EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fw: Sign-on letter to stop abuse of Yucca Mt licensing process
by Jim Sconyers 04 Nov '08

04 Nov '08

Do we want to sign on to this? BTW/FYI - WVSC was a leader in the early 90s, getting, in effect, a ban on nuke power in WV through the WV legislature. Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Jane Feldman <janefeldman(a)EARTHLINK.NET> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Monday, November 3, 2008 4:36:08 PM Subject: FW: Sign-on letter to stop abuse of Yucca Mt licensing process For more than a decade DOE has been conducting studies and preparing to seek a license to construct a repository at Yucca Moun For your information and the action of your home organizations. Jane Las Vegas ________________________________ From:Michael Mariotte [mailto:nirsnet@nirs.org] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 1:11 PM To: janefeldman(a)earthlink.net Subject: Sign-on letter to stop abuse of Yucca Mt licensing process Sign-on letter to stop abuse of Yucca Mountain licensing process November 3, 2008 Dear Friends, Below is a letter we intend to send in mid-November to the NRC Commissioners and relevant members of Congress. It describes some of the many problems associated with the Department of Energy’s application to the NRC for licensing of the proposed Yucca Mountain , Nevada , radioactive waste dump, and particularly the difficulties this process has placed on potential intervenors and everyone interested in this issue. The license application itself is massive, and incomplete. New information submitted by the DOE since their initial application already has changed that application. Yet the NRC is plowing along with the process, and sticking with its deadlines, as if it weren’t already a complete mockery of public participation and fairness. We hope you’ll sign onto this letter by November 15, 2008. To sign on your organization, send your name, organization name, city and state to nirsnet(a)nirs.org. Individual sign-ons are also welcome to the same address. Thanks for all you do! Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service Chairman Dale E. Klein Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko Commissioner Peter B. Lyons Commissioner Kristine L. Svinicki Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Dear Commissioners: For more than a decade DOE has been conducting studies and preparing to seek a license to construct a repository at Yucca Mountain . During the time of Site Characterization technical exchanges were held between NRC and DOE to determine the most important questions to be addressed and answered regarding the suitability and safety of a proposed repository. All of this was being done, we were told, in order to make a sound suitability determination and to insure that an eventual license application would be thorough and complete. During the last several years the DOE has been postponing or abdicating their responsibility to uphold agreements made with the NRC and others regarding providing information and technical or scientific study results. As dates were moved ahead for deadlines to make information available, NRC and the public were finally assured that everything would be provided at the time of License Application (LA) and that the application itself would be of high quality and complete. Knowing that various studies had not been finished at the time that the application was submitted in June 2008, many of us raised complaints about the completeness of the application and about DOE’s certification of its document collection posted on the Licensing Support Network (LSN). We were told by NRC officials both before and after receipt of the application that they would carefully review it and it would not be accepted or docketed if it was incomplete. NRC held a public meeting in Nevada to go through and explain their process in making these decisions and to tell us about timelines that would begin if the LA was docketed. After offering comment explaining our belief that DOE was not submitting a complete or high quality License Application, we could only wait for NRC to do its initial review and make its own decision. That decision was made and the LA was accepted, docketed and a Federal Register notice was posted in October 2008 beginning the clock for parties to participate in the licensing process by submitting contentions before a December 2008 deadline. Since submission of the LA, a series of new reports have come from DOE and also supplementation of their LSN collection. Most recently a revision of the repository design basis was released which will cause changes or supplements to the LA that was submitted in June and declared “complete.” Any party who intends to participate in licensing is now in the position of having to reassess contentions that have been written by carefully reading this large document and attempting to compare it to the more than 8,000 page LA to see what changed and how significant it is. All other parties involved in or concerned about Yucca Mountain are at a serious disadvantage to the agencies of the federal government, most especially the non- governmental public interest organizations. With very limited budgets and less capable computer equipment, we are trying to represent our members and the general public by participating in this project that will affect people throughout the country. The NRC licensing process financially excludes many groups and the DOE is difficult for even the most experienced people to deal with. We are attempting to stay up to date and on schedule to provide comment for several documents that are now out for public review and at the same time examining how, if at all possible, we can participate in upcoming Yucca Mountain licensing hearings. Trying to do all that, as DOE continually adds to or changes information to make up for omissions in its incomplete LA, is more than we should be expected to do. The NRC’s mission is to insure public safety and to regulate licensees, one of whom would be the DOE if a Yucca Mountain license is granted. In the current process, the NRC is far more accommodating to the DOE than it is to the public. If the DOE is allowed to toss in new information and updated documentation at will throughout the process, other parties and the public are put at an even more severe disadvantage. The actions of the DOE also place a heavier burden on the NRC but, as the regulator, it can make demands on the applicant regarding schedules and performance. If NRC condones these actions by this applicant, it appears to all of us that the process is unfair and has the appearance and the actual effect of intentionally putting the public at an overwhelming disadvantage. We ask that you take immediate steps to require the DOE to finalize all documents, designs, and issues that must be included in a complete and high quality LA. All matters that may be the subject of contentions must be available in final form so that the other parties have adequate time and a reasonable opportunity to examine the final application and supporting documents and write contentions within the allowed time. Sixty days are allowed for the submission of contentions after a Notice of Hearing is published. We ask that you reset that clock now, based on DOE’s practice of updating supporting LA documents, and at any future time that DOE significantly changes, updates, or supplements the LA. Telling us that we can play along by writing late contentions as we are able to learn more is not acceptable. Filing late contentions makes us players in a piecemeal process and increases our disadvantage. We ask that NRC put a stop to the DOE’s abuse of the process and instill public fairness for the benefit of all. Sincerely, Michael Mariotte Executive Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service Takoma Park, MD - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

