Yet they are still able to sell the building for more money with these improvements!! We believe that the developers of Denver could be doing more to negate their footprint in our beautiful city. We believe green roofs are the answer."</p><p>The initiative was <a href="http://www.denvergreenroof.org/endorsements/" target="_blank">endorsed</a> by several green builders and environmental groups. </p><p>"Initiative I-300 will contribute to improving Denver's air quality, increasing the energy efficiency of its buildings, mitigating the urban heat island effect, managing storm water runoff, and creating habitat for pollinators and other insects," said Lauren Petrie, <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/state/colorado" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a>'s Rocky Mountain Region Director. "We are dedicated to a more sustainable future in Denver and believe that passing this green roof initiative will be a vehicle for asserting our human desire for cleaner air and water, and cooler urban temperatures. </p><p>The Denver Green Roof Initiative stressed in a <a href="https://www.facebook.com/denvergreenroof/" target="_blank">Facebook post Friday</a> that even though Initiative 300 passed, there are still "tremendous hurdles to overcome due to push back from those in power."<br><span></span></p><p>"This is a battle won against climate but the war doesn't stop here," the post stated. "We must all get active and fight for our values, because we are stronger together. Thanks again for the overwhelming support. The citizens of Denver have a healthier, more sustainable future because of YOU!"<br></p>
Read More
Show Less
By Mark Schlosberg
Rep.Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) introduced the Off Fossil Fuels for a Better Future Act (OFF Act) last week. This visionary bill comes as the nation bears witness to the devastation being brought by the climate change-super charged storm Harvey to Texas and Louisiana and braces for Irma's impacts. Storms like this and other extreme weather events will become all the more frequent and intense unless bold action is taken.
<p style="">Gabbard's bill—the strongest yet introduced in Congress—will put us on a path towards avoiding increased climate chaos: It will place a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects and move the country to 100 percent <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">renewable energy</a> by 2035, with a focus on a rapid transition in the next ten years. The bill is co-sponsored by Representatives Nanette Barragan (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Keith Ellison (D-MN) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL).</p><p style=""><span></span>This legislation could not be more needed. While the impacts of Harvey are readily apparent to all, it is not an isolated occurrence. Evidence continues to build of the <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/news/top-ten-take-aways-pending-national-climate-assessment" target="_blank">severity and urgency of the climate crisis</a>. And while <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-watch/">Trump</a> flew to Texas and talked about helping communities there, he and fossil fuel-funded members of Congress continue to put the planet on a collision course with climate chaos. They deny <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">climate change</a> and are suppressing our government's ability to address it; they are moving to increase drilling and <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/fracking/">fracking</a> on public lands and off our coasts; they are promoting development of more <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/pipelines">pipelines</a>; and they are exporting more oil and gas abroad while wrecking the environment here at home.</p><p style="">In this dysfunctional political environment, a broad movement has grown to resist Trump's foolish and dangerous agenda. Hundreds of thousands of people have marched in the streets in DC and across the country. Thousands more have called members of Congress, written letters, and gone to town halls and community meetings opposing this destructive agenda. This is heartening and powerful, but we must do more.</p><p style="">To win on climate—to really move off of fossil fuels and transition our economy to 100 percent renewable energy on a time frame that will actually prevent even greater climate catastrophe—we must continue to resist Trump's agenda, but we need to do more than that: We need to propel a bold agenda for addressing the crisis—one that will protect our communities while creating hundreds of thousands of good jobs in the renewables and energy efficiency sectors. This agenda must center racial and economic justice and cannot rely on false market solutions like carbon trading and taxing programs, which are simply corporate pay-to-pollute schemes. What we need is nothing short of a World War II-scale mobilization of our economy around a quick and just transition off fossil fuels and onto 100 percent renewable energy now.</p><p style="">Rep. Gabbard's OFF Act is a critical step towards that mobilization. It requires 100 percent renewable energy by 2035 (and 80 percent by 2027), places a moratorium on new fossil fuel projects, bans the export of oil and gas, and also moves our automobile and rail systems to 100 percent renewable energy. Additionally, it provides for a truly just transition for environmental justice communities and those working in the fossil fuel industry. The bill requires that people in impacted communities have a leading role in the development and implementation of clean energy plans and regulations, and establishes an equitable transition fund and workforce development center, paid for by closing an offshore tax loophole and repealing federal tax breaks for the fossil fuel industry. </p><p style="">Now we must mobilize to build support for this bill. Though the prospects of passing anything in Congress right now are grim, moving members of Congress to support the OFF Act and elevating its profile are important for three reasons:</p><p style=""><strong>1. Create Political Consensus for Rapid Transition to 100 Percent Renewable Energy</strong></p><p style=""><strong></strong>Six years ago, when <a href="https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/" target="_blank">Food & Water Watch</a> followed the lead of our grassroots partners to become the first national organization to call for a ban on fracking, conventional wisdom dictated that fracked gas was an environmentally friendly "bridge fuel." There was lots of support for stronger regulations on fracking, but little serious talk about actually banning it. Yet hundreds of organizations and thousands of people all over the country organized around the issue and held their elected officials accountable.</p> <p style="">New York and Maryland have since banned fracking. Rep. Mark Pocan introduced legislation to ban fracking on federal lands. Banning fracking became a top issue raised by Sen. Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential race, and a majority of Americans now support a ban. It took lots of hard work, but the political consensus has shifted. We must do the same thing with the urgent need to act on climate, by building support for the OFF Act.</p><p style=""><strong>2. Make OFF a Top Issue Now</strong></p><p style=""><strong></strong>Even though Congress is controlled by pro-fossil fuel ideologues, it is still critical that we work to get members to sponsor this bill now. If we organize to get large numbers of co-sponsors on the OFF Act, it will become a top issue that representatives will need to respond to. Even as it has just been introduced, the OFF Act already enjoys support from more than 100 organizations including a wide range of major national groups like National Nurses United, Progressive Democrats of America, Climate Justice Alliance, Indigenous Environmental Network and People's Action.</p><p style=""><strong>3. Make Space for State and Local Action</strong></p><p style=""><strong></strong>At the same time we are working to build support for the OFF Act, there are also campaigns across the country working to move cities, counties and states to 100 percent renewable energy now. Organizing around these local efforts can and should dovetail with efforts to pressure members of Congress to co-sponsor federal legislation. Passing local measures, or getting state and local elected officials to sign the <a href="https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScJbuzpwzrQHAuqsEVncQS7bGQagKTEZIKdS2_NCrQ8HH_2VA/viewform" target="_blank">OFF Pledge</a>, will help build the political power needed to push Congress to support the federal legislation. Similarly, getting more co-sponsors on federal legislation to stop fossil fuel projects will open up more space for state and local action. These efforts work together.</p><p style="">Winning the fight to move off fossil fuels will not be easy, as the thousands of people who are working to stop pipelines, ban fracking and build renewable energy projects can tell you. But these are also fights that we can—and must—win if we are to protect people and the planet and avoid the very worst of climate chaos. The OFF Act is a critical first step in what must be a major national mobilization to restructure our energy system now.</p><p style="">Visit <a href="http://www.offfossilfuels.org/" target="_blank">OFF Fossil Fuels</a> to get involved in your community and join our grassroots team. Let's make this happen.</p>
Read More
Show Less