| Friday, March 17, 2006 |  |
| Free Speech by Radical Environmentalist, Rod Coronado, Declared Illegal | 0 comments |
| 17 Mar 2006 @ 08:56 The New Green Scare: Free Speech by Radical Environmentalist, Rod Coronado, Declared Illegal [link] March 10, 2006 War on the First Amendment The Great Green Scare and the Fed's "Case" Against Rod Coronado By BEN ROSENFELD The federal government has been champing at the bit to put Rod Coronado back in prison since the moment he got out in 1999, refusing to repent for his role in a 1992 arson at a Michigan State University fur research lab. Federal officials have publicly branded Coronado a leader of the Animal Liberation Front, even though the ALF is apparently non-hierarchical. He is, however, an unabashed advocate of property destruction in defense of animals, and his indictment in San Diego in February, for giving a speech in which he explained how the incendiary devices used in the Michigan arson were made, is a flimsy pretext to punish him for his radical views. The government's vendetta against Coronado is a campaign in a broader witch hunt against radical environmentalists and self-identified "green anarchists" -- those who merge ecology, animal rights, and anarchism in a vision of freedom and sustainability for all living beings. After Coronado's arrest, the U.S. Attorney for San Diego, Carol Lam, stated in the government's official press release, pre-judging the case for the public: "Teaching people how to build explosives in order to commit violent crimes is unacceptable in civilized society. There is no excuse for it." And so, through sophistry and syllogism, the government has transformed speech into violence. On December 13, 2005, Coronado was convicted in Arizona for peacefully attempting to disrupt a mountain lion hunt, which the U.S. Forest Service organized after a hiker reported seeing a lion in a popular canyon -- even though Arizona's Fish and Game Department searched and didn't find any tracks. The public came out strongly against the hunt, prompting authorities in the end to trap and relocate two lions without killing them. After Coronado's conviction, Assistant U.S. Attorney Wallace Kleindienst told reporters that Coronado is "a danger to the community. I know he wasn't tried here for being a violent anarchist. This trial wasn't about Rod Coronado being a terrorist, but he is one." The AUSA thus revealed the government's two ulterior motives for going after Coronado: One, it has a vendetta against him personally, and two, it has quietly embarked on yet another war against an abstract concept -- anarchism. The new case against Coronado is as stark a case about free speech as this country has ever seen. Measured against any historic test of free speech, Coronado's behavior -- i.e., his speech -- was alarmingly protected and uncriminal. [1] On July 30, 2003, persons unknown torched an apartment complex under construction in San Diego, causing millions of dollars in damage. The day afterward, Coronado flew to San Diego to lecture at a previously scheduled event. In response to a question from an audience member, Coronado -- who has been a public figure on the environmental lecture circuit since his release from prison in 1999 -- demonstrated how someone had constructed a non-explosive, incendiary device out of a plastic jug filled with gasoline to commit the Michigan arson for which he did his time. The government does not suspect, and has not accused, Coronado of any involvement in the fire set the day before his speech. READ More > |
| Ronnie Cummins: Gaia Not Guns, A Declaration of Peace & Inter-Dependence | 0 comments |
| 17 Mar 2006 @ 08:51 Ronnie Cummins: Gaia Not Guns, A Declaration of Peace & Inter-Dependence GAIA NOT GUNS: A DECLARATION OF PEACE & INTER-DEPENDENCE Posted 3/13/06 By Ronnie Cummins, Organic Consumers Association Gaia: Named after an ancient Greek Goddess of the Earth, Gaia is the belief and scientific hypothesis that our entire planet is a living organism with Humankind as an integral part. Farmers and consumers, both U.S. and worldwide, share the unique privilege and daunting responsibility of making sure that everyone is fed, and that the land, water, and climate are nurtured and protected so that we can feed and nourish the future generations. War and the enormous waste of resources spent in waging war and maintaining a huge military industrial complex, threaten our well-being and the literal survival of our children and the future generations. U.S. taxpayers, for example, are currently supporting a military budget of over $578 billion a year, ($463 billion for ³normal² military spending and $115 billion for the Iraq & Afghan wars)--enough to pay for the cost of eliminating global hunger and stabilizing the global climate. The annual costs of waging the war in Iraq and maintaining military bases in the Middle East alone are sufficient to launch a crash program to reduce greenhouse gases by 75%, feed the world¹s hungry, and convert the U.S. economy to renewable energy and organic and sustainable agricultural practices. As the world¹s climate scientists and energy analysts warn us, unless we rapidly transfer billions of dollars from the military budget and other corporate welfare programs, and implement a far-reaching global program to eliminate poverty, reduce greenhouse gases, and convert the U.S. and global economy to renewable energy and sustainable production, civilization, as we know it today, may not survive more than a few more decades. As organic and socially responsible consumers, we come together to oppose the war in Iraq and to challenge the dangerous and unsustainable cycle of war and militarism that threatens our world. The solution we propose is a negotiated peace, nuclear disarmament, energy independence (for all nations), and a concerted global campaign to reduce and eliminate global