June, 08 2010, 10:49am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Will Craven, US Media Officer,
Phone: 415.863.4563,
x. 314 and
Email: uspress (at) forestethics.org
Key US City Acts to Avoid 'Dirty' Tar Sands Fuel
New Fleet Policy Parallels Corporate Shifts Away From Controversial Canadian Import
WASHINGTON
The city of Bellingham, Washington has resolved to avoid fuel from
refineries connected to Canada's Tar Sands, becoming the first city in
the United States to take action against the controversial fossil fuel.
Citing concerns about the Tar Sands' toxic impacts on the climate, water
and the city's own greenhouse gas reduction goals, the Bellingham city
council last night unanimously passed two anti-Tar Sands resolutions
sponsored by councilperson Jack Weiss.
Bellingham has served as
one of two major entry points for the Tar Sands (the other is Billings,
Montana), and its anti-Tar Sands resolutions underscore the challenges
facing Canada's Tar Sands in the United States as details spread of its
impact on local and global communities.
"American cities and
Fortune 500 companies are strengthening their resolve against oil from
Canada's Tar Sands," said ForestEthics US Campaigns Director Aaron
Sanger. "The market for toxic fuel from refineries taking Canada's Tar
Sands is becoming more uncertain, and it will become even more uncertain
as the local and global impacts of Tar Sands become more widely known."
The
Bellingham resolution mirrors actions taken by corporate America at the
request of ForestEthics. To date, ten major US companies have taken
action to reduce or eliminate Canada's Tar Sands in their transportation
footprints. ForestEthics announced action by two of these
companies--Whole Foods and Bed Bath & Beyond--in February. Public
announcement of actions taken by other Fortune 500 companies is expected
sometime this summer.
Tar Sands oil production generates 3-5
times the greenhouse gas emissions of conventional oil
production. Production of Tar Sands oil destroys fresh drinking water,
pollutes the air, and razes North America's ecologically critical Boreal
Forests. Communities downstream of Tar Sands projects are facing
elevated levels of cancer. Tar Sands sludge, extracted primarily in the
province of Alberta, cannot be made clean by technological solutions. A
recent report released by Corporate Ethics International, Earthworks,
NRDC, and the Sierra Club details health risks from refineries which
process Tar Sands that are not associated with refineries which process
more conventional forms of oil.
Founded in 2000, ForestEthics is a nonprofit environmental organization with staff in Canada, the United States and Chile. Our mission is to protect Endangered Forests and wild places, wildlife, and human wellbeing--one of our focus areas is climate change, which compromises all of our efforts if left unchecked. We catalyze environmental leadership among industry, governments and communities by running hard-hitting and highly effective campaigns that leverage public dialogue and pressure to achieve our goals.
LATEST NEWS
Workers Stage Sit-Ins to Demand Google End Israeli Cloud Contract
"Just as people of conscience demanded institutions cut ties with apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, the time is now to rise up in support of Palestinian human rights," said Google employees in an open letter.
Apr 16, 2024
Following recent reports that Google may soon expand its tech collaboration with the Israeli government, dozens of the company's employees on Tuesday entered its offices in New York City and Sunnyvale, California and announced that they wouldn't leave until executives pull out of its $1.2 billion cloud services and data contract with the country.
The No Tech for Apartheid coalition—including the Muslim-led MPower Change and the Jewish-led Jewish Voice for Peace—organized the sit-in, which marks an escalation in Google workers' protests against Project Nimbus, the 2021 contract under which Google and Amazon provide cloud infrastructure across Israel's government.
The deal includes a stipulation that the companies cannot prevent Israel from using Project Nimbus for any government agency, including the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)—which means Google employees' work may be directly supporting the country's assault on the Gaza and its killing of at least 33,843 Palestinians since October.
"Workers will NOT allow business as usual while Google continues to profit from the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza," said MPower Change.
In Sunnyvale, workers began occupying the office of Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian, while employees in the company's New York office began a sit-in in a common space.
