Middleboro Review and so on blogspot: URANIUM MINING

Showing posts with label URANIUM MINING. Show all posts

Sunday, December 19, 2021

RSN: FOCUS: Tamar Sarai Davis | The Security Provided by Nuclear Weapons Is an Illusion - the Reality Is Much More Dangerous

18 December 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

MANY HAVE GIVEN 5 AND 10 CAN YOU GIVE 100? We have many donors that have given 5 or 10 Dollars, in many cases all they can afford. We need a few donors that can match their effort with a $100 donation. Who can donate $100 to help boost the drive? Thank you sincerely.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

FOCUS: Tamar Sarai Davis | The Security Provided by Nuclear Weapons Is an Illusion - the Reality Is Much More Dangerous
Tamar Sarai Davis, Prism
Davis writes: "On Wednesday, Dec. 8, the House Judiciary committee held a mark-up for the RECA Amendments Act, new legislation that will offer continued redress to a wider array of communities affected by radiation exposure from Cold War-era uranium mining and nuclear testing."

In the midst of new mine development and renewed production of nuclear weapons, some organizers believe that a world without “weapons of mass extinction” is possible

On Wednesday, Dec. 8, the House Judiciary committee held a mark-up for the RECA Amendments Act, new legislation that will offer continued redress to a wider array of communities affected by radiation exposure from Cold War-era uranium mining and nuclear testing. The bill passed favorably to the House despite eight votes in opposition—Congressman Jim Jordan went so far as to lament that the legislation would cost over $2.8 billion to taxpayers, asserting that the government shouldn’t be responsible for uranium miners employed after 1971 and that the science “simply does not support the expansion of the program under this bill.” Jordan ultimately implored that “we should take a little more time.”

Jordan’s statement paints the fight for RECA as hasty and relatively recent. But those who have helped draft and advocate for the legislation since its initial passage in 1990—former miners, downwinders, members of the Navajo Nation—have arguably lost more time than legislators could imagine. For over half a century, their communities have lived with the damage from radiation exposure to both their health and the environment as a result of the U.S. government’s reluctance to share knowledge of those dangers with impacted communities and the general public. No financial amount can fully compensate for the lives lost, compromised health, and stolen potential futures free from constant struggle.

Interestingly, Jordan’s claim that the science doesn’t support RECA expansion is based on a 2005 study conducted by the National Research Council Board on Radiation Effects Research that recommended RECA use a “probability of causation” model to determine eligibility of applicants, which RECA advocates argue will result in far fewer claimants being eligible for compensation. RECA currently evaluates whether or not a claimant is entitled to compensation based on their geographic location at the time of their presumed exposure to radiation, and the version of the Amendments Act awaiting passage still bases claimants’ eligibility based on geographic location.

Should the Amendments Act pass, new relief would be offered to those who are struggling with radiation damage to their bodies and homes but were left out of the original bill for a variety of reasons. Clearly, the government’s pursuit of nuclear material in the Cold War came at incalculable human, financial, and environmental costs. Yet the construction of new mines, the production of nuclear weapon materials, and slow-moving cleanup efforts for abandoned uranium mines, continue to pose a threat to communities throughout the Southwest and beyond. Despite the proven risks and damage done to miners and their families, downwinders, Indigenous communities, and the land itself, the U.S. government is choosing to continue a deadly cycle, the consequences of which are borne by some of the most vulnerable people in the country.

While activists and advocates haven’t given up, whether or not those in power are paying attention to the human and environmental costs of those lessons still remains to be seen. Retroactive payments for contaminated land, damaged health, further harm to Indigenous communities, and loss of life shouldn’t be acceptable costs in the name of “national security,” especially not when forward-thinking efforts can prevent such harm from being inflicted in the first place. The dangerous legacy of Cold War-era mining will only continue unless the lessons gleaned from the very horrors that required the RECA Amendments Act to be created are heeded in full.

Bulldozing over the lessons of the past

The Cold War may be over, but the need to mine for natural material resources remains, regardless of the risk. In the most recent survey conducted by the Fraser Institute’s Centre for Natural Resource Studies, Nevada was identified as the most attractive region for mining companies based on its geological profile and state policies that were amenable to mining. The state is the site of two major mining projects currently under development focused on the production of critical materials such as vanadium, lithium, and even uranium. Public backlash by nearby Indigenous communities has been fervent, particularly with the damage done to many Navajo communities during the Cold War uranium boom still in recent memory.

In 2017, the Trump administration implored the federal government “to reduce the Nation’s vulnerability to disruptions in the supply of critical minerals”—including vanadium. By June 2020, Trump released an executive order allowing for the fast-tracking of environmental reviews for projects, which enabled federal land managers to launch an expedited permitting process for the Nevada Vanadium Company to establish what will be the first vanadium mine in the U.S. Known as the Gibellini Project, the open-pit mine will sit on 10-square miles in the Battle Mountain region of Nevada, south of Eureka and northeast of Carson City. The mine could begin operations as early as 2024.

The company intends to mine roughly 10 million pounds of vanadium per year, a rare metal often used to strengthen steel, aluminum, and titanium. In addition to job creation—the company projects the development of over 200 new jobs from construction workers to mine employees—the mine would also work to address what Silver Elephant Mining, a Toronto-based mining company, predicts will be a vanadium deficit by the year 2025 due in large part to the popularity of the vanadium redox flow battery used in power plants and electrical grids. Some reported health effects of vanadium exposure primarily for those working in vanadium production have included acute and chronic respiratory illnesses including bronchitis, shortness of breath, and fatigue.

Most concerning for environmental justice advocates however, is Nevada Vanadium Company’s plan to also extract about 50,000 pounds of uranium per year. Nevada-based advocates argue that the company’s intentions to produce uranium, in particular, pose risks that outweigh the benefits of additional jobs, especially the risks that miners, their families, and surrounding communities—including Indigenous communities like the Navajo Nation that are still suffering from the effects of uranium mining in the Cold War—would be assuming. As reported by Prism, radiation exposure from yellowcake mining can have long-lasting and far-reaching health implications for those who work in mines, their loved ones, and the biodiversity of the surrounding region.

The Gibellini Project and other recently proposed mines in other parts of the state exemplify not just how much harm Indigenous communities stand to face but how readily the government moves forward with infrastructure projects despite the concerns of Native communities. These projects sit in a long line of “innovations” used to justify government-sanctioned violence and abuse against Indigenous peoples and their lands. And that same disregard isn’t limited to the Southwest—its shadow extends to new development projects targeting communities of color elsewhere in the country.

“There’s no dollar amount you can pay to heal communities after they’re harmed”

The prevalence and resurgence of mining in the U.S. extends as far east as South Carolina. Unfortunately, so do the production and risk of exposure to nuclear materials. Queen Quet, chieftess of the Gullah Geechee Nation, says that when some members of her community heard about plans to begin plutonium pit production by the Savannah River, they assumed it was a mining operation. It wasn’t. A plutonium pit is the core of a nuclear weapon that enables an explosive chain reaction when detonated. Environmentalists and community leaders are concerned about radiation exposure from plutonium pit production.

“Many people in our community have never before heard of a plutonium pit. Quite naturally, then, they would assume that we’re talking about mining again because we have this onslaught of mines coming up in South Carolina,” Queen Quet said in a June press conference hosted by the South Carolina Environmental Law Project. “[They didn’t realize] this is a nuclear warhead and for it to be created, the plutonium that is utilized is a radioactive material.”

The presence of radioactive material in the area isn’t new—the Savannah River Site, a 310-square-mile nuclear facility in the Sandhills region of South Carolina that is owned by the Department of Energy (DOE), produced tritium and plutonium during the Cold War and began to cease operations after the war’s end. But the damage had been done—by 1989, the site was named an EPA Superfund priority clean-up site due to the presence of about 35 million gallons of leftover radioactive liquid waste. Currently, it stores 11.5 metric tons of plutonium, and advocates worry that new pit production will only increase that inventory and its environmental impact.

The DOE and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) intend to restart operations at the Savannah River Site in order to produce plutonium pits. This year, the DOE requested $603 million for new pit production in order to achieve their production goal of 80 pits per year by 2030. Fifty of these pits would be produced at the Savannah River Site and 30 at the Los Alamos National Lab in New Mexico. Pit production has become a DOE priority in large part because W87-1s, a newly developed warhead, require new pits. However, at the June press conference Marylia Kelley, executive director and co-founder of TriValley Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, explained that the use of new pits is an “elective” design. Those very weapons, Kelley argued, can operate without new pits, and the push for increased production is not just hasty but also causing an unnecessary threat to the surrounding areas.

In a statement by the South Carolina Environment Law Project (SCELP), the group says that nuclear bomb core production brings “the risk of lethal accidents, fires, radioactive and hazardous waste releases that could affect downstream and downwind communities, and uncertain future radioactive waste disposal that could strand yet more plutonium in South Carolina.” Downwind communities include groups like the Gullah Geechee, an independently and internationally recognized nation comprising roughly 1 million African descendants. The Gullah Geechee Nation stretches from Jacksonville, North Carolina, to Jacksonville, Florida, and includes the Sea Islands and roughly 30 miles inland to the St. Johns River.

“Anything that happens at the Savannah River Plant will end up impacting those that are down the watershed,” said Queen Quet. “So it will reach the Gullah Geechee Nation. It will reach us on the coast and not just by water, but by air.”

This June, SCELP joined the Gullah Geechee Nation, SRS Watch, and other groups in filing a joint legal challenge against the DOE and NNSA, requesting that they complete a programmatic environmental impact statement as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The statement would require the government to comprehensively assess the environmental consequences of restarting new pit production and would create greater transparency between the government’s plans and the general public. The assessment would also force NNSA and DOE to consider reasonable alternatives posing less harm to the environment and surrounding communities.

“Why is it that the NEPA regulations aren’t being followed?” Queen Quet asked. “Why is it that our community is not now being engaged so that we are well aware of any injustices and negative environmental impacts that will take place? … There’s no dollar amount you can pay to heal communities after they’re harmed.”

Queen Quet’s recognition that true justice hinges not just on redressing past harm but also ensuring that future generations are not further plagued by similar problems is radically different from how the government has approached nuclear testing and weapons development. Some organizers point out that there’s an alternative to simply paying the price after havoc has already been wrought: the abolition of nuclear weapons in their entirety.

Security doesn’t mean nuclear weapons

Marena Blanchard, a Oakland-based organizer and a campaigner with Roots Action, is working alongside Arianna Nason, a Minnesota-based organizer, in a forthcoming coalition-based campaign calling for the abolition of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). As part of a larger landscape that makes up the military industrial complex, ICBMs are missiles designed to deliver nuclear warheads, and the U.S. currently has a stock of 400 that are set to expire by 2030. The Air Force plans on replacing this current stock with a new ICBM system currently under development known as Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). Rather than extend the life of existing ICBMs, the Office of the Secretary of Defense argues that an investment in GBSD will lower sustainment costs of the life cycle of the program and include modernized launch facilities, improved command and control, and increased safety and security. The program will cost about $100 billion to acquire and $264 billion over its 50-year life-cycle.

“Generally speaking, the military industrial complex is a threat to all life on Earth but one of the deadliest dangers are nuclear weapons,” said Blanchard. “Colonizers have weaponized the very building blocks of life, taking aim at the stewards of life around the world: Indigenous people.”

The ICBM abolition campaign will officially launch in January and feature a microsite with background information, an interactive timeline, and multiple resources to help the public engage and create enough people power to mobilize against the continued use and storage of ICBMs. While nuclear testing sites, waste facilities, and abandoned mines litter so much of the American landscape, the havoc they have wrought to the environment and the health defects they have caused to surrounding communities—often due to radioactive exposure—aren’t always visible in public policy discussions. However, Blanchard and Nason say that there are key ways to help make the issue more resonant, perhaps the most effective being drawing connections between ICBM abolition and other issues that capture people’s hearts, minds, and attention. In much the same way that the surge of interest in the movement against policing last year helped to shift common understanding of public safety as reliant on police presence, anti-militarism campaigns are also seeking to challenge the idea that nuclear weapons offer security.

“There’s this prevailing militaristic idea that somehow having these weapons of mass extinction makes us safer when it’s actually the inverse that’s true,” said Blanchard. “These weapons make us all at risk. All life on Earth is at risk because these weapons can destroy so much.”

Making those definitions stick also required crafting a new framework for how to manage conflict. Organizers like Blanchard and Nealson are looking to other movements such as the disability rights movement and the movement for prison abolition to see if there are ways to transfer and scale the methods and models these movements use to cultivate community care and conflict management without the use of extreme violence.

In addition to subverting ideas of security as being synonymous with militarism and the possession of nuclear weapons, all campaigns and protests against new mining, testing, and nuclear development must contend with the perceived tangible benefits that those new projects offer. A particularly difficult one is the employment opportunities that the nuclear weapons production industry may provide. Reframing public perceptions to consider whether job security and economic stability are worth the risk of radioactive contamination and exposure is still an uphill battle, particularly given the pandemic and its effect on the job market.

“Yes, in theory, there are decently paying jobs out there, but they’re not sustainable, they’re not long term, and ultimately, they’re going to have a much larger negative impact on the community and on the environment,” Nason said. “[We’re] trying to encourage folks to think forward instead of thinking of fear and loss. Just because we’re being offered something right now, does not mean that that is the healthiest option.”

Nason says instead that investing in skills development and re-establishing a connection to the environment—the land and the water—can create sustainable ways of life. That can also occur in part through the investment in green renewable energy, what Blanchard describes as “a just transition from extractive industries into something that’s life affirming.”

Anxieties around one’s economic well-being can also be better addressed by looking at ICBM abolition through the invest-divest framework that entered the mainstream last year in conversations about defunding the police, Blanchard says. Particularly in the midst of a pandemic where over 5 million Americans are estimated to have lost their health insurance, the perception that the government remains apathetic about the well-being of its citizens and “that people are really on their own” is stark, especially in light of how much the government invests in military weapons and systems—many of which require workers to risk their health and lives to be created in the first place.

“So when we talk about the billions of dollars going into the ‘modernization’ of these weapons of mass extinction, we can talk about a divest-invest framework where if we didn’t put money towards that, [imagine] the potentiality of what we could put the money towards, the quality of life that people could have,” Blanchard said.

As the campaign’s full rollout approaches, Blanchard and Nason are encouraging the public to keep an eye on the release of President Biden’s Nuclear Posture Review, a document that will lay out his administration’s approach to the country’s nuclear weapons policy. They have deep faith in the organizing efforts unfolding across the country in opposition to new nuclear-related projects and in their ability to amass the people power needed to win.

The fight for individuals and communities to be compensated for damage created by radiation has been spearheaded by those most affected—and their fight has always been made more difficult by government unwillingness to acknowledge its full culpability and to value human life higher than the legislations’ price tag. Nuclear abolitionists, however, are hoping to show that the very type of harm that necessitated legislation like RECA could be prevented by reconceiving our notions of what security actually looks like and what it takes to create and maintain it. True security, they argue, can’t rely on the same government policies that created—and then concealed—the very activities that compromised the safety of some of America’s most vulnerable.

“I’m very hopeful,” Nason said. “I’m hopeful.”

Contribute to RSN

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611

Thursday, October 28, 2021

RSN: Andy Borowitz | Trump Tells January 6th Panel He Has Diplomatic Immunity as Russian Official

27 October 21

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

WE NEED A FUNDING BOOST, IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS — End-month expenses are coming due and we do not have enough money to meet those obligations. A few thousand dollars would make a huge difference. RSN needs your assistance now.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

Andy Borowitz | Trump Tells January 6th Panel He Has Diplomatic Immunity as Russian Official
Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker
Borowitz writes: "In his latest bid to prevent the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack from obtaining relevant documents, Donald Trump has claimed diplomatic immunity in his capacity as a representative of the Russian government."

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

In his latest bid to prevent the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack from obtaining relevant documents, Donald Trump has claimed diplomatic immunity in his capacity as a representative of the Russian government.

According to Trump’s legal argument, his status as a Russian official during his four years in the White House makes all documents produced during his tenure property of the Russian Federation.

“Any attempt by the U.S. to seize Russian property will be seen as an act of war,” a letter from Trump’s legal team reads.

While Trump waits to see if his claim of diplomatic immunity succeeds, he is also prepared to argue that, having once hired Rudolph Giuliani as his attorney, he would be justified in pleading insanity.

Net Neutrality Is Back on the Table Jessica Rosenworcel, seen here at a protest against the net neutrality repeal, is the new permanent chair of the FCC. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty)

Net Neutrality Is Back on the Table
Sara Morrison, Vox
Morrison writes: "Biden said in his executive order that he wants the FCC to bring net neutrality back."

Net neutrality is back on the table.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates everything from TV to internet service providers in the United States, is finally poised to pursue the pro-competition, pro-consumer agenda that President Joe Biden laid out in a July executive order declaring that an array of US companies have become too big and need to have their power checked.

It took over nine months, but Biden has picked the FCC’s chair and nominated someone to fill the long-vacant spot for a fifth commissioner. Jessica Rosenworcel, who has served as acting chair since January, will continue to lead as the agency’s permanent chair; she was also nominated for a new term, which would be her third. And Biden nominated Gigi Sohn, a former FCC staffer and prominent advocate for an open and affordable internet, to fill the agency’s last spot.

Assuming the confirmations go through, which is expected because Democrats control the Senate, the biggest change to watch for is that the FCC will finally have the Democratic majority it needs to bring back Obama-era net neutrality rules, which have become a hugely divisive issue between Democrats and Republicans.

“It’s the honor of a lifetime to be designated to serve as FCC chair,” Rosenworcel said in a statement.

Obama’s FCC passed net neutrality in 2015. It’s best known as the rule that forces internet service providers, or ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T, for instance), to treat all of the data that travels across their networks equally. Under those rules, these companies couldn’t charge more if customers go to certain sites, or make their internet speeds faster or slower depending on where they go and the services they use. The term net neutrality was coined by Tim Wu, who, incidentally, is currently serving as Biden’s adviser on technology and competition policy. Net neutrality opponents believe the rule stifles innovation and discourages internet service providers from investing in their networks.

In order to pass net neutrality, the FCC reclassified broadband from an information service to a common carrier, like telephone service. That then gave the FCC more regulatory power over it. The reclassification also allowed the FCC to make new privacy rules that ISPs had to get customers’ permission before collecting and sharing their data, such as their web browsing histories.

When Trump took office, his FCC, chaired by Ajit Pai, quickly set about repealing net neutrality and re-reclassifying broadband as an information service. Those ISP privacy protections never went into effect, and internet service providers were able to continue to collect, sell, or share customer data — which they very much do, per a recent FTC report. The feared onslaught of extra charges to access certain websites or blocking others didn’t come when net neutrality was repealed, but the FCC effectively ceded much of its control over broadband providers and services as they became an increasingly essential part of Americans’ lives.

Biden said in his executive order that he wants the FCC to bring net neutrality back. But he took a surprisingly long time to nominate the commissioners he’d need to make that happen. Since Biden took office, the FCC has been deadlocked at two Republican commissioners (Nathan Simington, who was confirmed in the waning days of Trump’s presidency, and Brendan Carr) and two Democrats (Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks).

“The real issue is this: We’ve already lost a year,” Harold Feld, senior vice president at open internet advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Recode. Feld worked for Sohn when she was the CEO of Public Knowledge, which she co-founded.

The 2-2 FCC has done a lot of work over the last nine months to expand broadband internet and put programs in place to help lower-income people afford it (Sohn is also big on this, telling Recode last year that affordability is the biggest hurdle to closing the digital divide). The pandemic made it obvious that broadband internet access was no longer a luxury, it is an essential service. But there was no way a deadlocked FCC was going to pass net neutrality. As months went by with no apparent action on naming a permanent chair or appointing a fifth commissioner, Democrats began to lose patience. On September 22, 25 Democratic senators wrote a letter to Biden urging him to name Rosenworcel as the permanent chair “as quickly as possible.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), who was one of the signees, said in a statement to Recode that she strongly supports the two nominations, adding: “Strong leadership at the FCC is essential to deliver on the connectivity goals our 21st-century economy demands. … I am confident that both Rosenworcel and Sohn have the expertise needed to close the digital divide and strengthen our nation for generations to come.”

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), who told Recode back in January that Rosenworcel was her pick for FCC chair, lauded Biden’s picks as “historic,” noting that Rosenworcel is the first woman to serve as the FCC’s permanent chair and Sohn will be its first openly LGBTQ+ commissioner.

“Rosenworcel and Sohn are brilliant champions for innovation, public safety, national security, universal broadband, net neutrality, and social justice,” Eshoo said.

Assuming Biden’s nominations go through, the FCC will have three commissioners who are on record as staunch advocates of net neutrality, which makes an attempt to bring it back almost a certainty. Starks has called it a “critical issue” that the FCC “dropped the ball” on when it was repealed. Rosenworcel was an FCC commissioner back in 2015 when net neutrality initially passed, and she voted for it; she was an opponent of its repeal, saying it “put the agency on the wrong side of the public, the wrong side of history, and the wrong side of the law.” And Sohn was the counselor to Obama-era FCC chair Tom Wheeler when net neutrality was passed. She’s consistently pushed for its reinstatement, saying in 2019 that it’s “critically important to the future of the Internet that net neutrality and important FCC oversight get reinstated.”

“The FCC can now return to being a champion for consumers,” Wheeler told Recode. “Gigi Sohn is a proven and tested consumer champion; together with Geoffrey Starks, chair-designate Rosenworcel has the opportunity to reverse the practices of the Trump years and return the agency to its consumer and competition responsibilities.”

But net neutrality won’t happen immediately, even under the best circumstances.

“It takes a long time to get an FCC order written,” Feld said. “It’s a very complicated process. Particularly for something like this, where there’s going to be a lawsuit, and it’s going to be contentious.”

Net neutrality isn’t the only thing the FCC will likely take back up from the Obama era. The Biden order also called on the FCC to bring back the “broadband nutrition label” that would clearly spell out for consumers how much they pay for their broadband internet service (including all those hidden fees) and the speeds they get for that money.

The FCC will also likely take more action on consumer protection and competition matters, Feld said. Biden’s order asked the FCC to require broadband providers to tell the agency their rates and subscriber counts, ban early termination fees that keep customers locked in, and stop landlords from making deals with cable and broadband companies that restrict tenants’ choice in providers. Feld expects those measures will bring broadband prices down. While broadband rates vary across the country, the United States, on average, pays more for internet than most of the rest of the world. The FCC is also in the process of opening up more radio frequencies, or spectrum, for 5G services, improving its flawed broadband maps, and ridding us of the scourge of robocalls and texts.

It remains to be seen whether the FCC has enough time to see all of Biden’s initiatives — and those of the now-permanent chair — through the House and the Senate. His slow path to getting his FCC in place might have squandered the possibly limited time it will have if Democrats lose control of Congress next year and the presidency in 2024. Still, Feld thinks the FCC will go back to its traditionally lower-profile role — “the technical and boring stuff.”

“I say this as the ultimate compliment: Jessica Rosenworcel is the wonkiest, nerdiest possible choice for FCC chair,” Feld said. “Which is exactly what you want.”

Lawyer Steven Donziger, Who Sued Chevron Over Steven Donziger sits for a portrait at his home in Manhattan, N.Y., where he is on house arrest. (photo: Annie Tritt/The Intercept)

Lawyer Steven Donziger, Who Sued Chevron Over "Amazon Chernobyl," Ordered to Prison After House Arrest
Democracy Now!
Excerpt: "The environmental and human rights lawyer Steven Donziger joins us just before he is ordered to report to jail today, after a years-long legal battle with the oil company Chevron and 813 days of house arrest."

The environmental and human rights lawyer Steven Donziger joins us just before he is ordered to report to jail today, after a years-long legal battle with the oil company Chevron and 813 days of house arrest. In 2011, Donziger won an $18 billion settlement against Chevron on behalf of 30,000 Indigenous people in Ecuador for dumping 16 billion gallons of oil into their ancestral land in the Amazon. Since the landmark case, Donziger has faced a series of legal attacks from Chevron and a New York federal judge, who has employed a private law firm linked to the oil company to prosecute him. Earlier this month, he was sentenced to six months in prison for contempt of court, and his request for bail pending his appeal was denied. Amnesty International and United Nations human rights advocates, along with several U.S. lawmakers, are calling for Donziger’s immediate release. “Chevron and these two judges, really allies of the fossil fuel industry, are trying to use me as a weapon to intimidate activists and lawyers who do this work,” says Donziger. “I need to be prosecuted by a neutral prosecutor, not by Chevron.”

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

The environmental human rights lawyer Steven Donziger is reporting to jail today, after a federal appellate court rejected his request for bail pending his appeal. Earlier this month, Steve Donziger was sentenced to six months in prison for contempt of court — a misdemeanor. Donziger has already spent over two years under house arrest after being targeted by the oil giant Chevron.

The case stems from Steve’s role in suing Chevron on behalf of 30,000 Amazonian Indigenous people for dumping 16 billion gallons of oil into their ancestral land in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Ten years ago, Ecuador’s Supreme Court ordered Chevron to pay $18 billion. The landmark ruling was seen as a major victory for the environment and corporate accountability. But Chevron refused to pay or clean up the land. Instead, it launched a legal attack targeting Donziger.

In July, a federal judge found him guilty of six counts of criminal contempt of court, after he refused to turn over his computer and cellphone. In an unusual legal twist, the judge appointed a private law firm with ties to Chevron to prosecute Donziger after federal prosecutors declined to bring charges.

Amnesty International recently called for his immediate release, saying he was being arbitrarily detained. The U.N.’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has also called for his release.

Well, as he prepares to report to prison later today, Steve Donziger is joining us from his home in New York where he’s been under house arrest for 813 days. Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., there will be a major news conference held today outside the Capitol.

Steve Donziger, welcome back to Democracy Now! Where are you heading to prison today? We’re talking about a misdemeanor. You’ve already been under house arrest for nearly a thousand days.

STEVEN DONZIGER: It’s just extraordinary, Amy. Thank you for the introduction. I mean, it pretty much captured it. What I’ll say is I have to report to prison by 4:48 p.m. today, which is in itself highly unusual. I don’t believe I’m guilty. No lawyer has ever spent more than 90 days in home confinement — maximum sentence ever given to a lawyer convicted of my charge, which is misdemeanor contempt. I’ve already spent over eight times that at home. And on top of that, Judge Preska is trying to put me in prison for six months. And, you know, another unusual feature is she’s making me report within 24 hours after this latest court ruling that came down yesterday, rather than allowing me time to report, you know, in a normal course to a prison. So, there’s so much about this that doesn’t —

AMY GOODMAN: And which prison are you going to be held at?

STEVEN DONZIGER: I don’t know yet. You know, by forcing me in so quickly, Judge Preska, I believe, is trying to force me into a local federal jail, that I think is very unsafe. I mean, I have no security risk at all. I’ve never been convicted. It’s the lowest-level offense. So, normally, I would go to federal prison camp. And, you know, we need time for the Bureau of Prisons to designate me to an appropriate facility. Instead, she’s trying to force me very quickly, I think, into a local jail, which concerns me greatly, frankly. And I think that’s one reason why Amnesty International put out an urgent action bulletin two days ago for people to write to the attorney general, Garland, to just stop this case.

I mean, the other crazy thing about this that is so disturbing, Amy, is that I was not prosecuted by the U.S. government. I was prosecuted by a private law firm, Seward & Kissel, appointed by a federal judge after the U.S. government declined to prosecute me. And the judge never disclosed that the law firm had Chevron as a client. So, essentially, I’m being prosecuted by a Chevron law firm, a partner in a Chevron law firm, a private law firm, who deprived me of my liberty. I’m the only person ever charged with this offense held pretrial, at home or in prison — never happened before for even a day. It’s over 800 days. So, you know, this is the first corporate prosecution in U.S. history. I have never seen a case like this, nor have other legal experts that work with me. And, you know, we just think, you know, to restore the rule of law as regards Steve Donziger and the people of Ecuador, this case has to be stopped and taken over by the Department of Justice. I mean, they could do what they want with it. I mean, if they went to prosecute me, prosecute me, but I need to be prosecuted by a neutral prosecutor, not by Chevron.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I want to just talk about some of the people who are supposed to be at your news conference in Washington. We just interviewed a climate striker on a hunger strike in Washington, D.C., and we heard from Congressmember Rashida Tlaib. She’ll be there at your news conference. Also you have Chuy García, Congressmember Jesús “Chuy” García from Chicago, Congressmember Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, as well as a number of people from Amnesty International, Law Students for Climate Accountability. Talk about the significance — I mean, you have so many supporters at this point at high levels, yet talk about what’s at stake, what it is you exposed in Ecuador.

STEVEN DONZIGER: Well, I think the stakes are high, and it goes way beyond me personally. I mean, on a personal level, it hurts. I have a wife and a 15-year-old son, and, you now, we’re hurting, OK?

But let’s just get real here. What’s really happening here is Chevron and these two judges and, really, allies of the fossil fuel industry are trying to use me as a weapon to intimidate activists and lawyers who do this work, who do the frontline work of defending the planet. What’s at stake, really, I mean, not only my freedom — what’s at stake is the ability to advocate for human rights in our society. I mean, the things I was charged with were — I was a lawyer litigating various court orders, you know, for years, ethically. You know, I’m proud of my work. And this judge just went after me. I’m the only lawyer ever in U.S. history to be charged with criminal contempt of court for challenging a civil discovery order on appeal. That’s essentially what happened.

So, you know, I’m calling on judges and people in Congress, like Representative Tlaib and Jim McGovern and Cori Bush and others who stepped up for me, to continue speaking out, to enlist more people. We need people in the Senate. And ultimately, we need the Biden administration. I mean, I heard your previous guest. I mean, the Biden administration is essentially letting a climate change lawyer, me, an environmental justice lawyer, an Indigenous rights lawyer, an Earth defender, a water protector, be locked up on American soil.

And it’s getting really embarrassing for our country. You know, it’s not every day that Amnesty International issues an urgent action for an American citizen. It’s probably the second time in 20 years that this has happened, OK? It’s not every day that the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention issues an order that someone in the United States’s case is a violation of multiple provisions of international law and shows an appalling degree of lack of impartiality by judges.

You know, so our country needs to deal with this. It really goes to what kind of society we want to live in. And it really relates to the climate issue, because, again, I believe this whole thing is being orchestrated by Chevron, not just for Chevron, but for the entire fossil fuel industry. They don’t want people speaking out. They don’t want successful litigation to hold them to account for their pollution in ways that will help save the planet. And I think, ultimately, that’s what this is about. And people need to pay serious attention to what’s happening to me —

AMY GOODMAN: Steven Donziger, you have called the devastation in Ecuador the “Amazon Chernobyl.” Explain why. Explain the original lawsuit that resulted in an $18 billion judgment against Chevron.

STEVEN DONZIGER: Basically, Chevron, in the form of Texaco, its predecessor company, went into the Amazon of Ecuador and decided to create an operational system, with literally hundreds of wells, where they deliberately dumped toxic waste into waters — into rivers and streams that Indigenous groups relied on for their drinking water, bathing and fishing, creating a mass industrial poisoning of a 1,500 square mile area. And literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people have died. I’ve been there over 250 times.

The affected communities went to court, in the court Chevron wanted it, the trial, to happen, in Ecuador. They won the case. Chevron has attacked me, attacked them, for 10 years, with the help of these federal judges.

In the meantime, people are suffering. And, you know, the degree of contamination is appalling. I mean, it is the Amazon Chernobyl. It’s the very definition of ecocide, in my opinion. I mean, it’s just a deliberate decision, in order to save money, to dump 16 billion gallons of cancer-causing waste onto Indigenous ancestral lands.

And the problem is still there. The case has been going on 28 years. And no matter what happens to me — and I hope I’ll be OK, I hope I’ll get through this, I expect to get through this — the communities in Ecuador are suffering tremendously, and they need help. And Chevron needs to step up and comply with the rule of law and pay the judgment that it owes to the people of Ecuador.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I want to thank you so much for being with us. Clearly, the fight against oil extraction in the Amazon continues. A lawsuit was filed just last week. Again, you tweeted yesterday — around breaking news, you tweeted, “After” — just to give people a sense — “After 100 pages of legal briefing, the appellate court today denied my release in 10 words. This is not due process of law. Nor is it justice.” In these last 30 seconds, is it definite you will be jailed tonight?

STEVEN DONZIGER: Nothing is ever definite. We are going to make one final attempt to go back to my trial judge and ask for more time so I can get properly designated to an appropriate federal prison. I don’t know if she’ll grant it. We’re going to do that shortly. I am prepared and fully expect to, around 2:00 today, leave my home on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and report to prison, where I will spend the next six months.

AMY GOODMAN: After serving over two years under house arrest for a misdemeanor. Steven Donziger, the environmental lawyer targeted by Chevron after he successfully sued the oil giant for ecological devastation in the Ecuadorian Amazon.

Democrats Propose 'Billionaires Tax' to Pay for Biden's Sweeping Agenda Billionaire businessman Jeff Bezos is depicted on a mobile billboard calling for higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy near the U.S. Capitol on May 17. (photo: Drew Angerer/Getty)

Democrats Propose 'Billionaires Tax' to Pay for Biden's Sweeping Agenda
Richard Cowan and David Morgan, Reuters
Excerpt: "The chairman of the powerful U.S. Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday outlined the terms of a Democratic proposal to tax billionaires' assets to help finance President Joe Biden's social-policy and climate-change agenda."

The chairman of the powerful U.S. Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday outlined the terms of a Democratic proposal to tax billionaires' assets to help finance President Joe Biden's social-policy and climate-change agenda.

But it was unclear whether there was enough Democratic support to pass the proposal presented by Chairman Ron Wyden or a proposed 15% corporate minimum tax on the most profitable U.S. corporations.

Those two ideas, as well as tougher tax enforcement, are among the mechanisms Biden's Democrats are considering to fund a pair of bills together worth about $3 trillion to rebuild the nation's infrastructure, boost social spending and fight climate change. The party is struggling to reach consensus on both the scope of the bills and how to pay for them.

Wyden and other lawmakers, including Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, say the tax legislation is intended to curtail tax avoidance by corporations and the wealthy and could generate hundreds of billions of dollars to pay for Biden's plan.

Aides in Congress said the billionaires tax, affecting roughly 700 taxpayers with over $1 billion in assets or $100 million in annual income for three consecutive years, would impose a 23.8% tax rate for long-term capital gains on tradable assets, whether or not they have been sold. It would also allow taxpayers to take deductions for losses on assets.

The tax on billionaires faces potential opposition from other Democrats who favor Biden's original proposal, which would raise tax rates on companies and the wealthy but also faces an uphill fight in the Senate.

Senator Bernie Sanders, a leading progressive, said the billionaires tax was a "step in the right direction" but not nearly enough.

"Every sensible revenue option seems to be destroyed," he told reporters.

Democrats need to keep all of their members in line for legislation to pass the Senate, which is split evenly between Democrats and Republicans.

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, a centrist who has forced Biden to scale back the spending package, reacted with skepticism to the billionaires tax proposal.

"I don't like the connotation that we are targeting different people," he told reporters.

Manchin said he would support a minimum 15% tax on wealthy individuals, similar to the 15% corporate minimum tax that Democrats have proposed.

The minimum corporate tax would dovetail with a global corporate minimum tax recently agreed to by 136 countries and aimed at corporations that pay little or no tax by gaming the international tax system.

It would apply to many large American companies, such as Apple Inc (AAPL.O), Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O), JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) and Johnson & Johnson Inc (JNJ.N).

The debate, and other divisions among Democrats about the scope of Biden's plans, looked likely to derail the party's hopes of passing major legislation this month - to the dismay of Biden, who hoped to land a legislative victory on climate change before starting a trip abroad on Thursday that includes an international conference on the matter.

Some experts say the billionaires tax could be difficult to enforce.

"Government staffers tend to be outmatched by the most sophisticated, best-resourced taxpayers out there," said Steve Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) Chief Executive Elon Musk blasted the plan on Twitter.

"Eventually they run out of other people's money and then they come for you," said Musk, who early this week was worth about $230 billion, according to Refinitiv. "Who is best at capital allocation -- government or entrepreneurs -- is indeed what it comes down to."

Not all billionaires are opposed to the plan. George Soros, the investor and liberal activist, is "supportive," his spokesperson told Reuters on Monday.

The US Turned Jewish Refugees Away During the Holocaust. And Its Refugee Policy Hasn't Changed Much Since. Recently-arrived refugees from Afghanistan seen at a temporary camp at the U.S. Army's Rhine Ordnance Barracks (ROB) on August 30, 2021 in Kaiserslautern, Germany. (photo: Sascha Schuermann/Getty)

The US Turned Jewish Refugees Away During the Holocaust. And Its Refugee Policy Hasn't Changed Much Since.
Rick Perlstein, In These Times
Perlstein writes: "The United States says, 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses' - unless they don't look or act like me."

The United States says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses”—unless they don’t look or act like me.

In 1975, Congressman Thomas Rees (D‑Calif.) summarized the phone calls he was getting from constituents about the war refugees housed on a Marine base in his district: “They think of the Vietnamese as nothing but diseased job-seekers.” In a Florida military town, kids joked about organizing a “Gook Klux Klan.” California Gov. Jerry Brown demanded Congress reserve “jobs for Americans first” in its refugee aid bill. Democratic Sen. Claiborne Pell of Rhode Island suggested Borneo instead: “It has the same latitude, the same climate, and would welcome some anti-Communists.”

Even our most humane administration failed the moral test of welcoming the world’s tired, huddled masses. In 1939, the cabled pleas to FDR from 937 German Jews anchored within sight of Miami went unanswered—except by the State Department (they must “await their turns”) and a Coast Guard vessel (that ensured no one swam for shore). Echoing that failure 82 years later, thousands of Haitians fleeing the aftermath of natural disaster and political chaos (to which the United States helped contribute) were sent back to further misery after many were manhandled by Border Patrol agents on horseback.

America formalized its modern refugee policy in 1980 after three major waves of refugees: Haitians fleeing the U.S.-backed dictatorship of Jean-Claude Duvalier, Southeast Asians fleeing a regional war and Cubans who left when Fidel Castro temporarily opened up the port in Mariel. The policy authorized the president to set a refugee cap; the first year, it was 230,000. Except for a brief bump during the Balkan wars, it hovered subsequently around 70,000 before collapsing to a low of 18,000 under the Trump administration.

Following the Taliban victory, President Joe Biden plans to resettle 95,000 Afghans by September 2022.

What would be a fair number? Consider the demand side. The Costs of War Project at Brown University estimates 37 million people have fled their homes in nations suffering wars started or abetted by the United States since 9/11. But the conversation here is limited to how many refugees we could conceivably “absorb” — a politics based partially on Americans’ traditional nativism. In 1980, the backlash to Marielistas sent to Arkansas was one of the reasons then Gov. Bill Clinton lost reelection. FDR’s heart was hardened by the nativism of a nation facing 17% unemployment. Perhaps we can be cheered by an NPR/ Ipsos poll showing almost two in three Americans favor resettling Afghans who fear the Taliban — in contrast to the 28% in 2015 who thought we should welcome “those fleeing ISIS” in Syria and the 36% in 1975 who thought “evacuated South Vietnamese should be permitted to live in the United States.”

Still, no one’s talking about resettling, say, Yemenis whose villages were flattened by American-made bombs from Saudi Arabian planes.

And Fox News is working hard to change those numbers. Laura Ingraham insists resettlement is a Democratic Party plot to “grow dependency on government programs and build a new constituency.” Fox News anchor Lawrence Jones said “thousands are heading to the battleground states that Democrats are desperate to win in 2022.”

Montana Republican Rep. Matt Rosendale’s response to the 75 people his state will resettle was, “I will not allow this administration to compromise the safety of Montanans” — and that they would be better off “in countries around Afghanistan that share their “values and culture.”

If the United States is too racist to take care of the people who help us prosecute our wars, perhaps we shouldn’t start them in the first place.

Ex Saudi Spy's Daughter: I Was Lured to Same Consulate Where Jamal Khashoggi Was Murdered The daughter of an outspoken former Saudi spy, Hissah Al-Muzaini, told CNN that she was nearly targeted at the same Turkish consulate where Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed and dismembered. (photo: CNN)

Ex Saudi Spy's Daughter: I Was Lured to Same Consulate Where Jamal Khashoggi Was Murdered
Barbie Latza Nadeau, The Daily Beast
Excerpt: "Hissah Al-Muzaini, the daughter of exiled Saudi spy Saad Aljabri, says she was also a target as part of Saudi crown prince’s revenge against her father."

Hissah Al-Muzaini, the daughter of exiled Saudi spy Saad Aljabri, says she was also a target as part of Saudi crown prince’s revenge against her father.

The daughter of an outspoken former Saudi spy told CNN that she was nearly targeted at the same Turkish consulate where Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi was killed and dismembered.

Speaking to CNN, Hissah Al-Muzaini, whose father Saad Aljabri told CBS News’ 60 Minutes that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was a “psychopath” who wanted to get a poison ring from Russia to kill King Abdullah, said she was also a target. She told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that kingdom officials had urged her to go the fateful Istanbul site.

“They tried to encourage me to go there,” she said. “I’m lucky I didn’t go or else my kids wouldn’t have a mum and dad.”

Al-Muzaini, who is one of Aljabri’s eight children, filed a civil suit against bin Salman, known as MBS, who she blames for plotting to kill her in a revenge attack against her father, who is living in Canada.

Aljabri has also filed a civil lawsuit in the U.S. that alleges MBS sent a kill team to Canada to murder him. Aljabri worked for the kingdom’s previous crown prince, Mohammed bin Nayef, before he was deposed in 2017. He’s told CBS he has many damning secrets that MBS would like to keep quiet.

Khashoggi was lured to Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018 and never seen again,; surveillance inside the consulate exposed the dissident writer’s grisly murder and dismemberment.

Two of Aljabri’s other children, Sarah and Omar, are in prison in Saudi Arabia and Al-Muzaini says her husband, Salem, has been “kidnapped” by MBS as pressure mounts to get Aljabri to return to the kingdom. Records show her husband was arrested last year.

“We’ve been living a real-life nightmare for the past four years,” she told CNN. “Imagine yourself, your dad has been targeted with hit squads, your siblings [have been] imprisoned and accused of things they’ve never done ... your husband being imprisoned, kidnapped, and then tortured.” She also said her husband was “coerced” under torture to sign over all his assets and wealth to win his freedom when he was previously arrested in 2017 as part of a dubious “anti-corruption” shakedown MBS ordered at the time at the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton.

Al-Muzaini said MBS is fearful of information her father has, telling CNN “We live in fear. We always look over our shoulder. We don’t feel safe. I don’t know how we can feel safe when people like this are chasing family members and sending hit squads and killing people in embassies and consulates.”

Saudi officials say Aljabri is a “discredited former government official with a long history of fabricating and creating distractions to hide the financial crimes he committed, which amount to billions of dollars, to furnish a lavish lifestyle for himself and his family.”

Aljabri denied those claims to CBS.

'Ignored for 70 Years': Human Rights Group to Investigate Uranium Contamination on Navajo Nation A protest sign saying 'No Mining' in Navajo is seen next to the entry to Northeast Church Rock abandoned uranium mine in Pinedale, New Mexico. (photo:Pamela Peters/Reuters)

'Ignored for 70 Years': Human Rights Group to Investigate Uranium Contamination on Navajo Nation
Cody Nelson, Guardian UK
Nelson writes: "Rita Capitan has been worrying about her water since 1994. It was that autumn she read a local newspaper article about another uranium mine, the Crownpoint Uranium Project, getting under way near her home."

Boost for advocates’ group is step further in decades-long fight against mining pollution

Rita Capitan has been worrying about her water since 1994. It was that autumn she read a local newspaper article about another uranium mine, the Crownpoint Uranium Project, getting under way near her home.

Capitan has spent her entire life in Crownpoint, New Mexico, a small town on the eastern Navajo Nation, and is no stranger to the uranium mining that has persisted in the region for decades. But it was around the time the article was published that she began learning about the many risks associated with uranium mining.

“We as community members couldn’t just sit back and watch another company come in and just take what is very precious to us. And that is water – our water,” Capitan said.

To this effect, Capitan and her husband, Mitchell, founded Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining (Endaum). The group’s fight against uranium mining on their homeland has continued for nearly three decades, despite the industry’s disastrous health and environmental impacts being public knowledge for years.

Capitan’s newest concerns are over the Canadian mining company Laramide Resources, which, through its US subsidiary NuFuels, holds a federal mining license for Crownpoint and nearby Church Rock. Due to the snail’s pace at which operations like this can move, Laramide hasn’t begun extraction in these areas, but is getting closer by the day.

While the US legal system hasn’t given them much recourse to fight the mining, Capitan and other community members see new hope in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

Endaum and the New Mexico Environmental Law Center made a substantial evidence filing last week with the commission, alleging that the US government and its Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) have violated their human rights by licensing uranium mines in their communities.

The petition with the commission won’t necessarily offer Endaum legal recourse. However, a favorable recommendation could help them in future legal proceedings against uranium mine projects while also guiding future advocacy on mining policy, said Eric Jantz, senior staff attorney at the New Mexico Environmental Law Center.

He said it would also be a form of vindication: “There is moral value in having an international human rights body lay bare the abuses of the nuclear industry and the US government’s complicity in those abuses.”

While these mines haven’t begun operation yet, the impending threat hangs over local residents’ heads – especially considering the deadly history of mining for the radioactive metal on the Navajo Nation beginning during the cold war.

“There are four generations of Navajo folks who had to deal with existing contamination and who live essentially in the middle of or next door to radioactive waste dumps,” Jantz said. “And the federal government has ignored those communities for the last 70 years.”

The type of mine in question uses in situ leach technology (ISL), also known as in situ reach (ISR), the most common form of uranium extraction. It involves drilling holes into the earth to reach the mineral deposit. A chemical solution is pumped underground, often into the aquifer, to dissolve the uranium deposit. This solution is then pumped back to the surface with the mineral in tow for processing.

“The mineralization at Crownpoint has been previously shown to be amenable to ISR techniques,” Laramide says on its website.

Residents, however, are deeply concerned about the risks of pollution. On the Navajo Nation, most uranium deposits sit in aquifers. Drilling into these aquifers can cause radioactive uranium to leach into the water, contaminating both the underground supply and the water absorbed from the surface.

Laramide did not respond to a request for comment. On its website it says it has an “aquifer exemption on the property” from the Environmental Protection Agency.

More than 500 abandoned uranium mines sit on Navajo Nation land today, each one a potential vector for unleashing more radioactive particles into the air and water, on top of the damage that’s already been done. Uranium mining operations have caused higher rates of cancer, respiratory diseases and kidney conditions among Navajos. From the 1970s to the 1990s, cancer rates on the reservation have doubled, according to its government.