3 2

FW: TrAIL - PATH resolution- final version
by Grubb, Karen 03 Nov '08

03 Nov '08

Here is a WVHC resolution against PATH and TrAIL. It should be in the next Highlands Voice.

1 0

Fwd: AP: Future Gen Update
by James Kotcon 31 Oct '08

31 Oct '08

Bad ideas, like Sauron, never truly die. JBK >>> Kathy Andria <kathyandria(a)GMAIL.COM> 10/31/2008 1:48 PM >>> Posted on Fri, Oct. 31, 2008 Coal plant backers see new hope in a new president By DAVID MERCER Associated Press Writer When the U.S. Department of Energy scrapped plans to build an experimental coal-fired power plant in a corn field outside Mattoon, citing ballooning costs, the project appeared dead. But an alliance of power and coal companies that had worked with the government on the project, dubbed FutureGen, stuck together. Their allies in Washington pulled strings to keep the project breathing - though just barely - long enough to let President Bush's successor consider it. Now the FutureGen Alliance, which chose Mattoon over a site in Texas, believes there is a good chance to revive plans to build the plant, which would test whether greenhouse gases could be stored underground instead of sent out smokestacks. "We're awaiting the change of administration, I'll put it that way," said Mike Mudd, chief executive of the FutureGen Alliance. Members talk regularly to policy experts on the campaign staffs for Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, pushing the idea that FutureGen should be a national priority, Mudd said. "The message that we have been delivering and will just ratchet up is that FutureGen at Mattoon is not just a public works project in Illinois," he said. Sen. Dick Durbin, one of the project's most vocal backers, said he believes Mattoon has a chance with either candidate, "perhaps a little better chance with Sen. Obama." Neither campaign responded to a request for comment from The Associated Press, but Obama and McCain repeatedly talked during their last televised debate about the merits of clean-coal technology to control carbon-dioxide emissions. Obama has expressed support for building FutureGen in his home state, while McCain and running-mate Sarah Palin have pledged to spend billions to develop technology to capture and stores the carbon from coal. That's what FutureGen, launched in 2003 by President Bush, was designed to do. But the plan - which called for building the plant at one site - was falling out of favor with the Energy Department even before Mudd announced in December that Mattoon, a town of 17,000 about 50 miles south of Champaign, had been selected. Then the DOE, which was going to cover 74 percent of the costs, scrapped the project in January, complaining that its projected price tag had increased from $950 million to $1.8 billion. But the project's backers rejected the cost argument, blaming Bush's Texas roots and the snub of two sites in that state. The agency later announced plans to spend $1.3 billion on carbon-capture technology at several still-to-be-selected sites around the country. DOE spokesman John Grasser said the agency is reviewing "several" bids from interested builders and plans to announce the next step for that project in December. Still, Mudd and Mattoon officials believe they could keep the original plan alive. Angela Griffin, the president of the local economic development group Coles Together, says FutureGen and its prospects come up at every business meeting. "Regardless of the nature of the meeting, it always comes up - 'Where are we? What are we doing? What can we expect with the next administration?'" she said. "We've had tremendous optimism in the county and in the region, frankly, for a new administration doing the right thing." One of the reasons they're optimistic is the support they've gotten from Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat. Durbin, who complained bitterly that the decision to shelve the plan to build FutureGen at Mattoon was driven by Bush and other Texans in his administration, convinced the Senate Appropriations Committee to set aside more than $134 million in federal money for FutureGen into 2009. Durbin also threatened to block any nominations the president makes to the Energy Department through the end of Bush's term because of the administration's withdrawal from the project. "I think Sen. Durbin last summer made a very strong case in Illinois and Washington that this project was needed and that he was going to continue to watch what was happening and help," said John Mead, director of the Coal Research Center at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale. "Coming from somebody in leadership, that means a lot. I think that's very important." The Illinois congressional delegation and the companies behind the project also gathered congressional and coal-industry allies in key coal states such as Wyoming and Kentucky. Project supporters and outside observers, like Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Howard Herzog, also note that the Mattoon site was already well into the planning stages when the DOE walked away. "The biggest reason I think that FutureGen mattered was it was the most advanced along the way, and I think there is some time urgency," said Herzog, who last year co-authored a study on the future of coal power. "We start hearing from the scientific community that we need to put the technologies in place sooner rather than later." On Oct. 20 the International Energy Agency said the world's most industrialized countries, including the United States, aren't doing nearly enough work on carbon-capture projects to make the technology viable. The agency, which makes energy policy recommendations for its 28 member countries, said the world needs 20 demonstration projects over the next decade. Even if a new president does revive FutureGen, it'll be years before it's up and running. That's why Durbin hopes FutureGen will be in the next president's first budget, something Congress typically gets its initial look at in February. And if all goes well, Mudd would like to start building in 2010 and have the plant running by 2013. Although environmentalists have mixed feelings on clean-coal technology, many say it's clear that coal is not going to disappear as a source of electricity. "Regardless of which candidate receives the majority of votes on November 4th, on November 5th the majority of the United States' electricity is still going to be coming from coal," said John Thompson, a Carbondale, Ill., resident and a member of the Massachusetts-based Clean Air Task Force. "If we don't change the way coal is used, it's gonna' kill us." Associated Press Writer Jim Suhr contributed to this article from St. Louis. (c) 2007 Belleville News-Democrat and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved. http://www.belleville.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp

1 0

Re: [EC] New Report on Coal Costs
by Michael Price 30 Oct '08

30 Oct '08

1 0

Re: [EC] Fw: Please sign onto GNEP comment extension letter!
by Michael Price 30 Oct '08

30 Oct '08

1 0

New Report on Coal Costs
by James Kotcon 30 Oct '08

30 Oct '08

Attached is a new report by Tom Sanzillo of the firm TR Rose Associates done for the Conservation Voters of South Carolina regarding the Santee Cooper power plants in South Carolina. The financial analysis is devastating to coal-fired power plants, with the concern that these plants are being hit by a triple whammy of increased construction costs, long-term increases in fuel costs, and the virtual certainty of carbon mitigation costs. It calls for full disclosure of these costs and financial risks to investors and ratepayers. I suggest that we might want to take this approach with the PSC, provided we get the right consultants, on the PATH hearings. In fact, we might want to launch a pre-emptive strike by getting this issue into the media now, and do whatever we can to force the PSC to deal with it in upcoming proceedings. Whaddya Tink? Jim Kotcon

2 1

Fw: Please sign onto GNEP comment extension letter!
by Jim Sconyers 30 Oct '08

30 Oct '08

Folks - do we want to sign and send this letter? Jim Sconyers jim_scon(a)yahoo.com 603.969.6712 Remember: Mother Nature bats last. ----- Forwarded Message ---- From: John Hartz <Hartzjm1(a)AOL.COM> To: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 1:37:21 PM Subject: Please sign onto GNEP comment extension letter! FYI ________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Nickolas Roth <nroth(a)ananuclear.org> To: bananas(a)ananuclear.drizzlehosting.com Sent: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 12:30 pm Subject: [Bananas] Please sign onto GNEP comment extension letter! To all, Tomorrow is the deadline for signing onto the letter to DOE requesting an extension to the GNEP PEIS comment period. More than local and national 20 groups have signed on. If you have already signed on, YOU ROCK! If you have not yet done so, FOR SHAME. However, there is still time. Be part of a growing movement! Sign today! Thanks, Nick Samuel Bodman Secretary of Energy 1000 Independence Ave, SW Washington, DC 20585 Dear Mr. Bodman, On behalf of our members, the undersigned local and national environmental, peace and security, taxpayer and public health organizations, we request a 120-day extension to the comment period for the Draft Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) programmatic environmental impact statement currently scheduled to end on December 16, 2008, before the final PEIS is released. We believe this extension is warranted because (1) Department of Energy (DOE) failed to provide analysis of nonproliferation impacts within the PEIS even though DOE had indicated that this important assessment would be made available in conjunction with the PEIS, (2) reference materials cited in the PEIS have not been made available for review, (3) the proposal is technically complex with national implications, and (4) the comment period coincides with the upcoming Presidential elections, and holidays, which may make it more difficult for the public to review and comment on the PEIS. Most significantly, DOE has failed to provide any nonproliferation analysis within the EIS. Instead, the PEIS simply states that a separate assessment of the nonproliferation aspects of the programmatic alternatives is being prepared and that it “will be considered by DOE in decisions regarding the GNEP proposal.” No timetable is given for the documents release other than “in the same time frame as this Draft GNEP PEIS.” Given that the nonproliferation impacts of GNEP are one of the most important aspects of the program, the public cannot adequately comment on the GNEP proposal until a complete nonproliferation impact analysis is provided. Once the nonproliferation analysis is released, the public needs adequate time to review and comment. Furthermore, the DOE GNEP website contains a 22-page index to the draft PEIS references (http://www.gnep.energy.gov/peis/Draft_PEIS/ReferenceIndex.pdf), but does not make all of these reference documents accessible to the public. Reference documents should be more than just publicly available; they need to be easily accessible. All of the reference documents cited in the 22-page index need to be posted online. After that, the public will need additional time for the documents to be read. In addition, the comment period is insufficient to enable the public to thoroughly review and comment on this highly technical and enormous document. DOE acknowledges in the Draft PEIS that GNEP affects “the entire United States because facilities associated with the programmatic alternatives could be deployed anywhere in the country” and that the “PEIS involves a technically complex subject matter with unique concepts and terminology.” In 2007, the national scale and complex nature of the GNEP proposal required a scoping period of 151 days, which resulted in an unprecedented 14,000 comments submitted to DOE. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that public scoping comments must be at least 30 days (10 CFR 1021.311(c)) and that public comment on a draft EIS must be at least 45 days (10 CFR 1021.313(a)). The intent of this regulation is that the public comment period for the draft EIS be longer than the scoping comment period. Since the GNEP scoping comment period was 151 days, the public comment period on the draft PEIS should be longer, at least 180 days. Finally, the current period allotted for public comment spans the last few weeks of an historic presidential and congressional election, followed by turbulent period of transition between old and new administrations, and also includes a large part of the holiday season. This is the worst possible time for members of the public and interested agencies to be attempting to review and comment on a complex document such as this, on such a sensitive and controversial subject, and without any of the supporting documentation yet made available to the public. The new teams coming into DOE and other relevant executive agencies, and new members of Congress and their staffs, deserve adequate time to review and comment on the PEIS before the agency moves to a Record of Decision. In order to bring the national public’s attention to the GNEP proposal and allow sufficient time to respond to the draft PEIS, an extension of the comment period is essential. Therefore, we ask that the comment period extend well into the New Year. Failure to provide adequate time for public review and comment on the draft PEIS, nonproliferation impact statement, and all EIS supplementary references would marginalize and compromise the public’s role as an essential participant in the NEPA process. It would have a further negative impact on the Department’s ability to assess the impacts of the vast GNEP proposal. We believe that the requested 120-day extension is necessary and reasonable. It would allow for the distribution of the nonproliferation impact statement, associated reference materials, and provide adequate time for the public to provide comments to DOE. Thank you for your consideration, Nickolas Roth Program Director Alliance for Nuclear Accountability 322 4th Street NE Washington, DC 20002 (p)202-544-0217 (f) 202-544-6143 ________________________________ Plan your next getaway with AOL Travel. Check out Today's Hot 5 Travel Deals!- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message to: CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

2 1

Fwd: Thursday webinar on coops, munis, and coal financing
by Paul Wilson 30 Oct '08

30 Oct '08

fyi, paul ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mark Kresowik <mkresowiksc(a)earthlink.net> Date: Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 5:40 PM Subject: Thursday webinar on coops, munis, and coal financing To: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS(a)lists.sierraclub.org Friends, There is a great opportunity to learn more and hone your activist skills - whether fighting coal plants, promoting clean energy, or encouraging corporate accountability - on Thursday, October 30th at 3 PM EDT. The director of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign, Bruce Nilles, and former First Deputy Comptroller for the State of New York Tom Sanzillo will give a webinar on electric cooperatives and public power involvement in the coal rush. They will also go over strategies and tools to target financing and decision-making processes for coops and munis. This webinar is part of the Energy Foundation's series to foster common approaches toward greening Rural Electric Cooperatives, Municipal Utilities and other public entities. The first call on the series (October 14th) can be listened to/viewed at this link: https://cc.readytalk.com/play?id=o26hzy9y. I definitely recommend joining us on Thursday at 3:00 PM Eastern Time. More info and call/online info below: The Coal Rush and Public Power Date/Time: Thursday, October 30th at 2pm Central time (3pm Eastern; 1pm Rocky Mountain, 12pm Pacific). Presenters: Tom Sanzillo and Bruce Nilles of the Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign Duration: 90 minutes. It is not necessary to register. We will be using ReadyTalk web and telephone conference service. ReadyTalk is accessible at: http://www.ReadyTalk.com. The toll-free conferencing number is: 866-740-1260. The access code will be: 6619009 If you have any questions - or can't make this call and would like the link when it is available - please email me at mark.kresowik(a)sierraclub.org. Thanks! Mark Mark Kresowik Corporate Accountability Representative Sierra Club's National Coal Campaign mark.kresowik(a)sierraclub.org 319-621-7393 (cell) 608-257-4994, x118 (work) 608-257-3513 (fax) 122 W. Washington Ave. Suite 830 Madison, WI 53703 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS list, send any message to: COAL-CAMPAIGN-ALERTS-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha

1 0

Re: [EC] MIC Leak in September
by Regina Hendrix 29 Oct '08

29 Oct '08

Maya: Oh, my God, we have to do something about this. We can't let this pass. We are sitting ducks here in Kanawha Valley. Expendable people. Another Bhopal in the making. Regina Maya Nye wrote: > Bayer Communication Issues Continue, County Officials Say > > Posted: 5:15 PM Oct 27, 2008 > Last Updated: 7:32 PM Oct 27, 2008 > Reporter: Mike Waterhouse > Email Address:mike.waterhouse@wsaz.com > <http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/mailto:mike.waterhouse@wsaz.com?subject=…> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > A > <http://gray.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Bayer+Commun…> | A > <http://gray.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Bayer+Commun…> | A > <http://gray.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Bayer+Commun…> > > KANAWHA COUNTY, W.Va. (WSAZ) -- Kanawha County's emergency services > director says he should have been informed about a minor situation > involving the chemical MIC at the Bayer CropScience Plant in Institute. > > In fact, county officials say the first they heard about it is when > WSAZ.com contacted them about it. > > > MIC, short for methyl isocyanate, is an extremely toxic chemical used > in the production of some pesticides. > > Tom Dover, spokesperson for Bayer, confirms a tank associated with MIC > storage was opened during inspections in the west side of the plant, > but says the amount of chemical leaked was far below reporting levels. > The situation happened near the end of September. > > Workers took action after smelling the odor of MIC, which Dover says > has a strong smell even at very low levels. Employees then left the > area and several were checked out at the plant's medical facility. One > contractor then decided on his own to go to an outside hospital after > his shift. Dover says he was released with nothing found. > > Dover tells WSAZ.com there was no harmful exposure of MIC to employees > or anyone outside the plant. He called this a "non-incident" because > the levels were not anywhere near dangerous levels. > > "At no point was anyone in danger," Dover said. > > Dover adds that Bayer would have notified county officials "without > hesitation" had the amount of MIC reached reportable levels. > > Dale Petry, Kanawha County Emergency Services Director, says he's a > little disturbed that he didn't know about this situation, even if the > amount of MIC involved did not meet a reportable level. > > "I wish I had known about it," said Petry. "Let me make the decision > whether it should be reported to the public." > > Petry says he doesn't think this latest incident will hurt the > county's relationship with the plant. He wants to continue to work > with Bayer to improve communication. > > Bayer came under fire for its lack of communication to the county > after an explosion at its Larvin unit in early September. Two workers > died as a result of the blast. Kanawha County officials say Bayer > waited hours to release any detailed information about the severity of > the incident. > > As a result of having little information, county officials issued a > shelter-in-place for the western portion of Kanawha County, affecting > thousands of people. > > Bayer later admitted that it should have provided better information > during the explosion and agreed to change its notification system. > > >

4 5

Fwd: please vote for my friend's film...
by Paul Wilson 29 Oct '08

29 Oct '08

Greetings: My friend Kate Watters is the executive director of Crude Accountability. She risks her life to bring information about the pollution and harm to people caused by oil refineries in Kazakhastan. Her organization has made a film and it is an entry in a contest sponsored by the World Bank. *Judging has been extended to this Thursday morning, ending at 9AM*. A lot of these films are focused on Global Warming. But I am aking you to help me to pass the word along to ask for your vote for Kate's film, # 76 .."Silence is Betrayal.." Thank you. Paul Wilson p.s. you will probalby need to cut and paste the web address listed below in Kate's letter. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kathleen Watters" < kate(a)crudeaccountability.org> To: <kate(a)crudeaccountability.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 7:48 AM Subject: Vote Now for Crude Accountability's New Film "Silence is Betrayal...Voices from a Village" *Vote Now for Crude Accountability's New Film "Silence is Betrayal…Voices from a Village"* Crude Accountability invites you to watch our newly released 5-minute film /Silence is Betrayal…Voices from a Village/, a look at how the villagers of Berezovka, Kazakhstan are risking their lives to meet the world's demand for fossil fuels. The film is an entry in the World Bank's "Vulnerability Exposed: Social Dimensions of Climate Change" Micro-Documentary Contest, which features films from around the globe that highlight the social aspects of climate change. And you can vote the film—listed as Number 76—as your favorite by visiting www.worldbank.org/sdccfilmcontest <http://www.worldbank.org/sdccfilmcontest> (Click on View and Vote). Only the 15 films that receive the most public votes will proceed to the next level of judging, meaning every vote counts! *Voting ends at 9:00 am, Thursday, October 30^th .* As Mark Warford, Director of /Silence is Betrayal/, explains "The brave struggle by the people of Berezovka, Kazakhstan to save their village and culture serves as a strong reminder that pointing to fluctuating weather trends as the primary cause for social displacement belies the true cause of the disintegration of these communities - a global dependence on fossil fuels." Thank you! Crude Accountability -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.8.4/1752 - Release Date: 10/28/2008 10:04 AM -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-6975 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC