BREAKING NEWS

Advocates for poor say politicians and enviro groups are waging "War On The Poor"

More than 100 state and federal elected officials and 50 environmental groups targeted for "public outing," leaders say

Leaders from the civil rights, African American, evangelical, agriculture and consumer advocacy communities have launched a national campaign to publicly unmask more than 100 politicians and 50 environmental extremist groups that are waging an immoral "war on the poor" by pushing policies that limit America’s ability to produce more America energy and drive energy prices skyward.

The coalition also will press for immediate action by Congress on any of several pending bills, including the "Americans for American Energy Act," (H.R. 6834), the "Gas Price Reduction Act (S. 3202) and the soon-to-be-introduced "All Of The Above Act of 2008" in the U.S. House.

The coalition´s campaign is centered on the group´s new website, stopwaronpoor.org, where two decks of "Punishers of the Poor" playing cards are scheduled to be unveiled soon.  The playing cards will each feature a politician who has been named a "Punisher of the Poor" by the coalition´s leaders.

The national campaign was officially launched at a protest rally last week on Capitol Hill where more than a dozen speakers spoke to a crowd of nearly 100 families and advocates for the poor protested with signs and chants of "Stop the War on the Poor" before a phalanx of news media cameras, Congressional staffers and others. Full-length video and photos from the protest rally are available here.

"Environmental extremists, and the politicians who do their bidding, are strangling consumers, minorities and the working poor by restricting our ability to produce enough American energy and forcing energy prices to go through the roof," said Niger Innis, National Spokesman of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), a key organizer of the Capitol Hill protest and co-chairman of the national "Stop The War On The Poor" campaign.

"The ever-increasing energy prices driven by anti-consumer politicians are nothing more than a highly regressive tax on America’s most vulnerable citizens," Innis added. "Our ‘Stop The War On The Poor’ campaign has targeted 100 specific politicians and 50 environmental extremist groups from across the nation that will be unmasked as the ‘generals, colonels, majors and captains’ who are waging this unprecedented war on the poor."

"I´m a Democrat who is committed to seeing elected officials from all political parties wake up to the realities of what our national energy policies are doing to the poor and to our nation´s fundamental national security," said Wyoming State Senator Bill Vasey (D), Chair of Americans for American Energy. "The cold hard fact is that we need more American energy from all American resources, and we need to encourage the private sector to develop and deploy new clean energy technologies as well."

"How can Congress justify imposing crushing, highly regressive taxes upon the most needy in our society,’ asked Bishop Harry Jackson, co-chairman of the "Stop the War on the Poor" campaign. "We are here to say enough is enough. The real poor are going without essentials. When you push up energy prices everyone suffers and the first to suffer are the poor".

"This is a moral and ethics issue and we need to remind politicians in Washington, DC just how grave the consequences are of failed energy policies," Jackson added.  "These policies are destroying jobs, reducing people´s living standards and trampling basic civil rights.  They can no longer be tolerated."

"It is a sad but undeniable fact that higher energy prices hurt the poor more than any other sector of our society. Median-income families devote about a nickel on every dollar of income to energy costs, while poor families must devote as much as 50 cents on their dollar. Studies show that high energy prices are one of the single biggest drivers of homelessness. And high energy prices are literally forcing millions of Americans to make horrible choices between food, fuel and medicine," Innis said.

"Environmental extremists actually want higher prices because it gives them power to force changes in people’s behavior," Innis said. "They call this ‘energy conservation.’ I call it ‘economic enslavement.’ It is immoral, it is wrong, and those who support these policies will be unmasked for what they are – strategists and leaders in the war on the poor."

Innis, who is active in Republican political circles, and Bishop Jackson, who is a registered Democrat, said that the national campaign will be active in all 50 states and will mount "an aggressive public education campaign that will shine the spotlight on all those who are waging this war, regardless of the political party affiliation or philosophy."

"I am a registered Democrat, but this has nothing to do with partisan politics," said Bishop Harry Jackson, head of the High Impact Leadership Coalition. "Unless the public understands that there are specific people and organizations that are fueling this war against the poor, nothing will change and the poor will continue to suffer. We will unmask those behind this war regardless of their political party or ideology."

"Party labels and partisan ideologies are meaningless when it comes to protecting the lives of America’s most vulnerable citizens," Bishop Jackson added. "Only by encouraging truly bipartisan action will our nation be able to adequately construct solutions to this problem."

by Noel Sheppard 

If a former vice president with absolutely no formal scientific training in climatology or meteorology makes a statement about the world coming to an end due to rising temperatures, media will fawn over him like teenyboppers in the presence of Elvis Presley.

Yet, if more than 100 scientists from around the world send a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations urging him and his organization to stop wasting time, resources, and money fighting a futile climate change battle, crickets will be heard in newsrooms around the country.

Pretty disgraceful, wouldn´t you agree?

Yet, such was the case when scientists from around the planet signed their names to the following letter sent to Ban Ki-moon as nations were meeting in Bali to discuss preposterous and economically damaging ideas to address global warming.

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC´s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

• Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
• The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
• Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today´s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme´s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity´s real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ´Science Speak,´ Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai´i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai´i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ´Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia´s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization´s Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen´s University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA´s Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O´Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

COOL rule changes may be written into law

Just before the House Agriculture Committee finished marking up the 2007 farm bill on July 19, Agriculture Chairman Peterson called his committee into executive session to say that the meat industry had agreed to resolve one of the longest-running disputes in American agriculture: implementation of the 2002 law requiring country-of-origin labeling for red meat (COOL) at the final point of retail sale.

Peterson told reporters that only Buis and Russell were in the room for the final negotiations that produced a compromise that will be added to the 2007 farm bill. Buis and Russell agreed that many of the regulations and penalties should be dropped or softened to ease the fears of packers and retailers, while the basic labeling scheme goes forward.

As of Sept. 30, 2008, beef, pork, lamb and goat from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the United States will be labeled "Product of the U.S." Meat from animals born in another country and raised and/or slaughtered in the United States will be labeled, "A Product of that country and the United States".  And a third label for ground meat that comes from a variety of countries will be labeled "may contain meat from" the list of countries from which is was imported.

Members of the Agriculture Committee voted unanimously to add the provision to the farm bill and instruct the committee staff to write the legal language incorporating the deal. 

House Ag Chairman Peterson said the battles over country-of-origin labeling are not over because the 2002 farm bill also requires country-of-origin labeling for fresh fruits and vegetables. That industry is also divided. Peterson told reporters today he has summoned leaders of the fruit and vegetable industry to reach a compromise or face implementation of the similarly burdenson rules as the USDA administration has written for them.

by Laurie Schneberger

On July 6, much to the relief of ranchers in the region, Mexican wolf AF 924 was lethally removed. Despite wolf team inability to make a swift decision in issuing the removal order that lasted for a week past the third and fourth confirmed livestock kills, the order was carried out. 

During the three weeks prior to the removal, Catron County leadership was threatened with arrest by federal agents if they removed the wolf non-lethally. Despite the fed´s threats, the county wolf interaction investigator had placed a hava-heart trap in the area in order to remove AF 924 and turn her over to the interagency wolf management team.

As soon as the third strike, a cow and a calf both confirmed, wolf depredations occurred, the County told the Wolf Interaction Investigator to stand down and remove his traps.

While it is unfortunate that the wolf was shot, the outcome was necessary to end the wolf’s aggressive behavior and her habitual localizing at a neighborhood home. Unfortunately for the people in the area as well as the wolf pack, FWS had not felt the wolf’s behavior was bad enough to warrant non-lethal removal for her human fixation.

The majority, but not all of the team did feel it was necessary to shoot her for livestock depredation. The minority members on the team appear to have attempted to stop the removal but only succeeded in forcing a strike on each separate wolf rather than both strikes on both wolves. SOP 13 does not allow this type of gerrymandering of policy however, it has become commonplace in the program when dealing with habituated problem wolves or chronic livestock killers. Especially when agency personnel do not want to remove the wolf or wolves in question.

The agency also claims there are four pups in the Durango litter, however until the death of the female no attempt was made to feed these pups although the only consistent food source in the area have been calves belonging to the Adobe Ranch.

Now the agency is claiming that they will help the male to supplemental feed the pups.

Evidence has not yet shown there are pups and to date no pups have been confirmed. It is believed that the claim of pups is being used to generate sympathy for the program and that Durango Female 924 lost her first litter of pups in the wilderness prior to moving to the Garcia camp area.

Witnesses state that there appeared to be no evidence of milk production on the female’s body. Nor has she spent any significant time in a den as other known wolves in the same region are doing. Instead she made wide circles in the area of the Slash and Adobe Ranches looking for food with her mate. She would also take her mate and spend nights at the Miller’s home on the ranch. This behavior is not indicative of the existence of pups in the pack.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson seeks to change key protocols for the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program following a recent wolf kill incident in southwestern New Mexico.

“I am deeply concerned about the recent escalation in wolf removals and incidents surrounding yesterday’s lethal removal of a female wolf,” said Governor Bill Richardson. “State Police are investigating the incident and are collecting the facts as this investigation takes its course.”

On July 5, attempts to kill wolf AF924 were initiated before adequate notification was provided to the State of New Mexico. The wolf was killed by federal Wildlife Services before adequate communication was established which resulted in conflicts between federal and state staff involved with the wolf program.

"This type of confusion is not an adequate basis for accomplishing important wolf restoration," said Governor Richardson.

The lethal removal of a female wolf, that leaves pups with a single parent, is a setback to the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program, and signals that it is time to reexamine the protocols under which wolves are removed from the wild.

Governor Richardson has instructed the Director of the Department of Game & Fish and members of the State Game Commission to work with the state’s partners in the Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program to review and revise standard operating procedures related to the control of nuisance (non-depredating) and problem (depredating) Mexican wolves.  The Governor has also called for the immediate suspension of the use of Standard Operating Procedure 13 (SOP 13) procedures in New Mexico pending these revisions.

“I strongly support the effective recovery of endangered Mexican wolves in the Southwest, done in a responsible and sensitive way,” said Governor Bill Richardson.  “Changes must be made to the protocol for the wolf re-introduction program.”

The Mexican Gray Wolf Recovery Program is led by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and supported by a set of partners in the recovery area. The NMDGF is an active participant, along with the Arizona Department of Game & Fish, the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S.D.A. Wildlife Services, and the White Mountain Apache Tribe. The standard operating procedures established by the partners enhance the coordination and effective management of wolves.

In March 2007, Governor Richardson directed the State Game Commission and the Department of Game and Fish to redouble their efforts to work with all interests to promote healthy wolf populations living in reasonable compatibility with our communities and land stewards in New Mexico.

Amid revelations Chinese beef has been processed in poor hygienic conditions, South Korean lawmakers are seeking legislation to strengthen the consumers´ right to know by expanding the place-of-origin requirement on imported beef.

South Korea bans raw beef from China, where livestock diseases have frequently erupted, such as the latest case of foot-and-mouth disease reported in northeastern Gansu Province in January. But pasteurized Chinese beef packed in cans and pouches are allowed, which has led to a surge of such imports in recent years as a substitute for raw beef.

With most Seoul restaurants reportedly depending on canned and pouched Chinese beef, the hygienic conditions of its production are appallingly poor and consumers buy it with little knowledge of possible threats, Rep. Park Jae-wan of the main opposition Grand National Party said.

According to a report from Park´s office, which last week inspected several Chinese factories in Shandong Province, many of them failed to meet international hygiene standards. Many factories registered with the South Korean Food and Drug Administration were paper companies whose buildings were dismantled long ago or situated at false addresses, the report said. One processing company in Qingdao, which did not exist at its registered address, was found to be located inside a Chinese military unit. Another company in Laishi had a pig pen and piles of excrement alongside its beef processing factory. Also, most of the vehicles used to transport the beef to processing factories were unrefrigerated.

A group of lawmakers led by Park plans to present revisions to the Food Hygiene Law and the School Food Service Law in June requiring food service facilities bigger than 300 square meters to clarify the place of origin of their beef ingredients.

But the legislation will be short of seeking a trade limit on Chinese beef, Park´s office said.

"It will be difficult to place a ban on it, because free trade is our government´s policy and then trade frictions may occur. But, at least, the place of origin should be made public so that consumers can choose what they eat based on the information," said Lee Kwang-ho, a political attache to Park who led the inspection trip.

Television station MBC reported recently that imported Chinese beef contained 1,000 to 10,000 times more bacteria that can cause intestine illnesses than is permitted by the Food and Drug Administration.

The report also found the Chinese canned beef is frequently sold as Australian or Korean beef in Seoul restaurants because of the lack of place-of-origin labels.

Brazil´s leading beef processor and exporter has purchased Swift Foods Co., the third largest U.S. processor of beef and pork, for $1.4 billion.

Brazil´s JBS S.A., which controls leading beef exporter Friboi, announced the acquisition of Swift Foods Co., the third largest U.S. processor of beef and pork, for $1.4 billion, JBS said Tuesday in a statement.

The acquisition must be approved by local authorities and JBS said it expects to conclude the deal by July.

The deal was conducted via the JBS overseas arm called J&F Acquisition Co. The company was advised by Rothschild Inc in the process.

According to a person close to the operation, JBS has already obtained an authorization to contract a bridge loan to finance the acquisition. The loan would come from a group of five banks: Banco do Brasil, Citigroup, Santander, Rotschild and UBS.

JBS is the largest producer of beef and beef by-products in Latin America, and one of the largest in the world.

Thanks to a host of generous ethanol subsidies, we have seen a stampede of American farmers planting corn in place of other crops to cash in on the ethanol craze, says USA Today.

For non-farmers, though, the consequences are less cheery. They get to pay for the corn twice -- once through taxes to fund a 51-cent-per-gallon federal subsidy, then again at the dinner table because as more corn goes for ethanol, less is available for food and feed, boosting prices.

At a time when global agricultural supplies are at their tightest levels in decades -- and likely to get tighter as the result of rising living standards in the developing world -- America is taking vast amounts of farmland out of food production.

Consider:

o Last year, about 4.9 billion gallons of ethanol were produced.

o Within a couple of years, that number is projected to rise to about 12 billion gallons, thanks to a building boom in ethanol plants.

o A proposal in Congress would mandate an increase in ethanol production to 36 billion gallons within 15 years.

o That amount of ethanol, using current technologies, would consume virtually America´s entire corn crop.

Even assuming breakthroughs in so-called cellulosic ethanol -- which is made from grasses, wood chips and such, and now costs much more than corn-derived ethanol -- world food supplies would be stressed. The benefit from all of this is far less clear than ethanol´s newly enriched boosters would have you believe, says USA Today.

In its first major report on bioenergy, the United Nations concluded that while ethanol and other biofuels can help reduce global warming and create jobs for the rural poor, the benefits may be offset by other environmental problems and higher food prices.

Source: Editorial, "Our view on alternative energy: Ethanol gold rush carries costs to your table," USA Today, May 9, 2007.

As gas prices pass $3.00 a gallon, several members of Congress have taken aim once again at oil companies, promoting everything from a windfall profits tax to breaking the companies up. Yet rather than attacking "big oil," Congress should look in the mirror, says H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

The real problem is that while energy prices are subject to the basic economic laws of supply and demand, Congress continually restricts supply, says Burnett.

For instance:

o Congress chose not to lift the moratorium on new oil and gas production on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf, putting more than 85 billion barrels of oil (quadruple current U.S. reserves) off limits.

o Congress has repeatedly refused to allow oil development in the coastal plains of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), putting 16 billion barrels of oil off limits.

o Congress dictates the types of gasoline that Americans burn, mandating 57 different gas blends that must be refined with seasonal changeovers.

"The rhetoric coming from Congress shows a naïveté about energy markets and a blatant disregard for their own role in causing high prices," says Burnett. Further, by limiting domestic supply opportunities, Congress has required that oil companies, and therefore pump prices, are reliant on oil from foreign countries sold on the world market, rather than their own domestic reserves.

Source: "Congressional Criticism Misses Mark on Gas Prices," Earthtimes.org, May 11, 2007.