Outdoor rallies were also scheduled to take place in San Francisco and Seattle, with both Amazon and Google employees attending.
Former Google cloud software engineer Eddie Hatfield, who was fired last month for disrupting a Google Israel event, was among those who protested in New York.
The sit-ins came a week after Time magazine reported that Google has entered further negotiations with the Israeli government in recent weeks, even as international human rights experts raise alarm that Israeli officials have directly caused famine to take hold in parts of Gaza by blocking humanitarian aid.
No Tech for Apartheid released an open letter addressed to Kurian and other Google and Amazon executives, saying that as long as the companies' "tech continues to power the Israeli military and government, [they] are actively complicit in this genocide."
"Your workers do not want to be complicit in genocide," reads the letter, which has been signed by 93,000 supporters. "Just as people of conscience demanded institutions cut ties with apartheid South Africa in the 1980s, the time is now to rise up in support of Palestinian human rights, to end the Project Nimbus contract, and join calls to end the Israeli occupation and siege of Gaza. This has never been more urgent. We hope that you will take this opportunity to be on the right side of history. End the Project Nimbus contract and reestablish your companies' commitments to human rights."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AOC Rips GOP for Trying to 'Distract From Their Own Incompetence' With Anti-Iran Bills
"The country and the world need real leadership from the House of Representatives in this moment, not resolutions designed purposefully to increase the likelihood of a deadly regional war or worse."
Apr 16, 2024
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday accused her Republican colleagues of dangerously trying to cloak their own legislative impotence in a flurry of anti-Iran bills—including a bipartisan proposal to ban Americans from traveling to the country.
"Following last weekend's unprecedented response by Iran to Israel's attack on its consulate, the Republican majority is explicitly leveraging a series of bills to further escalate tensions in the Middle East," Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. "This is a blatant attempt to distract from their own incompetence."
On Monday, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) published this week's proposed bills and resolutions, which include 15 separate measures condemning or sanctioning Iran following the retaliatory missile and drone attack launched by Tehran against Israel last weekend.
"In light of Iran's unjustified attack on Israel, the House will move from its previously announced legislative schedule next week to instead consider legislation that supports our ally Israel and holds Iran and its terrorist proxies accountable," Scalise said in a statement.
Peace advocates expressed alarm over a bipartisan resolution introduced Tuesday by Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) calling for regime change in Iran—where the United States and United Kingdom led a 1953 coup that ensured the decadeslong rule of a repressive monarch that ended just before the current Islamist regime took power 45 years ago this month.
"Decades of a tyrannical regime in Tehran—destabilizing the Middle East and intentionally spreading chaos throughout the region—has culminated in Iran's direct attack on our greatest ally, Israel," Weber said in a statement. "The rogue regime needs to be overthrown immediately."
One of the most controversial bills on the docket, introduced by Reps. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), would urge the Biden administration to ban U.S. passport holders from traveling to Iran.
"This shameful idea that punishes people instead of governments was first proposed by [former U.S. President] Donald Trump's Iran envoy (and likely war criminal) Elliott Abrams," the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) said in a statement. "Now, Rep. Wilson—who has deep ties to the [Mojahedin-e-Khalq] and other hawkish groups—is partnering with a hawkish Democrat on this proposal."
"Make no mistake: A ban as called for by this bill could have serious ramifications for anyone traveling to Iran, regardless of passport. We must make clear that this is unacceptable," NIAC continued.
"What if you could no longer travel to Iran to see relatives, visit a sick family member, attend a wedding, or claim an inheritance, out of fear of being imprisoned by the U.S. government?" the group added. "Seeing our loved ones isn't a crime, and no government, whether Iranian or American, should prevent us from doing so."
Congressional progressives say the anti-Iran bills are part of a scheme to deflect attention from what many social media users are calling the "#GOPShitShow," exemplified by yet another effort by far-right lawmakers to dethrone a Republican House speaker—less than six months after his GOP predecessor was ousted.
"The country and the world need real leadership from the House of Representatives in this moment, not resolutions designed purposefully to increase the likelihood of a deadly regional war or worse," said Ocasio-Cortez. "I will oppose any cynical effort to further inflame tensions, destroy a path to peace in the region, and further divide the American people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Admin Unveils New Rules Protecting Workers Who Get Abortion Care
"With these final rules, we have achieved a huge step forward for women's economic security, maternal health, and the economy as a whole," said one advocate.
Apr 16, 2024
Reproductive justice advocates on Monday applauded the Biden administration's "groundbreaking" new workplace protections for pregnant people, including requirements that most employers provide workers with time off for a range of pregnancy-related reasons—including, over the objections of right-wing lawmakers, abortion care.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a final rule and guidance for employers, clarifying that under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), companies with 15 or more employees must accommodate a worker's needs if they request time off for "pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions" including prenatal doctor's appointments, childbirth recovery, postpartum depression, miscarriage, and abortion.
The guidance also details the wide array of accommodations pregnant workers can request under the law, including exemptions from heavy lifting and scheduling changes for people who suffer from pregnancy symptoms like nausea or morning sickness.
The PWFA was passed in December 2022 and went into effect several months later, but the EEOC's newly finalized regulations detail how the law must be enforced, including in states with abortion bans and restrictions.
The commission has spent the last four months sorting through tens of thousands of public comments on the proposed regulations, including those from reproductive rights groups which urged the EEOC to explicitly include protections for people who seek abortion care—and forced pregnancy proponents to objected to the provisions.
Under the final rules, employers are required to provide time off for workers who ask for it to obtain an abortion locally or who need to travel out of state for care. The regulations include strong restrictions against retaliating against workers for taking time off for any pregnancy-related reason.
"This rulemaking does not require abortions or affect the availability of abortion; it simply ensures that employees who choose to have (or not to have) an abortion are able to continue participating in the workforce, by seeking reasonable accommodations from covered employers, as needed and absent undue hardship," the regulation states.
In its comment submitted to the EEOC about its draft rule before the final regulations were announced, the ACLU thanked the agency for "recognizing that abortion has for decades been approved under the law as a 'related medical condition' to pregnancy that entitles workers to reasonable accommodations, including time off to obtain abortion care."
Employers will not be required to pay for workers' medical care or travel, and the time off can be paid or unpaid.
But advocates said the protections will make a particular impact on low-wage workers, many of whom are not eligible for the Family and Medical Leave Act, which only requires 12 weeks of unpaid time off for workplaces with 50 or more employees.
Before the PWFA was passed in 2022, 1 in 4 new mothers returned to work within two weeks of giving birth.
The national group Reproductive Freedom for All said the new rules will help ensure "that reproductive freedom is a reality for all pregnant workers."
The EEOC's effort to finalize the regulations has sparked anger among Republicans including Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who called the inclusion of abortion in the rules "shocking and illegal."
But Dr. Verda Hicks, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), said the regulations are an "acknowledgment of people's complex needs during and after pregnancy."
"Families should have peace of mind that they won't face financial hardship due to pregnancy-related job loss, and workers who are pregnant should not have to fear compromising their own health and well-being to maintain their employment," said Hicks. "Pregnancy is physiologically demanding and many of the medical conditions related to pregnancy necessitate reasonable accommodations for people after their pregnancy has ended."
Dina Bakst, co-president of A Better Balance: The Work and Family Legal Center, said the new regulations "appropriately recognize the broad scope of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and ensure millions of workers, especially women in low-wage and physically demanding jobs, can access the vital accommodations they need during pregnancy and after childbirth."
"Today with these final rules, we have achieved a huge step forward for women's economic security, maternal health, and the economy as a whole," said Bakst, who has lobbied for years for pregnancy workplace protections. "The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is a life-changing protection for pregnant and postpartum workers nationwide, ensuring they aren't forced off the job or denied the accommodations they need for their health."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular