By Erica H. Mattison, SpeakingofJustice.com Correspondent

If you went by the White House on November 6, 2011 you would have seen a diverse gathering of thousands of people expressing their opposition to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a project which would transport crude oil 1,700 miles from Canada to Texas. Protestors are urging President Obama to reject the proposal, which they fear will do far more harm than good.

The protest was a long time coming, according to some of its organizers.  “What you see today, with these thousands of people surrounding the White House, is the result of years of work,” says Susan Casey-Lefkowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council.  She stresses the importance of multiple groups working together on this harmonious campaign, which has a shared vision of ”No expansion of tar sands; no Keystone XL Pipeline.” 

Why are protests like this necessary?

Since the 1970s when several environmental protection laws were enacted, there have been waves of efforts to erode those law, says John H. Adams, Founding Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council.  The Clean Air and Water Acts have been susceptible to political opposition, represented by efforts to slash funding and loosen restrictions.  These efforts are “disastrous to our public health and climate,” Adams says.  He expects that people and courts are going to play a key role in ensuring that these laws keep their teeth. Adams is hopeful the protest will prompt President Obama to reject the pipeline.  “I hope it gives him courage. I hope he does the right thing, and I hope all these people then go out and support him,” states Adams.

Next Steps

Groups plan to keep working together to make sure the pipeline is rejected, says Casey-Lefkowitz.  The coalition opposing Keystone XL are engaged in a variety of efforts, including communicating with federal agencies, elected officials, and people in Nebraska concerned about the damage this project could do to their state.  “We’re in a long-term fight on climate and clean energy,” says Casey-Lefkowitz.  “This pipeline is one moment for uniting the community and for turning to our President for the right decision, but it’s just one of what will be many moments where we have to come together like we did today.”

FRACKING – A QUESTIONABLE PRACTICE THAT FRACTURES COMMUNITIES, NOT JUST ROCKS

By Erica H. Mattison, Speakingofjustice.com Correspondent

The process of fracking doesn’t just cause rocksto splinter – it shatters the well-being and beauty of

communities.  There are too many doubts about this unconventional practice for the public to have confidence in it.  While drilling companies spend money to convince us all is well with these wells, communities are rising up to put the brakes on before more damage is done.

Hydrofracking is short for hydraulic fracturing. A well is drilled and a solution is injected to capture gas out of shale rock deep in the earth; the high pressure that is used fractures the rock and releases gas.  And the practice is expected to grow.  According to a study by the Energy Information Administration, shale gas is projected to make up over 20% of U.S. natural gas supply by 2020.[1]  Fracking refers not only to the actual extraction, but also the land clearance, the waste production, and transmission of the gas.

Fracking results in the industrialization of communities.  The landscape is ravaged and truck traffic increases air pollution.  Goodbye to the quiet, rural areas beloved for their serenity, fresh air, and clean water.  And this isn’t just in the U.S. – Canadian ranchers are also feeling the effects.[2]  And in London, a study conducted by an energy company engaged in fracking revealed that fracking was the likely cause of earthquake tremors.[3]

In addition, fracking is connected to environmental justice.  Do you think wealthy communities are going to be the sites for this clear-cutting and drilling?  Unlikely!  Economically depressed areas are more susceptible to fracking operations, where the promises of revenue from leasing the land are especially attractive.  Hundreds of landowners are now regretting that they leased their land.

While some people would lead you to believe fracking makes good economic sense, it actually has negative consequences for the communities where the fracking takes place.  These towns end up with a temporary swell in population, but no corresponding increase in funding for public services.  Imagine if your town’s population grew by 15% tomorrow due to temporary workers, but without additional public safety or other services.  If you don’t believe it, take a look at the spike in law enforcement issues in states such as Pennsylvania and Wyoming.

If you believe to this guy, you’d think fracking is the best thing since sliced bread.  He portrays the practice as safe, responsible, and protected.  In this ad, notice the trees and the emphasis on how safe, clean, and secure fracking supposedly is.  But I don’t see many trees left here.  The spirited “The Fracking Song,” and the more subdued 60-Minutes also show a practice that isn’t so innocuous.  And if you think where you live isn’t going to be directly impacted by fracking, think again.  There is exploration or production taking place in over 30 U.S. states.[4]

A recent report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy calls for transparency and actions to reduce environmental and safety risks of fracking.[5]  We can see why transparency is necessary when we consider that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had to subpoena Halliburton in order to get the company to report the chemicals it uses in its fracking activity.  The EPA is about to study potential risks to drinking water supplies, and – against the wishes of drillers – is looking to develop national standards, instead of leaving pollution regulation up to the individual states.[6]

KEYSTONE XL: A PIPELINE THAT WOULD TAKE US BACKWARD

By Erica H. Mattison- SpeakingofJustice.com Correspondent

 “Let’s be the generation that finally frees America from the tyranny of oil.” -Senator Barack Obama, 2007

[I will be] “a president who harnesses the ingenuity of farmers and scientists and entrepreneurs to free this nation from the tyranny of oil once and for all.” -Senator Barack Obama, 2008

On November 6, 2011, thousands of people from around the United States will gather in Washington, D.C. to urge President Obama to stay true to the vision he communicated during the Presidential campaign by preventing the Keystone XL Project from advancing.  If our country really has the intention to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, and preserve natural resources for the sake of present and future generations, the only possible answer to Keystone is “no.”  We need our President to put an end to this nonsense project and make a statement that investing in energy efficiency and clean, safe renewable energy projects is what this country really needs to be focusing on.  For that to happen, President Obama needs to know the public opposes Keystone and supports sustainable practices that will move us forward.

In October, 2011 the U.S. State Department held its final public hearing on a proposal by TransCanada Corp. to build a pipeline, called the Keystone XL, which would transport crude oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to oil refineries in Oklahoma and Texas.[1]

A Presidential Permit is mandated for facilities which cross international borders.[2]  In addition, certain types of energy projects, including pipelines, are subject to an Executive Order issued in 2004, which requires the State Department to determine whether a project is in the nation’s interest before a Presidential Permit is granted.[3]  A 90-day review period extends part-way through November 2011, during which time a National Interest Determination is crafted.  It is expected that a decision will be issued in December, and the Presidential permit will either be issued or denied.[4]

CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROJECT

Natural bitumen is often referred to as tar sands or oil sands.[5]  Questions abound regarding potential risks of this material.[6]  Organizations such as the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) argue that the State Department’s environmental impact statement does not adequately address the array of concerns that exist regarding the project.

NRDC and others contend that this project is not in the nation’s best interests.  In the summer of 2011, over one dozen scientists, including leading climate expert James Hansen, wrote a joint letter to President Obama, stating that Keystone XL was not in the nation’s interest or the planet’s interest.  Hansen took part in the August 2011 protests in Washington, D.C., where demonstrators showed their opposition to Keystone XL.  Along with hundreds of others who took part in the sit-in, Hansen was arrested.

According to a recent article in Technology Review, while the drilling might appear to be less damaging to the environment than strip-mining, the newer technology is actually more destructive; because it is an energy intensive process, it produces substantially more carbon dioxide emissions.[7]  Steam is used to extract the oil sand deposits, which are too deep to access via surface mining.[8]  This energy intensive process, which will have serious implications for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, is prompting some to pause.  Canada is worried a European Union proposal to classify oil sands as carbon-intensive could reduce its money-making chances.

If inadequate management and safety precautions, combined with lack of oversight, could result in the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, who’s to say similar circumstances could not lead to a catastrophe in the proposed pipeline locations?[9]

SO WHY DOES THIS PROJECT HAVE A CHANCE?

Some, such as Hansen, attribute it to the influence “that fossil fuel special interests have over policymakers and the public.”

Let’s take a look at the company at the center of this controversy.  TransCanada’s third-quarter earnings were $384 million.[10]  In 2011 to date, the company has spent $1.3M on lobbying (over $900,000 of which was spent by Subsidiary TransCanada Pipelines).  To put that in perspective, that would be the equivalent of paying three consultants at $100/hour to work 12 hours per day, 365 days of the year.  Interestingly, that lobbying figure is the company’s largest in years.  Five years ago, the subsidiary was not even investing in lobbying.[11]  In 2010 the Pipelines subsidiary spent $180,000 on lobbying, in 2009 only $50,000, in 2008 the figure was back up to $160,000, but in 2007 it dropped back to $60,000, and in 2006 the subsidiary spent $0 on lobbying.[12]  Could the controversy over the Keystone XL have anything to do with the recent increase in lobbying activity?

Early in 2011 concerns were raised about possible impropriety involving TransCanada’s lobbyist, Paul Elliott, who just so happens to be a former presidential campaign staffer to now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[13]  In fact, Friends of the Earth, the Center for International Environmental Law, and Corporate Ethics International filed a Freedom of Information Act request, which the State Department initially rejected.[14]  However, the efforts to illuminate a possible conflict of interest did, in fall 2011, turn up some correspondence between Elliott and State Department officials.  Communications between Elliott and the State Department leave open the question of whether the relationship between the lobbyist and the government agency is proper.

RECENT ACTIVITY

Celebrities such as actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus have referred to the project as “mega stupid” and a “money-grab.”  Actor Robert Redford is calling upon the President to stand up to big oil, encouraging him to say “no” to the Keystone XL, calling it a dangerous project that will increase pollution and threaten our land, water, and climate.

Some lawmakers, including Senator Bernie Sanders, are encouraging the President to delay the decision on the project until the State Department has looked into potential conflicts of interest.

Meanwhile, the State Department defends its awarding of the environmental impact study to Cardno Extrix, a contractor some are concerned has links to TransCanada, the company proposing the pipeline.

Nebraska legislators are considering a bill which would give the state increased control over the pipeline route.

And President Obama is weighing the pros and cons of the project, stating that he is going to be looking at what is best for the American people, economically as well as in terms of health.

NEXT STEPS

Step 1: Urge President Obama to say “no” to Keystone XL.

Step 2: Even if the Keystone XL is stopped, oil sands and other unconventional oil sources will continue to be pursued by those seeking to make money and those seeking to feed our oil addiction.  The United States is already heavily reliant on oil from Canada, and starting to delve into oil-sands production will only increase our dependence.[15]  Many experts say decreasing our overall oil demand is the real option that will enable us to reduce the environmental impact of the oil-sands industry.[16]  So,

• After you’ve taken steps to improve your own energy efficiency,
• Share information to help make it easy for others to take action,
• Join with organizations large and small that are working to further energy efficiency and clean energy sources, and
• Tell candidates and elected officials what’s important to you.

The change starts with us.  This year we can take steps that get us on the path toward freeing our communities from the greed and shortsightedness that is threatening to take us backward.

Environmental activists and concerned citizens wil be encircling the White House in an effort to urge President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.

This proposed 2,000 mile pipeline will stretch from Alberta Canada to our Nations Heartland and terminate at the GulfCoast. The payload is tar sands oil from under Canada’s Boreal forest home to many unique species of song birds. This highly toxic oil is corrosive to pipes and poses a serious and likely threat to the ecosystem and food producing areas of our country.

This is a diverse coalition of laborers, farmers, ranchers, environmentalists and concerned citizens from varied geographic locations such as the Gulf Coast, Appalachia, Vermont and the Nation’s Heartland; uniting in this urgently important demonstration and debate. Chief among the organizers is NRDC Founding Director John H. Adams who will be leading a group of NRDC staff members in this effort. Many other groups are expected to join in to send the message to the President.

To view additional videos regarding this urgently important issue visit:www.speakingofjustice.com/tarsandsoil

To learn more about the November 6th gathering to Washington, DC to encircle the White House to ask President Obama to reject Keystone XL, visit: www.nrdc.org/energy/nov6

This historical technological monument was funded and built during the Carter Administration as part of the Photovoltaic Demonstration Project initiative. The country was motivated to find answers to the energy crisis and our dependence on foreign sources. It is the sole remaining facility in operation of the original eight demonstration sites established across the country. During the interview, Lisa Lillelund of Mango Networks, and a Clean Energy Advocate, brings to light the unique history and significance of this solar field located in Beverly, Massachusetts.

The park’s location was selected due largly from the efforts of a prominent Massachusetts resident and M.I.T scientist, Dr. John Coleman. Over the past several years, a wind turbine and photovoltaic array located on the rooftop of newly built Beverly High School have been added to the mix of sustainable renewable energy. The current combined yield of these solar and wind installations is 193-kilowatts and helps supply the high school with electricity.

Beverly High School, which is a green school has been a proving ground for the many of the significant advances over the years which have lead to more efficient output and reduced costs of alternative energy solutions.

Fred Hopps, the Director of Greenergy Park, points out that the site was originally conceived and constructed as an experiment on solar energy. “There was an uncertainty as to how this technology would hold up over time. And each year we learn how resilient and reliable solar power can be, not only for homes and businesses but as an industry.”

For more information about the positive impact of schools going green have on the environment and the economy, follow this link to the article, Beverly High Ranks High Among Green Buildings, by Lisa Lillelund.

Blood Feud is Kathleen Sharp’s superbly reported, breathtakingly true story of Big Pharma’s power, the terrifying vulnerability of innocent patients, and what it takes to stand up for what is right.

Buy the book at Amazon

Procrit. It seemed to be a miraculous blood booster. This anti-anemia drug was one of the first biotech blockbusters and promised a golden age in medical care. Developed in the 1980s by the start-up Amgen and licensed to the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, the drug was sold by the two companies under the brand names Procrit, Epogen, and Aranesp. It soon generated billions in annual revenue—and still does.

Mark Duxbury, a gung ho salesman for J&J’s new biotech division, championed this new product and believed in the technology behind it. Always at the ready with a joke and a smile, his knowledge and passionate pitches set sales records and won company awards. His star rose. But in the early 1990s, he and his peers were told to steal business from J&J’s partner, Amgen. Then came the biased marketing studies, the off-invoice rebates, doctor payments, and off-label promotions. Duxbury tried to stop some of these ruthless practices, but was soon fired on trumped-up charges. Then he attempted to warn the public about the dangers in any way he could: by testifying in a secret arbitration, joining a class action effort, and filing a whistleblower suit. But he was thwarted at nearly every turn—until the surprising final act.

Dean McClellan was Duxbury’s sales colleague. He tried to beat his buddy’s record and wound up selling $170 million worth of the drug, becoming a company legend. When Duxbury got fired, McClellan tried to distance himself. But as news of Procrit’s deadly power started to surface, McClellan agreed to hand over thousands of damning documents and help his friend blow the whistle on J&J.

Enter Jan Schlichtmann, protagonist of the bestselling book and Oscar-nominated movie A Civil Action. When he learned of Duxbury’s mission, he felt the old fire rising in his belly and signed on. Now he’s gambling on yet another long shot, fighting on behalf of not just millions of cancer patients, but for every American who cares about their health.

Jan Schlichtmann interviews attorney Leon Weiss about the Leon Walker case. Walker is charged with a five-year felony after accessing his wife’s email on a shared computer and using some of the information in their divorce proceedings. High profile cases of computer and phone hacking have made headlines recently. Attorney Weiss has a front row seat as the courts attempt to navigate complex legal issues relating to privacy, intellectual property and the internet.

Case Update:

The Michigan Court of Appeals in June issued a stay in the computer hacking trial of Leon Walker.

Defense attorney Leon Weiss says in issuing the stay of Walker’s trial, the Appeals Court ordered Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Martha Anderson to issue a written opinion of why she denied his motion to dismiss the charge, and took the Oakland County Prosecutor to task.

“And the court also said this, quote, “This court concludes that serious questions exist as to whether this felony criminal statute was intended to be applied to domestic relations cases of the sort presented here,” close quote,” said Weiss.

Weiss says if the case goes against his client, parents who check their kids’ facebook accounts could be subject to up to five years in prison. The defense attorney says amendments have been introduced to clarify the Michigan Anti-Hacking Law.

The growing propensity for celebrities and others to have their phones hacked is creating increasing alarm among the celebrity and political community as the law needs to keep pace with the growing ability of sophisticated telephone and other devices to record and transmit the most intimate audio and visual content around the Net.

Apart from legal concerns generally and an almost certain increase in lawsuits relating to privacy and other issues, the law is able to protect private material that is illegally obtained, the real issue is how to set up effective enforcement measures that will protect celebrities and even perfectly normal people from having their most private lives “hacked.”

Trial lawyer Jan Schlichtmann discusses what needs to be done so the law can catch up with technology.

White House budget analysts warned in January that a controversial decision to restructure a $535 million government loan to a struggling solar power company “could easily be portrayed as bad judgment or worse,” just-released emails now show.

The latest emails are part of an emerging portrait of the troubled government loan — a half-billion-dollar federal investment that went from being touted as a model of President Obama’s “green jobs” initiative to being criticized by Republicans as an ill-advised boondoggle.

Senior Energy Department officials in January said the loan restructuring was common with startup ventures. But internally, the restructuring decision was the source of intense debate and disagreement.

Staffers were not only worried about the financial risks but also the political risks to the 2012 campaign.

The Solyndra episode is reason enough for their to be real reform and transparency in the tracking of political donations and government decison making to ensure both clean government and the right of the people to be involved in the political process and seek govenmental benefits to which they are entitled.

photo: aim.org

As Politico recently reported, trial lawyers have become alarmed at Texas Governor Rick Perry’s front runner status in the race for the Republican Presidential nomination.  The three term Governor made Trial Lawyers public enemy number one and made restricting access to the courts his top priority.  Trial lawyers traditionally support candidates because of their opposition to so-called ‘Tort Reform.” Perry pushed through legislation under the “Tort Reform” banner that limits the ability of Texas consumers to obtain fair compensation for loss or injury and with the adoption of the “loser pays rule” punishes the losing party for trying to access justice.

Speaking of Justice host Jan Schlichtmann says “So-called ‘Tort Reform’ is just an excuse to prevent the right of the people to equal justice under law.”