Obama's New Green Collar LAWYER Jobs Initiative Will Suck the Lifeblood Out of American Free Enterprise

http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/06/22/epa-climate-change-ruling-would-be-a-stimulus-for-lawyers--and-no-one-else.html

EPA Climate Change Ruling Would be a Stimulus for Lawyers--And No One Else

By Glenn G. Lammi

Posted June 22, 2009

With debate raging in Congress over how to reduce greenhouse gases, it is easy to overlook the critical developments on this issue that are simmering in federal agencies. Federal rulemaking is certainly far less entertaining than the pageantry of politics, but one proceeding now coming to a head at the Environmental Protection Agency will have profound implications for climate change and the conduct of everyday commerce.

While nearly every sector of our economy will be bracing for its negative impact, one sector—the litigation industry

—can look upon the EPA's action as a job-creating government stimulus.

Empowered by a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the EPA proposed a finding last April that greenhouse gas endangers public health and welfare and contributes to climate change. The proposal is undergoing a regretfully abbreviated 60-day comment period that ends tomorrow. But EPA statements and related actions clearly indicate the agency intends to ultimately find "endangerment."

Such a finding triggers regulation of sources of greenhouse gas emissions under the federal Clean Air Act, a law written over 30 years ago to address local and regional environmental problems. One legislative leader on climate change, Rep. John Dingell, has remarked that it would be "insane that [Congress] would be talking about leaving this kind of judgment ... to a long and complex process of regulatory action," affecting "potentially every industry and every emitter and every person in this country." From cars to cows, energy plants to neighborhood dry cleaners, landfills to restaurants, the regulation would encompass American businesses of all types and sizes.

A formal government proclamation that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health and welfare, and are thus subject to the Clean Air Act, is a dream come true for plaintiffs' lawyers and litigious professional activists. Up to now, litigation has thus far, thankfully, played a minor role in addressing climate change. Courts have largely rebuffed lawsuits by state attorneys general alleging that greenhouse gas emitters were a "public nuisance." (A $400 million nuisance and conspiracy suit filed against 23 energy companies by an entire Alaskan village remains undecided.)

But the slow drip of climate change lawsuits is about to become a deluge, drowning the judiciary and thousands of businesses, in a tsunami of litigation.

Swiss Re, a leading insurance company, recently opined that global warming suits will explode and expand faster than asbestos litigation. The EPA's endangerment finding will be cited in countless class actions and other suits alleging that productive economic activity caused health problems or led to damaging heat, flooding, drought, wildfires, or the spread of pathogens.

The EPA's proposal makes no effort to quantify the risk of any of these potential outcomes of global warming, or to specify a direct health effect from them. This won't, of course, stop creative plaintiffs' lawyers from using EPA's finding to sow fear or prevent judges and juries from favorably noting the government determination in liability suits. Just as with asbestos liability, exposure to climate change litigation will be spread throughout the economy, with the small scale rancher or farmer, the corner restaurant, and the community nonprofit hospital bearing the brunt of the burden.

In addition to civil liability suits, EPA's endangerment finding will allow activist organizations to file citizen suits against businesses whose greenhouse gases emissions allegedly violated the Clean Air Act. These "private attorney general" actions can be very lucrative and activists regularly deploy them to expand the boundaries of laws like the Clean Air Act to create even more litigation opportunities.

In litigation, there is no occasion for the parties, the judge, or the jury to weigh the costs, benefits, feasibility, and both short- and long-term consequences of different potential legal outcomes. This concern is significantly amplified when the overarching matter before a court is as complex, or as global in nature, as global warming.

As one federal judge prudently wrote in dismissing California's climate change lawsuit against auto manufacturers, "injecting [this court] into the global warming thicket at this juncture would require an initial policy determination of the type reserved for the political branches of government."

EPA's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the antiquated Clean Air Act would create, as Representative Dingell put it, "a glorious mess." Add to that the disparate patchwork of court decisions and jury verdicts that would emerge from years of EPA-inspired greenhouse gas litigation, and you have a recipe for stagnating commerce.

There would, however, be a hiring boom in the litigation industry. Are these some of the "green jobs" we've all been hearing about?

Economic Saboteurs Now Include Among Their Ranks NASA Scientist James Hanson?? Common Sense Has Gone With the Wind!

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4864
Hansen: Coal Plant Vandals Actions ‘Justified’ Because of ‘Emergency Situation’



All fired up, American climate scientist James Hansen explains why he’s testifying against coal Hansen: Coal plant vandals actions ‘justified’ because of ‘emergency situation’ By EPW Blog Saturday, September 6, 2008


By EPW Blog


Saturday, September 6, 2008

[H/T: to Tom Nelson ] NASA’s James Hansen: Coal plant vandals actions ‘justified’ because of ‘emergency situation’ - Nature.com - September 5, 2008 Excerpt: Q So do you think that these activists were justified in doing what they did? Hansen: The activists drawing attention to the issue seems to me as justified. You should try to do things through the democratic process, but we really are getting to an emergency situation. We can’t continue to build more coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2 if we hope to solve the problem.

All fired up American climate scientist James Hansen explains why he’s testifying against coal.

Geoff Brumfiel


James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, is well known for rattling his nation’s political establishment. This week, the climate scientist was in London, UK, to testify on behalf of activists who defaced a coal-fired power station in Kent. Geoff Brumfiel caught up with Hansen at a London hotel to find out what has got him all hot and bothered. Why did you come to testify?


Nothing could be more central to the problem we face with global climate change. If you look at the size of the oil, gas and coal reservoirs you’ll see that the oil and gas have enough CO2 to bring us up to a dangerous level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.


There’s a potential to solve that problem if we phase out coal. If we were to have a moratorium on coal-fired power plants within the next few years, and then phase out the existing ones between 2010 and 2030, then CO2 would peak at something between 400 and 425 parts per million. That leaves a difficult problem, but one that you can solve.


Do you think that leaders like UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown have lived up to their promises on climate change?


It depends on whether they will have a moratorium on coal-fired power. I think that the greenest leaders, like German chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Brown, are saying the right words. But if you look at their actions, emissions are continuing to increase. All of these countries and the United States are planning to build more coal-fired power plants. And if you build more coal-fired power plants, then it is not possible to achieve the goals that they say they are committed to. It’s a really simple argument and yet they won’t face up to it.


So do you think that these activists were justified in doing what they did?


The activists drawing attention to the issue seems to me as justified. You should try to do things through the democratic process, but we really are getting to an emergency situation. We can’t continue to build more coal-fired power plants that do not capture CO2 if we hope to solve the problem.


We need to get energy from somewhere. So if we’re not getting it from coal, then where?


The first thing we should do is focus on energy efficiency. The fact that utilities make more money by selling more energy is a big problem. We have to change those rules. Then there is renewable energy — in order to be able to fully exploit renewable energy, we need better electric grids. So those should be the first things, but I think that we also need to look at next-generation nuclear power.


Some have said you are hypocritical for flying all the way from the US to the UK just to testify. How do you respond?


I like to travel as little as possible, not only because it uses less CO2 but because I prefer to do science. But sometimes there are things which are sufficiently important that I think it makes sense.


What do you think the roll of the scientist should be in the broader societal debate on climate change?


I think it would be irresponsible not to speak out. There is a clear gap between what is understood by the relevant scientific community and what is known by the public, and we have to try and close that gap. If we don’t do something in the very near future, we’re going to create a situation for our children and grandchildren that is out of control.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x154579

UK Protestors Occupy Coal Train - wanna chain yourself to a bull dozer?

Democratic [Party] Underground Blog


NICE!!! We need to do more way of this in North America - remember when Gore asked why we weren't chaining ourselves to bulldozers at coal plant sites? Well, why aren't we?Protestors who halted a coal train carrying fuel for Drax power station in Yorkshire, the single biggest source of CO2 in the UK, are settling in to make sure supplies of coal to the power station remain cut off. The protest comes six weeks before the 2008 Camp for Climate Action at Kingsnorth power station - which will also highlight how using coal to supply energy will be a disaster for the planet.Dressed in white overalls and canary outfits, they used safety signals to stop the train on a bridge overlooking the power station, before climbing on board and dumping coal off onto the tracks.http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/protestors-coal ...Anyone want to buy the chains? I know a few bulldozers...


[APPARENTLY, DR. HANSEN BELIEVES THAT INDIVIDUALS CAN TAKE 'JUSTICE' INTO THEIR OWN HANDS WHENEVER THEY BELIEVE THAT THE 'PUBLIC INTEREST' IS AT STAKE. IN THIS REGARD, HIS POLITICAL AGENDA IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE GLORIFIED BRITISH LORD MELCHETT AND OTHER BIOTECH, ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PRIOR INCIDENTS OF LAWLESS/CRIMINAL ECONOMIC SABOTAGE COMMITTED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM DURING THE PAST 10 YEARS AGAINST FARMERS, SCIENTISTS, LABORATORY EMPLOYEES, SHAREHOLDERS AND SHOPKEEPERS (FOOD RETAILERS). SADLY, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT UNDER FORMER PRIME MINISTER TONY BLAIR and THE BRITISH COURTS DID VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO PUNISH THE PERPETRATORS WHO CONTINUE TO BELIEVE and ACT AS IF THEY HAVE RIGHTS TO HARM OTHERS AND THEIR PROPERTY. APPARENTLY, CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIVISTS FEEL THE SAME WAY, and ARE UNWILLING TO PROVIDE PROOF BEYOND THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL (RELIGIOUS & POLITICAL) IDEOLOGY AND THEIR UNSUBSTANTIATED 'FEARS' OF ECO-ARGMAGEDDON. BOTH EUROPEAN AND U.S. BLUE PARTY POLITICIANS AND GRANT-SEEKING, POLITICALLY CORRECT SCIENTISTS ARE TO BLAME FOR THIS. THEY WISH TO CHANGE THE GLOBAL SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM SO THAT HARD SCIENTIFIC and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF PROBABLE HARM OR 'RISK' OF HARM, IS NO LONGER REQUIRED. INSTEAD THEY WISH TO ESTABLISH A NEW 'HAZARD'-BASED PARADIGM THAT MERELY REQUIRES TO SHOW THE 'POSSIBILITY' OF ENVIRONMENTAL HARM. IT WOULD SEEM, THEN, THAT WHEN THEY DON'T GET THEIR WAY, THEY RIOT AND RESORT TO CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR. HOW CAN THE FEAR-BASED CLIMATE CHANGE POLITICIANS, SCIENTISTS AND ACTIVISTS NOW BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY?? THEY CANNOT!!]


[See: Economic Sabotage IS Free Speech In The UK; Is It Now Also Free Speech In the US?, ITSSD Journal on Economic Sabotage, at: http://itssdjournaleconomicsabotage.blogspot.com/2008/03/economic-sabotage-is-free-speech-in-uk.html ].


[See: UK Lord Melchett: Aristocrat Eco-warrior, BBC News.com, at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/405061.stm ].

July 27, 1999

UKLord Melchett: Aristocrat eco-warrior

The fourth Lord Melchett is lead away by police Lord Peter Melchett, Labour peer and executive director of Greenpeace UK, is probably experiencing the most inactive period of his adult life.

Arrested for his part in the dawn raid on a farm trialling GM crops and charged with theft and criminal damage, the Old Etonian was refused bail by a stipendiary magistrate in Norwich on Tuesday.

The 51-year-old aristocrat eco-warrior is well-known for his dedication to the green cause, although his political and activist career has tended to be within the law.

