INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ALERTS!
------------- ------------- -------


From: Nativenet@gnosys.svle.ma.us
Date: 25 Jan 92 23:22:56 GMT
Message-ID: <18394@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM>
Newsgroups: alpha.nativenet

Original-Sender: Pesticide Education & Action <panna@igc.org>

We have received word from Nubia Amparo Cardenas, at the Republic
of Colombia's Agricultural Affairs office of the Attorney General,  that
the Colombian government wants to begin a major marijuana eradication
program involving the aerial spraying of 2,4-D and Roundup
(glyphosate.)  Ms. Amparo Cardenas reports that airplanes (and,
possibly, herbicides) for drug eradication have been provided to
Colombia by the US government as part of the War on Drugs since
1984.

She has requested well-documented, thoughtful letters to Colombian
officials, from individuals and organizations in the United States,
emphasizing the hazards of spraying herbicides to human health,
wildlife, and ecosystems.  Other evidence that might be useful in such
letters might include concerns about the effects of spraying on
indigenous populations, problems with similar programs in other
countries (e.g., lack of accountability), economic impact of such a
campaign, etc.

Offices in Colombia that should receive your letters include
     - Presidente Cesar Gaviria, Palacia de Narin~o, Santa Fe de
Bogota, Colombia
     - Fernando Carillo, Ministro de Justicia, Calle 26 No. 27-48,
Bogota, Colombia
     - Camilo Gonzalez, Ministro de Salud, Calle 16 No. 7-39, Bogota,
Colombia
     - Carlos Gustavo Arricia Padilla, Produrador General, Carrera 5a
No. 15-80, Bogota, Colombia
     - Luis Augusto Cangrejo, Delegado Agradio, Carrera 5a No. 15-80
Piso 10, Bogota, Colombia

 Please send a copy to Nubia Amparo Cardenas, Procuraduria Delegada
para Asuntos Agrarios, Procuraduria General, Carerra 5a No. 15-80, 10
Piso, Bogota, Colombia) as well, and one to us at the Pesticide Action
Network North America Regional Center (965 Mission St. suite 514, San
Francisco, CA 94103), if possible.

     Amparo Cardenas has asked whether aerial herbicide spraying is
used by DEA or other law enforcement in the US for marijuana
eradication - the Colombian police claim that 'the US is doing it' and
that this helps justify the program... (?)

     Thanks for your help and interest.  Judith Gips for PAN North
America Regional Center.

--- ConfMail V4.00
Subject: Stop Clearcutting (h.r. 1969)


===============================================================

           +---------------------------------------------+
           | Action Alert from the Global Action Network |
           | Source: EcoNet                              |
           +---------------------------------------------+


GLOBAL ACTION NETWORK                 January 21, 1992
ACTION ALERT

Bill:  H.R. 1969 by Bryant (D-TX)
       Forest Biodiversity and Clearcutting
       Prohibition Act of 1991.

ACTION:  Call, write, or send a fax to your Representative asking
them to cosponsor H.R.1969, the Forest Biodiversity and
Clearcutting Prohibition Act of 1991.  If your Representative is
already a cosponsor, writing the chair of any of the committees
that have jurisdiction over H.R.1969 can also help create action.

BACKROUND:
H.R. 1969 prohibits clearcutting on all federal lands.  The
clearcutting process involves completely clearing and sometimes
burning an area of forest, often replanting the entire area with
a single tree species.  The practice of clearcutting forests by
timber companies in order to maximize profits has proven to be an
ecological nightmare.  Clearcutting can cause soil erosion,
reduce biodiversity and increase vulnerability to forest fires.
Harmful herbicides and pesticides are also used to protect the
single species tree stands.  Because many diseases and insects
attack one tree species in particular, entire tree stands can be
wiped out by a single intruder.

H.R. 1969 would replace clearcutting with selection management.
Selection management involves harvesting only certain trees from
a specific stand while leaving the remaining forest to replant
itself naturally.  Though this method is more labor intensive, it
preserves biodiversity and the natural pest control systems of
the ecosystem.  This reduces the necessity of pesticides, thus
curtailing a non-point pollution source.

H.R.1969 was referred to the House Committee on Agriculture, the
House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the House
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, and the House
Committee on Armed Services.

WHY THIS ACTION:
Encouraging your Representative to cosponsor H.R. 1969 will help
create action on the bill in Committee.

WHAT TO WRITE:
1.  State your support for maintaining biodiversity and forest
    ecosystems.
2.  Encourage selection management and other environmental
    preservation methods.
3.  Be specific in naming the legislation about which you are
    expressing your opinion.
4.  Ask that your Representative cosponsor H.R.1969, and respond
    to your request with the details of any action they take.

SEND CORRESPONDENCE TO:

The Honorable _____________
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC  20510

            H.R.1969 Cosponsors

    CURRENTLY:  27 Democrats
                 6 Republicans
               ---
                33 Cosponsors

ANDREWS, MIKE (D-TX)              Added 05/14/91
BEILENSON (D-CA)                  Added 04/23/91
BOEHLERT (R-NY)                   Added 06/05/91
BONIOR (D-MI)                     Added 04/23/91
DANNEMEYER (R-CA)                 Added 04/24/91
DELLUMS (D-CA)                    Added 05/14/91
DWYER (D-NJ)                      Added 05/14/91
ECKART (D-OH)                     Added 06/20/91
EDWARDS, DON (D-CA)               Added 11/18/91
FROST (D-TX)                      Added 07/31/91
GEREN (D-TX)                      Added 07/17/91
IRELAND (R-FL)                    Added 07/31/91
JACOBS (D-IN)                     Added 11/18/91
JONTZ (D-IN)                      Added 07/31/91
KENNELLY (D-CT)                   Added 11/18/91
KOSTMAYER (D-PA)          As Introduced 04/22/91
LIPINSKI (D-IL)                   Added 05/14/91
MINETA (D-CA)                     Added 05/14/91
OLVER (D-MA)                      Added 11/18/91
PANETTA (D-CA)                    Added 09/11/91
PATTERSON (D-SC)                  Added 09/25/91
PORTER (R-IL)                     Added 09/25/91
POSHARD (D-IL)                    Added 04/25/91
RAVENEL (R-SC)                    Added 04/24/91
RINALDO (R-NJ)                    Added 06/05/91
SAVAGE (D-IL)                     Added 07/31/91
SCHEUER (D-NY)            As Introduced 04/22/91
STARK (D-CA)                      Added 10/03/91
TORRES (D-CA)                     Added 11/18/91
TORRICELLI (D-NJ)                 Added 09/25/91
TRAFICANT (D-OH)                  Added 07/24/91
WASHINGTON (D-TX)                 Added 09/11/91
WEISS (D-NY)                      Added 06/20/91


Committee Chairs with jurisdiction over H.R.1969:

House Agriculture Committee
E (Kika) de la Garza (D-TX)

House Armed Services Committee
Les Aspin (D-WI)

House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
George Miller (D-CA)

House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
Walter Jones (D-NC)


=================================================================

/* Written 10:53 pm  Feb  4, 1992 by act in web:gen.newsletters */
/* ---------- "The ACTivist Vol8#2, Feb. 1992" ---------- */

NATO JETS OVER INNU LAND
By Vannina Sztainbok
The ACTivist

The Innu are under attack from air, land and water. The
Trans-Labrador Highway is near completion, paving the way for
more logging, mining and other industry. There is a proposal to
expand the Churchill Fall hydro-electric project. And there will be
an increase in the number of low level military flights at CFB Goose
Bay this year. The flights, training missions for three NATO countries,
have been notoriously destructive to the traditional Innu way of
life and to the environment of their land, Nitassinan (Labrador
and eastern Quebec).

As always, the Innu are resisting the invasion of their homeland.
In Ontario, ACT for Disarmament, in conjunction with the
Canadian Environmental Defence Fund and other groups, is planning
a campaign of action that will lead up to, and protest, the resumption
of low level flying at Goose Bay on April 1. A representative of the
Innu Nation will visit southern Ontario for a series of public talks,
in Toronto, Peterborough, St. Catharines, Guelph, and Kitchener-
Waterloo, and appearances in schools. On Saturday, March 28,
there will be a huge petition drive, with as many as 500 Innu
supporters on the streets gathering names for the 100,000
Signatures campaign. And on Saturday, April 4, there will be a
rally in downtown Toronto.

It is essential to continue protests on behalf of the Innu, particularly
since the Department of National Defence (DND) has announced
that there will be an increase in the allowable number of low-level
flights this season -- from a maximum of 7,700 last year to 8,400
in 1992. There will also be an increase in the number of aircraft
from under 50 to more than 60. CFB Goose Bay is currently a
training site for Britain, Germany and the Netherlands, but the
Canadian government is actively lobbying the Italian Air Force
to encourage them to train at Goose Bay as well. Low level flight
training is essential to intervention in the Third World -- the skills
the pilots learn at CFB Goose Bay were employed against Iraq and
Panama.

The increase in the number of flights is in direct violation of a
promise made by the Minister of Defence that flights would not
increase while an environmental assessment is in progress.
Ironically, both the Innu and the base commanders would like to
speed up completion of the much-disputed Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) being prepared by DND. The initial draft of the
EIS was rejected by a panel of experts, some of whom branded
it a "whitewash." After the decision was made not to build a
NATO base at Goose Bay, DND re-submitted the same report to
the panel for reconsideration.

Not surprisingly, the panel has declared that the EIS is still
drastically inadequate, despite the government's $6 million and
5 1/2 years of work. The panel found 29 serious deficiencies,
and one has to question the sincerity of a government which
tries to pull the same bullshit twice.

Meanwhile, the commanders of the three air forces training at
Goose Bay are complaining about restrictions to the flying area.
They express concern about the safety of their pilots flying in
a smaller area (presumably this is why they want to increase
the number of aircraft). The restrictions, which supposedly
prevent flying over nesting grounds of birds or caribou herds,
were just enforced last year, and show total disregard for the
interconnectedness of living things. The Innu and their supporters
say the restrictions, such as they are, are grossly inadequate.
"The Innu see the planes flying right over their camps disturbing
the animals that DND claims to avoid," says Daniel Ashini, Director
of Environment and Innu Rights.

The commanders are hoping that a new assessment will lead to a
relaxation of the already loose restrictions. They feel they have
done their part for the environment and now "it is really up to
DND to go further to the wildlife people," according to British
commander Erskine Crum. To this end, they have made veiled
threats to pull out of Goose Bay. Crum voiced concern that
eventually the restrictions may outweigh the advantages of training
at Goose Bay. The German and Dutch commanders have made
similar statements. We can only hope.

At the same time, the Lower Churchill hydro project is scheduled
to proceed according to the government timetable, which
would mean further development on Innu land, including the
construction of 650 km. of transmission lines. The extent to which
the ecological balance of Nitassinan will be disrupted by the flooding
of nearby areas has never been evaluated.

Appropriately, the Innu have joined with the Cree in their
opposition to both the Lower Churchill project and James Bay
II, with the Cree taking responsibility for political lobbying, and
the Innu providing expertise and people-power for non-violent
direct action.

Forestry is another threat faced by the Innu. An independent
expert has evaluated the Newfoundland government's forestry
management plan and found it badly misguided, something the
Innu hope to use to gain more control over the management of
their territory.

1992 could be a crucial year for the Innu. There is the possibility
that further environmental restrictions could be placed on flight
training, making it an increasingly undesirable site for the flyers.
Conversely, if the NATO countries get their way, the currently
inadequate restrictions may be lifted altogether, creating an
attractive atmosphere for prospective pillagers of Innu land
and causing a further entrenchment of the base.

It is vital that all concerned Canadians make their voices heard
against the low level training, and in favour of the right of the
Innu people to decide their own fate and the fate of their land.
To get involved in ACT's campaign, call 416-531-6154 or your
local ACT contact, or write to 736 Bathurst St., Toronto, M5S 2R4.

--- Maximus 2.00
 * Origin: Connections BBS - Calgary, AB, Canada - (403)246-2183 (1:134/32)


==========================================================================

Subject: Gan Alert: S.2166
GLOBAL ACTION NETWORK                     January 30, 1992
EMERGENCY ACTION ALERT

Bill: S.2166 by JOHNSTON, BENNETT (D-LA)
      Reducing the Nation's Dependence on Imported Oil, Provision
      (Formerly S.1220)

Introduced:  January 29, 1992

Status:  Will be voted on sometime tomorrow or early next week.

Action:  Call your Senators asking them to oppose S.2166.

What to emphasize in speaking with your Senators:

     Just as President Bush slid "pass my national energy
strategy" as an afterthought into point eight of his laundry list
of cures for our domestic ailments in his State of the Union
Address, Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman J.
Bennett Johnston (D-LA) is attempting to slide his national
energy strategy past Congress.

     S.1220 (which closely paralleled President Bush's plan) was
defeated by filibuster last fall.  Senator Johnston vowed that he
would bring the bill back to the floor in January, and he has
done just that.  In a surprise move, Senator Johnston introduced
S.2166 late on January 29, and managed to keep the bill from
being referred to a committee.  In fact, the bill has been placed
on the Senate legislative calendar and could be voted on as early
as tomorrow!  S.2166 is identical to S.1220 with two
controversial provisions missing.  The proposal for drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) has been stripped from
the bill, as has the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
provision.

     Since the bill is being pushed so quickly, letters won't
reach Senators in time. Senator Johnston is attempting to sneak
the bill past the Senate without much fanfare and without the
public becoming involved.  We strongly encourage users to call
their Senators and express their dissatisfaction with Johnston's
political powerplay.  Merely stripping the bill, which is now
commonly referred to as the "National Energy Tragedy," of two
controversial provisions, does not make the bill a sound energy
policy for the future.  The bill will leave the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge untouched, but the bill will also do the
following:

1.  Promote the nuclear power industry by establishing one-step
nuclear power plant licensing.  Currently, one hearing is
required to build a plant, and one hearing is held to ensure the
safety of the plant after it has been built.  Johnston's plan
would eliminate the second hearing, limiting public participation
in the licensing process,  a key step for ensuring safety.

2.  Restructure the failing uranium-enrichment industry.  This is
merely another attempt to bring the nuclear power industry back
to the forefront of energy policy.

3.  Promote the use of coal as an energy alternative.  The bill
provides increased funding for this form of energy, which is
largely responsible for global warming and acid rain.
Remarkably, the bill goes so far as to create the Clean Coal
Technology Export Coordinating Council, to expand exports to
other countries of this dubiously "clean" alternative to other
fuels.

4.  Promote the use of natural gas by streamlining the licensing
process. Although natural gas is considered a cleaner and safer
burning fossil fuel, this provision just emphasizes Johnston's
reluctance to look beyond the short-term, as his bill is focused
on increased dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

The bill would NOT fully address these issues:

1.  Provide adequate research and development funding for
renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal
power.  Without increased funding, these technologies, which will
provide long-term environmental and economic security, will
continue to slowly develop in the scientific laboratory, instead
of being integrated into the marketplace immediately.

2.  Provide increased CAFE standards. The CAFE standards
provision of S.1220 was consistently used as a bargaining chip to
open the ANWR to oil drilling.  Increased CAFE standards are
crucial and should stand on their own as an important part of any
national energy strategy. For instance, S.279 is Senator Bryan's
bill mandating increased fuel efficiency standards. The bill's
increased standards, if enacted, are projected to save 49.1
billion gallons of fuel by 2001, as well as reduce emissions of
carbon dioxide by 483 million tons by the same year. The
technology exists, its time to include greater fuel efficiency
standards in any national energy strategy.

     In general, Johnston's energy strategy is poorly focused
with an emphasis on increased energy production using fossil
fuels and nuclear power.  The Nuclear Information Resource
Service (NIRS) has touted the bill as nothing more than the
nuclear industry's "wish-list."  A solid strategy should start
with energy efficiency, increased funding for renewable and
alternative fuels, much more stringent CAFE standards and a
gradual phasing out (not increase!) of fossil fuels for energy
production.  It is time to think of the future and not simply of
next week.  Alert your Senators of your opposition to the bill!


================================================================

Message #1287 "Indian_Affairs"
Date: 04-Feb-92 11:38
From: Claudia Slate
To:   All
Subj: Snoqualmie Falls

Snoqualmie Falls has been sacred to the people of the Pacific
Northwest for countless generations.  It is the center of Salish
creation stories, their "Garden of Eden."

In the last two generations, the Falls have been greatly changed.
Puget Power has, for many years, diverted most of the river flow away
from the Falls into electric generators.  These generators provide
under 1% of the total electricity Puget Power sells to its customers.

Now, more major developments are planned.  Puget Power has developed
a proposal to add another turbine and increase the generation
capacity by 40%.  Under this plan, the flow of water will be
controlled like a faucet, with flows only a small fraction of their
natural ones.  The falls will be shut off completely 75 days each
year!

Puget Western, a subsidiary of Puget Power, and the infamous
Weyerhauser Corporation are planning huge resort and business
developments, including thousands of new houses, a golf course, and
sewage piped to the base of the Falls.  In five years, if these plans
are carried out, Snoqualmie Falls will be just a pretty fountain in
another business park.
The Snolqualmie Falls Preservation Projet, led by the Snoqualmie
Tribe, the Church Council of Seattle and the Washington Association
of Churches, sets up information tables at the Falls every Saturday
from 11:30 to 1:30.  Volunteers and contributions are needed.

For more information, contact:  Snoqualmie Falls Preservation Project
                                4759 15th Avenue NE
                                Seattle, WA  98105
                                (206)525-1213

{Taken from Support for Native Sovereignty Newsletter, December 1991,
 Vol. 1, No. 1}




--- via Silver Xpress V2.28 [NR]
 * Origin: The Psychology Forum BBS, Dallas TX (1:124/2121)

