Archive for the ‘legal’ Category

“Leadership” folly

April 2, 2008

Upon reading this depressing article in the Washington Post, I had to ask a few questions:

1. Since when did a fence ever stop illegal immigrants?

2. I wonder who received the financial kickback from the ‘fence company’?

3. When will governments and so-called “leaders” (leaders into darkness, I reckon) wake up to the fact that the earth is their livelihood and there is only so much it can take before it loses the ability to support us in the manner many are apparently accustomed?

Washington Post Article:

Environmental Laws to Be Waived for Fence

National Guardsmen weld a section of wall being erected along the international border that separates San Luis, Mexico, and San Luis, Ariz., in this file photo.
National Guardsmen weld a section of wall being erected along the international border that separates San Luis, Mexico, and San Luis, Ariz., in this file photo. (Matt York - Associated Press)
Lawmaker Accuses Administration of Abusing Authority to Build Barrier at Mexican Border

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 2, 2008; Page A04

The Bush administration will waive more than 30 environmental and land-management laws in order to finish building 470 miles of border fence in the Southwest by the end of the year, officials said yesterday.

The move, permitted under an exemption granted by Congress, will be the most sweeping use of the administration’s waiver authority since it started building the fence to curb illegal immigration. It will affect environmentally sensitive areas in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

In a statement, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff said the agency has no choice but to bypass the standard environment reviews required of the federal government. “Criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless debate or protracted litigation,” Chertoff said. “Congress and the American public have been adamant that they want and expect border security. We’re serious about delivering it, and these waivers will enable important security projects to keep moving forward. At the same time, we value the need for public input on any potential impact of our border infrastructure plans on the environment — and we will continue to solicit it.”

However, Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, said the administration has exceeded what Congress intended when it granted the department added flexibility under the Real ID Act. “Today’s waiver represents an extreme abuse of authority,” he said in a statement. “Waiver authority should only be used as a last resort, not simply because the Department has failed to get the job done through the normal process. It was meant to be an exception, not the rule.”

The use of the waiver authority means that the agency will not have to conduct detailed reviews of how the fence’s components will affect wildlife, water quality and vegetation in the area where it is to be built. Some environmentalists have complained that the fence will disrupt the migrations of various species, including imperiled ones such as jaguars.

Two environmental advocacy organizations, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club, have filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the waiver provision. Rodger Schlickeisen, Defenders of Wildlife’s president, said yesterday’s announcement bolsters his group’s argument.

“Thanks to this action by the Bush administration, the border is in a sense more lawless now than when Americans first started moving West,” Schlickeisen said in a statement. “Laws ensuring clean water and clean air for us and our children — dismissed. Laws protecting wildlife, land, rivers, streams and places of cultural significance — just a bother to the Bush administration. Laws giving American citizens a voice in the process — gone. Clearly this is out of control.”

James L. Connaughton, who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said his aides have been working with the Department of Homeland Security to assess the environmental impact of the fence construction even if it does not meet the strict requirements of the law.

In a telephone interview yesterday, Connaughton said the administration is trying “to comply to the extent possible while meeting the deadline” for the fence’s construction.

global environmental court?

September 27, 2007


UNITED NATIONS, Sep 24 (IPS) - As the United Nations takes an increasingly dominant role in guiding the climate change debate, there is renewed interest in a longstanding proposal for the creation of an international court to try environmental crimes.
But some diplomats and environmentalists are sceptical whether such a court will have the political support of the overwhelming majority of the U.N.’s 192 member states for it to be a reality.”It took ages for the creation of an international war crimes tribunal,” says one Third World diplomat, “and a world court for environmental crimes can take generations.”

Satish Kumar, an avowed environmentalist and editor of the London-based environmental magazine Resurgence, is a strong advocate of such a court.

“We have no right to make waste,” he argues. “And if I dump my waste on your house, it’s a crime. You can take me to court.”

“But if we put our waste on nature, nature can’t take us to court? Nature should have a right to take us to court. And the United Nations should establish a nature court,” Kumar told IPS.

He pointed out that environmental crimes — from the dumping of toxic wastes to the military destruction of natural resources — should be deemed “crimes against nature”.

Dr. Franoise Burhenne-Guilmin, senior counsel at the Environmental Law Centre of the Switzerland-based International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), thinks the proposal may hit legal and logistical snags.

“IUCN has never taken a formal position on this matter, but members of the Commission on Environmental Law (CEL) have discussed the issue in the past,” he told IPS.

He pointed out that the idea of a specific international court for environmental crimes was not supported by the CEL on the basis that they thought it would not be feasible.

“To establish such a court, people would need to agree on what constitutes an environmental crime,” Burhenne-Guilmin said.

Even if such a court were established, the rules which would have to be put in place in order for it to function would be very difficult to agree on, he added. 

. . . read the rest of the IPS article by Thalif Deen

A Global Environmental Court? I see great opportunities for protecting the environment, a task which has yet to truly move beyond individual activists, but I can also see why the detractors might be concerned. here will be many an argument regarding what is and what is not and environmental crime. But I cannot see the harm in trying! Perhaps, if we can find consensus on what constitutes an environmental crime we could move forward - at the very least looking after our planet a little better if not saving it from ourselves.

Which then reminds me of that rare Homo neophilus character mentioned in my last post of the 26th September and begs the question; ”Can a large, global corporation be anything but a Homo neophobus?” Can the UN, for the most part concerned mostly about what the environment can provide for humanity (or rather - a select few, well-heeled members of society), truly provide a meaningful platform to address environmental crimes?