Researchers at Texas A and M University, US, have determined that the historical information that can be gathered from sediment cores collected in and around river delta areas regions is critical for a better understanding of enhe research was carried out by Thomas Bianchi, a professor in the Department ofOceanography, Texas A and M University, and colleague Mead Allison.The researchers have examined sediments from delta areas around the world, most notably the Mississippi in the United States and the (Huanghe) Yellow and Yangtze in China. "These sediments contain information that can provide data on past changes in nitrogen application in the drainage basin from agricultural fertilizers, records of past flooding and hurricane events, to name a few," Bianchi said. "These deltaic sediments can serve as a history book of sorts on land-use change in these large drainage basins which is useful for upland and coastal management decisions as related to climate change issues," he explained.
"Although the information stored in these sediments can be altered during itstransport from the upper drainage basin to the coast, we still find very stable tracers, both organic and inorganic, that can be used to document changes induced by natural and human forces," he added. According to the researchers, such sediments are ever-present, noting that 87 percent of the Earth's land surface is connected to the ocean by river systems. Much of the sediment from rivers forms into what are called large river delta-front estuaries (LDEs), and human activity in some of these can be traced back more than 5,000 years ago to some of the first cities in Mesopotamia, along the Nile and in regions of China. The knowledge learned from these delta areas tell about the history of the region from how the land was used - or not used - through time, according to the researchers. In the US, hypoxic areas - where there is little or no oxygen - can in some cases be linked with deltaic regions that are releasing large amounts of water and nutrients, Bianchi explained.
"Low oxygen in aquatic systems is clearly not good for the organisms in those systems, but not all aquatic systems respond in the same way," he noted. "It affects marine life in some areas severely, while other areas seem unchanged. We need to find out why," he added.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Expert panel giving conflicted IPR approvals
India's National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) has granted over 335 approvals related to research, commercial exploitation, transfer of research results and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs). But are these all legal?
None of the approvals granted by the NBA have followed a mandatory legal provision of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (Section 41 (2)), where it is prescribed that approvals are to be granted only after consultations with the relevant village-level Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs). Official minutes of meetings have no record of this. With only about 2000 BMCs established in a country of 500,000PLUS villages, it also does not seem to be a remote possibility that such consultations were carried out!
In 2002, India enacted its Biological Diversity Act in response to its obligations to the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This legislation puts into place an institutional structure where approvals on access to India's biodiversity, its sustainable use and sharing of benefits arising out of that use are determined. The legislation also puts forth imperatives for conservation through mechanisms of protection of local knowledge, declaration of Heritage sites etc.
The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) based in Chennai that has been entrusted with most of the decisive role, with some also prescribed for State level Biodiversity Boards and village level Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs).
Over the last six and half years, foremost on the priority in the implementation of this law has been setting into place the mechanisms for grant of access to biological resources for research and commercial use, third party transfer of material and research as well as permissions for IPRs. (see here; here and here). A significant conflict of interest-issue has come to light in the grant of such permissions under the NBA. The NBA's Expert Committee for Evaluation of Applications for Access, Seeking Patent, Transfer of Research Results and Third Party Transfer of Bioresources handles approvals for access to or transfer of intellectual property rights (IPR). Many of the institutions or departments who have also sent in applications for IPR consideration are represented on the committee itself.
Examples of IPR approvals give by the expert committee:
CSIR received approval for a new product derived from the fruit of Mangroves Xylocarpus species), found in the Sundarbans, Andaman, Orissa coast, Goa, Maharashtra and Pichavaram (Tamilnadu). A former CSIR department head was on the committee when approval was given.
Syngenta received approval for transfer of imported vip3A gene from Baaccillus thuringiensis (Bt) to Cotton and these were multiplied and utilised for making various crosses. A Syngenta consultant was on the committee when approval was given.
• From biodiversity to biotech • The downward spiralWhile this committee has been reconstituted three times since October 2005, it has had several meetings since then, with the last one being in January 2009. During this period there have been various applications from government-affiliated bodies such as National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), NRC on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants etc., all of which had a representative on the committee even while the recommendation for the approval was given.
For instance, in the 23 January 2009 meeting of the committee, a collaborative research project application for the export of guava fruit cultivars from the Germplasm Exchange Division of NBPGR was considered by the committee when and a senior scientist from NBPGR, Dr Pratibha Brahmi, was part of the decision making. An earlier Expert Committee with the tenure from August 2007 to February 2008 had only one meeting. With an emeritus scientist, Dr K V P R Tilak (former Head, Microbiology, of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research) on the Committee, 126 requests by CSIR for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) were considered and approved. In yet another instance, an application for third party transfer by the multi national seed giant, Syngenta Inc, was approved when a consultant of the company, Dr Dasgupta, was a member of the committee.
Nor do the minutes of the meetings available on the NBA website do not indicate that such members on the committee abstained from being part of the decisions.
In May 2009, over 50 organisations and individuals came together and wrote to the NBA and the nodal Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) highlighting this major conflict of interest in the approvals process. The letter brings out the likely bias and lack of independent decision making with regards to this committee. The letter also raises objection to the fact that while Syngenta's consultant finds a place on the committee, there is no representation from local communities, farmers' groups, conservation organisations, political parties or civil society organizations. While concluding, the letter demands actions that range from revocation of the approvals to the reconstitution of the committee.
The composition of these committees is not prescribed in the Biological Diversity Act. The legislation only prescribes the composition of the National Biodiversity Authority, State Boards and BMCs. It allows of the NBA to set up specialised committees to achieve the legislation's objectives. It is the NBA which decides on the members. Currently, members are primarily from Government of India Departments (GoI). There are several committees set up related to specific tasks of documentation, designation of repositories, identification of endangered species and so on.
On 14 May 2009, the NBA responded, stating among other things that "the members of every committee of NBA are experts in their respective fields and are persons of high integrity and credibility. All recommendations made by these expert committees are within the parameters of law. All decisions on approvals made by the Authority are in National Interest and the same have not been compromised at any level." This is ironic as the evidence presented in the letter states a clear conflict of interest in the decisions. The letter calls the allegations as "hasty and defamatory" but does not systematically refute them.
Conflict of interest apart, the current approvals process is proceeding without other required bodies envisaged in the law for checks-and-balances. Take for example the approval granted to Kemin Industries Inc, Chennai to collect water samples from paddy fields from ten locations in Tamilnadu and Kerala. The company wanted the water samples for "screening microorganisms, particularly bacteria and fungi from paddy fields in South India having enzyme activity for fiber degradation." In January 2009, the NBA's expert committee met in Chennai and granted approval and also determined the percentage of the gross sales to be paid to the NBA to be 5 per cent. (This money goes to the NBA fund.) Kemin Industries Inc is a US-headquartered bioscience firm.
Why was it not felt necessary to wait for the BMCs to be set up, carry out the mandatory consultation process and only then grant the approval? This is where the difficulty is: The law mandates that BMCs are to be set up, but there is no clarity on who will set them up. Panchayats, for example, can set up their own BMCs. However the NBA and the state boards are of the view that setting up the BMCs is a facilitative function of the state boards, even the law itself does not explicitly say so.
In sum, it is a worrisome state of affairs. Way back in 1984-85, in an article in the State of India's Environment-1984-85: The Second Citizen's Report, by Dunu Roy had written: "Why is it that even though a host of data, statistics and experience is mustered to back arguments about the protection of the environment, those in authority pay no attention, and even when they do and policy is framed, it is never implemented in the way the policy is designed?" It is 25 years since that statement was made, and one feels the same despair while continuing to hope otherwise.
None of the approvals granted by the NBA have followed a mandatory legal provision of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 (Section 41 (2)), where it is prescribed that approvals are to be granted only after consultations with the relevant village-level Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs). Official minutes of meetings have no record of this. With only about 2000 BMCs established in a country of 500,000PLUS villages, it also does not seem to be a remote possibility that such consultations were carried out!
In 2002, India enacted its Biological Diversity Act in response to its obligations to the international Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This legislation puts into place an institutional structure where approvals on access to India's biodiversity, its sustainable use and sharing of benefits arising out of that use are determined. The legislation also puts forth imperatives for conservation through mechanisms of protection of local knowledge, declaration of Heritage sites etc.
The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) based in Chennai that has been entrusted with most of the decisive role, with some also prescribed for State level Biodiversity Boards and village level Biodiversity Management Committees (BMCs).
Over the last six and half years, foremost on the priority in the implementation of this law has been setting into place the mechanisms for grant of access to biological resources for research and commercial use, third party transfer of material and research as well as permissions for IPRs. (see here; here and here). A significant conflict of interest-issue has come to light in the grant of such permissions under the NBA. The NBA's Expert Committee for Evaluation of Applications for Access, Seeking Patent, Transfer of Research Results and Third Party Transfer of Bioresources handles approvals for access to or transfer of intellectual property rights (IPR). Many of the institutions or departments who have also sent in applications for IPR consideration are represented on the committee itself.
Examples of IPR approvals give by the expert committee:
CSIR received approval for a new product derived from the fruit of Mangroves Xylocarpus species), found in the Sundarbans, Andaman, Orissa coast, Goa, Maharashtra and Pichavaram (Tamilnadu). A former CSIR department head was on the committee when approval was given.
Syngenta received approval for transfer of imported vip3A gene from Baaccillus thuringiensis (Bt) to Cotton and these were multiplied and utilised for making various crosses. A Syngenta consultant was on the committee when approval was given.
• From biodiversity to biotech • The downward spiralWhile this committee has been reconstituted three times since October 2005, it has had several meetings since then, with the last one being in January 2009. During this period there have been various applications from government-affiliated bodies such as National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), NRC on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants etc., all of which had a representative on the committee even while the recommendation for the approval was given.
For instance, in the 23 January 2009 meeting of the committee, a collaborative research project application for the export of guava fruit cultivars from the Germplasm Exchange Division of NBPGR was considered by the committee when and a senior scientist from NBPGR, Dr Pratibha Brahmi, was part of the decision making. An earlier Expert Committee with the tenure from August 2007 to February 2008 had only one meeting. With an emeritus scientist, Dr K V P R Tilak (former Head, Microbiology, of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research) on the Committee, 126 requests by CSIR for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) were considered and approved. In yet another instance, an application for third party transfer by the multi national seed giant, Syngenta Inc, was approved when a consultant of the company, Dr Dasgupta, was a member of the committee.
Nor do the minutes of the meetings available on the NBA website do not indicate that such members on the committee abstained from being part of the decisions.
In May 2009, over 50 organisations and individuals came together and wrote to the NBA and the nodal Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) highlighting this major conflict of interest in the approvals process. The letter brings out the likely bias and lack of independent decision making with regards to this committee. The letter also raises objection to the fact that while Syngenta's consultant finds a place on the committee, there is no representation from local communities, farmers' groups, conservation organisations, political parties or civil society organizations. While concluding, the letter demands actions that range from revocation of the approvals to the reconstitution of the committee.
The composition of these committees is not prescribed in the Biological Diversity Act. The legislation only prescribes the composition of the National Biodiversity Authority, State Boards and BMCs. It allows of the NBA to set up specialised committees to achieve the legislation's objectives. It is the NBA which decides on the members. Currently, members are primarily from Government of India Departments (GoI). There are several committees set up related to specific tasks of documentation, designation of repositories, identification of endangered species and so on.
On 14 May 2009, the NBA responded, stating among other things that "the members of every committee of NBA are experts in their respective fields and are persons of high integrity and credibility. All recommendations made by these expert committees are within the parameters of law. All decisions on approvals made by the Authority are in National Interest and the same have not been compromised at any level." This is ironic as the evidence presented in the letter states a clear conflict of interest in the decisions. The letter calls the allegations as "hasty and defamatory" but does not systematically refute them.
Conflict of interest apart, the current approvals process is proceeding without other required bodies envisaged in the law for checks-and-balances. Take for example the approval granted to Kemin Industries Inc, Chennai to collect water samples from paddy fields from ten locations in Tamilnadu and Kerala. The company wanted the water samples for "screening microorganisms, particularly bacteria and fungi from paddy fields in South India having enzyme activity for fiber degradation." In January 2009, the NBA's expert committee met in Chennai and granted approval and also determined the percentage of the gross sales to be paid to the NBA to be 5 per cent. (This money goes to the NBA fund.) Kemin Industries Inc is a US-headquartered bioscience firm.
Why was it not felt necessary to wait for the BMCs to be set up, carry out the mandatory consultation process and only then grant the approval? This is where the difficulty is: The law mandates that BMCs are to be set up, but there is no clarity on who will set them up. Panchayats, for example, can set up their own BMCs. However the NBA and the state boards are of the view that setting up the BMCs is a facilitative function of the state boards, even the law itself does not explicitly say so.
In sum, it is a worrisome state of affairs. Way back in 1984-85, in an article in the State of India's Environment-1984-85: The Second Citizen's Report, by Dunu Roy had written: "Why is it that even though a host of data, statistics and experience is mustered to back arguments about the protection of the environment, those in authority pay no attention, and even when they do and policy is framed, it is never implemented in the way the policy is designed?" It is 25 years since that statement was made, and one feels the same despair while continuing to hope otherwise.
Carbon Dioxide- green energy source!
Scientists here have succeeded in converting a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide into a green energy source.
Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) researchers said that they used organocatalysts to help carbon dioxide (CO2) produce methanol, a widely used industrial feedstock and clean-burning biofuel.
Organocatalysts are catalysts that comprise non-metallic elements found in organic compounds. They can be produced easily at low cost.
The scientists made CO2 react by using N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs), an organocatalyst, which unlike heavy, toxic and unstable metal catalysts are stable, even in the presence of oxygen.
"NHCs have shown tremendous potential for activating and fixing carbon dioxide. Our work can contribute towards transforming excess carbon dioxide in the environment into useful products such as methanol," said Siti Nurhanna Riduan, IBN senior lab officer.
Previous attempts to convert CO2 into more useful products have required more energy input and a much longer reaction time. They also require transition metal catalysts, which are both unstable in oxygen and expensive, said an IBN release.
Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology (IBN) researchers said that they used organocatalysts to help carbon dioxide (CO2) produce methanol, a widely used industrial feedstock and clean-burning biofuel.
Organocatalysts are catalysts that comprise non-metallic elements found in organic compounds. They can be produced easily at low cost.
The scientists made CO2 react by using N-heterocyclic carbenes (NHCs), an organocatalyst, which unlike heavy, toxic and unstable metal catalysts are stable, even in the presence of oxygen.
"NHCs have shown tremendous potential for activating and fixing carbon dioxide. Our work can contribute towards transforming excess carbon dioxide in the environment into useful products such as methanol," said Siti Nurhanna Riduan, IBN senior lab officer.
Previous attempts to convert CO2 into more useful products have required more energy input and a much longer reaction time. They also require transition metal catalysts, which are both unstable in oxygen and expensive, said an IBN release.
Can G8 live up to the climate challenge?
A year ago, the leaders of the world's eight leading industrialised nations promised that their children would fight climate change. This summer, they will have to show whether they are willing to do something about it themselves.
The leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US are set to meet during July 8-10 in the earthquake-stricken Italian town of L'Aquila, with climate change high on the agenda ahead of UN talks in Copenhagen in December.
The last time when the leaders from the Group of Eight (G8) met in Japan in July 2008, they agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent before 2050.
Environmental groups attacked that pledge, saying that the leaders at the summit would be dead long before the target date, and that the target itself was meaningless, since it did not say what year would be used as the base for calculating the actual size of the cut.
Now the pressure is on for G8 members to set shorter-range targets which they themselves might have to implement.
Italy, which currently holds the G8 presidency, wants the meeting to agree that global emissions should peak by 2020 and that world temperature change should be limited to 2 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels.
Those two targets are based on the research of the UN's climate change experts, and have already been accepted in the EU.
But they have not yet been endorsed by the G8's non-European members, with the US and Japan - the world's two biggest economies - saying that it would be wrong to agree on a mid-term target and overall temperature goal before the Copenhagen talks.
G8 members are also at odds over the question of how each one should define its national emissions reduction targets.
EU members want the G8 to use 1990 as the "base year" for calculating cuts. The EU has already put that policy into practice by pledging to cut emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to go to 30 per cent if other major economies follow suit.
EU emissions have fallen by some eight percent since 1990, meaning that the bloc will have to manage a further cut of some 12 per cent compared with 1990 over the next 12 years.
But the US and Japan, whose emissions have risen by close on 20 per cent since 1990, say that they cannot accept 1990 as a base year, because this would leave them having to make much steeper cuts than their European economic rivals.
The duo, who are currently eyeing cuts which would bring them back to or just below 1990 levels by 2020, insist that any G8 deal should be based on the principle of equal effort from now on.
That is unlikely to go down well in the EU and Russia, who want to be given the maximum possible credit for their post-1990 cuts.
Meetings on the fringes of the G8 summit are also set to be fraught, with the Major Economies Forum (MEF) - the G8 plus Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Mexico and South Africa - also due to debate thorny issues of global warming.
The thorniest is the question of how rich countries should pay poor ones to fight climate change - and who counts as "poor".
Estimates of the amount needed to support less wealthy states in the climate change fight range from $100 billion to $200 billion a year by 2020. Britain has proposed a $100-billion-a-year fund, to be funded by the sale of emissions permits and by development aid.
On June 19, an EU summit urged leading powers to agree on a formula for splitting the bill, based on their historical emissions and current wealth.
They also said that major developing economies should chip in.
Both calls are likely to provoke fierce debate in L'Aquila - especially since EU members have, as yet, been unable to agree how they themselves should split the EU's share of the total global bill.
But with the Copenhagen talks just five months away, G8 and MEF leaders are likely to find that the pressure is on them to agree to action for this decade, rather than the next.
The leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the US are set to meet during July 8-10 in the earthquake-stricken Italian town of L'Aquila, with climate change high on the agenda ahead of UN talks in Copenhagen in December.
The last time when the leaders from the Group of Eight (G8) met in Japan in July 2008, they agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent before 2050.
Environmental groups attacked that pledge, saying that the leaders at the summit would be dead long before the target date, and that the target itself was meaningless, since it did not say what year would be used as the base for calculating the actual size of the cut.
Now the pressure is on for G8 members to set shorter-range targets which they themselves might have to implement.
Italy, which currently holds the G8 presidency, wants the meeting to agree that global emissions should peak by 2020 and that world temperature change should be limited to 2 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels.
Those two targets are based on the research of the UN's climate change experts, and have already been accepted in the EU.
But they have not yet been endorsed by the G8's non-European members, with the US and Japan - the world's two biggest economies - saying that it would be wrong to agree on a mid-term target and overall temperature goal before the Copenhagen talks.
G8 members are also at odds over the question of how each one should define its national emissions reduction targets.
EU members want the G8 to use 1990 as the "base year" for calculating cuts. The EU has already put that policy into practice by pledging to cut emissions to 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and to go to 30 per cent if other major economies follow suit.
EU emissions have fallen by some eight percent since 1990, meaning that the bloc will have to manage a further cut of some 12 per cent compared with 1990 over the next 12 years.
But the US and Japan, whose emissions have risen by close on 20 per cent since 1990, say that they cannot accept 1990 as a base year, because this would leave them having to make much steeper cuts than their European economic rivals.
The duo, who are currently eyeing cuts which would bring them back to or just below 1990 levels by 2020, insist that any G8 deal should be based on the principle of equal effort from now on.
That is unlikely to go down well in the EU and Russia, who want to be given the maximum possible credit for their post-1990 cuts.
Meetings on the fringes of the G8 summit are also set to be fraught, with the Major Economies Forum (MEF) - the G8 plus Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, South Korea, Mexico and South Africa - also due to debate thorny issues of global warming.
The thorniest is the question of how rich countries should pay poor ones to fight climate change - and who counts as "poor".
Estimates of the amount needed to support less wealthy states in the climate change fight range from $100 billion to $200 billion a year by 2020. Britain has proposed a $100-billion-a-year fund, to be funded by the sale of emissions permits and by development aid.
On June 19, an EU summit urged leading powers to agree on a formula for splitting the bill, based on their historical emissions and current wealth.
They also said that major developing economies should chip in.
Both calls are likely to provoke fierce debate in L'Aquila - especially since EU members have, as yet, been unable to agree how they themselves should split the EU's share of the total global bill.
But with the Copenhagen talks just five months away, G8 and MEF leaders are likely to find that the pressure is on them to agree to action for this decade, rather than the next.
Russia rejects G8 emissions cut target
ussia has refused to back a target of an 80 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 proposed by the Group of Eight (G8) countries, a Kremlin aide said on Wednesday after the first day of the G8 summit.
At a news conference earlier in the day, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the world's richest nations should cut their emissions by 80 per cent by the middle of the century.
Arkady Dvorkovich, who is accompanying President Dmitry Medvedev at the summit in the central Italian mountain town of L'Aquila, told reporters: "We will not sacrifice our economic growth to meet emissions cuts. Economic growth must be effective. Everyone spoke about this."
He called the 80 per cent target "unacceptable, and probably unattainable".
Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden, which holds the European Union (EU) presidency, earlier said the G8 had agreed to set targets that would limit the likely rise in global temperatures due to man-made emissions to no more than two degrees Celsius. He also said 1990 should be set as the base year for measuring emission reductions.
At a news conference earlier in the day, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said the world's richest nations should cut their emissions by 80 per cent by the middle of the century.
Arkady Dvorkovich, who is accompanying President Dmitry Medvedev at the summit in the central Italian mountain town of L'Aquila, told reporters: "We will not sacrifice our economic growth to meet emissions cuts. Economic growth must be effective. Everyone spoke about this."
He called the 80 per cent target "unacceptable, and probably unattainable".
Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt of Sweden, which holds the European Union (EU) presidency, earlier said the G8 had agreed to set targets that would limit the likely rise in global temperatures due to man-made emissions to no more than two degrees Celsius. He also said 1990 should be set as the base year for measuring emission reductions.
Environmentalists unfurl Mt. Rushmore banner
Environmentalists who used National Park Service rock anchors to scale Mount Rushmore and unfurl an anti-global warming banner along President Abraham Lincoln's face Wednesday were charged with trespassing.
The 11 activists also were charged with the misdemeanor crime of climbing on Mount Rushmore National Monument, U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley said. They pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The environmental group Greenpeace said in a statement that its members used the park service's existing rock anchors to scale the mountain and unfurl a 65-foot (20-meter)-by-35-foot (10.7-meter) banner reading, "America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming."
Mount Rushmore Ranger Nav Singh said security warnings and tourists alerted officials when the banner was unrolled. The banner was removed about an hour after it was unfurled.
"You can't create any security system that's 100 percent fail-safe. There's just not enough resources for that," Singh said. "Determined individuals that are properly equipped and willing to do damage to government property can do this sort of thing."
Taken away in handcuffs and foot chainsTwelve people were taken away in handcuffs and foot chains. The 12th person taken into custody was released without being charged, Jackley said.
The National Park Service said in a statement that its staff and security detected the activists early and responded "within minutes." Visitors were not in danger, authorities said.
Park service staff remained at the mountain Wednesday to assess damage to the sculpture and security systems.
A number of demonstrations have taken place at Mount Rushmore over the years. In the early 1970s, American Indian Movement members tried several times to occupy and deface the monument. In August 1970, AIM members hung a banner with the words "Sioux Indian Power" on the monument.
In October 1987, Greenpeace activists tried unsuccessfully to unfurl a banner shaped like a gas mask over George Washington's face. That banner said, "We the People Say No to Acid Rain."
Security measures were beefed up after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The 11 activists charged Wednesday were released on their own recognizance after the court hearing. A trespassing conviction carries up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine, prosecutors said.
The 11 activists also were charged with the misdemeanor crime of climbing on Mount Rushmore National Monument, U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley said. They pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The environmental group Greenpeace said in a statement that its members used the park service's existing rock anchors to scale the mountain and unfurl a 65-foot (20-meter)-by-35-foot (10.7-meter) banner reading, "America honors leaders not politicians: Stop Global Warming."
Mount Rushmore Ranger Nav Singh said security warnings and tourists alerted officials when the banner was unrolled. The banner was removed about an hour after it was unfurled.
"You can't create any security system that's 100 percent fail-safe. There's just not enough resources for that," Singh said. "Determined individuals that are properly equipped and willing to do damage to government property can do this sort of thing."
Taken away in handcuffs and foot chainsTwelve people were taken away in handcuffs and foot chains. The 12th person taken into custody was released without being charged, Jackley said.
The National Park Service said in a statement that its staff and security detected the activists early and responded "within minutes." Visitors were not in danger, authorities said.
Park service staff remained at the mountain Wednesday to assess damage to the sculpture and security systems.
A number of demonstrations have taken place at Mount Rushmore over the years. In the early 1970s, American Indian Movement members tried several times to occupy and deface the monument. In August 1970, AIM members hung a banner with the words "Sioux Indian Power" on the monument.
In October 1987, Greenpeace activists tried unsuccessfully to unfurl a banner shaped like a gas mask over George Washington's face. That banner said, "We the People Say No to Acid Rain."
Security measures were beefed up after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The 11 activists charged Wednesday were released on their own recognizance after the court hearing. A trespassing conviction carries up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine, prosecutors said.
H2-WHOA! Australian town bans bottled water
Residents of a rural Australian town hoping to protect the earth and their wallets have voted to ban the sale of bottled water, the first community in the country — and possibly the world — to take such a drastic step in the growing backlash against the industry.
Residents of Bundanoon cheered after their near-unanimous approval of the measure at a town meeting Wednesday. It was the second blow to Australia's beverage industry in one day: Hours earlier, the New South Wales state premier banned all state departments and agencies from buying bottled water, calling it a waste of money and natural resources.
"I have never seen 350 Australians in the same room all agreeing to something," said Jon Dee, who helped spearhead the "Bundy on Tap" campaign in Bundanoon, a town of 2,500 about 100 miles (160 kilometers) south of Sydney. "It's time for people to realize they're being conned by the bottled water industry
First popularized in the 1980s as a convenient, healthy alternative to sugary drinks, bottled water today is often criticized as an environmental menace, with bottles cluttering landfills and requiring large amounts of energy to produce and transport.
America's 'Think Outside the Bottle' campaignOver the past few years, at least 60 cities in the United States and a handful of others in Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed to stop spending taxpayer dollars on bottled water, which is often consumed during city meetings, said Deborah Lapidus, organizer of Corporate Accountability International's "Think Outside the Bottle" campaign in the U.S.
But the Boston-based nonprofit corporate watchdog has never heard of a community banning the sale of bottled water, she said.
"I think what this town is doing is taking it one step further and recognizing that there's safe drinking water coming out of our taps," she said.
Bundanoon's battle against the bottle has been brewing for years, ever since a Sydney-based beverage company announced plans to build a water extraction plant in the town. Residents were furious over the prospect of an outsider taking their water, trucking it up to Sydney for processing and then selling it back to them. The town is still fighting the company's proposal in court.
Then in March, Huw Kingston, who owns the town's combination cafe and bike shop, had a thought: If the town was so against hosting a water bottling company, why not ban the end product?
Reusable bottles proposedTo prevent lost profit in the 10-or-so town businesses that sell bottled water, Kingston suggested they instead sell reusable bottles for about the same price. Residents will be able to fill the bottles for free at public water fountains, or pay a small fee to fill them with filtered water kept in the stores.
The measure will not impose penalties on those who don't comply when it goes into effect in September. Still, all the business owners voluntarily agreed to follow it, recognizing the financial and environmental drawbacks of bottled water, Kingston said.
On Wednesday, 356 people turned up for a vote — the biggest turnout ever at a town meeting.
Only two people voted no. One said he was worried banning bottled water would encourage people to drink sugary beverages. The other was Geoff Parker, director of the Australasian Bottled Water Institute — which represents the bottled water industry.
Australians spent 500 million Australian dollars ($390 million) on bottled water in 2008 — a hefty sum for a country of just under 22 million people.
Ban criticized for removing consumer choiceOn Thursday, Parker blasted the ban as unfair, misguided and ineffective.
He said the bottled water industry is a leader in researching ways to minimize bottled beverage impact on the environment. Plus, he said, the ban removes consumer choice.
"To take away someone's right to choose possibly the healthiest option in a shop fridge or a vending machine we think doesn't embrace common sense," he said.
But tap water is just as good as the stuff you find encased in plastic, said campaign organizer Dee, who also serves as director of the Australian environment group Do Something!
"We're hoping it will act as a catalyst to people's memories to remember the days when we did not have bottled water," he said. "What is 'Evian' spelled backwards? 'Naive.'"
Residents of Bundanoon cheered after their near-unanimous approval of the measure at a town meeting Wednesday. It was the second blow to Australia's beverage industry in one day: Hours earlier, the New South Wales state premier banned all state departments and agencies from buying bottled water, calling it a waste of money and natural resources.
"I have never seen 350 Australians in the same room all agreeing to something," said Jon Dee, who helped spearhead the "Bundy on Tap" campaign in Bundanoon, a town of 2,500 about 100 miles (160 kilometers) south of Sydney. "It's time for people to realize they're being conned by the bottled water industry
First popularized in the 1980s as a convenient, healthy alternative to sugary drinks, bottled water today is often criticized as an environmental menace, with bottles cluttering landfills and requiring large amounts of energy to produce and transport.
America's 'Think Outside the Bottle' campaignOver the past few years, at least 60 cities in the United States and a handful of others in Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed to stop spending taxpayer dollars on bottled water, which is often consumed during city meetings, said Deborah Lapidus, organizer of Corporate Accountability International's "Think Outside the Bottle" campaign in the U.S.
But the Boston-based nonprofit corporate watchdog has never heard of a community banning the sale of bottled water, she said.
"I think what this town is doing is taking it one step further and recognizing that there's safe drinking water coming out of our taps," she said.
Bundanoon's battle against the bottle has been brewing for years, ever since a Sydney-based beverage company announced plans to build a water extraction plant in the town. Residents were furious over the prospect of an outsider taking their water, trucking it up to Sydney for processing and then selling it back to them. The town is still fighting the company's proposal in court.
Then in March, Huw Kingston, who owns the town's combination cafe and bike shop, had a thought: If the town was so against hosting a water bottling company, why not ban the end product?
Reusable bottles proposedTo prevent lost profit in the 10-or-so town businesses that sell bottled water, Kingston suggested they instead sell reusable bottles for about the same price. Residents will be able to fill the bottles for free at public water fountains, or pay a small fee to fill them with filtered water kept in the stores.
The measure will not impose penalties on those who don't comply when it goes into effect in September. Still, all the business owners voluntarily agreed to follow it, recognizing the financial and environmental drawbacks of bottled water, Kingston said.
On Wednesday, 356 people turned up for a vote — the biggest turnout ever at a town meeting.
Only two people voted no. One said he was worried banning bottled water would encourage people to drink sugary beverages. The other was Geoff Parker, director of the Australasian Bottled Water Institute — which represents the bottled water industry.
Australians spent 500 million Australian dollars ($390 million) on bottled water in 2008 — a hefty sum for a country of just under 22 million people.
Ban criticized for removing consumer choiceOn Thursday, Parker blasted the ban as unfair, misguided and ineffective.
He said the bottled water industry is a leader in researching ways to minimize bottled beverage impact on the environment. Plus, he said, the ban removes consumer choice.
"To take away someone's right to choose possibly the healthiest option in a shop fridge or a vending machine we think doesn't embrace common sense," he said.
But tap water is just as good as the stuff you find encased in plastic, said campaign organizer Dee, who also serves as director of the Australian environment group Do Something!
"We're hoping it will act as a catalyst to people's memories to remember the days when we did not have bottled water," he said. "What is 'Evian' spelled backwards? 'Naive.'"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)