Young Lord

He inherited his title aged 23 when his father Lord Julian, chairman of British Steel, died suddenly of a heart attack in 1973.

Greenpeace activists vandalised the trial crops. He toyed with the idea of renouncing it, but instead entered politics as a Labour peer, making his maiden speech in the Lords about cruelty to animals in zoos.

His great-grandfather, then Sir Alfred Mond, and the founder of ICI, had already indelibly linked the family name with both socialism and activism.

As head of the World Foundation of Jewish Sports Clubs, he recommended a boycott of the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin.


Sir Peter became a whip, and then a junior minister - in environment and industry under Harold Wilson, and in Northern Ireland under Jim Callaghan.
Voted for abolition of Lords

From 1976-79 he chaired a working party on pop festivals, and still is a regular at Glastonbury.

He withdrew from the Lords when he took up a position on the board of the environmental organisation - but returned to vote for its abolition.

His concern for the environment started in his youth on the family's 750-acre estate, Courtyard Farm, on the north Norfolk cost.

[IT'S NICE NOT TO WORRY ABOUT HAVING ENOUGH MONEY TO EAT, WITHOUT FEAR OF HAVING YOUR LIVELIHOOD DESTROYED, ISN'T IT, MR. MELCHETT??]


He said: "On our farm, partridges went down from their hundreds to tens and you'd see the chicks dead in the fields.

Brent Spar ended in controversy for Greenpeace"I remember being told that it was because of the drought or the weather; now we know it was the pesticides."

His father, Lord Julian and mother, socialite Sonia Sinclair, were keen preservers of hedgerows at Courtyard Farm.


Lord Melchett normally cycles to work at Greenpeace HQ from his home in North London, which he shares with his partner Cassandra and their two teenage children.

He is known for always arriving late - but tends to stay late into the night to carry out the work he has been doing for the past decade, and which often takes him all over the world.

He has seen Greenpeace through its lows - with inaccurate measurements taken from the Brent Spar oil platform - and its highs - the campaign against genetic engineering is the organisation's longest, and it says, the most popular.
Energetic and dedicated

The organisation holds him in high regard. Spokeswoman Mirella Von Lindenfels said: "He does not really regard himself as a leader, he sees himself as a small cog within the worldwide Greenpeace, he does not appear to see himself as an important person at all.

"He is energetic and thoroughly dedicated. He has a great deal of experience and he is indefatigable."

He is known to his colleagues simply as Peter, and like all of its activists will receive legal and moral support throughout his detention.

Ms Von Lindenfels said: "Peter, like the others who were arrested, is highly trained in non-violent direct action, and he will be fully supported by Greenpeace.

"He feels, as so many people do, very, very strongly about the issue of GM crops and technology."


[FORTUNATELY, ECONOMIC SABOTAGE IS NOT FREE SPEECH IN THE U.S.A, AT LEAST NOT YET!]



[See: Eco & Animal Terrorism is NOT Free Speech in the USA!, ITSSD Journal on Economic Sabotage, at: http://itssdjournaleconomicsabotage.blogspot.com/2008/07/eco-animal-terrorism-is-not-free-speech.html; NYSE Finally Musters Courage to Defend Economic Freedom and Defy Animal Extremists, ITSSD Journal on Economic Sabotage at: http://itssdjournaleconomicsabotage.blogspot.com/2008/03/nyse-finally-musters-courage-to-defend.html; Fire ELFs Attack Homes Under Construction in Washington State, ITSSD Journal on Economic Sabotage, ITSSD Journal on Economic Sabotage at: http://itssdjournaleconomicsabotage.blogspot.com/2008/03/fire-elfs-attack-homes-under.html ].


[See also: ITSSD: 'Putting Country First' Means Defending America's Sovereignty, Constitution and Free Enterprise System Against Foreign Incursion, ITSSD Journal on Economic Freedom, at: http://itssdeconomicfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/09/putting-country-first-means-defending.html ].

Eco & Animal Terrorism is NOT Free Speech in the USA!

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/animal-rights-protests-grow-violent/20080708093209990001?icid=100214839x1205191633x1200260402


Animal-Rights Protests Grow Violent


By Marcus Wohlsen


Associated Press


2008-07-08


BERKELEY, California (July 8) - In the hills above the University of California's Berkeley campus, nine protesters gathered in front of the home of a toxicology professor, their faces covered with scarves and hoods despite the warm spring weather.


One scrawled "killer" in chalk on the scientist's doorstep, while another hurled insults through a bullhorn and announced, "Your neighbor kills animals!" Someone shattered a window. [AT A MINIMUM, THESE ACTS CONSIST OF THE INTENTIONAL CIVIL LAW TORTS OF TRESPASS, ASSAULT, BATTERY, DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER & TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS. AT MOST, THESE ACTS CAN RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CRIMINAL ACTS OF TRESPASS, VANDALISM, ASSAULT, TERRORIZING, HARRASSMENT, STALKING, ATTEMPTED BATTERY &/OR BATTERY.]


Animal rights activists are becoming increasingly confrontational, heading right to the doorsteps of scientists. Here, protesters demonstrate outside the home of a University of California professor in Berkeley, Calif., May 31.

...Douglass, an activist who declined to give his full name, yells through a bullhorn while protesting outside the professor's home. The activists are borrowing tactics used by anti-abortion demonstrators, harassing and terrorizing scientists in their homes.

...Graffiti and a broken window mark the doorway of the professor's home. The protesters, upset about the UC Berkeley entomologist's experimentation on animals, scrawled "killer," "murderer," and an obscenity on the entryway before breaking a window.

...An activist confronts one of the professor's neighbors. "What they've decided to do now is make things more personal," said one researcher. A spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front said, "if you had to hurt somebody or intimidate them or kill them, it would be morally justifiable." Source: AP


Borrowing the kind of tactics used by anti-abortion demonstrators, animal rights activists are increasingly taking their rage straight to scientists' front doors.


Over the past couple of years, more and more researchers who experiment on animals have been harassed and terrorized in their own homes with weapons that include firebombs, flooding and acid.


Scientists say the vandalism and intimidation threaten not just themselves and their families but the future of medical research. Specialists in such fields as addiction, eyesight and the aging brain have been targeted.


"It used to be everyone was worried about their laboratories being broken into and their data being destroyed, their animals being taken away," said Jeffrey Kordower, head of the Society for Neuroscience's animal research committee. "What they've decided to do now is make things more personal."

In May 2008, an animal rights group stripped nearly naked before lying down on the floor of a shopping mall in Sydney, Australia. The "die-in" protested the export of live animals.

...A PETA protester wrapped herself in cellophane and painted her body with fake blood to protest the National Cattlemens Beef Association's Spring Legislative Conference in March 2006. The protesters wanted to persuade the cattlemen that "Meat is Murder."

...PETA launched a campaign in 2004 to try to force DaimlerChrysler to market leather-free vehicles in India. The leather interior of a car can require the hides of up to 15 cows. This protester, dressed as butcher, pretends to slaughter a cow on top of a Mercedes in front of the DaimlerChrysler headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany.

...An unidentified PETA protester splatters Yum! Brands CEO David Novak with fake blood as he enters a KFC in Hanover, Germany, in 2003. The protest sought to resume negotiations between Yum! and KFC suppliers to improve their animals' living conditions.

...A member of the animal protection group Fauna dressed as a chicken hands out leaflets in Budapest, Hungary, in 2003. Fauna campaigned for increased education in schools about fair treatment for animals. The 33-pound chicken costume circulates among animal rights groups across Europe.

Accompanying the attacks is increasingly tough talk from activists such as Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front press office. In an interview with The Associated Press, he said he is not encouraging anyone to commit murder, but "if you had to hurt somebody or intimidate them or kill them, it would be morally justifiable.


"The Washington-based Foundation for Biomedical Research said researchers were harassed or otherwise victimized more than 70 times in 2003, up from just 10 the year before. The number of attacks has held steady or risen ever since, according to the group.


Activists say the escalation in tactics results from a frustration that nonviolent methods have failed to stop what they call the needless torture and killing of animals. [TOO BAD!!]


"An animal has as much of a right to life as we do. To take a life without provocation is immoral, it's violent, there's no excuse for it," said Jacob Black, 23, an organizer of demonstrations at the homes of UC Berkeley researchers. "To name and shame these people as morally bankrupt individuals in our society is key."


A Web site aimed at Berkeley lists the names of a dozen researchers and their home, work and e-mail addresses, their photos, and often their home numbers. The roster also includes graphic descriptions of each scientist's purported work with animals.


"This information is here so that others may pressure these individuals with legal protests - we do not participate in or encourage illegal activity," the Web site says.Despite that disclaimer, the late May protest in the Berkeley hills left a window of the toxicology professor's home shattered along with the window of a neighbor, who sprayed demonstrators with a garden hose to drive them away.


Activists say researchers drill holes into the skulls of monkeys and cats in pursuit of esoteric discoveries that will never help anyone.


But scientists say every effort is made to minimize the suffering of animals used in experiments. Rigorous government and university regulations provide detailed protocols for the humane treatment of lab animals. And scientists must show they have exhausted all other options to obtain data before they turn to animals as test subjects.


Many scientists are reluctant to discuss the effect violent incidents have had on biomedical research. They worry that any sign the attacks are succeeding could just lead to more of the same.

But at least one researcher decided the pressure was too much.

In 2006, activists began besieging the homes of several UCLA professors. Masked protesters converged on scientists' homes late at night, banging on doors, throwing firecrackers and chanting, "We know where you sleep," according to court documents.


Threatening calls and e-mails followed. Firebombs were left near homes three times; two failed to go off, while the third charred a front door. One professor's home was flooded when a garden hose was shoved through a broken window.


[ANIMAL PROTESTERS BEWARE! - DEPENDING ON THE JURISDICTION, THE LAW PERMITS USE OF SIGNIFICANT AND EVEN DEADLY FORCE, AS A MEANS OF SELF-DEFENSE, WHERE A TRESPASS THREATENS DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY. SOME JURISDICTIONS PERMIT USE OF SIGNIFICANT OR DEADLY FORCE TO PREVENT THEFT OF PROPERTY.]

During the onslaught, which lasted two years, a UCLA scientist with small children informed protesters he had stopped doing animal research."Effective immediately, I am no longer doing animal research," vision researcher Dario Ringach wrote in an e-mail. "Please don't bother my family anymore."


Though no one has been seriously hurt since the jump in home protests, the attacks have drawn the attention of the FBI. The agency has broad authority to investigate animal rights incidents under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act of 2006. [Public Law No: 109-374 , at: http://npl.ly.gov.tw/pdf/5562.pdf ].


"We consider this to be a serious problem, especially when people's lives are being disrupted," said agent David Strange, who oversees a domestic counterterrorism squad at the FBI's Oakland office. "We call it terrorism because it is a violent act violating federal criminal laws that has a political or social motivation to it."


Six members of a Philadelphia-based organization were sentenced to federal prison after they and the group itself were convicted in 2006 of using a Web site to incite threats, harassment and vandalism against people connected with a company that tests drugs and household products on animals.


But otherwise, few activists have been prosecuted, because of free speech concerns and the movement's extreme secrecy.


[See: Economic Sabotage IS Free Speech In The UK; Is It Now Also Free Speech In the US?, ITSSD Journal on Economic Sabotage, at: http://itssdjournaleconomicsabotage.blogspot.com/2008/03/economic-sabotage-is-free-speech-in-uk.html ].


Recently, federal investigators joined a probe into an alleged February assault against the husband of a University of California, Santa Cruz breast-cancer researcher who experiments on mice. Police said masked activists pounded on the family's front door during a birthday party for their young daughter, and one threw a punch when the husband tried to force them to leave.


Afterward, UC Santa Cruz Chancellor George Blumenthal backed a proposed state law that would limit activists' access to public information about animal experiments. Blumenthal called acts against animal researchers "the greatest threat to academic freedom that I've seen in the history of this campus."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Consumers Likely to Lose as PETA Herds US & European Importers of Australian Wool Products Like Sheep

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_28/b4092040870521.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_top+stories

The Wool Industry Gets Bloodied

Pressured by PETA, companies from Timberland to H&M are banning Australian wool

By Kerry Capell

Business Week

July 3, 2008

It's an unlikely international cause célèbre: sheep's rear ends. But because of activists at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, it's an issue that threatens to undermine Australia's $2.2 billion wool industry.

Forget fur and leather—PETA's latest target is wool. Australian merino wool, to be exact. The animal rights group is on a quest to get clothing companies to quit using wool from so-called mulesed merino sheep. So far, more than 30 have signed on to the ban, including Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF), Timberland (TBL),

H&M, and Hugo Boss. On June 4, German sportswear giant Adidas became the latest global brand to add its name to the list. "Approaching companies with big names and deep pockets is the best way to drive change," says PETA official Matt Prescott.

PETA's gripe, mulesing, involves removing folds of skin from a sheep's hindquarters, a process named for John Mules, who devised it 70-plus years ago. The procedure, generally performed without anesthetics, guards against infestation by blowflies whose eggs hatch into flesh-eating maggots. Australian merinos are more susceptible to attacks because they've been bred to have wrinkly coats that boost wool output. Four years ago, when PETA first began lobbying against mulesing, few apparel makers had even heard of the practice.

The animal rights group picked Benetton, the Italian company whose name is often associated with sweaters, as its first target.

It dispatched protesters wielding placards that read "Benetton: Baaad to Sheep" to picket stores and put up a billboard in New York City with the tag line "Did your sweater cause a bloody butt?"

It worked. Benetton publicly came out in favor of phasing out mulesing. PETA has since had little trouble recruiting other clothing companies to its cause. After all, one European retailer says, who wants to be on PETA's radar screen?

Bad PR couldn't come at a worse time for the Australian wool industry. Production is at an 80-year low, a casualty of prolonged drought. Four years ago, Australian Wool Innovation, the industry's marketing, research, and development council, pledged to phase out mulesing by the end of 2010. AWI has already sunk $13 million into researching options. These range from high-tech (genetically breeding wrinkle-free sheep) to the decidedly crude (surgical clips that cause folds of skin to wither and fall off). AWI Chairman Brian van Rooyen says he is confident "there will be alternatives to mulesing ready for adoption prior to 2010."

STEPPING UP THE PRESSURE

Yet in the eyes of PETA and some retailers, the industry isn't moving fast enough. After H&M met with AWI at the start of the year, it decided to "direct our buying to mulesing-free merino wool because the company felt the phase-out of the practice was proceeding too slowly," says Ingrid Schullström, H&M's corporate social responsibility manager. Hugo Boss has held workshops with suppliers to increase the amount of wool sourced from unmulesed lambs. Both companies say they have been inundated with e-mails from consumers supporting the move to unmulesed wool. "Clearly, this is something that concerns many of our customers," says Schullström.

Australia's 55,000 sheep farmers, meanwhile, are unhappy about being cast as barbarians.

Mulesing, they say, is the best way to protect their flocks from an even worse fate: being chewed alive by maggots. Says Charles Olsson, a breeder in Goulburn, New South Wales: "We wouldn't perform this operation unless it was absolutely necessary."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://brandsofsports.wordpress.com/

Sports brands taking a stance

Brands of Sports Weblog

June 6, 2008

This appears to be something we are seeing more and more of in the industry.

Adidas announced Wednesday that they are boycotting Australian wool and sheep that have been mulesed.

Mulesing is viewed as an unnecessary way of taking wool from sheep and adidas communicated this in a letter to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in the United States declaring its position on the matter. [ADDIDAS, A EUROPEAN COMPANY SELLS OUT...]

Fair play to adidas, they clearly have an agenda which appears to be addressing their production practices and appeal to consumers and their inner desire to do good. Only recently did they announce the grun collection which aims to better the environment by efficiently utilizing the natural resources of this world.

Now a worldwide consumer movement, as they (consumers) demand brands to be transparent and to offer clarity on their stance on certain issues. The sporting goods industry appear to be taking this as a real top of agenda item, reacting fast and with real purpose. Yes, consumers still and will always demand value but they also want a brand ‘with’ values - values that they can relate to in every sense of the word. [VERY FEW CONSUMERS CARE ABOUT THIS NONSENSE, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE PETA GROUP SAYS. IT'S ALL ABOUT PRESERVING BRAND REPUTATION AMID THREATS OF PUBLIC DISPARAGEMENT.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:nNRjrOBhE3wJ:vcr.csrwire.com/node/7447+hugo+boss+australian+wool&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Australia: Hugo Boss to Ban Wool Produced Using Mulesing

CSRwire - Video Commentary & Research (http://vcr.csrwire.com/)

By natalie

04/28/2008

Hugo Boss has said that it will avoid wool for its fashion clothing chain from producers still using the practice of mulesing by 2010. The move prompted the Australian Wool Growers Association to say that it expected Australian producers to have largely moved towards alternatives to the practice within the two year deadline. Around 15 to 20 percent of the Australian wool farms producing 'superfine wool' supply Hugo Boss.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/nsw/content/2006/s2218817.htm

Hugo Boss rejects mulesing

By Catherine Clifford

ABC Rural - New South Wales News

16/04/2008

Australia's wool industry is once again defending its efforts to find an alternative to mulesing, after European fashion giant, Hugo Boss, announced it will phase out its purchase of Australian wool from mulesed sheep.

[HUGO BOSS, ANOTHER EUROPEAN COMPANY, SELLS OUT...]

The company, which has 1,252 stores in 105 countries, also says it will not support the use of clips as an alternative to the controversial practice.Mulesing is the surgical removal of skin from the rear of the sheep to prevent flystrike and the clips have been developed as an alternative to shut off blood flow to the skin, which effectively dies within 24 hours. After a period of time the clips and the skin fall off, or the clips can be removed.

In a strongly-worded statement, the German-based retailer, which sources Australian wool for its classic Mens' collections, said it must disassociate itself from mulesing because the practice contravenes the company's corporate values. [THIS IS CALLED 'PETA-WASHING'].

The statement went on to say that if mulesing in Australia has not ended completely by 2010, Hugo Boss will refuse to purchase wool material from farms that perform mulesing, including from farms that employ what the company refers to as "clip mulesing".

Spokeswomen Meera Ullal and Dr Hjördis Kettenbach say Hugo Boss considers clips to cause suffering, too.

"The clip is applied to the sheep's skin, there is no blood circulation, the skin dies and falls off so, for us in our understanding, it would be another form of mulesing," they say.

Hugo Boss says it has been involved in ongoing discussions with the Australian government and Australian Wool Innovation (AWI) for several years over the issue, stating it has repeatedly highlighted its desire to both parties for "more animal-friendly treatment of sheep".

Ms Ullal said Hugo Boss hopes its announcement, to concentrate its purchases on non-mulesed wool, will set a clear example for the international retail and textile industry and bring new momentum to Australia's efforts to find a suitable, pain-free alternative to mulesing.

Manager of the Australian Wool and Sheep Industry Taskforce, veterinarian Dr Norm Blackman, says the Taskforce is disappointed Hugo Boss has included clips in its statement on mulesing, saying, by definition, the two are very different.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/page.php?Story_ID=2076

Australia: Hugo Boss to ban wool produced using mulesing

Business Respect, Issue Number 126

16 Apr 2008

Hugo Boss has said that it will avoid wool for its fashion clothing chain from producers still using the practice of mulesing by 2010 saying that such practices contravene the company's corporate values.

The move prompted the Australian Wool Growers Association to say that it expected Australian producers to have largely moved towards alternatives to the practice within the two year deadline. At the moment, it said, farmers are using pain relief techniques whilst searching for viable alternatives.

Around 15 to 20 percent of the Australian wool farms producing 'superfine wool' supply Hugo Boss.

Campaign group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have been waging an ongoing struggle against Australian farmers to see an end to mulesing.

EU, UN & Greens Target U.S. Industrial Agriculture For Structural Reform: Seek Regulation & Taxation to Lessen Global Warming & Other Enviro Impacts

http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.pdf


Livestock’s long shadow Environmental issues and options

LEAD (Livestock, Environment And Development) (a multi-institutional initiative of United Nations FAO - formed to promote ecologically sustainable livestock production systems)


By H. Steinfeld, P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, C. de Haan - (2006)


The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale


Executive Summary


"...A general conclusion is that improving the resource use efficiency of livestock production can reduce environmental impacts. While regulating about scale, inputs, wastes and so on can help, a crucial element in achieving greater efficiency is the correct pricing of natural resources such as land, water and use of waste sinks. Most frequently natural resources are free or underpriced, which leads to overexploitation and pollution. Often perverse subsidies directly encourage livestock producers to engage in environmentally damaging activities. A top priority is to achieve prices and fees that reflect the full economic and environmental costs, including all externalities. One requirement for prices to influence behaviour is that there should be secure and if possible tradable rights to water, land, use of common land and waste sinks. Damaging subsidies should be removed, and economic and environmental externalities should be built into prices by selective taxing of and/or fees for resource use, inputs and wastes. In some cases direct incentives may be needed."


...An important general lesson is that the livestock sector has such deep and wide-ranging environmental impacts that it should rank as one of the leading focuses for environmental policy...there is an urgent need to develop suitable institutional and policy frameworks, at local, national and international levels, for the suggested changes to occur. This will require strong political commitment, and increased knowledge and awareness of the environmental risks of continuing “business as usual” and the environmental benefits of actions in the livestock sector.


(p.4) Introduction:


"Livestock have a substantial impact on the world's water, land and biodiversity resources and contribute significantly to climate change...[T]he livestock sector occupies about 30% of the ice-free terrestrial surface on the planet. In many situations, livestock are a major source of land-based pollution emitting nutrients and organic matter, pathogens and drug residues into rivers, lakes and coastal seas.


Animals and their wastes emit gases, some of which contribute to climate change, as do other land-use changes caused by demand for feed grains and grazing land. Livestock shape entire landscapes and their demands on land for pasture and feed crop production modify and reduce natural habitats."


(p. xxii)


"...Policy measures that would help in reducing water use and pollution include full cost pricing of water [to cover supply costs, as well as, economic and environmental externalities], regulatory frameworks for limiting inputs and scale, specifying required equipment and discharge levels, zoning regulations and taxes to discourage large-scale concentrations close to cities, as well as development of secure water rights and water markets, and partipating management of watersheds."


(p. 248)


"...Practices that lead to the provision of environmental services, such as improved water quantity and quality, can be encouraged through payments to providers. Schemes of payment for environmental services [PES] rely on the development of a market for environmental services that have previously not been priced.


...Usually, PES schemes rely on external financial resources; however, the long-term sustainability of the mechanisms is often uncertain. Furthermore, the level of payment is often politically imposed and does not correspond to effective demand for services.


A few countries have specific legal frameworks for PES at the national or regional levels. Most of the existing PES schemes, however, operate without a specific legal framework. Some service providers take advantage of this legal gap to establish property rights for land and natural resources."


[IMAGINE THAT!! SOCIETIES BASED ON THE NOTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND FREE ENTERPRISE HAVE THE NERVE TO RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND, NATURAL RESOURCES & LIVESTOCK!! HOW SHAMEFUL!!!]


[THIS REPORT SETS FORTH AN AMBITIOUS UTOPIAN FRAMEWORK FOR A NEW SUPRANATIONAL GLOBAL WELFARE SYSTEM MODELED AFTER THE EUROPEAN UNION, THAT RELIES ON SUPRANATIONAL, REGIONAL & NATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL SUBSIDIES TO REFORM HUMAN BEHAVIOR. THE EUROPEAN UNION, THROUGH THE UNITED NATIONS, IS ATTEMPTING TO REACH INTO THE UNITED STATES, WITH THE HELP OF U.S. POLITICIANS & GREEN EXTREMIST GROUPS TO GOVERN EVERY ASPECT OF ECONOMIC LIFE. See, e.g., Putting Payments for Environmental Services in the Context of Economic Development (2006) UN FAO
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/ah633e/ah633e00.pdf ; From Goodwill to Payments for Environmental Services, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (Aug. 2003) at: http://www.unpei.org/PDF/budgetingfinancing/From-goodwill-payment-env-services.pdf ; http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy/macro_economics/our_solutions/pes/index.cfm].


[IT IS INTERESTING HOW THE ACRONYM 'PES' CORRESPONDS TO THE PARTY OF EUROPEAN SOCIALISTS!! See http://www.pes.org/ ].


[THIS REPORT CONTAINS MANY CLEAR-CUT REFERENCES TO SUPRANATIONAL GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY GOVERNANCE TREATIES (INSTITUTIONALIZD 'SOFT' SOCIALISM BEING EXPORTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION) THAT WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL BY TREATY PARTY GOVERNMENTS. THE MENTION OF 'RESIDUES INTO RIVERS LAKES AND SEAS' IS AN INDIRECT REFERENCE TO THE VAST ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF SOVEREIGN U.S. TERRITORY CALLED FOR BY THE U.N. LAW OF THE SEA CONVENTION].



[While the report speaks of environmental damage caused by overgrazing and deforestation, it also speaks of the environmental damage encouraged by agricultural subsidy and liberal trade policies. Yet, what is really at work is a hidden agenda of attacking American industrial agriculture, including crop farming, livestock farming and ranching, as 'UN'sustainable. This has been one of the main arguments of Environmental Nongovernmental Organizations (ENGOs) in Europe for a long while. Unfortunately, it will drive most small U.S. farmers in the livestock industry out of business and increase the U.S. unemployment rate, AND DIMINISH THE GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS OF U.S. AGRICULTURE . U.S. policymakers and the incoming U.S. President must NOT fall prey to these economically & socially destructive ideas].


[Interestingly, on page 224, the Report refers to Europe's Precautionary Principle, as "a principle used to link environmental concerns to decision-making [. It] calls for action to reduce environmental impact even before conclusive evidence of the exact nature and extent of such damage exists. The precautionary principle stresses that corrective action should not be postponed if there is a serious risk of irreversible damage, even though full scientific evidence may still be lacking. However, there is considerable debate about the usefulness of this principle among policy-makers; a common understanding is still missing." ]


[On page 50, the Report notes how, "Responding to consumer concerns, the EU has required that products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) be labeled so that consumers can identify them. In addition, the EU is pushing for GMO soybeans to be separated from other varieties so that those purchasing them for feed or as ingredients can make a choice".]


[Actually, to the extent this Report recognizes the debate over the Precautionary Principle, it is accurate. However, the Report fails to mention how Europe has used the Precautionary Principle both as a disguised trade barrier and also AS A MEANS TO UNDERMINE AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURE:


“EU officials have frequently referred to the precautionary principle as a necessary “framework for learning in the face of uncertainty” and arguably have embraced it as a metaphor for protecting the European ‘way of life’ against the ‘Americanization’ of
European commercial and agricultural practices.12


12... The most recent of three workshops previously organized by the German Marshall Fund’s U.S.-European Biotechnology Initiative to discuss U.S. and EU views toward biotechnology explains a great deal about EU reliance upon the precautionary principle. An interpretative summary of this last dialogue (prepared by a European) is extremely revealing. “The EC official stressed that the political purpose of the European rules [about GMOs] was indeed to restore consumer confidence…‘Anything less than the regulations now being proposed would not restore consumer confidence and GM crops in Europe could fail’…One NGO representative was quoted as saying that, ‘Why can’t the Americans understand that this is not specifically about health and safety and labels and traceability; it’s a rebellion against industrial agriculture. We need to be talking about the emergence of new ways of farming which take social and environmental concerns into account, not just GMOs’…An important factor often omitted from the U.S. interpretation of the European conundrum is concern over the Americanization of European agricultural practices and food habits. This concern embodies dislike and fear of globalization in general…As one European…said, ‘There is a difference in what we want our countries to look like, not only with food but with all that goes with it.’ This ‘way of life’ statement echoed similar thoughts…one European said, ‘GM food was a concrete thing that gave us the feeling that the world was going to change radically with respect to food, control of food, and ultimately democracy’…The European consumer attitude to GMOs has evolved, not out of one or two big events such as growth hormones or ‘mad cow’ disease, but for many reasons that traverse the interdisciplinary spectrum of politics, science, economics, culture and social ethics.’” Peter Pringle, “The U.S.-European Biotechnology Initiative”, Workshop 3: Segregation, Traceability and Labeling of GM Crops – An Interpretative Summary of a Transatlantic Conservation About Biotechnology and Agriculture”, The German Marshall Fund of the United States (April 29, 2002), at pp. 3-8.


See Lawrence A. Kogan, “EU Regulation, Standardization and the Precautionary Principle: The Art of Crafting a Three- Dimensional Trade Strategy That Ignores Sound Science”, National Foreign Trade Council (Aug. 2003), at pp. 6-7. This document is accessible on the World Trade Organization website at: http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/ngo_e/posp47_nftc_eu_reg_final_e.pdf . ]


[APPARENTLY, U.S. POLICYMAKERS HAVE ALREADY LOOKED INTO THE PAYMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SCHEMES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND HAVE NOT LIKED WHAT THEY HAVE SEEN]



"Further developments in agri-environmental policy in both the United States and
the EU will likely depend at least in part on outcomes from ongoing multilateral
agricultural trade negotiations. If these negotiations result in further restrictions on
trade-distorting domestic commodity support, farmers, ranchers, and policymakers
may view increased funding for green payments as an attractive alternative for
providing support to agriculture. If further restrictions are required, it seems more
likely that the United States and the EU will look at the other’s policies and
experiences more closely. If such an examination demonstrates that historic and
current differences are extensive and difficult to overcome, it may be that a broad and
imprecise definition of green payments will serve the interests of diverse parties who
participate in farm policy debates.


For U.S. policy, the status of these negotiations in early 2007, when crafting the
next farm bill is likely to start in earnest, will be particularly important because
designers of this legislation and interest groups will likely give the status and
direction of these negotiations strong consideration as they contemplate farm bill
options. If the outcome of the negotiations is uncertain while the farm bill is being
debated, this uncertainty will compound the intensity of the debate, and possibly
result in the inclusion of language in legislation giving the Department greater
flexibility in implementation.

Congressional discussion of green payments may become contentious for other
reasons as well. One source of that contention may be the translation of the concept
into policies and programs. Most interests involved in farm policy who have
expressed an opinion support the general concept of green payments. But as the
discussions become more specific, participants may find that they have different
views about program design, funding allocations, administrative responsibilities and
similar questions, making it difficult to hold together coalitions of supporters.

Among the most difficult of these questions may be deciding whether such a program
should include a significant income support component and contribute to the “bottom
line” of each participant, or should it be limited to covering costs to install and
maintain conservation practices. A related question may be deciding what is to be accomplished through a green payment approach. Some may view it as meeting
international obligations, and seek a minimal program with limited impact to current domestic efforts, while others may view it is a major new and positive direction in farm policy, and seek to make it large and far-reaching. One aspect of discussing these options may be over whether payments should be based on cost-sharing for individual practices, which has a long history in agri-environmental policies, or on
the level of improved environmental performance that results from installing
practices.

Consideration of green payments may also include a debate over questions of
scale. To this point, all conservation programs are implemented at the scale of an
individual farm. Green payments could include additional incentives for coordinated
and collective action that have much larger cumulative benefits than actions on
individual farms are likely to result in. Such programs could be designed around the
magnitude of the benefits that the group provides, and grow or shrink for all members of the group as the participation, and therefore the benefits, change.

Differences between the United States and the EU in how green payments have been defined and translated into policy and programs may make consideration of EU agri-environmental policy as a model or source of ideas problematic.

Some aspects of EU policy, e.g., compulsory cross-compliance with agri-environmental measures as a condition for receiving price and income support, differ substantially from historical U.S. practice, in which cross-compliance has been far more sparingly
applied.

Spending on agri-environmental programs in the United States has been relatively less than in the EU, both as a portion of total federal spending for agriculture and as an amount spent.

Identifying sources of increased funding for agrienvironmental programs, even in the context of possible new WTO restrictions on other forms of farm support, might still be difficult given projected budget deficits. Even with new multilateral restrictions on farm subsidies, agri-environmental programs might compete unfavorably with the more conventional forms of farm support or with other WTO-compatible programs.

Apart from funding considerations, a consensus for linking agri-environment and rural development with more traditional farm program measures has not emerged in the United States as it apparently has in the EU. So the extent to which EU agri-environmental policy could serve as a model or source of ideas for U.S. agri-environmental policy remains to be seen. See Congressional Research Service Report RL32624 "Green Payments in U.S. and European Union Agricultural Policy" at CRS-19-20, at: http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL32624.pdf

].

The French Reap What They Sow - Animal Group Madness & Soft Economic Sabotage

http://www.labtechnologist.com/news/ng.asp?id=59101-eu-refuses-bid


EU refuses bid to lift ban on animal cosmetics testing


31-Mar-2005

The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice has slammed moves by the French government to partially lift the ban on the testing of cosmetic products on animals.


The court advisors said that the proposed deletion of Article 4 (1)(i) of the EU Cosmetic Directive 76/678, wanted the marketing of animal-tested cosmetic products to be unconditionally permitted throughout the European Community.


The French government is seeking the annulment of the Directive's ban on animal testing of cosmetics and the sale of animal-tested products. The court's opinion followed the original hearing in the case brought by France on 18 January, and was rejected by the courts last week.


Currently France has one of the biggest cosmetics industries in Europe, with names such as L'Oreal and Clarence and Clinique proffering some of the most successful and well-known brand names.


The French government has been claiming that the current Directive against animal testing violated the principle of legal certainty because its scope was not adequately defined.

A lifting of the ban would have met with significant animosity from animal rights group and the general public, which has proved to be staunch supporters of moves to ban all cosmetics testing on animals in the past.

Sonja Van Tichelen, director of Eurogroup Animal Welfare Organisation said that the move to quash the French government's demands had the support of the EU citizens.

Furthermore Van Tichelen drew attention to the self interest motivating the French government's move, emphasizing the significance of the country's existing cosmetic industry as well as the fact that it currently has the largest amount of animal testing for cosmetic products.

[YES. SELF-INTEREST IS GOOD IN THIS CASE - BETTER THAN KILLING AN ENTIRE INDUSTRY THAT CONTRIBUTES SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE ECONOMY!!]

The final hearing for the French government's demands will be given by the EU Courts, but it seems likely that, following the recommendations of the Advocate General, it will be faced with a tough battle.