Since November there has been stepped up efforts to get the State of Michigan to allow immigrant youth to obtain a drivers license.
In November there was a rally to expose the reactionary position of Secretary of State Ruth Johnson. Since then there has been efforts to get local municipalities to pressure Gov. Snyder to overturn Johnson’s decision.
On Friday, the Michigan chapter of Americans for Immigration Reform (AIR) sent out a Press Release, that in part read:
“Today, the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued new guidelines that dismantle Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s justification for denying driver’s licenses to students legalized under the President’s Deferred Action program.
Michigan is one of only three states, including Arizona, that currently are attempting to deny these newly legalized young people the right to drive.”
In the AIR Press Release was included the USCIS position on this issues, which states:
Although deferred action does not confer a lawful immigration status, your period of stay is authorized by the Department of Homeland Security while your deferred action is in effect and, for admissibility purposes, you are considered to be lawfully present in the United States during that time.
Deferred action for childhood arrivals is one form of deferred action. The relief an individual receives pursuant to the deferred action for childhood arrivals process is identical for immigration purposes to the relief obtained by any person who receives deferred action as an act of prosecutorial discretion.
Elected leaders from across Michigan requested the guidance from USCIS in December after Johnson refused to issue the licenses to beneficiaries of the new program. The leaders, including State Rep. Rashida Tlaib, pointed out that Johnson’s office was already issuing licenses to other immigrants with deferred action, and that the Secretary’s discrimination against immigrant youth may have been illegal.
West Michigan immigrant rights activists are calling for people to contact Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, confirming that young people of DACA are legally in the country we want to demand an immediate response to the statement.
Action Alert
E-mail from Ruth Johnson is RJ4MI@comcast.net.
Online messages to the Michigan Secretary of State can be sent at http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-15049-25634–,00.html
And Ruth Johnson will also receive message via her Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/RuthJohnsonMI?ref=ts&fref=ts
Immigration Rights Alert: Contact Ruth Johnson
Since November there has been stepped up efforts to get the State of Michigan to allow immigrant youth to obtain a drivers license.
In November there was a rally to expose the reactionary position of Secretary of State Ruth Johnson. Since then there has been efforts to get local municipalities to pressure Gov. Snyder to overturn Johnson’s decision.
On Friday, the Michigan chapter of Americans for Immigration Reform (AIR) sent out a Press Release, that in part read:
“Today, the office of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued new guidelines that dismantle Secretary of State Ruth Johnson’s justification for denying driver’s licenses to students legalized under the President’s Deferred Action program.
Michigan is one of only three states, including Arizona, that currently are attempting to deny these newly legalized young people the right to drive.”
In the AIR Press Release was included the USCIS position on this issues, which states:
Although deferred action does not confer a lawful immigration status, your period of stay is authorized by the Department of Homeland Security while your deferred action is in effect and, for admissibility purposes, you are considered to be lawfully present in the United States during that time.
Deferred action for childhood arrivals is one form of deferred action. The relief an individual receives pursuant to the deferred action for childhood arrivals process is identical for immigration purposes to the relief obtained by any person who receives deferred action as an act of prosecutorial discretion.
Elected leaders from across Michigan requested the guidance from USCIS in December after Johnson refused to issue the licenses to beneficiaries of the new program. The leaders, including State Rep. Rashida Tlaib, pointed out that Johnson’s office was already issuing licenses to other immigrants with deferred action, and that the Secretary’s discrimination against immigrant youth may have been illegal.
West Michigan immigrant rights activists are calling for people to contact Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, confirming that young people of DACA are legally in the country we want to demand an immediate response to the statement.
Action Alert
E-mail from Ruth Johnson is RJ4MI@comcast.net.
Online messages to the Michigan Secretary of State can be sent at http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-15049-25634–,00.html
And Ruth Johnson will also receive message via her Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/RuthJohnsonMI?ref=ts&fref=ts
The New Jane Crow: Criminalizing Pregnancy As Roe Turns 40
This story is re-posted from Democracy Now. Editor’s Note: NOW Grand Rapids is having a celebration for the 40th Anniversary of Roe v Wade. Click here for details.
A new study shows hundreds of women in the United States have been arrested, forced to undergo unwanted medical procedures, and locked up in jails or psychiatric institutions, because they were pregnant.
National Advocates for Pregnant Women found 413 cases when pregnant women were deprived of their physical liberty between 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, and 2005. At least 250 more interventions have taken place since then. In one case, a court ordered a critically ill woman in Washington, D.C., to undergo a C-section against her will. Neither she nor the baby survived. In another case, a judge in Ohio kept a woman imprisoned to prevent her from having an abortion.
We’re joined by Lynn Paltrow, founder and executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women. “We’ve had cases where lawyers have been appointed for a fetus before the woman herself, who’s been locked up, ever gets a lawyer,” Paltrow says. “[We’ve had] cases where they’ve ordered a procedure over women’s religious objections, and one court said, pregnant women of course have a right to religious freedom — unless it interferes with what we believe is best for the fetus or embryo.” The new study comes on the eve of the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision on the right to abortion — a right that has been under siege ever since.
Industry Consultants Warn Frackers: Do Not Underestimate the Global Anti-Fracking Movement
This article by Mike Ludwig is re-posted from EcoWatch.
On July 28, more than 5,000 people from all over the U.S., and various parts of the world including Australia, united on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol demanding Congress take immediate action to stop fracking. Photo by Stefanie Spear
The bitter battle over fracking has gone global, and according to pro-business consultants, the oil and gas industry has every reason to be concerned.
Oil and gas rigs are popping up in communities across the world as the fossil fuels industry races to exploit reserves with the controversial drilling technique known as fracking. In response, a global anti-fracking movement has emerged, and activists are winning victories in countries across world.
A report recently released by the international consulting group Control Risks warns the oil and gas industry that it has underestimated the “sophistication, reach and influence” of the global anti-fracking movement. The report contends the opposition is not simply a spotty, not-in-my-backyard phenomenon “masquerading as environmentalism,” but a diverse and well-organized coalition that is unlikely to be swayed by the industry’s well-funded public relation campaigns.
The report’s findings may come as no surprise to activists. The grassroots anti-fracking movement spread “organically” across the world as drilling continued to expand and spark controversy in new areas, according to the Control Risks report. Online social networking, rising media coverage and widespread distribution of Josh Fox‘s controversial 2010 documentary Gasland has stimulated the movement, and now there are hundreds of anti-fracking groups in the U.S., Canada, Australia and countries across Africa and Europe.
Fracking Unites Activists and Communities
The global anti-fracking movement may be grassroots in nature, but communities and activists across the world share the same concerns about the “significant” impacts of fracking, according to Mark Schlosberg, an anti-fracking organizer with the U.S.-based group Food & Water Watch.
Environmentalists and drilling opponents say fracking threatens to drain and contaminate local water supplies, cause air pollution, industrialize pristine rural areas and contribute to global warming.
“The issues people are facing in different parts of the world are the [same] issues that people are facing in the U.S.,” Schlosberg said.
Schlosberg said fracking directly affects those living near the rigs, but climate change and dependence on fossil fuels affects everyone. Recent studies that fracking operations can release considerable amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas, and concerns over global warming have united climate change activists with the global anti-fracking movement.
In many parts of the world, activists also are pushing the industry to invest locally and provide better economic compensation to the communities where drilling is taking place, according to the Control Risks report.
Global Activism Puts Fracking at Risk
The most significant “risk” posed by the anti-fracking movement is bans and moratoriums on drilling, according to Control Risks.
In France, fracking was banned indefinitely in 2011 after significant public outcry, and the French government reaffirmed the ban in September 2012.
Food & Water Watch, which supports a national ban on fracking in the U.S., has tracked 308 local measures to address fracking in municipalities across the nation. Some communities banned fracking altogether, while others put limits on fracking activity or symbolically endorsed statewide bans.
Public outcry also has pushed some governments to conduct safety reviews of fracking that could pave the way for tighter regulations.
Under orders from Congress, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently conducting a study on fracking and its potential impacts on water supplies. The agency recently released a progress report, but a final report will not be released until 2014. Meanwhile, fracking is rapidly expanding across much of the U.S. with little federal regulatory oversight.
The industry also should be wary of radical and direct action activists, according to Control Risks. Activists have peacefully blockaded fracking sites in the U.S., Canada, Australia and Poland as direct action-oriented environmental groups like Earth First! rally opposition to fracking. Isolated acts of minor vandalism and sabotage to drilling equipment also have been reported in the U.S. and Poland.
“They would not have commissioned this report if they didn’t think the anti-fracking movement was effective,” Schlosberg said.
Control Risks spokesman Chris Levy told Truthout the company released the report to attract the fracking industry to its consulting services. The firm helps companies and large industries manage “hostile environments” and threats to international business ranging from anti-corruption investigations to anti-industry activism, kidnappings, maritime piracy and even terrorism, according to the firm’s website.
Steve Everley, a spokesman for Energy In Depth, a U.S.-based information service created and funded by oil and gas industry groups, said the Control Risks report accepts that fracking can be done safely, and he is not convinced that the anti-fracking movement has been successful in stopping drilling with “false claims and manufactured science.”
“As for the supposed successes that opponents have had, I think they’re pretty much limited to headlines and maybe an uptick in their fundraising efforts, because they really haven’t stopped the industry from drilling wells,” said Everley, who added that fracking is creating jobs across the country and expanding domestic energy production.
Schlosberg, however, said the report demonstrates what activists already know—the global anti-fracking movement is a threat, and the industry will continue to ramp up its tactics to “ram this through.”
The Control Risks report advises the industry to quell the opposition by reforming its practices. Instead of flatly denying any wrongdoing and accusing reported fracking victims of spreading “fear” and “hysteria,” fracking companies should acknowledge the negative impacts of drilling and the grievances of those impacted, like residents who believe their water supplies have been contaminated. Frackers also should put more resources toward protecting the environment and disclose the chemicals they pump into the ground during drilling, the report said. Activists in the U.S. have fought for such disclosure for years.
Control Risks also suggests that simply telling the public that drilling will lower energy prices is not enough to gain support, and the industry should “create more winners” in the communities where fracking occurs. Drilling firms should invest in communities by buying local supplies, hiring and training local workers and paying all required taxes. Most crucially, drillers should make long-term local investments to ensure sustained economic benefits to communities, even after drilling is complete.
Schlosberg, however, said environmentalists and anti-fracking activists want long-term solutions to the world’s dependence on fossil fuels, not simple reforms offered by an already wealthy industry. Activists, he said, must remain “very vigilant, mobilized and organized” as the industry wakes up to the reality of the global anti-fracking movement.
This article by Brian Tashman is re-posted from Right Wing Watch. Editor’s Note: Former State Representative Dave Agema has also brought Kamal Saleem to West Michigan and toured with him around the state helping him spread lies.
The American Decency Association plans to host Kamal Saleem, who claims to be a former terrorist, at Calvin College as part of a tour of Michigan. Saleem’s story of working as a terrorist all over the globe has been thoroughly debunked, but he continues to be an idol of Religious Right groups. He even spoke at last year’s Values Voter Summit following Paul Ryan where he warned that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton plans to “shut down” churches and synagogues.
Saleem has argued that President Obama is a Muslim who is using Roe v. Wade “to bring Sharia law” to the U.S. He maintains that Obama wants to make sure that “Sharia law will be supreme in America” by working with “Hamas to import Muslim people to the United States” and “legalizing terrorism.” Saleem even claims that “there are many generals who swore to destroy the United States of America are generals in the United States [military]” and that an Islamic shadow government is secretly running the U.S. through the Obama family babysitter.
He spoke at Calvin College in 2007, where he met Professor Doug Howard, who went on to write an article for Christianity Today on the “bizarre” and fantastical claims that Saleem makes in his book, The Blood of Lambs.
Because Howard, like others, raised serious doubts about Saleem’s story, Saleem has accused him of working for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Michelle Goldberg of The Daily Beast reports that “Saleem told me that Howard is an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood” and in an interview with Tim Murphy of Mother Jones, Saleem asserted that Howard supports radical Islam:
But Saleem didn’t flinch. “He’s related to a special group called the Muslim Brotherhood, and he works with them, he went to DC, he was with CAIR,” he said.
I mentioned that Howard is a Christian, which makes him an odd fit for the Brotherhood.
“So? He’s a professor of history. Islamic history professor, and he’s writing on what? On Islamic history glory. So the group he’s with, there are different groups. He rallied with them in DC, and he invited an Iranian radical to Calvin University. They spoke right there.” That Iranian radical, it turns out, was Reza Aslan, who in addition to being an American citizen raised in the Bay Area, is famous mostly for suggesting that democracy is a useful weapon against terrorism.
(“I don’t know what to say! Maybe I should add that to my faculty web page,” joked Howard in an email, adding that as part of his semester in DC, he took students to meet with the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, AIPAC, the Mennonites Central Committee, and, yes, one trip to a mosque.)
But now, Saleem is once again set to speak at a college, which he believes is employing a Muslim Brotherhood agent who is part of an alliance between professors and terrorists.
This article by Lorne Stockman is re-posted from EcoWatch.
[Editor’s note: Today, scientists and advocates speaking at the National Press Club in Washington unveiled new research showing that the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would damage the climate much more than previously thought, by dramatically expanding tar sands production and because it will lead to increased combustion of a particularly dirty form of oil. Two reports were presented today, including Petroleum Coke: The Coal Hiding in the Tar Sands revealing that current analyses of the impacts of tar sands fail to account for a high-carbon byproduct of the refining process that is a major source of climate change causing carbon emissions: petroleum coke—known as petcoke, and The Climate Implications of the Proposed Keystone XL Oilsands Pipeline from the Pembina Institute—a Canadian environmental think tank—revealing how the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline would accelerate expansion of the tar sands and significantly increase greenhouse gas emissions.
Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman issued the following statement on these two reports: “The new reports show that TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline is the key that will unlock the tar sands. If the pipeline is approved, the world will face millions more tons of carbon pollution each year for decades to come. After Hurricane Sandy, devastating drought, unprecedented wildfires and the warmest year on record in the United States, we know that climate change is happening now, we have to fight it now, and we must say no to this pollution pipeline now.”]
The Canadian tar sands have been called the “most environmentally destructive project on earth,” with good reason.
But what if we told you that a significant proportion of the climate impact from exploiting the tar sands has been overlooked?
That’s the story told in our latest report Petroleum Coke: the Coal Hiding in the Tar Sands.
It turns out that analysts have been examining the liquid fuels derived from tar sands bitumen and calculating the emissions associated with producing those light liquid fuels (i.e. gasoline and diesel), and adding the emissions from burning those liquid fuels to derive a “well-to-wheels” analysis of emissions.
On this basis alone, the European Commission has determined that the emissions from tar sands derived fuel are 23 percent greater than fuel from conventional crude used in Europe.
But tar sands bitumen is a semi-solid hydrocarbon. In fact a barrel of bitumen contains 24 percent more carbon than a barrel of conventional light oil. This additional carbon does not make its way through to the gasoline and diesel manufactured from tar sands bitumen. It is removed.
This “removed” carbon doesn’t disappear; far from it. In fact 15 to 30 percent of a barrel of tar sands bitumen is converted during the refining process into a coal-like solid fuel called petroleum coke or “petcoke.” This is considered a byproduct of tar sands refining and most analysts assessing the climate impact of the tar sands have to date dismissed the emissions from burning this petcoke.
They have done this partly because they have not developed a methodology to include petcoke emissions into their calculations of the emissions from the liquid fuels. Some have recognized it’s there and have raised it as an issue for further study.
But industry analysts including IHS CERA, which has published two studies on tar sands greenhouse gas emissions entitled Getting the Numbers Right, consider the emissions from burning petcoke as “negligible.” The assumption is that petcoke simply replaces coal and therefore there is no net emissions rise.
This is a convenient but entirely misguided assumption.
Petcoke is like coal, but is in fact dirtier. Petcoke has even higher carbon emissions than already carbon-intensive coal, emitting between 5 to 10 percent more CO2 than coal per unit of energy produced. A ton of petcoke yields on average 53.6 percent more CO2 than a ton of coal.
So even if petcoke did simply replace coal, which is not the case, the net emissions from whichever activity the petcoke is fueling (eg: power generation) are higher.
But because petcoke is a byproduct refineries price it “to move.” It is selling into the market at around a 25 percent discount to coal.
Now we all know (don’t we?) the basic law of economics. More Supply = Lower Prices = More Demand. But growing supplies of petcoke are not only adding to the global supply of fuel for coal-fired power generators, they are undercutting coal on price.
Indeed industry analysts have shown that a typical 1 gigawatt coal plant can save around $120 million per year in fuel costs by blending petcoke with coal in their boilers. That sounds to us like a boon for coal-fired generators and a bad deal for cleaner fuels competing with coal in a tight market.
Our report reveals the following startling facts about the tar sands and petcoke.
Petcoke in the tar sands is turning American refineries into coal factories.
- There is 24 percent more CO2 embedded in a barrel of tar sands bitumen than in a barrel of light oil.
- 15 to 30 percent of a barrel of tar sands bitumen can end up as petcoke depending on the upgrading and refining process used.
- Of 134 operating U.S. refineries in 2012, 59 are equipped to produce petcoke.
- U.S. refineries produced more than 61.5 million tons of petcoke in 2011—enough to fuel 50 average U.S. coal plants each year.
- In 2011, more than 60 percent of U.S petcoke production was exported.
Keystone XL will fuel five coal plants and thus emit 13 percent more CO2 than the U.S. State Department has previously considered.
- Nine of the refineries close to the southern terminus of Keystone XL have nearly 30 percent of U.S. petcoke production capacity, over 50,000 tons a day.
- The petcoke produced from the Keystone XL pipeline would fuel 5 coal plants and produce 16.6 million metric tons of CO2 each year.
- These petcoke emissions have been excluded from State Department emissions estimates for the Keystone XL pipeline. Including these emissions raises the total annual emissions of the pipeline by 13 percent above the State Department’s calculations.
Cheap petcoke helps the coal industry.
- As a refinery byproduct, petcoke is “priced to move,” selling at roughly a 25 percent discount to conventional coal.
- Rising petcoke production associated with tar sands and heavy oil production is helping to make coal fired power generation dirtier and cheaper—globally.
- From January 2011 to September 2012, the U.S. exported more than 8.6 million tons of petcoke to China, most of which was likely burnt in coal-fired power plants.
“PetKoch”: The largest global petcoke trader in the world is Florida based Oxbow Corporation, owned by William Koch—the brother of Charles and David Koch.
- Oxbow Carbon has donated $4.25 million to GOP Super PAC s, making it the one of the largest corporate donors to super PACs.
- Oxbow also spent over $1.3 million on lobbyists in 2012.
As mentioned above, the impacts of petcoke on the local and global environment have not been considered by regulatory bodies in assessing the impacts of the tar sands.
Petcoke’s full impacts must be considered by the European Union in its debate on the Fuel Quality Directive, by the U.S. State Department in its consideration of the climate impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline, and by Canadian, American and European governments in tar sands policies across the board.
Increasing petcoke use is a clear result of the increasing production of tar sands bitumen. Petcoke is a seldom discussed yet highly important aspect of the full impacts of tar sands production. Factored into the equation, petcoke puts another strong nail in the coffin of any rational argument for the further exploitation of the tar sands.
Propagandist for Agri-business speaker at Calvin January Series
Earlier today I attended the lecture at Calvin College, which was part of the 2013 January Series.
The featured speaker today was Dr. W. Dwight Armstrong, who was speaking on behalf of the National FFA Organization. The title of his lecture was Feeding the World and the Future of Farming.
Dr. Armstrong began by saying he grew up on a family farm in Kentucky. He spoke with a southern draw and came across as a very charming man.
He talked about FFA and its mission to recruit youth into the agribusiness sector. Armstrong said the FFA reaches about 1 million students in the US every year, mostly middle school students and that the organization focuses on science, since agriculture is now based on technology.
The major mission of FFA, according to Armstrong, was to build a human capital pipeline for agriculture…..and this is exactly what Armstrong was doing with the audience.
The spokesperson for the FFA was essentially a propagandist for agri-business. Armstrong spoke about the need to use science and technology to improve food production and that meat, eggs and dairy were essential to the world.
He used a series of superficial slides with text that presented a very bi-polar world, with headings like Growth vs Sustainability. Armstrong would present such ideas, but not substantiate anything. Instead, he used the platform to defend agri-business or to maligned anything that challenged the current food system.
“Why is it when we use the word corporate with farming everyone thinks it is negative. 90% of farmers are family, most of which are big. People would like us to go back to the 50s and 60s style agriculture. It is not a sustainable solution.” This is just one example of how he framed the issues, with absurd statements that made any criticism of agri-business seem ridiculous.
Armstrong defended GMOs, Monsanto, the factory farm industry and made the claim that no meat in the US has hormones in it that has any negative impact on human health.
It was no surprise that the speaker spoke highly of Monsanto, since Monsanto is one of the main corporate sponsors of the National FFA Organization, along with Pfizer, Cargill, DuPont, Ford, John Deer, Archer Daniels Midland and Syngenta.
Armstrong kept referring to people who criticized agri-business as the “Food Morality Movement.” He lumped into this category, which he never defined, vegetarians, those who want organic food, sustainable farms, CSAs and those who opposed animal cruelty.
It was an amazing display of propaganda that was someone challenged during the Q & A. However, since the audience didn’t get to ask the questions directly, it was hard to know who the questions were coming from and what their intent was. Armstrong never did directly respond to questions. Instead, he danced around them or just deflected the question to reiterate his main talking points.
People asked him about farm subsidies, global warming and food production, a vegetarian diet, CSAs and global hunger. At one point Armstrong even said, “Don’t criticize those who don’t agree with you.”
Unfortunately, this spokesperson for corporate agriculture was given the last word, which was to say that the world could not feed itself if it wasn’t for the technological and scientific advances by the agribusiness system.
Calvin College should be widely challenged for inviting someone who not only didn’t substantiate his claims, but dismissed those who criticized his paymasters. People should contact the Director of the January Series and let her know that this speaker was completely unacceptable and intellectually insulting.
Contact Kristi Potter kpotter@calvin.edu.
Obama’s EPA Shuts Down Damning Fracking Study
This article by Steve Horn is re-posted from CounterPunch.
The Associated Press has a breaking investigative story out today revealing that the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) censored a smoking gun scientific report in March 2012 that it had contracted out to a scientist who conducted field data on 32 water samples in Weatherford, TX.
That report, according to the AP, would have explicitly linked methane migration to hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in Weatherford, a city with 25,000+ citizens located in the heart of the Barnett Shale geologic formation 30 minutes from Dallas.
It was authored by Geoffrey Thyne, a geologist formerly on the faculty of the Colorado School of Mines and University of Wyoming before departing from the latter for a job in the private sector working for Interralogic Inc. in Ft Collins, CO.
This isn’t the first time Thyne’s scientific research has been shoved aside, either. Thyne wrote two landmark studies on groundwater contamination in Garfield County, CO, the first showing that it existed, the second confirming that the contamination was directly linked to fracking in the area.
It’s the second study that got him in trouble.
“Thyne says he was told to cease his research by higher-ups. He didn’t,” The Checks and Balances Project explained. ”And when it came to renew his contract, Thyne was cut loose.”
From Smoking Gun to Censorship: Range Resources Link
The Obama EPA’s Weatherford, TX study was long-in-the-making, with its orgins actually dating back to a case of water contamination in 2010. The victim: Steve Lipsky.
“At first, the Environmental Protection Agency believed the situation was so serious that it issued a rare emergency order in late 2010 that said at least two homeowners were in immediate danger from a well saturated with flammable methane,” the AP wrote.
AP proceeded to explain that Lipsky had “reported his family’s drinking water had begun ‘bubbling’ like champagne” and that his “well…contains so much methane that the…water [is] pouring out of a garden hose [that] can be ignited.”
The driller in this case was a corporation notorious for intimidating local communities and governmental officials at all levels of governance: Range Resources. Range, in this case, set up shop for shale gas production in a “wooded area about a mile from Lipsky’s home,” according to the AP.
As DeSmogBlog revealed in November 2011, Range Resources utilizes psychological warfare techniques as part of its overarching public relations strategy.
Due to the grave health concerns associated with the presence of methane and benzene in drinking water, the Obama EPA “ordered Range…to take steps to clean their water wells and provide affected homeowners with safe water,” wrote the AP.
Range’s response? It “threatened not to cooperate” with the Obama EPA’s study on fracking’s link to water contamination. The non-cooperation lead to the Obama EPA suing Range Resources.
It was during this phase of the struggle where things got interesting. As the AP explained,
Believing the case was headed for a lengthy legal battle, the Obama EPA asked an independent scientist named Geoffrey Thyne to analyze water samples taken from 32 water wells. In the report obtained by the AP, Thyne concluded from chemical testing that the gas in the drinking water could have originated from Range Resources’ nearby drilling operation.
Despite this smoking gun, everything was soon shut down, with the Obama EPA reversing its emergency order, terminating the court battle and censoring Thyne’s report. The AP explained that the Obama EPA has “refused to answer questions about the decision.”
“I just can’t believe that an agency that knows the truth about something like that, or has evidence like this, wouldn’t use it,” Lipsky, who now pays $1,000 a month to have water hauled to his family’s house, told the AP.
“Duke Study” Co-Author Confirms Veracity of Thyne’s Study
Robert Jackson, a Professor of Global Environmental Change at Duke University and co-author of the “Duke Study” linking fracking to groundwater contamination did an independent peer review of Thyne’s censored findings. He found that it is probable that the methane in Lipsky’s well water likely ended up there thanks to the fracking process.
Range predictably dismissed Thyne and Jackson as “anti-industry.”
Americans Against Fracking: An “Unconscionable” Decision
Americans Against Fracking summed up the situation best in a scathing press release:
It is unconscionable that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is tasked with safeguarding our nation’s vital natural resources, would fold under pressure to the oil and gas industry…It is again abundantly clear that the deep pocketed oil and gas industry will stop at nothing to protect its own interests, even when mounting scientific evidence shows that drilling and fracking pose a direct threat to vital drinking water supplies.
There’s also a tragic human side to this tale.
“This has been total hell,” Lipsky told the AP. “It’s been taking a huge toll on my family and on our life.”
On Sunday, we posted an article by feminist activist Eve Ensler on the international action planned for February 14, to call attention to global violence against women.
We just came across information for events planned in Grand Rapids, of which there are two.
On action is called One Billion Rising: Grand Rapids Style. The event listing states:
Whether you are a mother, sister, brother, father, cousin, grandma, friend, or anyone in between, we want you there. Come join us for some live music and performances. Don’t forget to bring your dancing shoes! We will celebrate, we will unite, we will rise and we will be One Billion Rising.
Remember violence against women affects each and every one of us so do your part and come dance to show that you care. As we unite in solidarity we are saying enough is enough. All ages welcome, free entry, and cash bar.
Thursday, February 14
5:00 – 11:00 PM
Eastern Avenue Hall
506 Eastern, NE Grand Rapids
The second event planned is Flash Mob Grand Rapids (Start a Rising), which states the following:
I personally invite you to join to be a part of a flash mob being held in Grand Rapids on February 14, 2013. The mob will take place in a public space in Grand Rapids (to be announced). Please look for us on facebook Grand Rapids Flash Mob One Billion Rising. Lets stand, rise together, and say enough is enough! ***The exact location of this event will be announced soon.***
On V-Days 15th Anniversary, 2.14.13, we are inviting ONE BILLION women and those who love them to WALK OUT, DANCE, RISE UP, and DEMAND an end to this violence. ONE BILLION RISING will move the earth, activating women and men across every country. V-Day wants the world to see our collective strength, our numbers, our solidarity across borders. What does ONE BILLION look like? On February 14th, 2013, it will look like a REVOLUTION.
Thursday, February 14
7:00 – 8:00PM
Amway Grand Plaza Hotel
187 Monroe Ave NW, Grand Rapids
Driving Influence: Auto Industry Lobbying
This article is re-posted from Open Secrets.
The automotive industry is showing its best side this week at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. But it also looked pretty good to political candidates in the last election, with automakers giving an unprecedented level of campaign donations. Since the industry bailout in 2009, automotive companies have seen considerable growth — and seem to be cashing in some of that spending power in the political realm.
In the last election cycle, automotive companies spent more than $27.8 million — the most the industry has ever spent on an election by a mile — almost entirely on Republican candidates. In the 2008 election, they spent just $20.3 million. Although the automotive industry has historically favored Republicans, it typically has contributed an average of 76 percent of all donations to Republicans since 1990.
The automotive market as a whole grew by 13.4 percent, with Chrysler seeing the biggest increase (20.6 percent) in domestic sales, and General Motors and Ford posting sales gains of 3.7 percent and 4.7 percent, respectively, according to a New York Times report.
Although General Motors donated $58,266 to President Barack Obama in the 2012 election cycle, it spent more on Republicans ($222,211) than on Democrats ($141,750) for the first time since 2006.
While the last election saw an increase in direct contributions to candidates by the industry, the Big Three’s lobbying numbers vary. Fiat, now the majority owner of Chrysler, spent $4.8 million in just the first three quarters of 2012, as much as it spent in all of 2011 (Fiat’s lobbying expenditures soared in 2011 after it became Chrysler’s biggest shareholder).
Ford Motors, another heavy hitter, spent $5.13 million in 2012 through Sept. 30, putting it on track to beat its $6.7 million outlay in 2011. General Motors, on the other hand, one of our lobbying heavy hitters, spent just $5.68 million through September 2012, so likely didn’t surpass its level of almost $11 million in 2011.
