| Tuesday, June 21, 2005 |  |
| New Group Forming to Promote Progressive Legislation at State Level | 0 comments |
| 21 Jun 2005 @ 00:10 New Group Forming to Promote Progressive Legislation at State Level New Group Hopes to Reward 'Progressives' By CHARLES S. JOHNSON Gazette State Bureau HELENA -- A new Helena-based national group, the Progressive Legislative Action Network, or PLAN, will be launched this summer to provide policy, communication and resources to "forward-thinking, progressive state legislators," its leaders said Thursday. The co-chairmen are former Montana Senate Minority Leader Steve Doherty, D-Great Falls, and David Sirota, a Helena author who will be leaving his position as a fellow at the Center for American Progress to assume his new role. The organization plans a formal kickoff event on Aug. 16 in Seattle to coincide with the annual meeting of the National Conference of State Legislators. The event will feature Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, former California House Speaker Willie Brown and former vice presidential candidate John Edwards. Panel discussions will be held on how to enact concrete progressive policies at the state level. Details can be found at http://www.progressivestates.com . "A number of different people have been talking about it, and a number of people have recognized that the states are where the action is," Doherty said in a phone interview. "That's where the high falutin' policy meets the road, as opposed to Congress." He said this kind of progressive coordination hasn't taken place around the country, even though conservative lawmakers have had the American Legislative Exchange Council performing that role for 30 years. Some separate progressive groups exist for state lawmakers on environmental issues, some on economic and social justice and some that provide leadership training, Doherty said. "This is kind of pulling it all together," he said. "How do we put that together so you don't get the situation of the wheel being reinvented 50 times?" Doherty said he and Sirota are in the process of getting a board of directors assembled so they can raise money, hire a staff and visit with progressive legislators. In response to the announcement, Montana Republican Chairman Karl Ohs said, "It's hard to imagine the issues that I heard about really resonate with Montanans. I believe the Republican values really fall in line with the majority of Montanans more than the progressive viewpoint." "With an entrenched majority in Washington, D.C., that ignores the needs of ordinary Americans, the real fight has moved to the states," Sirota said in a press release. "PLAN will take the lead in crafting innovative policy solutions to improve the lives of Americans across the country. For far too long, right-wing groups have dominated the debate at the state level. With PLAN, that is going to change." Sirota previously was spokesman for Democrats on the U.S. House Appropriations Committee. He is currently completing a book on the middle-class economic squeeze that will be published by Random House's Crown Publishers in next spring. He is a contributor to The Nation and a columnist for In These Times, a twice-weekly guest on "The Al Franken Show" and has a Web log, that features his opinions on politician issues. PLAN already has rented office space in Helena and has hired a former Montana Senate aide, Jamey Petersen, to help it figure out a fundraising strategy. "I think it's important that it be in a state like Montana," said Doherty, a lawyer who served 12 years in the Senate and now is chairman of the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission. "We want to look at real-life solutions to real-life problems." |
| G8 Climate Action Plan Weakened to Suit United States | 0 comments |
| 21 Jun 2005 @ 00:07 G8 Climate Action Plan Weakened to Suit United States LONDON, UK, June 17, 2005 (ENS) - The G8 plan to combat climate change has been "watered down" to satisfy the United States, an environmental group said today after viewing a leaked draft prepared in advance of next month's G8 Summit at the Gleneagles Hotel in Scotland. Friends of the Earth reacted "with anger" at the content of the draft communique on climate change entitled "Gleneagles Plan of Action," and dated June 14. Compared to an earlier draft leaked on May 2, which itself had no specific targets or timetables for action, this version appears to be even weaker. The latest draft "worryingly even calls into question scientists' warnings that global climate change is already under way," Friends of the Earth said. A dry riverbed in the U.S. state of Virginia may be the result of global warming. (Photo courtesy Virginia D0F) On June 7, the national science academies of all the G8 countries - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States - plus the three largest developing countries, Brazil, China and India, issued joint statement declaring "there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring." "It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities," the scientific academies said, adding, "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action." Friends of the Earth International's climate campaigner Catherine Pearce said, ³Every reference to the urgency of action or the need for real cuts in emissions has been deleted or challenged. Nothing in this text recognizes the scale or urgency of the crisis of climate change." G8 Summit host, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, has vowed to put action to limit climate change at the top of the G8 agenda, but with just 17 days to go before the leaders of the world's eight wealthiest nations meet at the Gleneagles Hotel, it appears that the draft action plan is being weakened so that little action will result. Enclosed in square brackets, which mean that unanimous agreement has not been reached, are the statements, "[Our world is warming.]" and "[The statement issued by the science academies in June 2005 said that there is now 'strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring' and that 'this warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.]" Other bracketed statements include, "[The world's developed economies have a responsibility to show leadership.]" and the phrase "[and reduce greenhouse gas emissions]" "[Those of us who have ratified the Kyoto Protocol welcome its entry into force and will work to make it a success.]" was enclosed in brackets. Also bracketed was a much longer statement about the Kyoto Protocol that would strengthen its greenhouse gas emissions trading system and flexible market mechanisms that facilitate investment in carbon neutral projects. The environmentalists believe the changes were made at the insistence of the Bush administration, which has declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, although the United States signed the accord under the Clinton administration. All of the other G8 nations have ratified the protocol that requires an average 5.2 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2012. "Gleneagles Plan of Action," dated June 14 shows square brackets around statements that lack 100 percent agreement. After listening to U.S. chief climate negotiator Harlan Watson speaking on the BBC's Today Programme on May 13, Pearce said, "The G8 meeting provides an unprecedented opportunity for the richest nations to address the biggest threat facing our planet, but this opportunity will be missed due to the disgraceful, outdated and downright dangerous behavior of the U.S." In the "Gleneagles Plan of Action," square brackets were also inserted into a commitment to work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) to provide an assessment of the climate impact of aviation. The words [the IPCC] are bracketed, indicating less than unanimous agreement to work with the panel of more than 2,500 scientists established by the World Meteorological Organization and the UN Environment Programme to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information about climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. At a minimum Friends of the Earth says the G8 must state "agreement on the compelling scientific evidence showing that climate change is already happening and that urgent action is now required to substantially reduce emissions." The group urges an agreement by G8 nations for "specific, substantial and timetabled cuts in their domestic emissions of greenhouse gases." "If they can¹t do better than this," said Pearce, "the outcome of G8 summit will be worse that hot air - it will be a backward step in international climate change policy, simply adding to climate injustice.² Also bracketed is a a proposal to launch "[a Global Bioenergy Partnership to support wider cost effective biomass and biofuels deployment, particularly in developing countries where biomass use is prevalent...]" Seal on melting ice floes. (Photo courtesy David Suzuki Foundation) Friends of the Earth Scotland's Chief Executive Duncan McLaren, said, "Any suggestion that G8's visit to Scotland would produce anything meaningful on tackling climate change is rapidly evaporating." "The first draft of this document was bad, this update is even worse," said McLaren. All reference to funding for climate change research was deleted from the latest version of the communique. "G8 countries represent just 13 per cent of the world's population, but account for 45 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," McLaren said. "A climate plan of action, by the world's richest nations that does not include targets, timetables and extra funding is of no use to future climate victims." Speaking to Channel 4 News former British Environment Minister Michael Meacher said it is "extraordinary" that doubt is being cast on the simple assertion that the world is getting warmer. "Presumably it was taken out because of the Americans," he said. Other British officials said there are drafts and drafts in the days before any international summit, and the only draft that matters is the one signed at Gleneagles. |
| Nanotech's "Second Nature" Patents | 0 comments |
| 21 Jun 2005 @ 00:06 Patenting "Second Nature": Nanotechnology Patents Will Supercharge Global Corporate Control 16 June 2005 ETC Group Releases New Report on Nanotechnology and Intellectual Property: Nanotech's "Second Nature" Patents The full text of the 36-page report is available here Twenty-five years after the biotech industry got the green light to patent life, nanotech goes after the building blocks of life. On the 25th anniversary of Diamond vs. Chakrabarty,* the US Supreme Court's landmark decision (June 16, 1980) that opened the floodgates to the patenting of living organisms, ETC Group releases a new report, "Nanotech's 'Second Nature' Patents." Since Chakrabarty, the biotech industry has worked hand-in-hand with governments to allow for the patenting of all biological products - the first monopoly grab over life. Chakrabarty set the stage for today's nanotechnology patents, where the reach of exclusive monopoly is not just on life - but the building blocks of life - nanotech's 'second nature' patents," explains Hope Shand, Research Director of ETC Group. ETC Group's new report examines current trends in intellectual property and nanotechnology and the implications for the developing world. Nanotechnology refers to the manipulation of matter at the scale of atoms and molecules, where size is measured in billionths of meters. The world's largest transnationals, leading academic labs and nanotech start-ups are all racing to win monopoly control of tiny tech's colossal market. "Control and ownership of nanotech is a vital issue for all governments and civil society because nanomaterials and processes can be applied to virtually any manufactured good across all industry sectors," said Kathy Jo Wetter of ETC Group. "Patents are being granted that cut across multiple industry sectors - a single nano-scale innovation may span pharma, food, electronics and materials alike," continues Wetter. The US National Science Foundation predicts that nanotechnology will capture a $1 trillion dollar market within six or seven years. ETC Group finds that breathtakingly broad nanotech patents have been granted that cut across multiple industry sectors and include sweeping claims on entire areas of the Periodic Table. Although industry analysts assert that nanotechnology is in its infancy, "patent thickets" on fundamental nano-scale materials, tools and processes are already creating thorny barriers for would-be innovators. Claims are often broad, overlapping and conflicting - a scenario ripe for massive patent litigation battles in the future. ETC Group's report provides case studies of patent activity involving four of nanotech's hottest and potentially most lucrative nanomaterials and one essential tool: carbon nanotubes; inorganic nanostructures; quantum dots; dendrimers; scanning probe microscopes. G8: Downsizing Development? When the G8 Summit meets in Scotland next month, the leaders of the world's most powerful countries will unveil a "Pro-Poor Science" strategy to turn new technologies like nanotech into a silver bullet for social injustice. "Despite rosy predictions that nanotech will provide a technical fix for hunger, disease and the environment, the extraordinary pace of nanotech patenting suggests that developing nations will participate primarily via royalty payments," said Pat Mooney, Executive Director of ETC Group. "In a world dominated by proprietary science, researchers in the global South are likely to find that participation in the nanotech revolution is highly restricted by patent tollbooths, obliging them to pay royalties and licensing fees to gain access," said Mooney. "Ultimately, nanotech will profoundly affect the South's economy, regardless of its handling of intellectual property," explains Silvia Ribeiro from ETC Group's Mexico City office. "Nano-scale technologies will revolutionize the way that new materials are designed and manufactured - changes that could turn commodity markets upside-down and make geography, raw materials, even labour, irrelevant. Nanotech underpins a new strategic platform for global control of materials, food, agriculture and health, and patent monopoly is a powerful tool for realizing that strategy," said Ribeiro. Many South nations are still grappling with unresolved controversies over biotechnology, but by the end of this year, ready or not, even the world's "least developed" nations who are members of the World Trade Organization will be obligated by its Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (WTO-TRIPs) to evaluate and enforce nanotech patents. Lessons learned from Diamond v. Chakrabarty: Despite all the hype about Mr. Chakrabarty's oil-eating microbe and how it would gobble up oil spills, the patented microorganism never worked. Instead of curing environmental ills, the biotech industry has introduced its own contamination problems - unwanted gene flow from genetically modified crops, a particularly serious problem for centres of genetic diversity in the developing world. Unlike 25 years ago, today's nanotech-related patents have not required major rule changes. As a result, many governments are unaware of the nanotech patent rush. ETC Group recommends that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) initiate a global suspension of patent approvals related to nanotechnology until South governments and countries-in-transition can undertake a full evaluation of their impacts, and until social movements can cooperate with WIPO, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to examine the impact of nanotech-related intellectual property on monopoly practices, technology transfer and trade. The full text of the 36-page report is available for downloading, free-of-charge, on the ETC Group website *Note to Editors: In 1971, Ananda Chakrabarty, an employee of General Electric, applied for a patent on a genetically modified oil-eating microbe. The US Patent & Trademark Office rejected his patent application on the grounds that animate life forms were not patentable. On June 16, 1980 by a narrow 5-4 margin, the US Supreme Court ruled that Chakrabarty's oil-eating microbe was not a product of nature; living organisms could be seen as human made inventions and are therefore patentable subject matter. |