January, 11 2010, 02:52pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tongass Conservation Society: Carol Cairnes (907) 617-8908
Greenpeace: Larry Edwards (907) 738-1878
Cascadia Wildlands: Gabe Scott (907) 491-0856
Environmental Groups Sue to Stop Huge Tongass Timber Sale
Three environmental groups sued the Forest
Service in Federal District Court in Anchorage today, challenging the
Logjam timber sale project on Alaska's Tongass National Forest. The
plaintiffs--Tongass Conservation Society, Greenpeace, and Cascadia
Wildlands--are asking the court to cancel the 3,422 acre timber project
on Prince of Wales Island. The project would log 73 million board feet
of timber and build 22 miles of new roads.
The lawsuit claims the
Forest Service grossly failed to consider the project's impacts on
deer, wolves, and salmon.
Forest Service grossly failed to consider the project's impacts on
deer, wolves, and salmon.
ANCHORAGE, Alaska
Three environmental groups sued the Forest
Service in Federal District Court in Anchorage today, challenging the
Logjam timber sale project on Alaska's Tongass National Forest. The
plaintiffs--Tongass Conservation Society, Greenpeace, and Cascadia
Wildlands--are asking the court to cancel the 3,422 acre timber project
on Prince of Wales Island. The project would log 73 million board feet
of timber and build 22 miles of new roads.
The lawsuit claims the
Forest Service grossly failed to consider the project's impacts on
deer, wolves, and salmon. It asks the court to vacate the agency's
decision to proceed with the project, including the project's recently
offered Diesel Timber Sale.
Forest Service grossly failed to consider the project's impacts on
deer, wolves, and salmon. It asks the court to vacate the agency's
decision to proceed with the project, including the project's recently
offered Diesel Timber Sale.
Much of Prince of
Wales Island, including the Logjam area, has been heavily logged and
roaded already. "The Forest Service has not honestly confronted the
project's impacts to deer and salmon," said Carol Cairnes, President of
the Tongass Conservation Society. "I explored these groves this fall,
and the forest they want to cut is largely the buffers that have
previously been left. Those buffers are a must for wildlife, both for
habitat and as migration corridors. Without this old-growth, the deer
have little shelter in the winter. Then the wolves are short on prey,
and people are short on subsistence meat."
Wales Island, including the Logjam area, has been heavily logged and
roaded already. "The Forest Service has not honestly confronted the
project's impacts to deer and salmon," said Carol Cairnes, President of
the Tongass Conservation Society. "I explored these groves this fall,
and the forest they want to cut is largely the buffers that have
previously been left. Those buffers are a must for wildlife, both for
habitat and as migration corridors. Without this old-growth, the deer
have little shelter in the winter. Then the wolves are short on prey,
and people are short on subsistence meat."
Gabe
Scott of Cascadia Wildlands said, "Salmon are more of an economic
backbone than timber. Roads, especially badly maintained ones, are
salmon killers. There are 25 of what they call 'red culverts'--culverts
that block salmon passage--that exclude 14 miles of upstream habitat in
this specific project area. Rather than do the maintenance, they're
spending the money to build even more roads. And they're $20 million in
the hole already maintaining roads on Prince of Wales Island."
Scott of Cascadia Wildlands said, "Salmon are more of an economic
backbone than timber. Roads, especially badly maintained ones, are
salmon killers. There are 25 of what they call 'red culverts'--culverts
that block salmon passage--that exclude 14 miles of upstream habitat in
this specific project area. Rather than do the maintenance, they're
spending the money to build even more roads. And they're $20 million in
the hole already maintaining roads on Prince of Wales Island."
The
wolf subspecies here is the Alexander Archipelago wolf. It is
genetically distinct and is unique to Southeast Alaska. Larry Edwards
of Greenpeace said, "The region's most important wolf population is put
at risk by the Logjam project's logging and road building. The project
will both suppress the population of deer (the wolves' primary prey)
and increase the density of roads beyond acknowledged danger levels.
The Forest Service avoided an honest appraisal of that in its EIS."
wolf subspecies here is the Alexander Archipelago wolf. It is
genetically distinct and is unique to Southeast Alaska. Larry Edwards
of Greenpeace said, "The region's most important wolf population is put
at risk by the Logjam project's logging and road building. The project
will both suppress the population of deer (the wolves' primary prey)
and increase the density of roads beyond acknowledged danger levels.
The Forest Service avoided an honest appraisal of that in its EIS."
The
Logjam project has been particularly contentious. Last summer, several
other environmental groups offered to compromise if the Forest Service
would halve the project's timber volume. Tongass Supervisor Forrest
Cole instead chose one of the two alternatives that maximized timber
volume . The plaintiffs in today's case aren't looking for a
compromise. Scott said, "The project is ill-conceived, illegal, and
should be cancelled."
Logjam project has been particularly contentious. Last summer, several
other environmental groups offered to compromise if the Forest Service
would halve the project's timber volume. Tongass Supervisor Forrest
Cole instead chose one of the two alternatives that maximized timber
volume . The plaintiffs in today's case aren't looking for a
compromise. Scott said, "The project is ill-conceived, illegal, and
should be cancelled."
Edwards said, "The Forest
Service has emphasized the importance of this project to the timber
industry, but its only hope for justifying the project was to conceal
or gloss over several substantial environmental impacts. The fact is,
the old-growth in this place has been cut to the bone. There is no way
to honestly justify the Logjam timber project, and in trying to push
the project through anyway, the EIS had to violate the law. So here we
are, at the end of the rope for an unsustainable industry."
Service has emphasized the importance of this project to the timber
industry, but its only hope for justifying the project was to conceal
or gloss over several substantial environmental impacts. The fact is,
the old-growth in this place has been cut to the bone. There is no way
to honestly justify the Logjam timber project, and in trying to push
the project through anyway, the EIS had to violate the law. So here we
are, at the end of the rope for an unsustainable industry."
Scott
added, "The Forest Service decided to approve the export of half the
project's timber volume, unprocessed, to the Lower-48 or Asia. Export
is the only way the agency could force a positive timber value
appraisal. The jobs from Logjam are minimal, yet the project will push
the ecosystem to the brink."
added, "The Forest Service decided to approve the export of half the
project's timber volume, unprocessed, to the Lower-48 or Asia. Export
is the only way the agency could force a positive timber value
appraisal. The jobs from Logjam are minimal, yet the project will push
the ecosystem to the brink."
The groups are represented by attorneys from the Crag Law Center and Cascadia Wildlands.
Greenpeace is a global, independent campaigning organization that uses peaceful protest and creative communication to expose global environmental problems and promote solutions that are essential to a green and peaceful future.
+31 20 718 2000LATEST NEWS
EU Deal on AI Act Is 'Missed Opportunity' to Ban Mass Surveillance, Say Privacy Groups
"Whilst the Parliament fought hard to limit the damage, the overall package on biometric surveillance and profiling is at best lukewarm," said one advocate.
Dec 09, 2023
Privacy advocates on Saturday said the AI Act, a sweeping proposed law to regulate artificial intelligence in the European Union whose language was finalized Friday, appeared likely to fail at protecting the public from one of AI's greatest threats: live facial recognition.
Representatives of the European Commission spent 37 hours this week negotiating provisions in the AI Act with the European Council and European Parliament, running up against Council representatives from France, Germany, and Italy who sought to water down the bill in the late stages of talks.
Thierry Breton, the European commissioner for internal market and a key negotiator of the deal, said the final product would establish the E.U. as "a pioneer, understanding the importance of its role as global standard setter."
But Amnesty Tech, the branch of global human rights group Amnesty International that focuses on technology and surveillance, was among the groups that raised concerns about the bloc's failure to include "an unconditional ban on live facial recognition," which was in an earlier draft, in the legislation.
The three institutions, said Mher Hakobyan, Amnesty Tech's advocacy adviser on AI, "in effect greenlighted dystopian digital surveillance in the 27 EU Member States, setting a devastating precedent globally concerning AI regulation."
"While proponents argue that the draft allows only limited use of facial recognition and subject to safeguards, Amnesty's research in New York City, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Hyderabad, and elsewhere demonstrates that no safeguards can prevent the human rights harms that facial recognition inflicts, which is why an outright ban is needed," said Hakobyan. "Not ensuring a full ban on facial recognition is therefore a hugely missed opportunity to stop and prevent colossal damage to human rights, civic space, and rule of law that are already under threat throughout the E.U."
The bill is focused on protecting Europeans against other significant risks of AI, including the automation of jobs, the spread of misinformation, and national security threats.
Tech companies would be required to complete rigorous testing on AI software before operating in the EU, particularly for applications like self-driving vehicles.
Tools that could pose risks to hiring practices would also need to be subjected to risk assessments, and human oversight would be required in deploying the software,
AI systems including chatbots would be subjected to new transparency rules to avoid the creation of manipulated images and videos—known as deepfakes—without the public knowing that the images were generated by AI.
The indiscriminate scraping of internet or security footage images to create facial recognition databases would also be outright banned.
But the proposed AI Act, which could be passed before the end of the European Parliament session ends in May, includes exemptions to facial recognition provisions, allowing law enforcement agencies to use live facial recognition to search for human trafficking victims, prevent terrorist attacks, and arrest suspects of certain violent crimes.
Ella Jakubowska, a senior policy adviser at European Digital Rights, told The Washington Post that "some human rights safeguards have been won" in the AI Act.
"It's hard to be excited about a law which has, for the first time in the E.U., taken steps to legalize live public facial recognition across the bloc," Jakubowska toldReuters. "Whilst the Parliament fought hard to limit the damage, the overall package on biometric surveillance and profiling is at best lukewarm."
Hakobyan also noted that the bill did not include a ban on "the export of harmful AI technologies, including for social scoring, which would be illegal in the E.U."
"Allowing European companies to profit off from technologies that the law recognizes impermissibly harm human rights in their home states establishes a dangerous double standard," said Hakobyan.
After passage, many AI Act provisions would not take effect for 12 to 24 months.
Andreas Liebl, managing director of the German company AppliedAI Initiative, acknowledged that the law would likely have an impact on tech companies' ability to operate in the European Union.
"There will be a couple of innovations that are just not possible or economically feasible anymore," Liebl told the Post.
But Kris Shrishak, a senior fellow at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, toldThe New York Times that the E.U. will have to prove its "regulatory prowess" after the law is passed.
"Without strong enforcement," said Shrishak, "this deal will have no meaning."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Texas Supreme Court Blocks Ruling Allowing Woman to Get Abortion
"Courts are arguing with each other about whether a woman can have a medically necessary abortion," said one advocate. "This is not a hypothetical nightmare—it is a living one."
Dec 09, 2023
Reproductive justice groups on Friday night said the Texas Supreme Court and Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton were "directly endangering" a pregnant women who recently received news that her fetus has a life-threatening condition, after the high court halted a judge's order permitting the woman to obtain abortion care.
The state Supreme Court issued a stay temporarily blocking Travis County Judge Maya Guerra Gamble's Thursday ruling. Gamble had issued a temporary restraining order, allowing Dallas resident Kate Cox to obtain an abortion and protecting her physician, Dr. Damla Karsan, from civil or criminal liability under Texas' near-total ban on abortions.
Paxton quickly appealed Gamble's ruling, telling the court, "Nothing can restore the unborn child's life that will be lost as a result."
Molly Duane, senior staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), which is representing Cox, said Friday night that the group is holding out hope that "the [state Supreme Court] ultimately rejects the state's request and does so quickly."
"In this case we fear that justice delayed will be justice denied," said Duane. "We are talking about urgent medical care... This is why people should not need to beg for healthcare in a court of law."
Cox, who is about 20 weeks pregnant, discovered last week that her fetus has abnormalities including trisomy 18, a condition that would result in a miscarriage, stillbirth, or the death of her baby in the hours or days after birth.
Cox has sought emergency medical care several times since finding out the diagnosis, reporting symptoms such as cramping and fluid loss to emergency room doctors—but while Texas' abortion bans claim to allow exceptions in cases where a pregnant person's life or health are at risk, many health professionals are unwilling to risk potential life imprisonment by providing care.
Karsan has advised Cox that continuing the pregnancy could put her health and fertility at risk. Under Texas' abortion bans, Cox's only options are to have a Caesarean section after carrying the pregnancy to term—even as her health grows worse—or to have labor induced in the case of the fetal heartbeat stopping. Due to previous C-sections, doctors have told Cox that she could experience a uterine rupture if she is forced to give birth to the baby.
On PBS Newshour on Friday, Cox described how her baby "would need to be placed directly onto hospice" care if she is forced to go through childbirth.
Paxton and the state Supreme Court, which consists entirely of Republican judges, are "100% committed to torturing" Cox, said Slate journalist Mark Joseph Stern.
By challenging Gamble's ruling, CRR said in court filings that the state demonstrated "stunning... disregard for Ms. Cox's life, fertility, and the rule of law."
Before appealing Gamble's decision, Paxton wrote a letter to three hospitals where Karsan has admitting privileges, warning that if she provides abortion care to Cox there they could face civil or criminal penalties regardless of the lower court ruling. The attorney general said Gamble was "not medically qualified to make this determination."
The letter was the state's attempt to "intimidate [Karsan] to not act," Dr. Judy Levison, another obstetrician-gynecologist in Houston, toldThe New York Times.
"They named her and so, it's intimidating," Levison said.
On Thursday, Duane refused to comment in a news briefing about whether Cox and her doctors were planning to move forward with the abortion and when or where she might obtain care.
Cox is reportedly the first pregnant patient to request an emergency abortion from a court since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.
On Friday, the day after Gamble ruled, a pregnant woman in Kentucky sued the state, saying its abortion ban violates residents' constitutional right to privacy and self-determination.
Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California at Davis who specializes in abortion, told The Washington Post that Paxton likely "wants to stop Cox from being an example" for other pregnant people who need or want to terminate their pregnancies.
"Courts are arguing with each other about whether a woman can have a medically necessary abortion while she continues to remain pregnant with an unviable pregnancy," said activist Olivia Julianna. "This is not a hypothetical nightmare—it is a living one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Disastrous': US Vetoes Cease-Fire Resolution at UN Security Council
"The Security Council was again prevented from rising to this moment to uphold its clear responsibilities in the face of this grave crisis threatening human lives and threatening regional and international peace and security," said the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations.
Dec 08, 2023
As the United Nations humanitarian chief warned that aid workers in Gaza are "hanging on by our fingertips" as they try to mitigate an "untenable" disaster, and with Americans' support for Israel's U.S-backed bombardment of the enclave eroding, the United States on Friday vetoed a resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian cease-fire at the U.N. Security Council.
U.S. Envoy to the U.N. Robert Wood told members of the council that a cease-fire would "only plant the seeds for the next war."
Thirteen member-countries voted in favor of the cease-fire resolution, which was introduced after U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres took the rare step of invoking Article 99 of the U.N. Charter, warning that Israel's slaughter of at least 17,487 Palestinians in just two months "may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security."
The U.K. abstained from voting on the resolution, saying it did not take into account that Hamas committed acts of terrorism when it attacked Israel on October 7.
Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian U.N. envoy, called the veto "disastrous."
"The Security Council was again prevented from rising to this moment to uphold its clear responsibilities in the face of this grave crisis threatening human lives and threatening regional and international peace and security," said Mansour. "Instead of allowing this council to uphold its mandate by finally making a clear call after two months of massacres that the atrocities must end, the war criminals are given more time to perpetuate them. How can this be justified?"
Nicolas de Rivière, France's permanent representative to the Security Council, who voted in favor of the cease-fire, argued that there is no "contradiction in the fight against terrorism and the protection of civilians, in strict respect of international humanitarian law."
"Unfortunately once again, this council has failed. With a lack of unity and by refusing to genuinely commit to negotiations in doing this, the crisis in Gaza is getting worse and it runs the risk of extending," said de Rivière.
The U.S. has now vetoed U.N. resolutions to hold Israel accountable for its policies in Palestine 45 times, human rights lawyer Noura Erakat said.
Former U.N. human rights official Craig Mokhiber—who resigned in October over the U.N.'s response to the war in Gaza—noted that U.S. blocked the resolution on the eve of the 75th anniversary of the U.N. Genocide Convention.
"Thousands have died since [the United States'] last veto and more will die now," said Mokhiber.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular