November, 20 2014, 03:45pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jonathan Evans, Center for Biological Diversity, (213) 598-1466
Caroline Cox, Center for Environmental Health, (541) 654-2626
Lawsuit Calls on EPA to Clean Up Lead Air Pollution Across United States
Environmental and public-health groups filed a lawsuit today challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's failure to ensure that people across the country are protected from dangerous lead pollution in the air. The Clean Air Act requires that states must have approved plans in place to reduce lead pollution; at least six states and Puerto Rico have failed to meet that standard.
SAN FRANCISCO
Environmental and public-health groups filed a lawsuit today challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's failure to ensure that people across the country are protected from dangerous lead pollution in the air. The Clean Air Act requires that states must have approved plans in place to reduce lead pollution; at least six states and Puerto Rico have failed to meet that standard.
In 2008 the EPA revised 30-year-old air standards for lead, lowering allowable airborne lead levels by 90 percent to protect health and environmental quality. Under the Clean Air Act, the agency had three years to ensure that all 50 states submitted effective plans to meet the new standards; but six states and Puerto Rico do not have approved plans, and the EPA has failed to keep critically important lead reductions on track. The states are Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio and Texas.
Today's lawsuit is aimed at spurring the EPA to require that states have adequate plans that will cut lead pollution.
"There's no safe level of lead in our air, because lead's highly toxic to wildlife and people -- especially children," said Jonathan Evans, toxics and endangered species campaign director at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The EPA must take decisive action to force polluting facilities to reduce or eliminate the lead pollution contaminating our communities and our environment."
The Clean Air Act requires the agency to identify and set "National Ambient Air Quality Standards" for harmful pollutants such as lead, a neurotoxin that causes a wide range of severe health problems and reduces young children's IQs. Since the phaseout of leaded automobile gasoline, most airborne lead emissions come from lead smelters, waste incinerators, utilities, lead-acid battery makers and leaded aviation fuel.
"Children and families living near polluting facilities must be protected from airborne lead poisoning threats," said Caroline Cox, research director for the Center for Environmental Health. "Clearly we can't rely on industry to clean up its act without oversight. EPA must act now to enforce the law and end this serious health threat to children."
Lead is an extremely toxic element that threatens the health of children disproportionately. It disrupts their development, causing slow growth, development defects and damage to the brain and nervous system; it does not break down in the environment. Ecosystems near lead sources experience decreases in biodiversity and ecosystem production and increases in invasive species. Many scientific studies have also expressed concern about sublethal effects of atmospheric lead on wildlife.
For more on the dangers of lead click here.
At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink of extinction. We do so through science, law and creative media, with a focus on protecting the lands, waters and climate that species need to survive.
(520) 623-5252LATEST NEWS
Ugandan Court Upholds 'One of the Most Extreme Anti-LGBTI Laws in the World'
"It is shocking that an opportunity was missed to revoke a law that undermines the rights of LGBTI persons in Uganda, their allies, human rights defenders, and activists," said one Amnesty International campaigner.
Apr 03, 2024
Human rights defenders on Wednesday condemned a ruling by the Constitutional Court of Uganda upholding most of the African nation's so-called "Kill the Gays" law criminalizing sex between consenting adults of the same sex and imposing the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality."
The court's five justices largely affirmed the Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023 (AHA)—signed into law last year by Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni amid widespread condemnation from Western nations and international human rights groups—as being consistent with the country's constitution.
However, the justices struck down four sections of the law that criminalized renting properties for use in same-sex sexual acts and failure to report such acts to the authorities, finding that those provisions violate portions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights related to health, privacy, and religious freedom rights.
"This ruling is wrong and deplorable," said Frank Mugisha, executive director of Sexual Minorities Uganda. "Uganda's Constitution protects all of its people, equally. We continue to call for this law to be repealed. We are calling on all governments, [United Nations] partners, and multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the Global Fund to likewise intensify their demand that this law be struck down because it is discriminatory."
Tigere Chagutah, a regional director at Amnesty International, said that "it is shocking that an opportunity was missed to revoke a law that undermines the rights of LGBTI persons in Uganda, their allies, human rights defenders, and activists by criminalizing consensual same-sex acts, 'promotion' of homosexuality with all its vagueness as an offense, and contemplates the death penalty for the offense of 'aggravated homosexuality."
"As we mark the 10th anniversary of the African Commission's Resolution 275 on the protection against violence and human rights violations against persons on the basis of their real or imputed sexual orientation or gender identity, the government of Uganda must repeal the entire Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2023 and ensure accountability for the attacks against LGBTI people," Chagutah added.
Amnesty called the Ugandan law "one of the most extreme anti-LGBTI laws in the world."
Human Rights Campaign president Kelly Robinson said in a statement: "For the Constitutional Court of Uganda to uphold such a draconian law in any capacity is a horrific display of hatred that will mean further discrimination and physical harm for LGBTQ+ Ugandans. Over the last year, we have mourned the wave of violence targeting the LGBTQ+ community, and we know that this decision will only result in further damage."
Rightify Ghana, which advocates for sexual minorities in Africa, called Wednesday's ruling "deeply disappointing" and "a significant setback for human rights and democracy in Uganda."
"Human rights and democracy are under attack, not just in Uganda, but across Africa," the group added. "It is crucial that our courts uphold the constitution and protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity."
Under the Ugandan law, people convicted of "aggravated homosexuality"—defined as same-sex sexual acts by HIV-positive people or with children, disabled people, or anyone deemed vulnerable—can be hanged to death. The law punishes same-sex acts with life imprisonment and attempted same-sex acts with 10 years behind bars. It also criminalizes the "promotion" of LGBTQ+ rights.
According to the Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum, a Ugandan advocacy group, 55 people have been arrested under the law, including three who face possible execution. At least eight people have been subjected to forced anal examinations, while 254 people accused of either being or associating with LGBTQ+ people have been evicted from their homes.
Rights groups have also sounded the alarm on anti-gay "witch hunts" and violence targeting LGBTQ+ Ugandans.
The law has sparked international outrage and alarm. In the United States, the Biden administration responded by cutting aid to Uganda, imposing visa restrictions on its citizens, and canceling a planned regional military exercise.
"The announcement that some provisions of Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Act have been removed by the Constitutional Court is a small and insufficient step towards safeguarding human rights," White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Wednesday in response to the ruling.
"The United States is deeply concerned about the remaining provisions which undermine public health, human rights, and Uganda's international reputation," she added. "As the president has said time and time again, no one should have to live in constant fear nor be subjected to violence or discrimination. It is wrong. We will continue to work to advance respect for human rights for all in Uganda and also around the world."
The Delegation of the European Union to Uganda also condemned Wednesday's ruling, calling the AHA "contrary to international human rights law."
"The E.U. also regrets the retention of the death penalty, to which the E.U. is opposed in all circumstances," the delegation added.
Advocates have noted the role of European colonization and U.S. evangelicals in demonizing and outlawing homosexuality in Africa.
The Ugandan LGBTQ+ advocacy group Convening for Equality lamented that the Ugandan court missed an opportunity to follow in the footsteps of other African nations including Mozambique, Botswana, Seychelles, Mauritius, Gabon, Cape Verde, South Africa, and Angola that "have recognized anti-gay laws as remnants of colonial rule, and repealed them through law reform processes and court decisions."
"In the summary released describing the basis for their ruling, the court only cited one case by name: the U.S. Supreme Court ruling striking down the right to abortion, Dobbs v. Jackson [Women's Health Organization], as providing justification for upholding criminalization of [LGBTQ+] Ugandans," the group added. "Advocates noted that this could point to influence on Uganda's judiciary by the U.S. extremist hate groups who funded that U.S. Supreme Court challenge."
Keep ReadingShow Less
IDF Allowed 100 Civilian Deaths for Every Hamas Official Targeted by Error-Prone AI System
"The IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option," an Israeli intelligence officer said. "It's much easier to bomb a family's home. The system is built to look for them in these situations."
Apr 03, 2024
As the Biden administration issued its latest assurance that officials are pushing Israel to be "precise" in its selection of targets in Gaza, an investigation into the Israel Defense Forces' use of a previously undisclosed artificial intelligence system found that the mechanism has replaced "human agency and precision" with "mass target creation and lethality."
Four months after +972 Magazine and Local Call, detailed the IDF's use of an AI system called the Gospel, which generates dozens of buildings and structures for the military to target in a single day, the two Israeli media outlets revealed that another AI machine called Lavender, which has also played a part in Israel's slaughter of at least 32,975 Palestinians since October.
Unlike the Gospel, reported +972's Yuval Abraham, "Lavender marks people—and puts them on a kill list."
Abraham spoke to six Israeli intelligence officers who have served in the IDF during Israel's current assault on Gaza and have had "first-hand involvement with the use of AI to generate targets for assassination."
"Lavender has played a central role in the unprecedented bombing of Palestinians, especially during the early stages of the war," wrote Abraham. "In fact, according to the sources, its influence on the military's operations was such that they essentially treated the outputs of the AI machine 'as if it were a human decision.'"
"It was known in advance that 10% of the human targets slated for assassination were not members of the Hamas military wing at all."
The system was designed to mark suspected military operatives in Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) as potential bombing targets.
But the IDF gave "sweeping approval for officers to adopt Lavender's kill lists" in the early days of Israel's bombardment campaign, and gave "no requirement to thoroughly check why the machine made those choices or to examine the raw intelligence data on which they were based."
Before bombing the houses of suspected armed group members, the intelligence officers did a brief assessment of the data to determine that the AI-selected target was male.
"A human being had to [verify the target] for just a few seconds," a source identified as B. told +972. "At first, we did checks to ensure that the machine didn't get confused. But at some point we relied on the automatic system, and we only checked that [the target] was a man—that was enough. It doesn't take a long time to tell if someone has a male or a female voice."
"I would invest 20 seconds for each target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day," B. added. "I had zero added value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot of time. If [the operative] came up in the automated mechanism, and I checked that he was a man, there would be permission to bomb him, subject to an examination of collateral damage."
B. and the other sources acknowledged that the system was prone to error.
If the target had given his phone, which Lavender used to identify Hamas and PIJ suspects, to "his son, his older brother, or just a random man," said B., "that person will be bombed in his house with his family. This happened often. These were most of the mistakes caused by Lavender."
The system marked 37,000 Palestinians—and their homes, with family members potentially inside—as targets in the first weeks of the war, when the IDF "almost completely relied on Lavender."
The intelligence officers told Abraham that the IDF was "not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity," despite Israel's persistent claims that they are targeting military outposts and other noncivilian infrastructure.
"On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option," an officer identified as A. told +972 and Local Call. "It's much easier to bomb a family's home. The system is built to look for them in these situations."
As a result of the military's reliance of Lavender, wrote Abraham, "thousands of Palestinians—most of them women and children or people who were not involved in the fighting—were wiped out by Israeli airstrikes, especially during the first weeks of the war."
The investigation also found that, according to two of the sources, the IDF decided in the early weeks of the war that "for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians"—an unprecedented approach by Israel to so-called "collateral damage."
"A ratio of 20 civilians killed for one target works out to about 95% civilian deaths," said enterpreneur Arnaud Bertrand.
For senior Hamas officials that were targeted, the army authorized the killing of more than 100 civilians.
IDF officers, including the sources, accepted that Lavender's calculations about targets were accurate only 90% of the time, +972 and Local Call reported.
"In other words, it was known in advance that 10% of the human targets slated for assassination were not members of the Hamas military wing at all," wrote Abraham.
One source defended the military's use of Lavender, saying investing "manpower and time" in analyzing whether a suspected junior militant is a legitimate target was not worthwhile.
"In war, there is no time to incriminate every target," said the intelligence officer. "So you're willing to take the margin of error of using artificial intelligence, risking collateral damage and civilians dying, and risking attacking by mistake, and to live with it."
While collateral damage has long been a reality in violent conflicts, parties are bound by international humanitarian law that states they must distinguish between civilians and combatants.
Alex Hanna, director of research for the Distributed AI Research Institute, said the report illustrated the possible "future of AI warfare" for the U.S. and other powerful countries.
Bertrand suggested the "disturbing" report called to mind the Nazis' methodical massacre of Jewish people during the Holocaust.
"It's industrialized extermination," said Bertrand, "the likes of which we haven't seen since... you know when."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Analysis Warns Climate Crisis Threatens US Nuclear Reactors
"Climate change is expected to exacerbate natural hazards—including heat, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea level rise," the report reads.
Apr 03, 2024
The nation's nuclear reactors may be at risk due to the climate emergency, according to a report released by the U.S. Government Accountability Office on Tuesday.
The report claims the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) needs to consider these risks as it regulates nuclear power plants going forward. There are currently 94 nuclear reactors in the United States that could be affected.
"Climate change is expected to exacerbate natural hazards—including heat, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea-level rise. In addition, climate change may affect extreme cold weather events," the report reads. "Risks to nuclear power plants from these hazards include loss of offsite power, damage to systems and equipment, and diminished cooling capacity, potentially resulting in reduced operations or plant shutdowns."
Extreme weather event like floods can pose safety risks to #NuclearPower plants. #ClimateChange is likely to make these natural hazards more severe.
Our new report looks at how @NRCgov could better address climate risks to nuclear power plants: https://t.co/lZhGAjtNkFÂ pic.twitter.com/MOjambENtG
— U.S. GAO (@USGAO) April 2, 2024
The report notes that many new reactors are currently being developed, which increases the need for the NRC to properly regulate those reactors.
It says that the NRC has mostly used historical data to "identify and assess safety risks," which would not account for the climate risks that are likely to threaten reactors in the future. The report claims most reactors could be negatively impacted by future climate risks.
Beyond Nuclear, which advocates against nuclear power and weapons, said in a statement that that GAO's findings and recommendations confirm what the group has been litigating with the NRC—that "the agency cannot continue to ignore the safety impacts on nuclear power plants from the worsening climate crisis."
"These risks include a worsening of natural hazards and encompass heat and cold, drought, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and sea-level rise, according to the GAO, all of which could seriously jeopardize the safe operation of the nation's current fleet that is going through extreme license renewals—and any future new... nuclear reactors if not properly safeguarded," the group said.
Plans to triple the amount of nuclear power in 22 countries by 2050 that were announced at the most recent United Nations climate summit have been denounced as "dangerous" and not a realistic solution to address the climate emergency.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular