Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 21:53:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Alice McCombs <amccombs@igc.apc.org>

Contents

1. THANK YOU! WI Senate Passes Mining Moratorium
  a. Wisconsin Senate mining victory
  b. One Million Dollars Not Enough to Buy the State Senate--
Conservationists Applaud Strengthening of the Mining Moratorium
  c. Senators vote to fix Mining Moratorium Bill
  d. Wisconsin Senate strengthens Moratorium bill
  e. Re: EMERGENCY ACTION on Mining Moratorium
2. RACHEL #582: One Fundamental Problem

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. THANK YOU! WI Senate Passes Moratorium

a. Wisconsin Senate mining victory

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 18:34:12 -0600
From: Zoltan Grossman <mtn@igc.apc.org>

The victory today in the Wisconsin State Senate means the
Sulfide Mining Moratorium Bill needs only one more step before
it reaches Governor Tommy Thompson's desk.  The alliance
of environmentalists, Native American nations, sportfishing groups,
unionists, students, and others was never expected to get this far.
If the Governor vetos the measure, mining is sure to increase as
one of the primary issues in the upcoming gubernatorial campaign.

Pressure should be put on the Senators and Assembly
representatives that will be on the joint committee, and the
Governor himself at (608) 266-1212, or wisgov@mail.state.wi.us
Also e-mail corpcomm@rioalgom.com to tell the Canadian
company Rio Algom to drop its proposed Crandon
project.  Rio "Allgone": get out while the going's good.
Following are two press releases on today's step forward....

Zoltan Grossman
Wolf Watershed Educational Project
c/o Midwest Treaty Network
mtn@igc.apc.org
http://www.alphacdc.com/treaty/wwep.html

Back to top

------------------------------------------

b. One Million Dollars Not Enough to Buy the State Senate--
Conservationists Applaud Strengthening of the Mining Moratorium

For Immediate Release  February 3, 1998

For More Information:    Caryl Terrell, Sierra Club (608) 256-0565
                   Pam Porter, WI's Environmental Decade (608) 251-7020

Madison, WI---Conservationists hailed the passage with overwhelming
bi-partisan support of the Mining Moratorium Bill SB 3 today.

"The public asked for a real moratorium on sulfide metallic mining and
with this Senate action we finally have it.  This is really good
news,"  said Dave Blouin, Mining Chair of the statewide John Muir
Chapter of the Sierra Club.  "We are quite pleased that this
strengthening amendment by the Senate restores the integrity of the
moratorium."

"Exxon's Crandon Mining Company spent a million dollars last year to
fight this bill  but they could not buy the Wisconsin legislature,"
said Peter Browne, Sierra Club volunteer. "The voice of the people
triumphed over money and petty partisan bickering.  State Senators who
voted for the bill are reaffirming our faith in the political
process."

"The Assembly Republicans should follow suit and concur with the final
strengthening of SB 3 and put this bill on the Governor's desk, " said
Lisanne Nelson Brandon, Director of Policy and Development with
Wisconsin Citizen Action. "We are cautiously hopeful that the Governor
will join the public and legislators in this action to further protect
our precious natural resources."

"We applaud Republican Senators Rob Cowles of Green Bay and Dale
Schultz of Richland Center, who worked with lead author Democrat Kevin
Shibilski of Amherst in crafting an amendment that incorporates the
intent of the original Mining Moratorium."said  Caryl Terrell,
Legislative Coordinator of the statewide John Muir Chapter-Sierra
Club.

"The Assembly action would have allowed  obviously polluting mines to
meet SB 3 as weakened by the Assembly," said Pam Porter, Executive
Director of Wisconsin's Environmental Decade.  "Together with many
fishing and hunting groups, we were able to prove to both Republican
and Democratic  Senators how the loophole would work."

"The Senate amendment focuses on science, not voodoo legal
terminology, " said Terrell. "This requires modern mines to be
used to meet the Moratorium requirements."

"It was very dramatic," said Browne.  "Even the lobbyists for
Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce must have been holding their
breath as the votes were tallied." The key vote of 15 ayes and 17 noes
to reject the corrective amendment included Republicans Cowles,
Schultz and Tim Weeden of Beloit.

After a minor technical amendment, the bill passed overwhelmingly on a
vote of  27-5 with the only dissenting  Senators Scott Fitzgerald of
Juneau, Robert Welch of Redgranite, Margaret Farrow of Elm Grove, Mary
Panzer of West Bend  and Joanne Huelsman of Waukesha.

"From the kitchen tables of ordinary citizens, the history of how this
bill got to the Governor's desk is an example of true democracy in
action,"  said Zoltan Grossman, co-chair of the Midwest Treaty
Network.  "This is the greatest environmental victory of the year."

-30-

Caryl Terrell, Legislative Coordinator
John Muir Chapter- Sierra Club
222 So Hamilton St #1
Madison WI 53703-3201
(608-256-0565 voice, 256-4562 fax)
cterrell@execpc.com

Back to top

------------------------------------------

c. Senators vote to fix Mining Moratorium Bill

By Michele Hopp
Sauk County News Service

Published 02/05/98
Sauk Prairie Eagle, Baraboo Sun

After adding a new amendment written by
Senator Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center),
State Senators voted in favor of the Mining
Moratorium Bill, SB3, on Feb. 3, 1998.

The Mining Moratorium Bill prohibits the
opening of a new mine in a sulfide ore body
until a similar mine has been operated
elsewhere for at least 10 years without
significant environmental damage.

Two weeks ago, the Assembly attached
new language, which was authored by
mining proponents, to SB 3 which restricted
the definition of "pollution" to only those
mines which had polluted to such a degree
that their actions landed them in court or
resulted in a fine. The amendment created
a huge loophole, which allowed numerous
pollution-causing mines to meet the amended
SB 3, because their polluting activities never
resulted in a fine or court action.

The Senate added an amendment that would
require the Department of Natural Resources
to also look at relevant data from groundwater
or surface water monitoring to determine
whether a mine had caused significant
environmental pollution of groundwater or
surface water from acid drainage at the tailings
site or at the mine site or from the release of
heavy metals.

The final vote on the amended Mining Moratorium
Bill was 27-5 in favor of the bill. Senator Bob
Welch (R-Redgranite) was one of the five
senators who voted against the bill.

Bart Olson, local publisher and Sauk County
Supervisor, an outspoken critic of the proposed
sulfide mine near Crandon, Wisconsin was
pleased with the vote.

"I am delighted to see that the Senate fixed
the giant loophole in the Assembly version of
the Mining Moratorium Bill, and that mining
companies will have to really prove that there
has been a mine operated for 10 years and
closed for 10 years that has not polluted,"
he said. "I am extremely pleased with the
courageous efforts of Senator Dale Schultz
of Richland Center who authored the amendment
that fixed the bill. I am very disappointed in my
senator, Bob Welch of Redgranite, who not only
voted against the bill, but also spoke against
bill on the floor and tried to convince other
senators to vote against the bill and support
the mining industry."

The amended bill will now go back to the State
Assembly for a vote.
-----
Michele Hopp
Shopper Stopper, Sauk County News Service
P.O. Box 280, 327 Palisade St., Merrimac, WI 53561
608-493-2291, fax 608-493-2074, e-mail: michele@shopperstopper.com
web site: http://www.shopperstopper.com

Back to top

------------------------------------------------------

d. Wisconsin Senate strengthens Moratorium bill

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 15:56:36 -0500
From: Zoltan Grossman <mtn@igc.apc.org>
Organization: Midwest Treaty Network

The Wisconsin State Senate has strengthened SB3--
the Sulfide Minng Moratorium Bill, on a vote of 27-5.

The bill states that no sulfide mine can open in
Wisconsin without companies showing that
one similar mine in the US or Canada has been
closed for ten years without causing pollution.
The Assembly had passed Amendment 4, which allowed
the DNR to consider only mines that had violated federal,
state or provincial laws--omitting mines that had
polluted but not been cited.

At 1:30 pm, it was clear that the Senate would close the
loophole in the bill, by amending Assembly Amendment 4
with Senate Amendment 1.
The vote was CLOSE, 17-15, with all Democrats (except
George and Breske) voting for the new language,
and all Republicans (except Cowles, Weeden, and
Schultz) voting against it.  The Senate is evenly split
by party.  On the final vote on the Senate Amendment 1,
only Sens, Welch, Panzer, Farrow, Fitzgerald,
and Huelsman voted against it--all Republicans.

Senate Amendment 1 clarified Assembly Amendment 4,
by allowing mines to be considered solely on the
basis of pollution, not just citations.  The key part read:
The department (DNR) may not base its determination
under sub., (2) (a) or (b) on a mining operation unless the
department determines, based on relevant data from
groundwater or surface water monitoring, that the mining
operation has not caused significant environmental pollution,
as defined in s. 293.01 (4), from acid drainage at the tailings
site or at the mine site or from the release of heavy metals."

The bill now goes to a Senate-Assembly joint committee
to work out a compromise version.  Mining opponents should
be on the alert for nw efforts to undermine the bill.

World Watershed Educational Project
http://www.alphacdc.com/treaty/wwep.html
mtn@igc.apc.org
800-445-8615

Back to top

--------------------------------------------------

e. Re: EMERGENCY ACTION on Mining Moratorium

Date: Tue, 03 Feb 1998 11:08:02 -0600
From: jeff ryan <ryanj15@vaxa.cis.uwosh.edu>

Students and Citizens Sit-In to Protest legislative shenanigans!

Yesterday and Today, students and citizens from all over Wisconsin made a
very strong statement against business as usual politics in Wisconsin. To
protest the Assembly, about 60 individuals sang songs, chanted, and held
the foyer of the Wisconsin Assembly. After NINE hours of protest, with
threats of arrest, they left to organize for the next day. During the
demonstration, Rep. Marc Duff's office was visited to confront one of the
leaders of the mining moratorium boon-doggle. After a long and unifying day
and the capital police breathing down their necks, protesters left to
rejoice and plan for the next day.

Today, protests are already sitting-in for another day. This time to
watch-dog the legislators from not making further UN-Democratic maneuvers.
They are also encouraging everyone to drop everything and join them in
their actions. For more information, please contact 608-262-9036 for
information on TODAY's activities.

Back to top

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. RACHEL #582: One Fundamental Problem

Date:         Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:18:48 -0500
Sender: "WASTENOT  Organic Waste Collection, Processing, Composting,"
              <WASTENOT@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
From: Peter Montague <montague@WORLD.STD.COM>

=======================Electronic Edition========================
.                                                               .
.           RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #582           .
.                    ---January 22, 1998---                     .
.                          HEADLINES:                           .
.                    ONE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM                    .
.                          ==========                           .
.               Environmental Research Foundation               .
.              P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD  21403              .
.      Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@rachel.clark.net       .
.                          ==========                           .
.  Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send   .
.   E-mail to INFO@rachel.clark.net with the single word HELP   .
.    in the message; back issues also available via ftp from    .
.    ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com     .
.            and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/            .
. Subscribe: send E-mail to rachel-weekly-request@world.std.com .
.  with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message.  It's free.   .
=================================================================

ONE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM

The history of environmental contamination in the U.S. is
basically the history of a power struggle between a few hundred
large publicly-held corporations, on the one hand, and
governmental public health authorities on the other.  (For
example, see REHW #539, #540 --the history of tetraethyl lead in
gasoline.)  During the past 100 years, the large corporations
have generally prevailed handily. Unfortunately, in prevailing,
transnational corporations have created an industrial system that
even their managers now acknowledge is unsustainable.[1]

Importantly, corporations have established the principle that
chemicals and other new technologies will be considered safe
until proven harmful.  Thus the burden of proof lies with the
public to show that harm is occurring before controls can be
considered.  (Only in the pharmaceutical industry is the burden
of proof reversed.  Before new drugs can be marketed, they must
be shown to be both reasonably safe AND effective.  And even with
this restriction, pharmaceutical preparations kill an estimated
140,000 (!) Americans each year.[2])

The transnational corporation is the principle institution of our
era, and this has been true for roughly the last 100 years. This
institution is as important today as the Christian church was in
Europe during the 15th century, determining and shaping most of
reality for most people.

As we think about establishing an industrial system based on
principles of sustainability in the 21st century, we would be
remiss if we did not examine the nature of this legal entity, the
corporation. As things stand today, the corporation --and not
government --is the legal entity that will determine whether a
sustainable industrial system is possible.

The nature of the large publicly-traded corporation

** In the U.S., corporations were initially created as
artificial, subordinate entities, chartered by state
legislatures, with no rights of their own. Up until 1886
corporations could only serve the public purposes that they were
specifically established to serve: build a canal, manage a toll
road, finance and construct a bridge, and so forth. Their
capitalization was fixed by law; they could not own other
corporations; often their board of directors were required to
live in the state where they were incorporated, to make them
locally accountable. In these early years, a corporation's
lifetime was finite, often 20 years.

For example, the Pennsylvania legislature declared in 1834: "A
corporation in law is just what the incorporation act makes it.
It is the creature of the law and may be moulded to any shape or
for any purpose that the Legislature may deem most conducive for
the common good."[3]

The constitution of the state of California in 1879 contained
this clause (Article XII, section 8): "The exercise of the right
of eminent domain shall never be so abridged or construed as to
prevent the Legislature from taking the property and franchises
of incorporated companies and subjecting them to public use the
same as the property of individuals, and the exercise of the
police power of the State shall never be so abridged or construed
as to permit corporations to conduct their business in such
manner as to infringe the rights of individuals or the general
well-being of the State."[3]

After 1886 the situation changed. In an 1886 decision by the U.S.
Supreme Court, corporations were given the status of "persons"
under the U.S. Constitution, protected by the Bill of Rights.
After that, corporations could do anything that any other
"person" could do, so long as it was legal. Armed with the
Constitutional protections of individuals, but having none of the
limitations of individuals, corporations soon ceased to be
subordinate entities. Today many corporations are larger than
countries. For example, Mitsubishi is larger than Indonesia.
General Motors is larger than Denmark. Ford Motor is larger than
South Africa and larger than Saudi Arabia. Toyota Motor is larger
than Portugal. Wal-Mart Stores is larger than Israel, larger than
Greece.[4]

** For the most part, corporations are staffed by intelligent,
well-meaning people. But the personal motivations of those
individuals are not what motivate the corporation. A large
publicly-traded corporation is driven by its own internal logic.

** A corporation has an internal drive that is comparable to a
human's "will to live." Once a corporation is publicly traded, it:

** Must return a profit to investors;

** Must grow;

** Must externalize costs to the extent feasible.

These are essential characteristics of the corporate form. If a
corporation fails to provide a decent return for investors, those
investors can (and do) sue for breach of fiduciary trust. This
requirement --to turn a profit --narrowly limits what
corporations can do. In general, what is unprofitable cannot be
pursued. This means that individuals must sometimes put aside
their consciences when they make decisions for a corporation. The
most well-meaning people in the world are not free to act on
their personal philosophies when they are acting on behalf of a
publicly-held corporation. They must do what is profitable, which
is not necessarily what is right.

Corporations must grow for a variety of reasons. In general,
larger size brings stability. It also tends to bring greater
market share. It also brings a measure of political power, which
allows corporate managers to manipulate the political environment
within which the corporation must operate. Size also brings with
it the power to create and control the demand for goods and
services, through mass-market advertising. A corporation that
stops growing is thought to be in trouble, and may therefore lose
investors.

Corporations must externalize their costs to the extent feasible.
Faced with a sick worker, a corporation will tend to let the
public health apparatus pay the costs of bringing the worker back
to health, rather than burden the corporation with the worker's
medical bills.  Faced with the option of treating hazardous waste
at $100 per ton, or dumping it free into a river, the corporation
will tend to dump wastes into the river. Of course this
externalizing behavior is not absolute --it varies from situation
to situation --but in general, corporations have a powerful drive
to externalize their costs to the extent feasible.

Corporations have other traits that are important:

** They are hierarchical and authoritarian in the extreme.
Workers at the bottom take orders from bosses above them, and
workers (and middle managers) can be fired at any time for any
reason.  Corporations are simply not democratic.  Indeed, many
corporations are not only UNdemocratic, they are also
aggressively ANTI-democratic, seeking to undermine efforts to
expand democratic decision-making within the U.S. and in many
countries overseas.

** Corporations have proven to be marvelously efficient at
consolidating wealth and power into the hands of a few people, to
the detriment of democratic decision-making in the larger society.

** Corporations tend to be patriarchal (in general). They tend to
reinforce and maintain a male chauvinist tradition.

** A modern corporation has unlimited lifetime (quite unlike a
person). This gives a corporation the capacity to grow without
limit, whereas the growth of an individual's wealth and power are
strictly limited by the grave.

** As a result of unlimited longevity, among the world's 100
largest economies in 1995-96, 51 were corporations and only 49
were countries.[4]

** After they grow large, corporations cannot feel pain. For
example, the Exxon Corporation was fined $5 billion for the Exxon
Valdez oil spill. On the day that enormous fine was announced,
Exxon's stock price rose because investors realized that Exxon
was invincible. No matter how odious its behavior, human
institutions have no capacity to curb the excesses of a large
transnational. Similarly, the day the government of India imposed
an $800 million fine on Union Carbide for its role of negligence
in the Bhopal disaster, Carbide's stock rose.

** Investors and directors (and often managers as well) are
shielded from liability, and therefore corporations tend toward
antisocial behavior.  Indeed, limiting liability was the reason
the corporate form was invented in the first place.  This --and
the inability to feel pain --are crucial points. Pain is very
important as we humans grow up from infancy. Pain serves to limit
and guide our behavior. As infants, if we try to crawl through a
solid door, we hit our forehead and are brought up short by
painful reality. As toddlers, if we strike another person, we may
be struck in return; thus we learn that violence is not
necessarily the best policy.  Eventually, external pain becomes
internalized into a conscience and we become civilized adults.
Under law, corporations are formally denied this civilizing
impetus.  As a result, corporations tend to behave like
sociopaths.  Widespread contamination and destruction of the
natural environment provide evidence of this fact.

** In the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary
creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media --controlling
almost all books, magazines, records, videos, TV and radio
stations, newspapers, wire services, and photo agencies (Ben
Bagdikian, MEDIA MONOPOLY, 4th edition.  ISBN 0-8070-6157-3).
Thus the number of people who set the terms of public discussion
in the U.S. would easily fit into one small room.  To the extent
that they are visible at all, corporations use the mass media
artfully to give themselves the appearance of benevolence. Think
of Joe Camel.

In sum, the publicly-traded transnational corporation is a
colossus, larger than most national governments, a smiling giant
that must grow, cannot die, cannot feel pain, cannot take
responsibility (liability) for its actions, must deposit its
excreta in public places to the extent feasible (externalizing
its costs), is unable to act upon the conscience and sense of
morality its managers and directors personally have, is unable to
care about place or community, is politically privileged by its
size and wealth, and owns or controls all the relevant mass
media, as needed.

This tends to be a sociopathic and politically-unstoppable
creature indeed.

This is the creature that we are asking to curb its appetites on
behalf of the "general welfare" (a phrase from the preamble to
the U.S. Constitution).  Unfortunately, this is not an entity
with a conscience or a sense of social purpose (it is, after all,
a paper invention and is not human).  This entity is incapable of
caring about the general welfare or unborn generations --no
matter how good-hearted and well-meaning its employees, managers
and directors may be.

If society wants these entities to behave differently, society
will have to build different incentives and requirements into the
legal foundations of the corporation by modifying the corporate
charter --the piece of paper issued by state legislatures giving
corporations the privilege of being.

In addition, in the U.S., corporations could be denied the
privileges of personhood under the Constitution.  Our rule of
thumb could be, If it doesn't breathe, it isn't a person and
therefore isn't protected by the Bill of Rights. Thus
publicly-traded transnational corporations could be brought back
to the subordinate status that our grandparents and
greatgrandparents clearly envisioned for these dangerous, unruly
inventions.
                                                --Peter Montague
                (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)

===============
[1] Stephan Schmidheiny and others, CHANGING COURSE; A GLOBAL
BUSINESS PERSPECTIVE ON DEVELOPMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT
(Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992).  ISBN 0-262-69153-1.  And
see REHW #296.  Those wishing to know more about the corporate
form might read David C. Korten, WHEN CORPORATIONS RULE THE WORLD
(San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers, 1995).  ISBN
1-887208-00-3.

[2] David C. Classen and others, "Adverse Drug Events in
Hospitalized Patients," JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol. 277, No. 4 (January 22/29, 1997), pgs.
301-306.

[3] Quoted in Richard Grossman, "Only the People Can Be Socially
Responsible," in Trent Schroyer, editor, A WORLD THAT WORKS (New
York: The Bootstrap Press, 1997), pgs. 171-181. ISBN
0-942850-38-6.

[4] Ward Morehouse, "Multinational Corporations and Crimes
Against Humanity," in Trent Schroyer, editor, A WORLD THAT WORKS
(New York: The Bootstrap Press, 1997), pg. 51. ISBN
0-942850-38-6.  Morehouse attributes the data to these sources:
corporation data from "Fortune's Global 500, The World's Largest
Corporations," FORTUNE magazine August 7, 1995. Country
information from: THE WORLD DEVELOPMENT REPORT (Washington, D.C.:
World Bank, 1996).

Descriptor terms:  corporations; pharmaceutical deaths; pa; ca;
ben bagdikian; media monopoly; media; corporation sizes vs.
nation sizes; david korten; when corporations rule the world;
richard grossman; ward morehouse;

################################################################
                             NOTICE
Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and money
to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL.
                                        --Peter Montague, Editor
################################################################

Back to top

Disclaimer

EarthWINS Daily is a project of EarthWINS.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, material in this issue of EarthWINS Daily is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. **

The articles in EarthWINS Daily are PHOTOCOPIES for personal informational purposes--please seek reprint permission directly from the source listed. You are encouraged to utilize this information for personal campaign use; including writing letters, organizing campaigns and forwarding. All efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader.

If you distribute information contained in EarthWINS Daily, please:

(1) Copy the information in its exact form,
(2) Cite the author, publisher, and date of the information.
(3) Include this subscription information for EarthWINS Daily - 

To subscribe to EarthWINS Daily send an email to 
EarthWINS-Daily-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Subscribe to EarthWINS_Daily

EarthWINS P O Box 573 Shawano, WI 54166 Ph: 715-524-5998 FAX (call first): 715-524-9958 EarthWINS-Daily@earthwins.com www.earthwins.com

Please sign my guestbook

Back to top