poverty, especially rural poverty, through the conversion of agriculture and global commerce to sustainable and organic production. We come from different political, religious, and social backgrounds, but share a common concern that the living Earth or Creation, must be protected, that the upcoming generations have an inalienable right to a stable climate and that the United States, founded by small farmers and craftsmen/women, must return to the spirit and ideals upon which our Republic was founded. We strive for a world that reduces the risk of war by eliminating its causes--poverty, control of government and mass media by powerful special interests (the fossil fuel lobby and the military industrial complex), environmental degradation, injustice, and religious intolerance. We call for all countries to stop misappropriating their resources on war and to focus instead on fighting hunger, promoting public health, stabilizing the climate, and protecting our common environment and farmlands. Organic and Socially Responsible Consumers Say No to War and Climate Chaos Help us build up a national and international network of organic and socially responsible consumers who wish to protect Gaia/Mother Earth, put an end to war and military madness, and green and re-localize the global ecology. Our group plans to become part of United for Peace and Justice, a coalition of 1300 local and national anti-war groups in the U.S. (www.unitedforpeace.org in building up a powerful coalition that brings about cooperation and synergy between the anti-war movement, the climate crisis movement, and the organic community. Thanks to the Farms Not Arms coalition and peaceroots.org for much of the wording and inspiration for this document. And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. ISAIAH 2:4 |
| Heinz Baby Rice Cereal in China Contaminated by Illegal GE Rice | 0 comments |
| 17 Mar 2006 @ 08:43 Greenpeace Finds Heinz Baby Rice Cereal in China Contaminated by Illegal GE Rice Greenpeace finds Heinz Baby Rice Cereal contaminated by illegal GE rice english.eastday.com, 14/3/2006 [link] Greenpeace announced in Beijing today that non-approved genetically-engineered (GE) rice has been detected in Heinz's Baby Rice Cereal and the environmental group called for an immediate recall of all the contaminated products. It also asked on the government to control the spread of GE rice in the food chain. The test results were provided by GeneScan, a Germany-based independent laboratory, which tested 19 food samples that Greenpeace had collected in the supermarkets in Beijing. Heinz Baby Rice Cereal with a best before date of March 12, 2007 is the only product where GE ingredients, namely Bt rice, were detected. The GE rice variety is developed to be resistant to pest but has not been approved by the government. "We were completely shocked by the result," said Steven Ma, GE campaigner for Greenpeace China. "It is the first time we found illegal GE rice in baby food, which should have been subject to the most rigorous surveillance." In 2000 Mexican scientists found that the Bt protein (Cry1Ac) which comes from GE rice has been found to induce allergic responses in mice, Ma said. On March 1, Greenpeace notified Heinz China of its finding, asking for an immediate recall of the product and for the company to change its suppliers. Donald Gadsden, CEO of Heinz China, replied on March 8 that "Heinz will take any alerts seriously and we are now conducting a thorough inspection." As of March 14, Heinz had not responded with further information about its inspection. |
| Natural Design: Core to Sustainability | 0 comments |
| 17 Mar 2006 @ 08:39 Natural Design: Core to Sustainability This is from one of my favorite environmental websites www.treehugger.com Tony Brown and the Ecosa Institute March 16, 2006 10:50 AM - Collin Dunn, Durham, North Carolina Tony Brown is the founder and director of the Ecosa Institute, the only design program in the US devoted entirely to sustainability. The Ecosa Institute was founded in the belief that design based on nature is critical to the search for a new design philosophy; the mission of the Institute is to restore health to the natural environment, and thus the human environment, through education in design. Mr. Brown’s dedication to issues of sustainability and ecological design developed after joining Paolo Soleri’s Cosanti Foundation where he worked for thirteen years on conceptual designs for a new vision of urban settlements. In 1996 Brown formally founded Ecosa ; in 2000, the Institute offered its first semester in sustainable design. TreeHugger: How does Ecosa address what you see as lacking in today’s conventional design education? Tony Brown: There are many ways in which the conventional model of the college and university are failing to meet the future. The traditional institutions are risk averse; few people are fired for saying no to a new idea. One would imagine that our institutions of higher learning were hot beds of innovation, unfortunately the opposite is true. The dis-economy of scale inherent in many of the now gigantic organizations of our universities and colleges make change a difficult, lengthy, bureaucratic process. As a consequence we are teaching to an outmoded model. A beaux-arts student from the 1890s would not feel out of place in many of today’s architecture schools. Architecture is a powerful skill yet it is not harnessed to grapple with environmental, ecological or ethical issues. While sustainability is a word being used in colleges of architecture it is an adjunct skill and doesn’t permeate the curricula. Multi-disciplinary education is also difficult in a traditional setting. The administrative structure of the university tends to divide rather than integrate. The psychology department rarely, if ever, interacts with the architecture department. Even engineering departments have a difficult time collaborating with, never mind integrating with, architecture or planning or graphic design. All the new ideas and synergy created by cross-cultural activity is rarely possible. Departmental budgets, turf battles and tradition are a few of the hurdles. Our semesters often contain wide-ranging skills. Semesters have had engineers, architects, landscape architects, marine biologists and computer programmers working together. In terms of sustainability, I am amazed at how many of our students have no concept of passive solar design parameters. Many of the sustainable ad-ons to courses are electives and lead to the plug in attitude “I’ll just add photovoltaic panels here�? with little understanding of integration or stacking functions. What design schools are excellent at is teaching design from an aesthetic, technological, historical and intellectual perspective and, while I believe that these are vital and important functions we must broaden the scope of architectural education. It is more than a decorative art. It is fundamental to our survival. TH: Part of the reason you founded Ecosa was so you wouldn’t have to bend to the mainstream university system. Can Ecosa bring sustainability to the mainstream without going mainstream? TB: For the reasons I have noted before I don’t believe real innovation is a product of the current system. Education is a monopoly and monopolies tend not to encourage innovation. I do not believe we have all the answers nor do traditional schools, but we have the opportunity to try new things and new ways of teaching. The value of things like mixing disciplines, skill levels, working on real projects, would be far more difficult in a traditional setting. We do work with other educational institutions that see our program as an enhancement of the regular design curricula. They are excited to be able to offer their students a different kind of experience that they understand is important. The other concept for making these ideas mainstream? Through leverage. In founding Ecosa I knew that we would have a limited number of students so the concept is to create design “viruses�? in our students. We bring them to Ecosa to “infect�? them with a real sense of the power they have to impliment change, we give them skills to be smarter about energy strategies, how to design high performance bio climatic designs. Then we send them out into their schools or workplaces to become emissaries of change. In that way one student can affect many other people amplifying the impact of our program. Many of the new sustainable initiatives in universities have been pushed by students. TH: You designed Ecosa for students and professionals studying or practicing built design. How do you sell the environment as a cause to designers, rather than the other way around? TB: Ultimately the solution is not to rely on just designers or just environmentalists but to have many disciplines work together in interactive ways each informing the others knowledge. I believe very strongly that we have specialized ourselves into a corner where we no long see the big picture and so we solve problems in isolation from each other. A dangerous approach with unintended consequences. For several years I taught sustainable design at Prescott College. The students were liberal arts students with a passionate concern about the environment. While the solutions they proposed were valid, they lacked a broad worldview and the aesthetic quality that designers bring to projects. Designers on the other hand are looking for an aesthetic approach that has very little to do with solving social or environmental problems, so the challenge is which of these groups can have the most impact in solving problems? Design at its most basic level is a problem solving skill, and that is a vital skill for the 21st century. So by training designers to address today’s most critical issues we are extending the reach of that skill. Many people enter the design professions as a way of making a difference; improving the world. They are often disillusioned by what they find. However, there is a growing understanding among young designers, that the future holds some alarming challenges. Just one issue; the impacts of climate change will stress food supplies, raise sea levels, displace coastal communities, cause mass migrations and threaten our ability to maintain social order. It is clear that the magnitude of the challenges we will face are unprecedented. What is important about design is that it is, above all, a problem solving skill. From a purely self-interested professional position sustainability is being driven by market forces. Government and businesses are demanding energy efficiency and high performance from their buildings. Therefore it is becoming more desirable skill among architectural firms. As the environment deteriorates and regulation becomes more necessary, those with a sustainable background who can innovate will be in demand. So, rather than having to sell designers on becoming environmentally concerned I believe our future needs will demand that they are. TH: If all your students could take one thing away from Ecosa, what would it be? That design is a powerful tool for change and they have that power. Buildings in the US according to Edward Mazria consume more than 45% of our energy. Just imagine the impact of cutting that in half. The reduction in greenhouse gases would be major. Architects specify about $1 trillion per year in materials for their projects. Other designers; product designers, landscape architects also specify materials. This gives them an enormous leverage for change. Understanding what really constitutes sustainable materials and demanding recycled content, non-toxic materials and manufacture, low energy use products, can literally change the world. |