The questions Jones raised over the legislative history of the SOB law are part of the reason Cohen says she sent the amicus brief to the high court. The Texas Association Against Sexual Assault and the Texas Legal Services Center, advocacy groups that have an interest in protecting women from violence, joined Cohen in her brief.
"To the extent there is any lingering question about the legislature's purpose in enacting House Bill 1751, Representative Cohen -- the bill's primary sponsor and a longtime leader in the battle against sexual assault -- submits this brief to make clear that the legislation she championed was intended to combat sexual assault and rape," Cohen wrote in the amicus brief.
"I was dissatisfied with the lower court's decision," Cohen says. "I think that there is a preponderance of support that demonstrates that where alcohol and live nude dancing occur, there's an increase in criminal activity."
Chris Kratovil, a partner in the Dallas office of K&L Gates who represents the three amici, says Jones' concurring opinion opens the door for the high court to consider additional legislative history in analyzing the Legislature's reasons for passing the law.
"He left open the possibility that he would have affirmed an identical law based on a deeper legislative history," Kratovil says.
"It's our position that as a general rule legislative history is a poor barometer of constitutionality," Kratovil says. "The court should look at what the law says and what it does, not what was said in floor speeches. But to the extent the Supreme Court shares Chief Justice Jones' concerns about the legislative history, this brief is meant to cure those concerns."
G. Stewart Whitehead, a partner in the Austin office of Winstead who represents the Texas Entertainment Association and Karpod in the case, declines comment. But in their Oct. 15 brief to the Supreme Court, they maintain that the SOB law is meant to provide funding to various sexual assault prevention programs in Texas rather than for the purpose of preventing a negative secondary effect.
"House Bill 1751, which enacted the tax, was passed by the 80th Legislature without the benefit of any studies addressing the impact the tax would have on protected speech or the need for the government to restrain protected free speech to achieve any sort of governmental interest advanced by the tax," the Texas Entertainment Association and Karpod say in their brief. "In fact, no claim was ever made to the Legislature that there was a link between sexually oriented businesses and sexual violence in Texas."
In its Oct. 30 brief, the state argues that the SOB law is not unconstitutional under the First Amendment for a variety of reasons, including that the U.S. Supreme Court has blessed numerous similar laws over the past four decades.
The state also argues that the decision in the case should not turn on legislative history. If it did, "the Legislature could cure [the law] in the next legislative session simply by re-enacting it with a better record."
"Rep. Cohen's legislation is entirely constitutional under Supreme Court precedent, regardless of the legislative history," says Texas Solicitor General James Ho, who represents the state in the case. "Nonetheless, we appreciate the representative's supportive amicus brief, which simply confirms that the Legislature intended to prevent sexual assault -- not to suppress speech."
Roger Townsend, an appellate lawyer and partner in the Houston office of Alexander Dubose & Townsend who is not involved in the case, says it is unusual for a legislator to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court explaining why a law was passed.
"It's not the first time it's happened. But there's a trend today to believe that there is not such a thing as legislative history," Townsend says. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is at the forefront of that movement that questions the use of legislative history in appellate court analysis, he says. "Is it the history of the author, the committee, the whole body?" he asks.
Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Scott Brister, now a partner in the Austin office of Andrews Kurth, agrees with Townsend.
Brister says the high court usually is wary of amicus briefs by legislators who try to explain the intent behind a law for two reasons: "No. 1, you can usually tell the purpose of a statute from a statute. So if somebody is saying the purpose of this statute is not obvious on the face of the statute, courts are skeptical of that," Brister says. "And the second is, I've never seen an amicus brief that was by a majority of the Legislature that passed it. And of course, that's what counts."
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Texas Legislator Files Atypical Amicus Brief in Support of 'Pole Tax'
Legislators rarely send amicus briefs to the Texas Supreme Court explaining why a law was passed, because the court usually doesn't listen anyway, two experts say. However, one lawmaker has done just that in a case involving the constitutionality of a state law waggishly known as "the pole tax."
On Nov. 20, state Rep. Ellen Cohen, D-Houston, and two advocacy groups submitted an amicus brief to the high court in Susan Combs, et al. v. Texas Entertainment Association, et al. in the hopes of shedding more light on the reasons the Texas Legislature passed the 2008 law. The law imposes a $5 tax on each customer who enters a sexually oriented business (SOB) that serves alcohol. Cohen, who directed the Houston Area Women's Center for 18 years, sponsored H.B. 1751, which created the SOB law. Even the lawyer who helped craft Cohen's amicus brief says such briefs by legislators attempting to explain why the Legislature passed a law are controversial but, in this case, such a brief was necessary. [See Cohen's amicus brief, the petitioner's brief on the merits and the respondents' brief on the merits.]
In a June 5 opinion in Texas Entertainment Association, Austin's 3rd Court of Appeals set out the following: The case involves a constitutional challenge to the SOB law -- Chapter 47, subchapter B of the Texas Business & Commerce Code. A sexually oriented business association, the Texas Entertainment Association Inc., and a sexually oriented business, Karpod Inc., sued Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Susan Combs, who collects taxes generated by that law, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is charged with enforcing the law, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief. [See the court's opinion.]
Judge Scott Jenkins of Austin's 345th District Court found the law unconstitutional, a decision the state appealed. In its June 5 opinion in Texas Entertainment Association, the 3rd Court affirmed the trial court's decision. Justice Diane Henson concluded the law was unconstitutional because it was a tax on free speech and violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Henson also wrote that the law was not content-neutral and could not withstand a strict-scrutiny test.
In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Woodie Jones agreed that a strict-scrutiny standard should be used when reviewing the law's constitutionality. But Jones wrote that he believed the court should have gone further in its analysis of the law and looked beyond its words to determine whether it was written to "regulate speech or to address secondary effects" -- the negative consequences of combining nude dancing and alcohol. The trial court, Jones wrote, made numerous findings that there was no evidence presented at trial to support the state's contention that the law was written to combat those secondary effects. Jones cited Jenkins' ruling, which states: "There is no evidence that the legislature actually considered or saw any studies claiming a link between sexual assault and the sexually oriented businesses that are responsible for the SOB Tax."
"Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the legislature's predominant purpose was to address secondary effects, the statute may not be deemed content-neutral and must be reviewed under strict scrutiny ... which the state has conceded it cannot meet," Jones wrote.
Justice David Puryear dissented, concluding "that the state has a substantial interest in combating negative secondary effects and that the statute at issue furthers that interest."
The state appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which is considering the full briefing provided by the parties in the case. The court has not yet decided whether to grant review
On Nov. 20, state Rep. Ellen Cohen, D-Houston, and two advocacy groups submitted an amicus brief to the high court in Susan Combs, et al. v. Texas Entertainment Association, et al. in the hopes of shedding more light on the reasons the Texas Legislature passed the 2008 law. The law imposes a $5 tax on each customer who enters a sexually oriented business (SOB) that serves alcohol. Cohen, who directed the Houston Area Women's Center for 18 years, sponsored H.B. 1751, which created the SOB law. Even the lawyer who helped craft Cohen's amicus brief says such briefs by legislators attempting to explain why the Legislature passed a law are controversial but, in this case, such a brief was necessary. [See Cohen's amicus brief, the petitioner's brief on the merits and the respondents' brief on the merits.]
In a June 5 opinion in Texas Entertainment Association, Austin's 3rd Court of Appeals set out the following: The case involves a constitutional challenge to the SOB law -- Chapter 47, subchapter B of the Texas Business & Commerce Code. A sexually oriented business association, the Texas Entertainment Association Inc., and a sexually oriented business, Karpod Inc., sued Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts Susan Combs, who collects taxes generated by that law, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is charged with enforcing the law, requesting declaratory and injunctive relief. [See the court's opinion.]
Judge Scott Jenkins of Austin's 345th District Court found the law unconstitutional, a decision the state appealed. In its June 5 opinion in Texas Entertainment Association, the 3rd Court affirmed the trial court's decision. Justice Diane Henson concluded the law was unconstitutional because it was a tax on free speech and violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Henson also wrote that the law was not content-neutral and could not withstand a strict-scrutiny test.
In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Woodie Jones agreed that a strict-scrutiny standard should be used when reviewing the law's constitutionality. But Jones wrote that he believed the court should have gone further in its analysis of the law and looked beyond its words to determine whether it was written to "regulate speech or to address secondary effects" -- the negative consequences of combining nude dancing and alcohol. The trial court, Jones wrote, made numerous findings that there was no evidence presented at trial to support the state's contention that the law was written to combat those secondary effects. Jones cited Jenkins' ruling, which states: "There is no evidence that the legislature actually considered or saw any studies claiming a link between sexual assault and the sexually oriented businesses that are responsible for the SOB Tax."
"Therefore, in the absence of any evidence that the legislature's predominant purpose was to address secondary effects, the statute may not be deemed content-neutral and must be reviewed under strict scrutiny ... which the state has conceded it cannot meet," Jones wrote.
Justice David Puryear dissented, concluding "that the state has a substantial interest in combating negative secondary effects and that the statute at issue furthers that interest."
The state appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which is considering the full briefing provided by the parties in the case. The court has not yet decided whether to grant review
Mining Giant Pays $1.79 Billion to Clean Up Sites
In what the U.S. Department of Justice is touting as the largest environmental bankruptcy in U.S. history, mining giant Asarco has paid $1.79 billion to fund environmental cleanup efforts at more than 80 sites in 19 states.
Asarco has spent the past 110 years extracting lead, zinc and copper at sites around the country, leaving in its wake a lot of hazardous material. But with the company mired in debt during the past decade, it seemed unlikely that it would be held liable for the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites.
In 2002, the Justice Department accused Asarco's parent company, Grupo Mexico, of trying to strip the company of all its assets to avoid paying its bills.
But in a conference call Thursday, Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli called the company's reorganization settlement "historic."
"This is a great day for the environment and the American taxpayer," Perrelli said, adding that the payment is "over 100 cents on the dollar of what we had sought."
More than half of the Asarco payment will go to environmental restoration work now under way outside Tacoma, Wash.; Everett, Wash.; and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Tucson, Ariz.-based Asarco filed for bankruptcy protection in 2005 amid a strike and facing massive asbestos and environmental claims. Last month, a federal judge in Texas approved a more than $2 billion plan by Grupo Mexico to retake control of Asarco. Grupo Mexico had acquired Asarco in 1999, but lost control of it because of the bankruptcy.
John Cruden, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in the Thursday conference call, "This is a demonstration that just because a company goes into bankruptcy, it will not be able to avoid its responsibility. This is a classic case showing that you will be held liable for [your] actions despite filing for bankruptcy."
Asarco has spent the past 110 years extracting lead, zinc and copper at sites around the country, leaving in its wake a lot of hazardous material. But with the company mired in debt during the past decade, it seemed unlikely that it would be held liable for the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites.
In 2002, the Justice Department accused Asarco's parent company, Grupo Mexico, of trying to strip the company of all its assets to avoid paying its bills.
But in a conference call Thursday, Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli called the company's reorganization settlement "historic."
"This is a great day for the environment and the American taxpayer," Perrelli said, adding that the payment is "over 100 cents on the dollar of what we had sought."
More than half of the Asarco payment will go to environmental restoration work now under way outside Tacoma, Wash.; Everett, Wash.; and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Tucson, Ariz.-based Asarco filed for bankruptcy protection in 2005 amid a strike and facing massive asbestos and environmental claims. Last month, a federal judge in Texas approved a more than $2 billion plan by Grupo Mexico to retake control of Asarco. Grupo Mexico had acquired Asarco in 1999, but lost control of it because of the bankruptcy.
John Cruden, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Environment and Natural Resources Division, said in the Thursday conference call, "This is a demonstration that just because a company goes into bankruptcy, it will not be able to avoid its responsibility. This is a classic case showing that you will be held liable for [your] actions despite filing for bankruptcy."
Lawyer for Accused Fort Hood Shooter Details Client's Terms of Confinement
Belton, Texas, solo John Galligan, who represents Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist who allegedly went on a shooting spree at Fort Hood on Nov. 5, says he has learned the precise terms of his client's pretrial confinement.
Hasan is paralyzed from the chest down and bedridden in a military hospital in San Antonio, says Galligan. He says the U.S. Army command has imposed rules that allow for a closed-circuit television camera in Hasan's room for Hasan's and others' safety; bar visits from anyone except Hasan's family members and his lawyers (Galligan and Hasan's appointed military defense counsel, Major Christopher E. Martin) and limit those visits to one hour (Galligan does not know if this time limit is per day or per visitor); require all visitors to provide picture identification; restrict all communications with Hasan to English; and require that an interpreter be present if another language is spoken.
Galligan says the rules are more restrictive than what his criminal defense clients in the Bell County jail endure and he believes they may violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice that bars pretrial confinement from being more onerous than necessary.
Two telephone messages left on the public affairs voice mail at Fort Hood were not immediately returned. Fort Hood Headquarters and Headquarters Troop Unit Commander Capt. Jacob Huber, under whom Galligan says his client now serves, also did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Hasan is paralyzed from the chest down and bedridden in a military hospital in San Antonio, says Galligan. He says the U.S. Army command has imposed rules that allow for a closed-circuit television camera in Hasan's room for Hasan's and others' safety; bar visits from anyone except Hasan's family members and his lawyers (Galligan and Hasan's appointed military defense counsel, Major Christopher E. Martin) and limit those visits to one hour (Galligan does not know if this time limit is per day or per visitor); require all visitors to provide picture identification; restrict all communications with Hasan to English; and require that an interpreter be present if another language is spoken.
Galligan says the rules are more restrictive than what his criminal defense clients in the Bell County jail endure and he believes they may violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice that bars pretrial confinement from being more onerous than necessary.
Two telephone messages left on the public affairs voice mail at Fort Hood were not immediately returned. Fort Hood Headquarters and Headquarters Troop Unit Commander Capt. Jacob Huber, under whom Galligan says his client now serves, also did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Townsend Chairman to Step Down
Townsend and Townsend and Crew Chairman James Gilliland Jr. will step down after nine years, according to sources familiar with the firm. He is expected to be succeeded by managing partner Maureen Sheehy, those sources said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because no announcement has been made.
Sheehy will have a lot on her plate. The intellectual property firm has faced a slowdown in litigation and patent prosecution, the San Francisco-based firm's two main practices. Some partners in the firm are also pushing to explore merger opportunities, sources said.
Brian Colucci, a firm spokesman, said the partnership will have a vote on the new management early next year and won't know anything until then. "There will be management changes next year, but we have a process to go through," he said.
To the talk of mergers, Colucci said, "We're an independent firm and we're committed to staying that way." The spokesman said that neither Gilliland nor Sheehy would be available for comment Wednesday.
A solid, straight shooter and a rainmaker, Gilliland took the reins in 2001, leading the firm through the dot-com bust that caused other IP firms, like Skjerven Morrill, to fail. He's in his third three-year term as chairman. Under Gilliland's watch, the firm has seen some very profitable years, in part because of some huge contingency fees. Townsend's profits per partner hit $1.4 million in 2006 thanks to a big win against Microsoft Corp. (PPP came down to earth the next year, nearly cut in half). The firm has also expanded, which included opening a new office in Washington, D.C., last year, and grown to more than 200 lawyers.
"They've had a good run," said Peter Zeughauser, a law firm consultant. "They're highly regarded in the IP area."
But the recent recession has put pressure on the firm, which is also struggling against the countervailing winds that are buffeting all IP boutiques: low margins on patent prosecution, and more patent litigation shifting to general practice firms, according to Zeughauser.
In April, Townsend laid off 45 staff and 16 lawyers. At the time Gilliland cited a slowdown in the normally more resilient patent litigation and prosecution practices. Then in September, the firm announced it would cut associate salaries next year.
Townsend isn't the only IP-focused firm to be affected by the downturn. Fish & Richardson, a national IP firm, laid off lawyers this year as well.
Gilliland came to Townsend when his firm of litigators, Khourie Crew & Jaeger, was acquired in 1993. He took a leadership role in the 1990s and then was elected chairman in late 2001. Part of the challenge at Townsend has been to keep both the litigators and the patent prosecutors, whose interests are not always aligned, happy.
Sheehy also came to Townsend through a merger, but more recently in 2004, when her small band of litigators at the Legal Strategies Group was absorbed into Townsend. She has been Townsend's managing partner for the last two years, Gilliland's No. 2. Although she has yet to be voted in, she has been designated to succeed him, sources said.
Sheehy will have a lot on her plate. The intellectual property firm has faced a slowdown in litigation and patent prosecution, the San Francisco-based firm's two main practices. Some partners in the firm are also pushing to explore merger opportunities, sources said.
Brian Colucci, a firm spokesman, said the partnership will have a vote on the new management early next year and won't know anything until then. "There will be management changes next year, but we have a process to go through," he said.
To the talk of mergers, Colucci said, "We're an independent firm and we're committed to staying that way." The spokesman said that neither Gilliland nor Sheehy would be available for comment Wednesday.
A solid, straight shooter and a rainmaker, Gilliland took the reins in 2001, leading the firm through the dot-com bust that caused other IP firms, like Skjerven Morrill, to fail. He's in his third three-year term as chairman. Under Gilliland's watch, the firm has seen some very profitable years, in part because of some huge contingency fees. Townsend's profits per partner hit $1.4 million in 2006 thanks to a big win against Microsoft Corp. (PPP came down to earth the next year, nearly cut in half). The firm has also expanded, which included opening a new office in Washington, D.C., last year, and grown to more than 200 lawyers.
"They've had a good run," said Peter Zeughauser, a law firm consultant. "They're highly regarded in the IP area."
But the recent recession has put pressure on the firm, which is also struggling against the countervailing winds that are buffeting all IP boutiques: low margins on patent prosecution, and more patent litigation shifting to general practice firms, according to Zeughauser.
In April, Townsend laid off 45 staff and 16 lawyers. At the time Gilliland cited a slowdown in the normally more resilient patent litigation and prosecution practices. Then in September, the firm announced it would cut associate salaries next year.
Townsend isn't the only IP-focused firm to be affected by the downturn. Fish & Richardson, a national IP firm, laid off lawyers this year as well.
Gilliland came to Townsend when his firm of litigators, Khourie Crew & Jaeger, was acquired in 1993. He took a leadership role in the 1990s and then was elected chairman in late 2001. Part of the challenge at Townsend has been to keep both the litigators and the patent prosecutors, whose interests are not always aligned, happy.
Sheehy also came to Townsend through a merger, but more recently in 2004, when her small band of litigators at the Legal Strategies Group was absorbed into Townsend. She has been Townsend's managing partner for the last two years, Gilliland's No. 2. Although she has yet to be voted in, she has been designated to succeed him, sources said.
Weil Gotshal Elects New Executive Partner
Weil, Gotshal & Manges said Thursday that private equity partner Barry Wolf had been elected to the position of executive partner. Wolf, 50, will take over the role on Jan. 1 from Stephen Dannhauser, who will remain chairman and a member of the management committee. Wolf will focus on managing the firm and directing its strategy, while Dannhauser, 59, will work on developing and growing client relationships.
Dannhauser, who became executive partner 20 years ago and was later elected chairman, said he has no plans for retirement. The appointment of Wolf to executive partner is part of the firm's overall succession plan. Dannhauser said the move would free him to focus more on client development. Consolidation in the financial sector has caused increased competition for work, Dannhauser said, adding, "Everybody agrees this should be my prime focus."
Wolf joined Weil Gotshal as a tax associate in 1984 and made partner in 1992. In 2000, he made an unusual practice switch after partners tapped him to build a private equity group. In that role, Wolf rose to co-chairman of Weil's corporate department in 2005. His clients include Lindsay Goldberg LLC and Perella Weinberg Partners. Wolf, who will continue to practice, said that as executive partner he would focus on getting the 1,300-lawyer firm ready to adapt quickly to changes being forced on the legal industry, such as how firms hire and compensate lawyers, and alternative-fee arrangements.
Weil Gotshal, with its large restructuring practice, has been busy in 2009 on a number of the largest Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, including Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., General Motors Corp. and General Growth Properties Inc. In part because of strong bankruptcy and litigation practices, Wolf said, "relative to our competition, my assumption is we would be doing better" in terms of financial performance.
Dannhauser, who became executive partner 20 years ago and was later elected chairman, said he has no plans for retirement. The appointment of Wolf to executive partner is part of the firm's overall succession plan. Dannhauser said the move would free him to focus more on client development. Consolidation in the financial sector has caused increased competition for work, Dannhauser said, adding, "Everybody agrees this should be my prime focus."
Wolf joined Weil Gotshal as a tax associate in 1984 and made partner in 1992. In 2000, he made an unusual practice switch after partners tapped him to build a private equity group. In that role, Wolf rose to co-chairman of Weil's corporate department in 2005. His clients include Lindsay Goldberg LLC and Perella Weinberg Partners. Wolf, who will continue to practice, said that as executive partner he would focus on getting the 1,300-lawyer firm ready to adapt quickly to changes being forced on the legal industry, such as how firms hire and compensate lawyers, and alternative-fee arrangements.
Weil Gotshal, with its large restructuring practice, has been busy in 2009 on a number of the largest Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, including Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., General Motors Corp. and General Growth Properties Inc. In part because of strong bankruptcy and litigation practices, Wolf said, "relative to our competition, my assumption is we would be doing better" in terms of financial performance.
Craigslist Founder Testifies That eBay Turned Its Back on Craigslist's Values
Craigslist founder Craig Newmark testified that he was assured by executives from eBay that they were happy with a "courtship" period in which eBay would hold a minority stake for several years, and that if both sides weren't happy, they would agree to an amicable parting of the ways.
But Newmark testified that soon after the deal was struck, eBay's tone changed and "all of a sudden we were getting pressure to sell more equity."
Newmark said the Craigslist board decided to take steps to protect itself from eBay after eBay launched a competing online classified site that Craigslist had never been informed about.
Craigslist changed its rules of corporate governance, Newmark said, because it feared that if eBay maintained a seat on the board, it would continue to have access to confidential Craigslist information -- including financial data, Internet traffic statistics and strategic planning information -- that "could be used in a bad way."
Newmark also said eBay executives had made empty promises that the partnership would be beneficial to Craigslist because eBay could provide help and guidance on dealing with complicated issues like preserving customer trust and protecting users from scams.
"They talked about how much they wanted to offer help and never delivered," Newmark said.
Newmark's testimony came on the fourth day of a nonjury trial in Delaware Chancery Court, which is being webcast live by the Courtroom View Network, to decide eBay's claims that its 28 percent stake in Craigslist was unfairly diluted to less than 25 percent in order to strip eBay of its seat on the Craigslist board and other special rights it enjoyed as a minority shareholder.
Chancellor William B. Chandler III heard first from four current or former eBay executives, including eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and former CEO Meg Whitman, who is now a candidate for governor in California.
Although eBay has not yet rested its case, its lawyers said Thursday that they were finished with "fact witnesses" and had agreed to allow Craigslist's lawyers to begin calling their fact witnesses.
Newmark is expected to continue on cross-examination today and Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster is expected to testify after that.
Under questioning by attorney Anne C. Foster of Richards Layton & Finger in Wilmington, Del., Newmark testified that his closely held company was wooed by Google and Warburg Pincus, the private equity firm, when the market became aware that Craigslist shares were being offered by Philip Knowlton, one of just three shareholders.
Google was unacceptable as a potential buyer, Newmark testified, because it wanted all of the stock or none.
But Newmark testified that eBay proved to be an attractive prospect because there was a strong expression from eBay early in the negotiations that it shared Craigslist's corporate values.
"Pierre's values were amazingly congruent with our own," Newmark said, explaining that his own guiding principles include the philosophies of "treating others as you expect to be treated, mean what you say and follow through, and live and let live."
Negotiations went forward, Newmark said, largely because of eBay's philosophical assurances.
A DECISION TO TRUST
"They were comfortable with our whole mission -- they liked it a lot," Newmark said, adding that he "decided to trust" Omidyar, Whitman and eBay.
But negotiations later hit a stalemate, Newmark said, when eBay began insisting on buying a greater equity share, a condition that Newmark said he considered to be a "deal breaker."
A face-to-face meeting with Whitman, he said, got the negotiations back on track because Whitman assured Craigslist that she was comfortable with a courtship period, and assured Newmark that if the marriage of the two companies did not seem to be working out, "we'd part amicably."
"We decided that eBay could be trusted and we proceeded with the deal," Newmark said.
But soon after the deal was signed, Newmark said, he learned that eBay had been planning to launch its own classified site in Europe -- a fact that, he said, directly conflicted with eBay's assurance that it considered its partnership with Craigslist to be "the play" in the classified market.
Newmark testified that he also believed that eBay was bound by a confidentiality agreement that would protect against improper uses of Craigslist information, but that he later learned that eBay had used Craigslist data and financial records in deciding whether to acquire other classified sites around the world and in building its own classified site that would compete directly with Craigslist in the United States.
At the same time, Newmark said, he was increasingly concerned by eBay's focus on finding ways to charge Craigslist users more money -- changing the mostly free nature of the Craigslist site.
But Newmark testified that soon after the deal was struck, eBay's tone changed and "all of a sudden we were getting pressure to sell more equity."
Newmark said the Craigslist board decided to take steps to protect itself from eBay after eBay launched a competing online classified site that Craigslist had never been informed about.
Craigslist changed its rules of corporate governance, Newmark said, because it feared that if eBay maintained a seat on the board, it would continue to have access to confidential Craigslist information -- including financial data, Internet traffic statistics and strategic planning information -- that "could be used in a bad way."
Newmark also said eBay executives had made empty promises that the partnership would be beneficial to Craigslist because eBay could provide help and guidance on dealing with complicated issues like preserving customer trust and protecting users from scams.
"They talked about how much they wanted to offer help and never delivered," Newmark said.
Newmark's testimony came on the fourth day of a nonjury trial in Delaware Chancery Court, which is being webcast live by the Courtroom View Network, to decide eBay's claims that its 28 percent stake in Craigslist was unfairly diluted to less than 25 percent in order to strip eBay of its seat on the Craigslist board and other special rights it enjoyed as a minority shareholder.
Chancellor William B. Chandler III heard first from four current or former eBay executives, including eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and former CEO Meg Whitman, who is now a candidate for governor in California.
Although eBay has not yet rested its case, its lawyers said Thursday that they were finished with "fact witnesses" and had agreed to allow Craigslist's lawyers to begin calling their fact witnesses.
Newmark is expected to continue on cross-examination today and Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster is expected to testify after that.
Under questioning by attorney Anne C. Foster of Richards Layton & Finger in Wilmington, Del., Newmark testified that his closely held company was wooed by Google and Warburg Pincus, the private equity firm, when the market became aware that Craigslist shares were being offered by Philip Knowlton, one of just three shareholders.
Google was unacceptable as a potential buyer, Newmark testified, because it wanted all of the stock or none.
But Newmark testified that eBay proved to be an attractive prospect because there was a strong expression from eBay early in the negotiations that it shared Craigslist's corporate values.
"Pierre's values were amazingly congruent with our own," Newmark said, explaining that his own guiding principles include the philosophies of "treating others as you expect to be treated, mean what you say and follow through, and live and let live."
Negotiations went forward, Newmark said, largely because of eBay's philosophical assurances.
A DECISION TO TRUST
"They were comfortable with our whole mission -- they liked it a lot," Newmark said, adding that he "decided to trust" Omidyar, Whitman and eBay.
But negotiations later hit a stalemate, Newmark said, when eBay began insisting on buying a greater equity share, a condition that Newmark said he considered to be a "deal breaker."
A face-to-face meeting with Whitman, he said, got the negotiations back on track because Whitman assured Craigslist that she was comfortable with a courtship period, and assured Newmark that if the marriage of the two companies did not seem to be working out, "we'd part amicably."
"We decided that eBay could be trusted and we proceeded with the deal," Newmark said.
But soon after the deal was signed, Newmark said, he learned that eBay had been planning to launch its own classified site in Europe -- a fact that, he said, directly conflicted with eBay's assurance that it considered its partnership with Craigslist to be "the play" in the classified market.
Newmark testified that he also believed that eBay was bound by a confidentiality agreement that would protect against improper uses of Craigslist information, but that he later learned that eBay had used Craigslist data and financial records in deciding whether to acquire other classified sites around the world and in building its own classified site that would compete directly with Craigslist in the United States.
At the same time, Newmark said, he was increasingly concerned by eBay's focus on finding ways to charge Craigslist users more money -- changing the mostly free nature of the Craigslist site.
Company Brings Defamation Suit Against Opposing Counsel for Comments in Press Release
A Fulton County, Ga., suit tests whether comments made in a press release about a lawsuit constitute libel.
In a complaint (pdf) filed last month in Fulton County Superior Court, Infinite Energy charges that comments made by attorney David L. Pardue, a partner with Hartman, Simons, Spielman & Wood until he left for Adorno & Yoss in January, were "false, malicious, and defamatory," and names the lawyer, Hartman Simons and Poston Communications as defendants in a one-count defamation suit.
A federal class action targeting Infinite, a natural gas supplier, for deceptive trade practices, was dismissed five months ago and is being appealed. Pardue represents the plaintiffs in the class action.
The underlying suit was filed in federal court in Atlanta last year on behalf of the more than 600-member Korean Cleaners Association of Atlanta, which charged that Infinite had deceived the cleaners -- whose businesses rely on natural gas -- into signing three-year contracts at inflated rates in the months following Hurricane Katrina, when natural gas prices spiked because of damage to offshore drilling platforms, pipelines and other infrastructure.
The complaint accused Infinite of switching some other cleaners' into the higher-rate contracts without their knowledge and refusing to renegotiate after prices dropped to normal levels. The multi-count suit charged the gas supplier with violating rules of the Georgia Public Service Commission, state and federal fair trade laws, negligent representation and unjust enrichment
The suit was filed on Nov. 18, 2008, by Pardue and Hartman Simons associates Christopher S. Badeaux and Jill R. Johnson. The same day, says the recent defamation suit, Poston issued a press release in which Pardue accused Infinite of engaging in "a clear case of wrongdoing" and "deliberate misinformation," and of being "determined to reap illegal profits and extract every penny possible from customers it has deceived, cheated and misled."
Excerpts from the release were published in The Atlanta Business Chronicle; American Drycleaner, a trade magazine and Web site; and LawyersandSettlements.com, according to the defamation suit.
On July 1, U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. granted summary judgment to Infinite, dismissing the dry cleaners' suit; an appeal of that order has been filed with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Infinite is represented in the federal action by Morris, Manning & Martin partners Marguerite E. Patrick and David A. Rabin and associate Kelly L. Whitehart. On Nov. 18, Patrick and firm associate Stephen M. Vaughn filed the defamation suit, which seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages and injunctions against all three defendants barring "further disclosure of false and defamatory information."
Patrick said she was unable to discuss the suit, and queries to Infinite's press office were not returned; nor were telephone and e-mail inquiries directed to Pardue and Hartman Simons' managing partner, Robert D. Simons.
Poston Communications owner David E. Poston, an attorney licensed to practice in Georgia, said he also was unable to comment as his company "is still examining the allegations and numerous potential defenses."
David E. Hudson, a partner at Augusta, Ga,'s Hull Barrett, who also serves as general counsel to the Georgia Press Association and reviewed the defamation suit at the Daily Report's request, said it seemed to have a high bar to clear.
"I think the plaintiffs are going to have an uphill climb," said Hudson. "My guess is that Infinite Energy is a public entity, so that means they're going to have to meet the 'actual malice' test."
Under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, public and private figures are held to different standards when seeking libel and defamation judgments. Unlike private figures, a public figure or entity must not only show that a negative statement made about it was untrue, but that the party making it knew it was false, or published it with "reckless disregard" for the truth.
That means, said Hudson, that Infinite must not only prove that the press release and Pardue's statement were false, but that the lawyer and PR company knew so at the time.
Some of the statements cited in the complaint, he said, such as the assertion that Infinite engaged in a "clear case of wrongdoing," are simply matters of opinion, and thus protected by law. Others, such as the statement that Infinite "engaged in deliberate misinformation," may well be a statement of fact but, even if false, the issue of actual malice must still be proved at trial.
Litigation communications specialist Robert H. Bork Jr., who oversees Virginia-based Bork Communications Group, said the suit is more likely a tactical move by Infinite's attorneys than a serious effort to hold the defendants liable for defamation.
"In baseball terms, they're probably 'playing a little chin music,'" said Bork, describing a pitcher's inside throws to a batter in an effort to force him back from the plate.
"I like the notion of playing hardball," said Bork, whose company advises corporations involved in ongoing or potential litigation on communications strategies to protect their reputations and advance their legal position.
"But," he said, "I've never heard of a defendant suing a plaintiff for making public comments in support of their litigation. And while I almost exclusively represent defendants, I find it troublesome; as a defense public relations spokesperson, I would hate to think that statements we make in defense of our clients would be open for slander and libel allegations."
The suit may be an effort to throw the dry cleaners' lawyers off their game during the appeal in the federal case, he said, "or they may just be sending a message to the next one."
"Unless the statements are truly malicious, there would be little point in undertaking this kind of litigation," said Bork.
To be sure, he said, anyone making public comments about pending litigation should be careful -- not necessarily out of fear of a libel suit, but to safeguard their own credibility.
"In my own practice," he said, "we certainly want to be, first and foremost, right and credible. If we're not credible, we do harm to our client's cause. We don't want to be outrageous, but we do want our point of view to picked up."
In a complaint (pdf) filed last month in Fulton County Superior Court, Infinite Energy charges that comments made by attorney David L. Pardue, a partner with Hartman, Simons, Spielman & Wood until he left for Adorno & Yoss in January, were "false, malicious, and defamatory," and names the lawyer, Hartman Simons and Poston Communications as defendants in a one-count defamation suit.
A federal class action targeting Infinite, a natural gas supplier, for deceptive trade practices, was dismissed five months ago and is being appealed. Pardue represents the plaintiffs in the class action.
The underlying suit was filed in federal court in Atlanta last year on behalf of the more than 600-member Korean Cleaners Association of Atlanta, which charged that Infinite had deceived the cleaners -- whose businesses rely on natural gas -- into signing three-year contracts at inflated rates in the months following Hurricane Katrina, when natural gas prices spiked because of damage to offshore drilling platforms, pipelines and other infrastructure.
The complaint accused Infinite of switching some other cleaners' into the higher-rate contracts without their knowledge and refusing to renegotiate after prices dropped to normal levels. The multi-count suit charged the gas supplier with violating rules of the Georgia Public Service Commission, state and federal fair trade laws, negligent representation and unjust enrichment
The suit was filed on Nov. 18, 2008, by Pardue and Hartman Simons associates Christopher S. Badeaux and Jill R. Johnson. The same day, says the recent defamation suit, Poston issued a press release in which Pardue accused Infinite of engaging in "a clear case of wrongdoing" and "deliberate misinformation," and of being "determined to reap illegal profits and extract every penny possible from customers it has deceived, cheated and misled."
Excerpts from the release were published in The Atlanta Business Chronicle; American Drycleaner, a trade magazine and Web site; and LawyersandSettlements.com, according to the defamation suit.
On July 1, U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten Sr. granted summary judgment to Infinite, dismissing the dry cleaners' suit; an appeal of that order has been filed with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Infinite is represented in the federal action by Morris, Manning & Martin partners Marguerite E. Patrick and David A. Rabin and associate Kelly L. Whitehart. On Nov. 18, Patrick and firm associate Stephen M. Vaughn filed the defamation suit, which seeks unspecified actual and punitive damages and injunctions against all three defendants barring "further disclosure of false and defamatory information."
Patrick said she was unable to discuss the suit, and queries to Infinite's press office were not returned; nor were telephone and e-mail inquiries directed to Pardue and Hartman Simons' managing partner, Robert D. Simons.
Poston Communications owner David E. Poston, an attorney licensed to practice in Georgia, said he also was unable to comment as his company "is still examining the allegations and numerous potential defenses."
David E. Hudson, a partner at Augusta, Ga,'s Hull Barrett, who also serves as general counsel to the Georgia Press Association and reviewed the defamation suit at the Daily Report's request, said it seemed to have a high bar to clear.
"I think the plaintiffs are going to have an uphill climb," said Hudson. "My guess is that Infinite Energy is a public entity, so that means they're going to have to meet the 'actual malice' test."
Under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, public and private figures are held to different standards when seeking libel and defamation judgments. Unlike private figures, a public figure or entity must not only show that a negative statement made about it was untrue, but that the party making it knew it was false, or published it with "reckless disregard" for the truth.
That means, said Hudson, that Infinite must not only prove that the press release and Pardue's statement were false, but that the lawyer and PR company knew so at the time.
Some of the statements cited in the complaint, he said, such as the assertion that Infinite engaged in a "clear case of wrongdoing," are simply matters of opinion, and thus protected by law. Others, such as the statement that Infinite "engaged in deliberate misinformation," may well be a statement of fact but, even if false, the issue of actual malice must still be proved at trial.
Litigation communications specialist Robert H. Bork Jr., who oversees Virginia-based Bork Communications Group, said the suit is more likely a tactical move by Infinite's attorneys than a serious effort to hold the defendants liable for defamation.
"In baseball terms, they're probably 'playing a little chin music,'" said Bork, describing a pitcher's inside throws to a batter in an effort to force him back from the plate.
"I like the notion of playing hardball," said Bork, whose company advises corporations involved in ongoing or potential litigation on communications strategies to protect their reputations and advance their legal position.
"But," he said, "I've never heard of a defendant suing a plaintiff for making public comments in support of their litigation. And while I almost exclusively represent defendants, I find it troublesome; as a defense public relations spokesperson, I would hate to think that statements we make in defense of our clients would be open for slander and libel allegations."
The suit may be an effort to throw the dry cleaners' lawyers off their game during the appeal in the federal case, he said, "or they may just be sending a message to the next one."
"Unless the statements are truly malicious, there would be little point in undertaking this kind of litigation," said Bork.
To be sure, he said, anyone making public comments about pending litigation should be careful -- not necessarily out of fear of a libel suit, but to safeguard their own credibility.
"In my own practice," he said, "we certainly want to be, first and foremost, right and credible. If we're not credible, we do harm to our client's cause. We don't want to be outrageous, but we do want our point of view to picked up."
O'Connor Helps Launch New Initiative Against Judicial Elections
Since retiring from the high bench, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has repeatedly advocated against the use of elections to pick state judges. Now she is teaming with a center at the University of Denver to try to add some political teeth to her efforts.
On Thursday, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System announced the creation of the O'Connor Judicial Selection Initiative, a project that will assist state level efforts to move away from judicial elections.
The institute, founded in 2006 by former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis, will devote a full-time director to the project, backed by the institute's 10-person staff. The judicial selection initiative will also be aided by an 11-member advisory commission, which O'Connor will chair.
O'Connor said the initiative would provide "information and useful support" to states considering a move away from judicial elections.
"No other nation in the world elects their judges in popular elections," O'Connor said. "We are alone in that regard."
Calling the initiative a "think-do tank," Kourlis said the initiative was about moving beyond public education efforts. "This is all about, OK, in this particular state, what do we need to do to build a majority," said Kourlis, who is executive director of the institute.
She said its first major test would be in Nevada, where a proposed constitutional amendment would replace judicial elections with merit-based selection. It would also provide for judicial performance evaluations and retention votes.
On Thursday, the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System announced the creation of the O'Connor Judicial Selection Initiative, a project that will assist state level efforts to move away from judicial elections.
The institute, founded in 2006 by former Colorado Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Love Kourlis, will devote a full-time director to the project, backed by the institute's 10-person staff. The judicial selection initiative will also be aided by an 11-member advisory commission, which O'Connor will chair.
O'Connor said the initiative would provide "information and useful support" to states considering a move away from judicial elections.
"No other nation in the world elects their judges in popular elections," O'Connor said. "We are alone in that regard."
Calling the initiative a "think-do tank," Kourlis said the initiative was about moving beyond public education efforts. "This is all about, OK, in this particular state, what do we need to do to build a majority," said Kourlis, who is executive director of the institute.
She said its first major test would be in Nevada, where a proposed constitutional amendment would replace judicial elections with merit-based selection. It would also provide for judicial performance evaluations and retention votes.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
New Canadian law restores citizenship to many
The Parliament of Canada has passed a new law that will restore citizenship to many people who lost it. These so-called "lost Canadians" have made news recently as a result of the new U.S. passport requirements. Many people living in Canada applied for Canadian passports, only to find that they were not actually Canadian citizens. Although the bill became law on April 19, 2008, it did not take effect until April 17, 2009. The law is very complex. However, here are some of the groups that may be helped, depending on the circumstances:
People who lost citizenship after January 1, 1947 because they or a parent or spouse became a citizen of the U.S. or another country
People who were born outside of Canada to a Canadian parent after January 1, 1947, but did not become a citizen because the "wrong" parent was a citizen
People who lost citizenship because of an absence from Canada
People who were born outside of Canada to a Canadian parent, and did not become a citizen by failure to register the birth within two years
The new law will repeal all retention requirements under current law. It will also prohibit the acquisition of citizenship by the second generation born abroad, with limited exceptions. "Second generation" Canadians who are currently citizens will not have to comply with the retention requirements after the law goes into effect. On the other hand, second generation persons who are older than 28 and did not comply are not helped by the new law.
Persons born in Canada, who subsequently lost their citizenship, will be able to prove their citizenship with a birth certificate. Persons born outside Canada will need to apply for a citizenship certificate to prove their status. Either a Canadian birth certificate or a citizenship certificate is required to obtain a Canadian passport.
People who lost citizenship after January 1, 1947 because they or a parent or spouse became a citizen of the U.S. or another country
People who were born outside of Canada to a Canadian parent after January 1, 1947, but did not become a citizen because the "wrong" parent was a citizen
People who lost citizenship because of an absence from Canada
People who were born outside of Canada to a Canadian parent, and did not become a citizen by failure to register the birth within two years
The new law will repeal all retention requirements under current law. It will also prohibit the acquisition of citizenship by the second generation born abroad, with limited exceptions. "Second generation" Canadians who are currently citizens will not have to comply with the retention requirements after the law goes into effect. On the other hand, second generation persons who are older than 28 and did not comply are not helped by the new law.
Persons born in Canada, who subsequently lost their citizenship, will be able to prove their citizenship with a birth certificate. Persons born outside Canada will need to apply for a citizenship certificate to prove their status. Either a Canadian birth certificate or a citizenship certificate is required to obtain a Canadian passport.
FAMILY CLASS IMMIGRATION
o Expanding the definition of “family class” raising the age of a “dependent child” from the current 19 years old to 22 years old;
o Opening up adoption provisions in keeping with the principles of “best interest of the child”, as articulated by Canadian courts;
o Changing the definition of “family” to include common law and same-sex partners;
o Facilitating family reunification by creating an in-Canada landing class for sponsored spouses and partners for both immigrants and refugees;
o Exempting sponsored spouses, partners and dependent children from the admission bar with regard to excessive demand on health or social services;
o Reducing the age at which Canadian citizens and permanent residences are eligible to sponsor from 19 to 18 years of age;
o Including “parent” in the definition family class;
o Reducing the length of the sponsorship requirements from 10 years to 3 years for spouses and common law partners.
o Opening up adoption provisions in keeping with the principles of “best interest of the child”, as articulated by Canadian courts;
o Changing the definition of “family” to include common law and same-sex partners;
o Facilitating family reunification by creating an in-Canada landing class for sponsored spouses and partners for both immigrants and refugees;
o Exempting sponsored spouses, partners and dependent children from the admission bar with regard to excessive demand on health or social services;
o Reducing the age at which Canadian citizens and permanent residences are eligible to sponsor from 19 to 18 years of age;
o Including “parent” in the definition family class;
o Reducing the length of the sponsorship requirements from 10 years to 3 years for spouses and common law partners.
What Happens When A Young Person Has Been Apprehended For Shoplifting
The scenario when a young person is caught shoplifting is the same as it is for anyone, with one difference.
The person will be apprehended, and the police will be called to lay the charge. The difference is that the parents will also be notified, as required by the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This legislation used to be called the Young Offender’s Act, but it is now called the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and there are provisions in that act that require the parents to be notified. If there is no parent, and no other relative, then an adult who has some type of authority over the child is notified.
In this case, it is not the police who have the discretion to lay a charge or not. The police will charge and then once they get to court, it is the Crown Attorneys who decide what avenue they are going to take. With the new Act, there are extrajudicial sanctions which are a more hands-on type of approach to counselling and rehabilitation as opposed to denunciation and general deterrence. Penal sanctions like jail sentences are very rare.
When young people are charged with shoplifting, the majority of cases are dealt with by way of extrajudicial sanctions.
The person will be apprehended, and the police will be called to lay the charge. The difference is that the parents will also be notified, as required by the Youth Criminal Justice Act. This legislation used to be called the Young Offender’s Act, but it is now called the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and there are provisions in that act that require the parents to be notified. If there is no parent, and no other relative, then an adult who has some type of authority over the child is notified.
In this case, it is not the police who have the discretion to lay a charge or not. The police will charge and then once they get to court, it is the Crown Attorneys who decide what avenue they are going to take. With the new Act, there are extrajudicial sanctions which are a more hands-on type of approach to counselling and rehabilitation as opposed to denunciation and general deterrence. Penal sanctions like jail sentences are very rare.
When young people are charged with shoplifting, the majority of cases are dealt with by way of extrajudicial sanctions.
They look for a driver who is weaving between the lines, changing lanes without signals, turning without proper signals or just generally driving in a
The first step in dealing with an impaired driving charge is to ensure that the client understands all the paperwork they have been given.
Because there are often a few things to deal with when someone is charged with impaired driving, when I first meet a client I discuss how we will go about dealing with all matters related to their case.
Does the client’s past history affect the impaired driving charge?For the most part, the courts only look at whether the Crown has proved its case: that on a certain day, at a certain time, this person was operating a motor vehicle while his or her ability to do so was impaired by alcohol, or whether that person who was pulled over blew over the legal limit, or refused to give a breath sample.
Many people who are charged with impaired driving do not have a criminal history. Rather, they have a solid background in the community and are gainfully employed. But the determination is not about the person’s background; it’s whether there is evidence to show that on that day and at that time this person was impaired by alcohol.
What if the client feels he was not impaired at the time of the charge?Some clients certainly feel that they were not impaired when they drove a vehicle. The issue is to see whether the Crown has evidence or a case that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were impaired. And, even though a client blew over the legal limit does not mean that Crown can prove its case.
How important is it for a client to act quickly in seeking legal assistance?There can be serious disadvantages to not acting quickly. The client must be able to give instructions to the lawyer about what took place while the memories are still fresh. I need to know what the police said, what the circumstances were, who was there, or if there were any witnesses who might help the client’s case early on in the proceedings. Acting quickly is a must.
Because there are often a few things to deal with when someone is charged with impaired driving, when I first meet a client I discuss how we will go about dealing with all matters related to their case.
Does the client’s past history affect the impaired driving charge?For the most part, the courts only look at whether the Crown has proved its case: that on a certain day, at a certain time, this person was operating a motor vehicle while his or her ability to do so was impaired by alcohol, or whether that person who was pulled over blew over the legal limit, or refused to give a breath sample.
Many people who are charged with impaired driving do not have a criminal history. Rather, they have a solid background in the community and are gainfully employed. But the determination is not about the person’s background; it’s whether there is evidence to show that on that day and at that time this person was impaired by alcohol.
What if the client feels he was not impaired at the time of the charge?Some clients certainly feel that they were not impaired when they drove a vehicle. The issue is to see whether the Crown has evidence or a case that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were impaired. And, even though a client blew over the legal limit does not mean that Crown can prove its case.
How important is it for a client to act quickly in seeking legal assistance?There can be serious disadvantages to not acting quickly. The client must be able to give instructions to the lawyer about what took place while the memories are still fresh. I need to know what the police said, what the circumstances were, who was there, or if there were any witnesses who might help the client’s case early on in the proceedings. Acting quickly is a must.
How The Police Determine That A Person Has Been Driving While Impaired
When the police are looking out for impaired drivers (and they are always on the look out for impaired drivers), they watch for vehicles displaying a driving pattern that is out of the ordinary.
They look for a driver who is weaving between the lines, changing lanes without signals, turning without proper signals or just generally driving in a way that looks somewhat different or out of the ordinary. They may stop the vehicle to investigate that kind of driving, and they have the right to do that. The police can stop any vehicle, any time to check to make sure that the insurance and registration are correct, that the driver is properly licensed, and to investigate for potential impaired driving. There are spot checks like RIDE Programs, as well.
When a police officer sticks his head in the car, what he or she is looking for is anything that is out of the ordinary. They will be very alert to an odor of alcohol. They will be looking for bloodshot or watery eyes. They will be listening to speech patterns to see if there is any slurring of the words or very slow or uncertain speech. They will be watching for manual coordination. For example, as you get your driver’s license out of your wallet or you search for your registration and insurance, they will be watching to see if those movements demonstrate any degree of impairment. If the person then gets out of the car, they will watch how they walk, how they stand, whether they seem steady on their feet or are staggering. All those sorts of things are the small clues that the police are looking for to lead them to a conclusion that the driver may be impaired by alcohol or by a drug that is affecting their ability to operate a motor vehicle.
While the law in different provinces in Canada is different, in Alberta the police are not allowed to require drivers to do any form of sobriety test, such as walk a straight line or touch their nose. However, if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person driving the motor vehicle has alcohol in his system, they can demand that the driver supply a breath sample on a Roadside Screening Device. That is a minimally intrusive search and the police officer will usually have such a device in his pocket. It’s a very small, portable breath testing instrument which, when blown into, provides a 3-stage reading: red, yellow, green. Green is a blood alcohol level of less than 50, yellow is between 50 and 100, and red is over 100.
The legal limit is 80, so if you are under 50, clearly you are just going to drive away. If you are between 50 and a 100, the police have an option, and they will most often impose a 24-hour suspension under Alberta traffic law. The police can take away your driver’s license for 24 hours if they find you driving while having consumed alcohol. The upside is that there is no subsequent criminal prosecution or criminal record. There is no long term driving suspension or any of those consequences that flow from a more serious charge. On the other hand, of course, you are not driving for 24 hours. If the result is a red light, over 100, that provides the police with the necessary grounds to arrest the driver and demand that they supply a further breath sample into an evidentiary breath testing instrument like the Intoxilyzer. That person will then typically be charged with both impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of that which is allowed by law.
They look for a driver who is weaving between the lines, changing lanes without signals, turning without proper signals or just generally driving in a way that looks somewhat different or out of the ordinary. They may stop the vehicle to investigate that kind of driving, and they have the right to do that. The police can stop any vehicle, any time to check to make sure that the insurance and registration are correct, that the driver is properly licensed, and to investigate for potential impaired driving. There are spot checks like RIDE Programs, as well.
When a police officer sticks his head in the car, what he or she is looking for is anything that is out of the ordinary. They will be very alert to an odor of alcohol. They will be looking for bloodshot or watery eyes. They will be listening to speech patterns to see if there is any slurring of the words or very slow or uncertain speech. They will be watching for manual coordination. For example, as you get your driver’s license out of your wallet or you search for your registration and insurance, they will be watching to see if those movements demonstrate any degree of impairment. If the person then gets out of the car, they will watch how they walk, how they stand, whether they seem steady on their feet or are staggering. All those sorts of things are the small clues that the police are looking for to lead them to a conclusion that the driver may be impaired by alcohol or by a drug that is affecting their ability to operate a motor vehicle.
While the law in different provinces in Canada is different, in Alberta the police are not allowed to require drivers to do any form of sobriety test, such as walk a straight line or touch their nose. However, if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person driving the motor vehicle has alcohol in his system, they can demand that the driver supply a breath sample on a Roadside Screening Device. That is a minimally intrusive search and the police officer will usually have such a device in his pocket. It’s a very small, portable breath testing instrument which, when blown into, provides a 3-stage reading: red, yellow, green. Green is a blood alcohol level of less than 50, yellow is between 50 and 100, and red is over 100.
The legal limit is 80, so if you are under 50, clearly you are just going to drive away. If you are between 50 and a 100, the police have an option, and they will most often impose a 24-hour suspension under Alberta traffic law. The police can take away your driver’s license for 24 hours if they find you driving while having consumed alcohol. The upside is that there is no subsequent criminal prosecution or criminal record. There is no long term driving suspension or any of those consequences that flow from a more serious charge. On the other hand, of course, you are not driving for 24 hours. If the result is a red light, over 100, that provides the police with the necessary grounds to arrest the driver and demand that they supply a further breath sample into an evidentiary breath testing instrument like the Intoxilyzer. That person will then typically be charged with both impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of that which is allowed by law.
The Benefits Of The Youth Criminal Justice Act
The Youth Criminal Justice Act has decreased the level of youth incarceration because it is no longer a required consequence for many cases in which incarceration was previously imposed.
There is a very clear change in direction as well with respect to criminal justice and social values.
Previously, you might have a situation where a young person came into the court system for a relatively minor infraction but the court would also be aware that the young person was in need of social support and resources for rehabilitation. These needs could be met while incarcerated, so often, sentences were structured to meet the needs of the person as opposed to dealing with simply the sanction for that person’s conduct. Because of this, we often saw sentences that were much higher than what was called for by the person’s conduct.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act made it clear that a sentence cannot be made higher because of the social needs of the young person. It has to be in proportion to their actions only, which brings it more in line to criminal justice standards. It also says that those young people in need of social supports, unless they have committed a serious violent offence or are a repeat offender, should be streamed out of the court system into the social welfare system. This step recognizes that the criminal justice system cannot really adequately deal with social needs.
The increased use of Extrajudicial Sanctions gets us back to the values that we had perhaps a generation ago, in that it should be the community that deals with and teaches and guides young people, as opposed to the court punishing them when they have gone wrong. Like all new systems, it is a constant work in progress. As we learn more, we will be able to implement more and better ways of dealing with young people and their issues.
There is a very clear change in direction as well with respect to criminal justice and social values.
Previously, you might have a situation where a young person came into the court system for a relatively minor infraction but the court would also be aware that the young person was in need of social support and resources for rehabilitation. These needs could be met while incarcerated, so often, sentences were structured to meet the needs of the person as opposed to dealing with simply the sanction for that person’s conduct. Because of this, we often saw sentences that were much higher than what was called for by the person’s conduct.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act made it clear that a sentence cannot be made higher because of the social needs of the young person. It has to be in proportion to their actions only, which brings it more in line to criminal justice standards. It also says that those young people in need of social supports, unless they have committed a serious violent offence or are a repeat offender, should be streamed out of the court system into the social welfare system. This step recognizes that the criminal justice system cannot really adequately deal with social needs.
The increased use of Extrajudicial Sanctions gets us back to the values that we had perhaps a generation ago, in that it should be the community that deals with and teaches and guides young people, as opposed to the court punishing them when they have gone wrong. Like all new systems, it is a constant work in progress. As we learn more, we will be able to implement more and better ways of dealing with young people and their issues.
The Implications Of Pleading Guilty
People may think that pleading guilty will simply speed up the sentencing process.
I often tell people that if they are going to plead guilty, they need a lawyer just as much as they would if they were going to fight the charge, because if you plead guilty, there are some important factors that need to be considered.
First of all, what exactly are the facts you are admitting to? Any sentence you receive is going to be based on the facts of the case. For instance, a judge does not simply sentence someone for robbery. The judge will consider the type of robbery that occurred. Is it a bank, is it an individual, is it a big company, was there a weapon used? He will look at all these factors, so you need to be careful of what facts you are admitting to when you plead guilty. Also, what is the Crown seeking? Are they looking for a jail sentence? You need to consider what the judge will do, and what the Crown will ask the judge to do, if you do plead guilty. You will need a lawyer to help you understand all these considerations.
Second, is there any chance that the charges could be withdrawn? Can you negotiate a plea bargain? In that case, a lawyer is essential, because your lawyer can more effectively negotiate a favourable plea bargain. Often it is in one’s best interest to plead guilty if you can get a plea bargain, but you, as the accused, are not in a position to determine that. A lawyer must assess the strength of the evidence in the Crown’s case before you make a decision.
You should not rush to plead guilty, even if you feel guilty. A lawyer may say: yes, you feel guilty but the crown attorney does not have enough evidence to prove guilt against you, so you may be able to win the case on a technicality. You might win the case because the test is always whether or not the Crown can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
A lawyer knows the system. He knows who the judges are, who is sympathetic, who has dealt leniently with these kinds of charges in the past. This can also be a factor in deciding whether or not to plead guilty, but only an experienced lawyer can offer that kind of insight.
I often tell people that if they are going to plead guilty, they need a lawyer just as much as they would if they were going to fight the charge, because if you plead guilty, there are some important factors that need to be considered.
First of all, what exactly are the facts you are admitting to? Any sentence you receive is going to be based on the facts of the case. For instance, a judge does not simply sentence someone for robbery. The judge will consider the type of robbery that occurred. Is it a bank, is it an individual, is it a big company, was there a weapon used? He will look at all these factors, so you need to be careful of what facts you are admitting to when you plead guilty. Also, what is the Crown seeking? Are they looking for a jail sentence? You need to consider what the judge will do, and what the Crown will ask the judge to do, if you do plead guilty. You will need a lawyer to help you understand all these considerations.
Second, is there any chance that the charges could be withdrawn? Can you negotiate a plea bargain? In that case, a lawyer is essential, because your lawyer can more effectively negotiate a favourable plea bargain. Often it is in one’s best interest to plead guilty if you can get a plea bargain, but you, as the accused, are not in a position to determine that. A lawyer must assess the strength of the evidence in the Crown’s case before you make a decision.
You should not rush to plead guilty, even if you feel guilty. A lawyer may say: yes, you feel guilty but the crown attorney does not have enough evidence to prove guilt against you, so you may be able to win the case on a technicality. You might win the case because the test is always whether or not the Crown can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
A lawyer knows the system. He knows who the judges are, who is sympathetic, who has dealt leniently with these kinds of charges in the past. This can also be a factor in deciding whether or not to plead guilty, but only an experienced lawyer can offer that kind of insight.
How to Choose Your Immigration Lawyer
Does this lawyer do immigration law all the time or only once in a while? Immigration law changes frequently and it is important to deal with someone who is working in the field daily. If they don’t know the answer to an issue, do they know where to look and will they find you the answers? No lawyer can know the rules relating to every country in the world, but they will know where to get you the answers quickly.
Will this person understand your priorities, your circumstances, your needs and wants? This relationship needs to be a good fit because you have to work with this person for a very long time—at least a year or two. See how empathetic this person is or whether this person will really listen to you. This is the person you have to tell very private things to about spousal issues, or problems with parents or children.
Will this person understand your priorities, your circumstances, your needs and wants? This relationship needs to be a good fit because you have to work with this person for a very long time—at least a year or two. See how empathetic this person is or whether this person will really listen to you. This is the person you have to tell very private things to about spousal issues, or problems with parents or children.
Solutions in Law : Employment, Business, Family and Education USA Visas
We are a UK law firm that specializes in USA Immigration and Visa preparation.Our specialist US Immigration Lawyers, direct every effort into giving the very best advice and representation in all matters pertinent to US immigration, and USA visa law.We are registered lawyers of the Supreme Court of New York State and are members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.Our clients can be certain that their cases will be dealt with by the most competent lawyers in immigration and visa law, whether they are seeking to acquire a USA Green Card or a temporary visa for the USA. Thus, we prepare and submit petitions and applications for the acquisition of permanent visas as well as those classified as temporary such as the E-2, L-1 and H-1B visas.
We maintain an enviable reputation and an outstanding success rate of 100% to date, in the approval of our US visa applications by the pertinent immigration authorities. We shall continue to put our best efforts into maintaining the highest level of success.
We maintain an enviable reputation and an outstanding success rate of 100% to date, in the approval of our US visa applications by the pertinent immigration authorities. We shall continue to put our best efforts into maintaining the highest level of success.
Solutions in Law : Employment, Business, Family and Education USA Visas
We are a UK law firm that specializes in USA Immigration and Visa preparation.Our specialist US Immigration Lawyers, direct every effort into giving the very best advice and representation in all matters pertinent to US immigration, and USA visa law.We are registered lawyers of the Supreme Court of New York State and are members of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.Our clients can be certain that their cases will be dealt with by the most competent lawyers in immigration and visa law, whether they are seeking to acquire a USA Green Card or a temporary visa for the USA. Thus, we prepare and submit petitions and applications for the acquisition of permanent visas as well as those classified as temporary such as the E-2, L-1 and H-1B visas.
We maintain an enviable reputation and an outstanding success rate of 100% to date, in the approval of our US visa applications by the pertinent immigration authorities. We shall continue to put our best efforts into maintaining the highest level of success.
We maintain an enviable reputation and an outstanding success rate of 100% to date, in the approval of our US visa applications by the pertinent immigration authorities. We shall continue to put our best efforts into maintaining the highest level of success.
Immigration Tips
There are several types of immigrant and nonimmigrant visas to visit or live in the United States. Some of the available visas are B-2 tourist visitor Visa, B-1 visa for business visitors and F-1 student visa. Eligible aliens may obtain a green card and become permanent residents of the U.S., through relatives, employment, marriage, adoption, investment. You can sponsor your family and spouse so they can become legal residents of the U.S. and eventually become a U.S. citizen. If you are a U.S. citizen you have the right to obtain a U.S. Passport and receive many advantages by traveling with an American passport.Every year thousands of Americans get married with non U.S. citizens and they have to go through the process of petition to bring their new wife or husband to the U.S. To be able to get an immigrant visa for your spouse from outside of the U.S. you must file a petition, have an appointment with a consul in the nearest U.S. Consulate, fulfill all eligibility requirements, then the foreign national could receive a conditional temporary resident status that allows him to travel, work and live in the United States, if the couple have been married for 2 or more years then the green card will be permanent. In some cases if the marriage occurs inside the U.S., the non-citizen may be able to adjust his immigration status from a tourist visa or other non-immigrant visa to an immigrant visa that will allow him to stay and live in the U.S. The U.S. government has several rules and steps that must be fulfilled. The immigration aspects of the marriage to a United States citizen can be complex an it is better to obtain Legal Advice and ask your questions to a U.S. Immigration Lawyer. To obtain a green card, the husband or wife must first be accepted on a temporary resident status "Temporary evidence of Lawful admission for permanent residence" until the USCIS can determine that the marriage is valid and grant a permanent resident card (green card). If a foreign national husband/wife married to a U.S. citizen becomes a U.S. green card holder (permanent resident), then he or she must wait a few years before being eligible to apply for the citizenship of the United States. If the spouse gets divorced before applying for the citizenship, then must wait five years from the date of becoming a permanent resident to be eligible to apply for the United States citizenship, but if they are still married then the green card holder can apply for the citizenship after 3 years of becoming a permanent resident. There are several requirements to keep a green card valid and to obtain the citizenship. If a green card holder moves out of the united states to live in a foreign country it is very possible that he will loose his green card, especially because the green card is an immigration status designed for people to immigrate to the US, to permanently live in the U.S., and if the person moves to another country then his status changes from an immigrant to a non-immigrant alien, with a few exceptions of temporary travel and the application to Preserve Residence or Re-entry permit to keep the permanent resident status. Besides several requirements, the USCIS reviews and requests dates of your U.S. physical presence during the years that you were a us resident. Applicants for the citizenship must pass the citizenship test with civic questions and an English test, and for males that became residents before 26 years old, they must have been registered with the Selective Service System of the United States during ages 18 through 25 years old. Before processing and submitting your case to the United States Immigration Department or consulate, it is recommended to consult with a U.S. Lawyer first. There are several immigration laws, rules, types of applications and immigration status that could apply to you, there are several eligibility requirements. It is important to make sure you are submitting the right application together with the proper U.S. Immigration forms. Green Card and Marriage is one of the most common immigration topics where people usually have several doubts and questions about how to process their immigration application,
Business Visitor Visa - Quickest, Easiest and Cheapest Visas
If your intention is merely to “do business” in the United States or Canada, that is to say, you do not plan to do any “hands-on” work, then your first and best option is a business visitor visa.
As a business visitor to the U.S. or Canada you can attend meetings, sign contracts, inspect facilities, review budgets and financial statements, attend conferences, participate as a director in corporate board meetings, attend trade shows, make purchases of goods and services, and travel freely throughout the country, usually for up to six months without applying to any consulate but merely presenting your passport at the border when traveling to the U.S. or Canada.
While you can do all these things, you cannot do “hands-on” work. So, for example, you cannot answer phones, type letters, handle customer complaints, make retail sales, etc., like an employee of a company would.
As a business visitor to the U.S. or Canada you can attend meetings, sign contracts, inspect facilities, review budgets and financial statements, attend conferences, participate as a director in corporate board meetings, attend trade shows, make purchases of goods and services, and travel freely throughout the country, usually for up to six months without applying to any consulate but merely presenting your passport at the border when traveling to the U.S. or Canada.
While you can do all these things, you cannot do “hands-on” work. So, for example, you cannot answer phones, type letters, handle customer complaints, make retail sales, etc., like an employee of a company would.
Start your visa enquiry here
provides an overview of the most common types of visas and green cards for the United States. Special information about the Diversity Visa (DV) Green Card Lottery is also provided, and you can register online for the lottery with our office through this site.
Once you’ve reviewed the basics, start using our legal tools by accessing the numerous, on-line services offered through our site:
Have a free initial e-mail consultation with Attorney Edward Weiner. For a more detailed assessment of your case and for our office to begin work on your case, you can then schedule a telephone consultation with Attorney Weiner and receive professional legal advice from wherever you may be.
Post a message on our USA immigration forum.
Browse our Visa FAQ’s for quick answers to some of the most commonly asked questions that Attorney Weiner has been asked over the years.
Keep up-to-date with the latest US immigration news and proposed changes in US immigration policy with Attorney Weiner’s blog.
Save time and money by using our chat service to communicate directly with us regardless of where you are. Join Attorney Weiner for his regularly-scheduled, special chats.
Once you’ve reviewed the basics, start using our legal tools by accessing the numerous, on-line services offered through our site:
Have a free initial e-mail consultation with Attorney Edward Weiner. For a more detailed assessment of your case and for our office to begin work on your case, you can then schedule a telephone consultation with Attorney Weiner and receive professional legal advice from wherever you may be.
Post a message on our USA immigration forum.
Browse our Visa FAQ’s for quick answers to some of the most commonly asked questions that Attorney Weiner has been asked over the years.
Keep up-to-date with the latest US immigration news and proposed changes in US immigration policy with Attorney Weiner’s blog.
Save time and money by using our chat service to communicate directly with us regardless of where you are. Join Attorney Weiner for his regularly-scheduled, special chats.
Monday, December 7, 2009
legislation
clean air acts of 1955, 1963, 1970, 1990
In 1955, after many state and local governments had passed legislation dealing with air pollution, the federal government decided that this problem needed to be dealt with on a national level. This was the year Congress passed the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, the nation's first piece of federal legislation on this issue. The language of the bill identified air pollution as a national problem and announced that research and additional steps to improve the situation needed to be taken. It was an act to make the nation more aware of this environmental hazard.
Eight years later, Congress passed the nation's Clean Air Act of 1963. This act dealt with reducing air pollution by setting emissions standards for stationary sources such as power plants and steel mills. It did not take into account mobile sources of air pollution which had become the largest source of many dangerous pollutants. Once these standards were set, the government also needed to determine deadlines for companies to comply with them. Amendments to the Clean Air Act were passed in 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1969. These amendments authorized the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to set standards for auto emissions, expanded local air pollution control programs, established air quality control regions (AQCR), set air quality standards and compliance deadlines for stationary source emissions, and authorized research on low emissions fuels and automobiles.
By 1970, the issue needed to be addressed again. Although important legislative precedents had been set, the existing laws were deemed inadequate. Although technically an amendment, the Clean Air Act of 1970 was a major revision and set much more demanding standards. It established new primary and secondary standards for ambient air quality, set new limits on emissions from stationary and mobile sources to be enforced by both state and federal governments, and increased funds for air pollution research. It was soon discovered that the deadlines set were overly ambitious (especially those for auto emissions). To reach these standards in such a short period of time, the auto industry faced serious economic limitations and seemingly insurmountable technological challenges. Over the next decade, the legislation was once again amended to extend these deadlines and to mandate states to revise their implementation plans. Congress did not amend the Clean Air Act during the decade of the 1980s, in part because President Reagan's administration placed economic goals ahead of environmental goals.
In 1990, after a lengthy period of inactivity, the federal government believed that they should again revise the Clean Air Act due to growing environmental concerns. The Clean Air Act of 1990 addressed five main areas: air-quality standards, motor vehicle emissions and alternative fuels, toxic air pollutants, acid rain, and stratospheric ozone depletion. In many ways, this law set out to strengthen and improve existing regulations.
In 1955, after many state and local governments had passed legislation dealing with air pollution, the federal government decided that this problem needed to be dealt with on a national level. This was the year Congress passed the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955, the nation's first piece of federal legislation on this issue. The language of the bill identified air pollution as a national problem and announced that research and additional steps to improve the situation needed to be taken. It was an act to make the nation more aware of this environmental hazard.
Eight years later, Congress passed the nation's Clean Air Act of 1963. This act dealt with reducing air pollution by setting emissions standards for stationary sources such as power plants and steel mills. It did not take into account mobile sources of air pollution which had become the largest source of many dangerous pollutants. Once these standards were set, the government also needed to determine deadlines for companies to comply with them. Amendments to the Clean Air Act were passed in 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1969. These amendments authorized the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to set standards for auto emissions, expanded local air pollution control programs, established air quality control regions (AQCR), set air quality standards and compliance deadlines for stationary source emissions, and authorized research on low emissions fuels and automobiles.
By 1970, the issue needed to be addressed again. Although important legislative precedents had been set, the existing laws were deemed inadequate. Although technically an amendment, the Clean Air Act of 1970 was a major revision and set much more demanding standards. It established new primary and secondary standards for ambient air quality, set new limits on emissions from stationary and mobile sources to be enforced by both state and federal governments, and increased funds for air pollution research. It was soon discovered that the deadlines set were overly ambitious (especially those for auto emissions). To reach these standards in such a short period of time, the auto industry faced serious economic limitations and seemingly insurmountable technological challenges. Over the next decade, the legislation was once again amended to extend these deadlines and to mandate states to revise their implementation plans. Congress did not amend the Clean Air Act during the decade of the 1980s, in part because President Reagan's administration placed economic goals ahead of environmental goals.
In 1990, after a lengthy period of inactivity, the federal government believed that they should again revise the Clean Air Act due to growing environmental concerns. The Clean Air Act of 1990 addressed five main areas: air-quality standards, motor vehicle emissions and alternative fuels, toxic air pollutants, acid rain, and stratospheric ozone depletion. In many ways, this law set out to strengthen and improve existing regulations.
Canada breaking laws on world pollution: environmental group
Canadian pollution violates international agreements and could open the door for a law forcing the government to take reduction measures, an environmental group charges.
The Canadian branch of Friends of the Earth released a legal opinion concluding that Canada has failed key tests that would set off a duty to invoke the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).
The 1999 act includes a provision requiring the government to step in and control air pollution if Canada is found to be in breach of certain preconditions. The three tests that could trigger the never-before-used provision are: whether Canada is releasing greenhouse gases, contributing to air pollution, or violating an international agreement.
Friends of the Earth argues Canada breaks all three.
"We have long felt Canada has demonstrated illegal behaviour on the world stage," Canadian chapter CEO Beatrice Olivastri said in a teleconference. "[The legal documentation] is a giant step towards getting our government to do the right thing and regulate greenhouse gas emission reductions."
International law expert Roda Verheyen, who prepared the report, said Canada has broken rules outlined in the Framework Convention on Climate Change — most importantly the failure to put into place measures that would lead to a long-term reversal of greenhouse gas emission trends. Verheyen noted how emissions have risen in Canada, despite an original commitment to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
"I would say that Canada is currently the worst of the Kyoto parties," Verheyen said. She argued Canada also failed to meet a Kyoto Protocol provision stating that each party must make "demonstrable progress" by the year 2005 and that Canada has not reported on its progress, as required.
Senior Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Christine Elwell said this confirms Canadian pollution "violates or is likely to violate an international agreement — the Kyoto Protocol."
Elwell said the group has presented federal Environment Minister Rona Ambrose with a letter pointing out the minister's mandatory duty in the CEPA provision
The Canadian branch of Friends of the Earth released a legal opinion concluding that Canada has failed key tests that would set off a duty to invoke the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA).
The 1999 act includes a provision requiring the government to step in and control air pollution if Canada is found to be in breach of certain preconditions. The three tests that could trigger the never-before-used provision are: whether Canada is releasing greenhouse gases, contributing to air pollution, or violating an international agreement.
Friends of the Earth argues Canada breaks all three.
"We have long felt Canada has demonstrated illegal behaviour on the world stage," Canadian chapter CEO Beatrice Olivastri said in a teleconference. "[The legal documentation] is a giant step towards getting our government to do the right thing and regulate greenhouse gas emission reductions."
International law expert Roda Verheyen, who prepared the report, said Canada has broken rules outlined in the Framework Convention on Climate Change — most importantly the failure to put into place measures that would lead to a long-term reversal of greenhouse gas emission trends. Verheyen noted how emissions have risen in Canada, despite an original commitment to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000.
"I would say that Canada is currently the worst of the Kyoto parties," Verheyen said. She argued Canada also failed to meet a Kyoto Protocol provision stating that each party must make "demonstrable progress" by the year 2005 and that Canada has not reported on its progress, as required.
Senior Campaigner for Friends of the Earth Christine Elwell said this confirms Canadian pollution "violates or is likely to violate an international agreement — the Kyoto Protocol."
Elwell said the group has presented federal Environment Minister Rona Ambrose with a letter pointing out the minister's mandatory duty in the CEPA provision
Modify the natural characteristics?
I think that the phrase
modify the natural characteristics
is not what air pollution means. There is a connotation of making the air noxious, smelly, discolored; causing known bad side effects like death from humans inhaling poisons; or unpleasant side effects like smog; or theoretical disastrous side effects, e.g., ozone depletion or global warming.
The word modify just doesn't work here. Ed Poor, Friday, July 12, 2002
Good point. "Damage the atmosphere" seems a little strong, though. Maybe a link to pollution? Vicki Rosenzweig, Saturday, July 13, 2002
I disagree. We can't know if the changes we are making to the atmosphere are for good. For instance, if we talk about water pollution, and i throw sugar on a river, i'm not damaging the water, i'm making it sweeter!. Maybe the sugar is harmless, maybe it's not, but i have polluted the river. Polution comes from the latin "pollere" meaning "soil" and "defile". On the other side, From The Longman Dictionary of Environmental Science, as "any harmful or undesirable change in the physical, chemical or biological quality of air, water or soil . . . ". I think there is a strong controversy here, some definitions include harm made by humans and by nature (ie: the explosion of a volcano), and some definitions accept changes to the environment that are not harmful (for instance, aesthetic changes, or ) as being non-pollution. Maybe we should put both views here. user:ChaTo Thursday, July 18, 2002.
its not the point whether we are making changes for the good or not. any change from prehistoric times is simply a change and de facto pollution of the atmosphere. we are not smart enough to judge what effect these changes will have on people and ecosystems. our job is to factually record in wikipedia what these changes or pollutants are. maybe the phrase is "materially alter the content of air". its a mouthful though and someone can come up with a better wording Anlace February 17, 2006
Hey. I disagree with ChaTo on the sugar part, when you add sugar on a river or water, there's no way you will have water again. You anticipated a product from the mixture, which is "sweet water" but not water. And yes it does damage the water because it natural flavor isn't there anymore, and sugar isn't a safe substance for human due to the fact that we do have diabetic agents within our enviroment. And to continue with the main subject, I think that air pollution is an enormous issues, and i indeed appreciate the effort done by the engineers, scientists, enviromentalists, and all those that volunteer to put an end to this matter. The French, Russians, Japonese, and many more are contributed on that behalf by operating their vehicle with water, hybrid and diesel instead of gasoline. which are steps that prove that they are working to reduce the chances for "Global warming", and many incidents to come. User:nikel81ex Tuesday, March 20, 2007
But still, what is a "natural state" of the atmosphere? When the first leaf plants began to produce oxygen (a poison from some perspective) a mass extinction followed. IMHO, pollution definitions are very atropocentric - if it harms the human body, it is a pollution. Also, pollution is not only man-made: think about a volcano, even if its natural, we call it a polluter. --Oderbolz 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTB)
<> Insertformulahere <> <> <> Superscripttext < / sup > <> Strike − throughtext < / s > < / sup > ==Carbon dioxide== Carbondioxide is not air pollutant. CO2 is essential gas for photosynthesis. Whole life on Earth depends on that. Siim 21:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
True. A better example in this context would be carbon monoxide.Will McW 23:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am afraid it all depends what you mean by 'air pollutant'. There are natural sources of carbon monoxide as well as of carbon dioxide (especially natural wildfires). Ozone is also essential for life as we know it - without the ozone layer levels of ultraviolet light would be huge. However there is no doubt in most people's minds that low level ozone is a pollutant. The point about CO2 is that its levels are substantially elevated above the levels observed in recent geological time and is now believed by most scientists to be changing the climate. A good definition of air pollution is that from the state of Maine:
"Air pollution" means the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration as to be injurious to human, plant or animal life or to property, or which unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life and property throughout the State or throughout such areas of the State as shall be affected thereby.[
modify the natural characteristics
is not what air pollution means. There is a connotation of making the air noxious, smelly, discolored; causing known bad side effects like death from humans inhaling poisons; or unpleasant side effects like smog; or theoretical disastrous side effects, e.g., ozone depletion or global warming.
The word modify just doesn't work here. Ed Poor, Friday, July 12, 2002
Good point. "Damage the atmosphere" seems a little strong, though. Maybe a link to pollution? Vicki Rosenzweig, Saturday, July 13, 2002
I disagree. We can't know if the changes we are making to the atmosphere are for good. For instance, if we talk about water pollution, and i throw sugar on a river, i'm not damaging the water, i'm making it sweeter!. Maybe the sugar is harmless, maybe it's not, but i have polluted the river. Polution comes from the latin "pollere" meaning "soil" and "defile". On the other side, From The Longman Dictionary of Environmental Science, as "any harmful or undesirable change in the physical, chemical or biological quality of air, water or soil . . . ". I think there is a strong controversy here, some definitions include harm made by humans and by nature (ie: the explosion of a volcano), and some definitions accept changes to the environment that are not harmful (for instance, aesthetic changes, or ) as being non-pollution. Maybe we should put both views here. user:ChaTo Thursday, July 18, 2002.
its not the point whether we are making changes for the good or not. any change from prehistoric times is simply a change and de facto pollution of the atmosphere. we are not smart enough to judge what effect these changes will have on people and ecosystems. our job is to factually record in wikipedia what these changes or pollutants are. maybe the phrase is "materially alter the content of air". its a mouthful though and someone can come up with a better wording Anlace February 17, 2006
Hey. I disagree with ChaTo on the sugar part, when you add sugar on a river or water, there's no way you will have water again. You anticipated a product from the mixture, which is "sweet water" but not water. And yes it does damage the water because it natural flavor isn't there anymore, and sugar isn't a safe substance for human due to the fact that we do have diabetic agents within our enviroment. And to continue with the main subject, I think that air pollution is an enormous issues, and i indeed appreciate the effort done by the engineers, scientists, enviromentalists, and all those that volunteer to put an end to this matter. The French, Russians, Japonese, and many more are contributed on that behalf by operating their vehicle with water, hybrid and diesel instead of gasoline. which are steps that prove that they are working to reduce the chances for "Global warming", and many incidents to come. User:nikel81ex Tuesday, March 20, 2007
But still, what is a "natural state" of the atmosphere? When the first leaf plants began to produce oxygen (a poison from some perspective) a mass extinction followed. IMHO, pollution definitions are very atropocentric - if it harms the human body, it is a pollution. Also, pollution is not only man-made: think about a volcano, even if its natural, we call it a polluter. --Oderbolz 06:07, 29 March 2007 (UTB)
<> Insertformulahere <> <> <> Superscripttext < / sup > <> Strike − throughtext < / s > < / sup > ==Carbon dioxide== Carbondioxide is not air pollutant. CO2 is essential gas for photosynthesis. Whole life on Earth depends on that. Siim 21:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
True. A better example in this context would be carbon monoxide.Will McW 23:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am afraid it all depends what you mean by 'air pollutant'. There are natural sources of carbon monoxide as well as of carbon dioxide (especially natural wildfires). Ozone is also essential for life as we know it - without the ozone layer levels of ultraviolet light would be huge. However there is no doubt in most people's minds that low level ozone is a pollutant. The point about CO2 is that its levels are substantially elevated above the levels observed in recent geological time and is now believed by most scientists to be changing the climate. A good definition of air pollution is that from the state of Maine:
"Air pollution" means the presence in the outdoor atmosphere of one or more air contaminants in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration as to be injurious to human, plant or animal life or to property, or which unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life and property throughout the State or throughout such areas of the State as shall be affected thereby.[
[edit] Primary and secondary pollutants
On a cautionary note, reference to primary and secondary pollutants does seem to be common elsewhere and as such might have had a place in the article--I base this only on a google search. As I am not familiar with them, might I ask, what are primary and secondary standards? Could both senses (re pollutants/re standards) be used if they are properly defined? -Onceler 15:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As I was not aware of these terms with respect to standards myself, I'll mention this for future reference. Regarding
standards:
The EPA ranks regulations in accordance with who or what they are intended to protect as primary ("human health, including sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory disease") and secondary ("public welfare" such as "building facades, visibility, crops, and domestic animals"). This is per the article National Ambient Air Quality Standards as sourced from the EPA website. Does anyone know if these terms are based on any other more general or universal regulatory framework outside the EPA?
pollutants:
Primary and secondary had formerly been used in this article to refer respectively to pollutants which are released directly and those which form after the fact from some combination of primary pollutants and/or other substances. It would be worthwhile knowing whether there are alternate formal or more appropriate terms to indicate the same thing.
Again, my comment is to weigh in on the relevance of primary/secondary distinctions in both senses and that there need not be confusion within the article as long as references are made clearly and appropriate caveats noted. Something like the above bullets might be worthwhile putting in the article itself. Unless more appropriate terminology is found, it would be better for this article to include and clarify multiple-sense terms which might cause confusion instead of ducking the question for the sake of convenience. -Onceler 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
As I was not aware of these terms with respect to standards myself, I'll mention this for future reference. Regarding
standards:
The EPA ranks regulations in accordance with who or what they are intended to protect as primary ("human health, including sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory disease") and secondary ("public welfare" such as "building facades, visibility, crops, and domestic animals"). This is per the article National Ambient Air Quality Standards as sourced from the EPA website. Does anyone know if these terms are based on any other more general or universal regulatory framework outside the EPA?
pollutants:
Primary and secondary had formerly been used in this article to refer respectively to pollutants which are released directly and those which form after the fact from some combination of primary pollutants and/or other substances. It would be worthwhile knowing whether there are alternate formal or more appropriate terms to indicate the same thing.
Again, my comment is to weigh in on the relevance of primary/secondary distinctions in both senses and that there need not be confusion within the article as long as references are made clearly and appropriate caveats noted. Something like the above bullets might be worthwhile putting in the article itself. Unless more appropriate terminology is found, it would be better for this article to include and clarify multiple-sense terms which might cause confusion instead of ducking the question for the sake of convenience. -Onceler 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Primary and secondary pollutants
On a cautionary note, reference to primary and secondary pollutants does seem to be common elsewhere and as such might have had a place in the article--I base this only on a google search. As I am not familiar with them, might I ask, what are primary and secondary standards? Could both senses (re pollutants/re standards) be used if they are properly defined? -Onceler 15:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
As I was not aware of these terms with respect to standards myself, I'll mention this for future reference. Regarding
standards:
The EPA ranks regulations in accordance with who or what they are intended to protect as primary ("human health, including sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory disease") and secondary ("public welfare" such as "building facades, visibility, crops, and domestic animals"). This is per the article National Ambient Air Quality Standards as sourced from the EPA website. Does anyone know if these terms are based on any other more general or universal regulatory framework outside the EPA?
pollutants:
Primary and secondary had formerly been used in this article to refer respectively to pollutants which are released directly and those which form after the fact from some combination of primary pollutants and/or other substances. It would be worthwhile knowing whether there are alternate formal or more appropriate terms to indicate the same thing.
Again, my comment is to weigh in on the relevance of primary/secondary distinctions in both senses and that there need not be confusion within the article as long as references are made clearly and appropriate caveats noted. Something like the above bullets might be worthwhile putting in the article itself. Unless more appropriate terminology is found, it would be better for this article to include and clarify multiple-sense terms which might cause confusion instead of ducking the question for the sake of convenience. -Onceler 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
As I was not aware of these terms with respect to standards myself, I'll mention this for future reference. Regarding
standards:
The EPA ranks regulations in accordance with who or what they are intended to protect as primary ("human health, including sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals suffering from respiratory disease") and secondary ("public welfare" such as "building facades, visibility, crops, and domestic animals"). This is per the article National Ambient Air Quality Standards as sourced from the EPA website. Does anyone know if these terms are based on any other more general or universal regulatory framework outside the EPA?
pollutants:
Primary and secondary had formerly been used in this article to refer respectively to pollutants which are released directly and those which form after the fact from some combination of primary pollutants and/or other substances. It would be worthwhile knowing whether there are alternate formal or more appropriate terms to indicate the same thing.
Again, my comment is to weigh in on the relevance of primary/secondary distinctions in both senses and that there need not be confusion within the article as long as references are made clearly and appropriate caveats noted. Something like the above bullets might be worthwhile putting in the article itself. Unless more appropriate terminology is found, it would be better for this article to include and clarify multiple-sense terms which might cause confusion instead of ducking the question for the sake of convenience. -Onceler 02:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Carbon dioxide again
To keep its NPOV status, carbon dioxide cannot be referred to as a pollutant since it is vital for all plant life. If I am wrong about this bit of schoolboy science, please correct me! Peterlewis (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
CO2 is not only vital for plants. Any moron depends on it. Still it may become a pollutant in various ways. If your cubicle is filled with CO2 you die (while your plant may hang in a bit longer). When the outdoor concentration generally rises and in consequence alters the atmosphere's radiative properties, that substance is a pollutant. This is a repetition of what was discussed on this page in 2004. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose water by the same token is also a pollutant (since you can drown in it). The term "pollutant" has thus lost any reasonable definition. The use of the term has become a political statement rather than an objective scientific term. Peterlewis (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter, reason and logic will not prevail with those who close their minds to whatever they have decided is "the truth". Especially those who have only been on the Wikipedia about 3 months and have yet to read or learn about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) or most other policies for that matter ... such as the Wiki policy on civility (WP:Civility). Perhaps that is why he uses phrases like "weasel worded" and "any moron".
You might try informing Gabriel that that Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Science (USA), thinks that global warming theory is based on flawed ideas (See http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm). In fact, he has sponsored a petition to have the United States government reject the Kyoto Protocal ... and the petition now has 19,000 signatures.
If he needs hard, scientific evidence that the global warming theory is flawed, ask him to read this article:
A.B. Robinson, N.E. Robinson and Willie Soon, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 78-90. A copy is available online at http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf
Keep the faith and keep trying. I thoroughly agreed with the sentence that you added to Air pollution which was deleted by Gabriel - mbeychok (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep the faith and keep trying. What is this, religion? And Frederick Seitz as your science source, no disrespect to him, but his is rather a minority position quite at odds with active climate scientists researching the global warming problem. Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't religion. Keep the faith is just a saying that means keep hoping, keep trying or don't give up. As for Frederick Seitz (past president of the National Academy of Science) and many others who agree with him, I thought the whole idea of democracy and NPOV was to allow the hearing of minority opinions.
This whole issue is about Peterlewis having added one sentence that read Other scientists recognise carbon dioxide is essential for plant life and should not be classed as a pollutant ... which was deleted by Gabriel Kieland in a rather rude manner. Peterlewis did not delete any of the content stating otherwise ... he merely pointed out that many of us simply do not agree. Is that not the very essence of the NPOV policy? Please read all of the background on this discussion. - mbeychok (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The current article notes the dual role of CO2. It's not the only chemical that has a dual role - beneficial and pollutant. With CO2 it is the increasing concentration in the atmosphere that makes it a pollutant - and yes that increasing concentration may well be beneficial to plant life while producing serious problems for humanity (and polar bears...). With that Other scientists recognise carbon dioxide is essential for plant life ... he was implying that the climate scientists didn't recognize that basic truism and therefore must be blind or dumb.
And keep the faith means a basic religious attitude of ignore the evidence - all you gotta do is believe. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The entire sentence is a straw man argument - saying that somehow, classifying anthropogenic CO2 as a pollutant means you don't believe it is essential for life. Furthermore, the clause "other scientists recognize... that it should not be classed as a pollutant" is very POV, since it implies that "CO2 should not be classed as a pollutant" is an inarguable truth which merely needs "recognition". Obviously, if human-released CO2 alters the climate of the earth negatively, it can reasonably be classed as a pollutant, quite independent of its beneficial / necessary roles. Making this into an argument about the validity of global warming is asinine, since the fact at issue - climate scientists now class CO2 as a pollutant - is not disputed. 01:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The statement now reads: "(CO2 ...) have recently gained recognition as pollutants by climate scientists." This is a severe understatement. The recognition is currently with every OECD government except that of USA. Sad really. Also the unsigned hard scientific evidence above is only saddening stubbornness. This article could however benefit from a paragraph on beneficial side effects of pollutants. Nitrogen fertilizes. Sulphur deposition acts to raise production in some exotic ecosystems. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing with me that labelling CO2 as a pollutant is a political rather than scientific doctrine. What is really sad is attitudes which fail to recognise rational scepticism as the way to keep politicians in check. That and the ballot box (when we are allowed to vote). Peterlewis (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Gabriel Kielland: This is a quote from your above resonse: the unsigned hard scientific evidence above is only saddening stubbornness. What unsigned response are you talking about? As far as can see, every response in this posting has been signed. You know, it is possible to respond on a Talk page without denigrating a prior response. Your inability to do so is what is really saddening stubborness. - mbeychok (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies to Mbeychok for not having recognized that the two references above are within his entry. Both are unrelated to this discussion. Peterlewis has however a point that air pollution is a political topic. The link between scientific recommendations and political response is not well described in the article. A rather random selection of policies are hidden under the title Air quality standards. A separate article Air quality (rather than the current redirect) would be an improvement. Also a section Air pollution#Policies. The very last section on Greenhouse effect and ocean acidification actually explains about water in relation to air pollution from CO2. This could clearly be improved upon. Gabriel Kielland 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
CO2 is not only vital for plants. Any moron depends on it. Still it may become a pollutant in various ways. If your cubicle is filled with CO2 you die (while your plant may hang in a bit longer). When the outdoor concentration generally rises and in consequence alters the atmosphere's radiative properties, that substance is a pollutant. This is a repetition of what was discussed on this page in 2004. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose water by the same token is also a pollutant (since you can drown in it). The term "pollutant" has thus lost any reasonable definition. The use of the term has become a political statement rather than an objective scientific term. Peterlewis (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter, reason and logic will not prevail with those who close their minds to whatever they have decided is "the truth". Especially those who have only been on the Wikipedia about 3 months and have yet to read or learn about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) or most other policies for that matter ... such as the Wiki policy on civility (WP:Civility). Perhaps that is why he uses phrases like "weasel worded" and "any moron".
You might try informing Gabriel that that Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Science (USA), thinks that global warming theory is based on flawed ideas (See http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm). In fact, he has sponsored a petition to have the United States government reject the Kyoto Protocal ... and the petition now has 19,000 signatures.
If he needs hard, scientific evidence that the global warming theory is flawed, ask him to read this article:
A.B. Robinson, N.E. Robinson and Willie Soon, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 78-90. A copy is available online at http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf
Keep the faith and keep trying. I thoroughly agreed with the sentence that you added to Air pollution which was deleted by Gabriel - mbeychok (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep the faith and keep trying. What is this, religion? And Frederick Seitz as your science source, no disrespect to him, but his is rather a minority position quite at odds with active climate scientists researching the global warming problem. Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't religion. Keep the faith is just a saying that means keep hoping, keep trying or don't give up. As for Frederick Seitz (past president of the National Academy of Science) and many others who agree with him, I thought the whole idea of democracy and NPOV was to allow the hearing of minority opinions.
This whole issue is about Peterlewis having added one sentence that read Other scientists recognise carbon dioxide is essential for plant life and should not be classed as a pollutant ... which was deleted by Gabriel Kieland in a rather rude manner. Peterlewis did not delete any of the content stating otherwise ... he merely pointed out that many of us simply do not agree. Is that not the very essence of the NPOV policy? Please read all of the background on this discussion. - mbeychok (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The current article notes the dual role of CO2. It's not the only chemical that has a dual role - beneficial and pollutant. With CO2 it is the increasing concentration in the atmosphere that makes it a pollutant - and yes that increasing concentration may well be beneficial to plant life while producing serious problems for humanity (and polar bears...). With that Other scientists recognise carbon dioxide is essential for plant life ... he was implying that the climate scientists didn't recognize that basic truism and therefore must be blind or dumb.
And keep the faith means a basic religious attitude of ignore the evidence - all you gotta do is believe. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The entire sentence is a straw man argument - saying that somehow, classifying anthropogenic CO2 as a pollutant means you don't believe it is essential for life. Furthermore, the clause "other scientists recognize... that it should not be classed as a pollutant" is very POV, since it implies that "CO2 should not be classed as a pollutant" is an inarguable truth which merely needs "recognition". Obviously, if human-released CO2 alters the climate of the earth negatively, it can reasonably be classed as a pollutant, quite independent of its beneficial / necessary roles. Making this into an argument about the validity of global warming is asinine, since the fact at issue - climate scientists now class CO2 as a pollutant - is not disputed.
The statement now reads: "(CO2 ...) have recently gained recognition as pollutants by climate scientists." This is a severe understatement. The recognition is currently with every OECD government except that of USA. Sad really. Also the unsigned hard scientific evidence above is only saddening stubbornness. This article could however benefit from a paragraph on beneficial side effects of pollutants. Nitrogen fertilizes. Sulphur deposition acts to raise production in some exotic ecosystems. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing with me that labelling CO2 as a pollutant is a political rather than scientific doctrine. What is really sad is attitudes which fail to recognise rational scepticism as the way to keep politicians in check. That and the ballot box (when we are allowed to vote). Peterlewis (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Gabriel Kielland: This is a quote from your above resonse: the unsigned hard scientific evidence above is only saddening stubbornness. What unsigned response are you talking about? As far as can see, every response in this posting has been signed. You know, it is possible to respond on a Talk page without denigrating a prior response. Your inability to do so is what is really saddening stubborness. - mbeychok (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies to Mbeychok for not having recognized that the two references above are within his entry. Both are unrelated to this discussion. Peterlewis has however a point that air pollution is a political topic. The link between scientific recommendations and political response is not well described in the article. A rather random selection of policies are hidden under the title Air quality standards. A separate article Air quality (rather than the current redirect) would be an improvement. Also a section Air pollution#Policies. The very last section on Greenhouse effect and ocean acidification actually explains about water in relation to air pollution from CO2. This could clearly be improved upon. Gabriel Kielland 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Carbon dioxide again
To keep its NPOV status, carbon dioxide cannot be referred to as a pollutant since it is vital for all plant life. If I am wrong about this bit of schoolboy science, please correct me! Peterlewis (talk) 12:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
CO2 is not only vital for plants. Any moron depends on it. Still it may become a pollutant in various ways. If your cubicle is filled with CO2 you die (while your plant may hang in a bit longer). When the outdoor concentration generally rises and in consequence alters the atmosphere's radiative properties, that substance is a pollutant. This is a repetition of what was discussed on this page in 2004. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose water by the same token is also a pollutant (since you can drown in it). The term "pollutant" has thus lost any reasonable definition. The use of the term has become a political statement rather than an objective scientific term. Peterlewis (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter, reason and logic will not prevail with those who close their minds to whatever they have decided is "the truth". Especially those who have only been on the Wikipedia about 3 months and have yet to read or learn about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) or most other policies for that matter ... such as the Wiki policy on civility (WP:Civility). Perhaps that is why he uses phrases like "weasel worded" and "any moron".
You might try informing Gabriel that that Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Science (USA), thinks that global warming theory is based on flawed ideas (See http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm). In fact, he has sponsored a petition to have the United States government reject the Kyoto Protocal ... and the petition now has 19,000 signatures.
If he needs hard, scientific evidence that the global warming theory is flawed, ask him to read this article:
A.B. Robinson, N.E. Robinson and Willie Soon, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 78-90. A copy is available online at http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf
Keep the faith and keep trying. I thoroughly agreed with the sentence that you added to Air pollution which was deleted by Gabriel - mbeychok (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep the faith and keep trying. What is this, religion? And Frederick Seitz as your science source, no disrespect to him, but his is rather a minority position quite at odds with active climate scientists researching the global warming problem. Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't religion. Keep the faith is just a saying that means keep hoping, keep trying or don't give up. As for Frederick Seitz (past president of the National Academy of Science) and many others who agree with him, I thought the whole idea of democracy and NPOV was to allow the hearing of minority opinions.
This whole issue is about Peterlewis having added one sentence that read Other scientists recognise carbon dioxide is essential for plant life and should not be classed as a pollutant ... which was deleted by Gabriel Kieland in a rather rude manner. Peterlewis did not delete any of the content stating otherwise ... he merely pointed out that many of us simply do not agree. Is that not the very essence of the NPOV policy? Please read all of the background on this discussion. - mbeychok (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The current article notes the dual role of CO2. It's not the only chemical that has a dual role - beneficial and pollutant. With CO2 it is the increasing concentration in the atmosphere that makes it a pollutant - and yes that increasing concentration may well be beneficial to plant life while producing serious problems for humanity (and polar bears...). With that Other scientists recognise carbon dioxide is essential for plant life ... he was implying that the climate scientists didn't recognize that basic truism and therefore must be blind or dumb.
And keep the faith means a basic religious attitude of ignore the evidence - all you gotta do is believe. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The entire sentence is a straw man argument - saying that somehow, classifying anthropogenic CO2 as a pollutant means you don't believe it is essential for life. Furthermore, the clause "other scientists recognize... that it should not be classed as a pollutant" is very POV, since it implies that "CO2 should not be classed as a pollutant" is an inarguable truth which merely needs "recognition". Obviously, if human-released CO2 alters the climate of the earth negatively, it can reasonably be classed as a pollutant, quite independent of its beneficial / necessary roles. Making this into an argument about the validity of global warming is asinine, since the fact at issue - climate scientists now class CO2 as a pollutant - is not disputed. 01:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The statement now reads: "(CO2 ...) have recently gained recognition as pollutants by climate scientists." This is a severe understatement. The recognition is currently with every OECD government except that of USA. Sad really. Also the unsigned hard scientific evidence above is only saddening stubbornness. This article could however benefit from a paragraph on beneficial side effects of pollutants. Nitrogen fertilizes. Sulphur deposition acts to raise production in some exotic ecosystems. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing with me that labelling CO2 as a pollutant is a political rather than scientific doctrine. What is really sad is attitudes which fail to recognise rational scepticism as the way to keep politicians in check. That and the ballot box (when we are allowed to vote). Peterlewis (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Gabriel Kielland: This is a quote from your above resonse: the unsigned hard scientific evidence above is only saddening stubbornness. What unsigned response are you talking about? As far as can see, every response in this posting has been signed. You know, it is possible to respond on a Talk page without denigrating a prior response. Your inability to do so is what is really saddening stubborness. - mbeychok (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies to Mbeychok for not having recognized that the two references above are within his entry. Both are unrelated to this discussion. Peterlewis has however a point that air pollution is a political topic. The link between scientific recommendations and political response is not well described in the article. A rather random selection of policies are hidden under the title Air quality standards. A separate article Air quality (rather than the current redirect) would be an improvement. Also a section Air pollution#Policies. The very last section on Greenhouse effect and ocean acidification actually explains about water in relation to air pollution from CO2. This could clearly be improved upon. Gabriel Kielland 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
CO2 is not only vital for plants. Any moron depends on it. Still it may become a pollutant in various ways. If your cubicle is filled with CO2 you die (while your plant may hang in a bit longer). When the outdoor concentration generally rises and in consequence alters the atmosphere's radiative properties, that substance is a pollutant. This is a repetition of what was discussed on this page in 2004. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose water by the same token is also a pollutant (since you can drown in it). The term "pollutant" has thus lost any reasonable definition. The use of the term has become a political statement rather than an objective scientific term. Peterlewis (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Peter, reason and logic will not prevail with those who close their minds to whatever they have decided is "the truth". Especially those who have only been on the Wikipedia about 3 months and have yet to read or learn about Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV) or most other policies for that matter ... such as the Wiki policy on civility (WP:Civility). Perhaps that is why he uses phrases like "weasel worded" and "any moron".
You might try informing Gabriel that that Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Science (USA), thinks that global warming theory is based on flawed ideas (See http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm). In fact, he has sponsored a petition to have the United States government reject the Kyoto Protocal ... and the petition now has 19,000 signatures.
If he needs hard, scientific evidence that the global warming theory is flawed, ask him to read this article:
A.B. Robinson, N.E. Robinson and Willie Soon, "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide", Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 78-90. A copy is available online at http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM300.pdf
Keep the faith and keep trying. I thoroughly agreed with the sentence that you added to Air pollution which was deleted by Gabriel - mbeychok (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep the faith and keep trying. What is this, religion? And Frederick Seitz as your science source, no disrespect to him, but his is rather a minority position quite at odds with active climate scientists researching the global warming problem. Vsmith (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't religion. Keep the faith is just a saying that means keep hoping, keep trying or don't give up. As for Frederick Seitz (past president of the National Academy of Science) and many others who agree with him, I thought the whole idea of democracy and NPOV was to allow the hearing of minority opinions.
This whole issue is about Peterlewis having added one sentence that read Other scientists recognise carbon dioxide is essential for plant life and should not be classed as a pollutant ... which was deleted by Gabriel Kieland in a rather rude manner. Peterlewis did not delete any of the content stating otherwise ... he merely pointed out that many of us simply do not agree. Is that not the very essence of the NPOV policy? Please read all of the background on this discussion. - mbeychok (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The current article notes the dual role of CO2. It's not the only chemical that has a dual role - beneficial and pollutant. With CO2 it is the increasing concentration in the atmosphere that makes it a pollutant - and yes that increasing concentration may well be beneficial to plant life while producing serious problems for humanity (and polar bears...). With that Other scientists recognise carbon dioxide is essential for plant life ... he was implying that the climate scientists didn't recognize that basic truism and therefore must be blind or dumb.
And keep the faith means a basic religious attitude of ignore the evidence - all you gotta do is believe. Cheers, Vsmith (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The entire sentence is a straw man argument - saying that somehow, classifying anthropogenic CO2 as a pollutant means you don't believe it is essential for life. Furthermore, the clause "other scientists recognize... that it should not be classed as a pollutant" is very POV, since it implies that "CO2 should not be classed as a pollutant" is an inarguable truth which merely needs "recognition". Obviously, if human-released CO2 alters the climate of the earth negatively, it can reasonably be classed as a pollutant, quite independent of its beneficial / necessary roles. Making this into an argument about the validity of global warming is asinine, since the fact at issue - climate scientists now class CO2 as a pollutant - is not disputed.
The statement now reads: "(CO2 ...) have recently gained recognition as pollutants by climate scientists." This is a severe understatement. The recognition is currently with every OECD government except that of USA. Sad really. Also the unsigned hard scientific evidence above is only saddening stubbornness. This article could however benefit from a paragraph on beneficial side effects of pollutants. Nitrogen fertilizes. Sulphur deposition acts to raise production in some exotic ecosystems. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing with me that labelling CO2 as a pollutant is a political rather than scientific doctrine. What is really sad is attitudes which fail to recognise rational scepticism as the way to keep politicians in check. That and the ballot box (when we are allowed to vote). Peterlewis (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Gabriel Kielland: This is a quote from your above resonse: the unsigned hard scientific evidence above is only saddening stubbornness. What unsigned response are you talking about? As far as can see, every response in this posting has been signed. You know, it is possible to respond on a Talk page without denigrating a prior response. Your inability to do so is what is really saddening stubborness. - mbeychok (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
My apologies to Mbeychok for not having recognized that the two references above are within his entry. Both are unrelated to this discussion. Peterlewis has however a point that air pollution is a political topic. The link between scientific recommendations and political response is not well described in the article. A rather random selection of policies are hidden under the title Air quality standards. A separate article Air quality (rather than the current redirect) would be an improvement. Also a section Air pollution#Policies. The very last section on Greenhouse effect and ocean acidification actually explains about water in relation to air pollution from CO2. This could clearly be improved upon. Gabriel Kielland 23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Pollutants
An air pollutant is known as a substance in the air that can cause harm to humans and the environment. Pollutants can be in the form of solid particles, liquid droplets, or gases. In addition, they may be natural or man-made.[1]
Pollutants can be classified as either primary or secondary. Usually, primary pollutants are substances directly emitted from a process, such as ash from a volcanic eruption, the carbon monoxide gas from a motor vehicle exhaust or sulfur dioxide released from factories.
Secondary pollutants are not emitted directly. Rather, they form in the air when primary pollutants react or interact. An important example of a secondary pollutant is ground level ozone — one of the many secondary pollutants that make up photochemical smog.
Note that some pollutants may be both primary and secondary: that is, they are both emitted directly and formed from other primary pollutants.
About 4 percent of deaths in the United States can be attributed to air pollution, according to the Environmental Science Engineering Program at the Harvard School of Public Health.
Major primary pollutants produced by human activity include:
Sulfur oxides (SOx) - especially sulfur dioxide, a chemical compound with the formula SO2. SO2 is produced by volcanoes and in various industrial processes. Since coal and petroleum often contain sulfur compounds, their combustion generates sulfur dioxide. Further oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2, forms H2SO4, and thus acid rain.[2] This is one of the causes for concern over the environmental impact of the use of these fuels as power sources.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - especially nitrogen dioxide are emitted from high temperature combustion. Can be seen as the brown haze dome above or plume downwind of cities.Nitrogen dioxide is the chemical compound with the formula NO2. It is one of the several nitrogen oxides. This reddish-brown toxic gas has a characteristic sharp, biting odor. NO2 is one of the most prominent air pollutants.
Carbon monoxide - is a colourless, odourless, non-irritating but very poisonous gas. It is a product by incomplete combustion of fuel such as natural gas, coal or wood. Vehicular exhaust is a major source of carbon monoxide.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) - a greenhouse gas emitted from combustion but is also a gas vital to living organisms. It is a natural gas in the atmosphere.
Volatile organic compounds - VOCs are an important outdoor air pollutant. In this field they are often divided into the separate categories of methane (CH4) and non-methane (NMVOCs). Methane is an extremely efficient greenhouse gas which contributes to enhanced global warming. Other hydrocarbon VOCs are also significant greenhouse gases via their role in creating ozone and in prolonging the life of methane in the atmosphere, although the effect varies depending on local air quality. Within the NMVOCs, the aromatic compounds benzene, toluene and xylene are suspected carcinogens and may lead to leukemia through prolonged exposure. 1,3-butadiene is another dangerous compound which is often associated with industrial uses.
Particulate matter - Particulates, alternatively referred to as particulate matter (PM) or fine particles, are tiny particles of solid or liquid suspended in a gas. In contrast, aerosol refers to particles and the gas together. Sources of particulate matter can be man made or natural. Some particulates occur naturally, originating from volcanoes, dust storms, forest and grassland fires, living vegetation, and sea spray. Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, power plants and various industrial processes also generate significant amounts of aerosols. Averaged over the globe, anthropogenic aerosols—those made by human activities—currently account for about 10 percent of the total amount of aerosols in our atmosphere. Increased levels of fine particles in the air are linked to health hazards such as heart disease, altered lung function and lung cancer.
Pollutants can be classified as either primary or secondary. Usually, primary pollutants are substances directly emitted from a process, such as ash from a volcanic eruption, the carbon monoxide gas from a motor vehicle exhaust or sulfur dioxide released from factories.
Secondary pollutants are not emitted directly. Rather, they form in the air when primary pollutants react or interact. An important example of a secondary pollutant is ground level ozone — one of the many secondary pollutants that make up photochemical smog.
Note that some pollutants may be both primary and secondary: that is, they are both emitted directly and formed from other primary pollutants.
About 4 percent of deaths in the United States can be attributed to air pollution, according to the Environmental Science Engineering Program at the Harvard School of Public Health.
Major primary pollutants produced by human activity include:
Sulfur oxides (SOx) - especially sulfur dioxide, a chemical compound with the formula SO2. SO2 is produced by volcanoes and in various industrial processes. Since coal and petroleum often contain sulfur compounds, their combustion generates sulfur dioxide. Further oxidation of SO2, usually in the presence of a catalyst such as NO2, forms H2SO4, and thus acid rain.[2] This is one of the causes for concern over the environmental impact of the use of these fuels as power sources.
Nitrogen oxides (NOx) - especially nitrogen dioxide are emitted from high temperature combustion. Can be seen as the brown haze dome above or plume downwind of cities.Nitrogen dioxide is the chemical compound with the formula NO2. It is one of the several nitrogen oxides. This reddish-brown toxic gas has a characteristic sharp, biting odor. NO2 is one of the most prominent air pollutants.
Carbon monoxide - is a colourless, odourless, non-irritating but very poisonous gas. It is a product by incomplete combustion of fuel such as natural gas, coal or wood. Vehicular exhaust is a major source of carbon monoxide.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) - a greenhouse gas emitted from combustion but is also a gas vital to living organisms. It is a natural gas in the atmosphere.
Volatile organic compounds - VOCs are an important outdoor air pollutant. In this field they are often divided into the separate categories of methane (CH4) and non-methane (NMVOCs). Methane is an extremely efficient greenhouse gas which contributes to enhanced global warming. Other hydrocarbon VOCs are also significant greenhouse gases via their role in creating ozone and in prolonging the life of methane in the atmosphere, although the effect varies depending on local air quality. Within the NMVOCs, the aromatic compounds benzene, toluene and xylene are suspected carcinogens and may lead to leukemia through prolonged exposure. 1,3-butadiene is another dangerous compound which is often associated with industrial uses.
Particulate matter - Particulates, alternatively referred to as particulate matter (PM) or fine particles, are tiny particles of solid or liquid suspended in a gas. In contrast, aerosol refers to particles and the gas together. Sources of particulate matter can be man made or natural. Some particulates occur naturally, originating from volcanoes, dust storms, forest and grassland fires, living vegetation, and sea spray. Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, power plants and various industrial processes also generate significant amounts of aerosols. Averaged over the globe, anthropogenic aerosols—those made by human activities—currently account for about 10 percent of the total amount of aerosols in our atmosphere. Increased levels of fine particles in the air are linked to health hazards such as heart disease, altered lung function and lung cancer.
Sources of air pallution
Sources of air pollution refer to the various locations, activities or factors which are responsible for the releasing of pollutants in the atmosphere. These sources can be classified into two major categories which are:
Anthropogenic sources (human activity) mostly related to burning different kinds of fuel
"Stationary Sources" include smoke stacks of power plants, manufacturing facilities (factories) and waste incinerators, as well as furnaces and other types of fuel-burning heating devices
"Mobile Sources" include motor vehicles, marine vessels, aircraft and the effect of sound etc.
Chemicals, dust and controlled burn practices in agriculture and forestry management. Controlled or prescribed burning is a technique sometimes used in forest management, farming, prairie restoration or greenhouse gas abatement. Fire is a natural part of both forest and grassland ecology and controlled fire can be a tool for foresters. Controlled burning stimulates the germination of some desirable forest trees, thus renewing the forest.
Fumes from paint, hair spray, varnish, aerosol sprays and other solvents
Waste deposition in landfills, which generate methane.Methane is not toxic; however, it is highly flammable and may form explosive mixtures with air. Methane is also an asphyxiant and may displace oxygen in an enclosed space. Asphyxia or suffocation may result if the oxygen concentration is reduced to below 19.5% by displacement
Military, such as nuclear weapons, toxic gases, germ warfare and rocketry
Natural sources
Dust from natural sources, usually large areas of land with little or no vegetation.
Methane, emitted by the digestion of food by animals, for example cattle.
Radon gas from radioactive decay within the Earth's crust. Radon is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring, radioactive noble gas that is formed from the decay of radium. It is considered to be a health hazard. Radon gas from natural sources can accumulate in buildings, especially in confined areas such as the basement and it is the second most frequent cause of lung cancer, after cigarette smoking.
Anthropogenic sources (human activity) mostly related to burning different kinds of fuel
"Stationary Sources" include smoke stacks of power plants, manufacturing facilities (factories) and waste incinerators, as well as furnaces and other types of fuel-burning heating devices
"Mobile Sources" include motor vehicles, marine vessels, aircraft and the effect of sound etc.
Chemicals, dust and controlled burn practices in agriculture and forestry management. Controlled or prescribed burning is a technique sometimes used in forest management, farming, prairie restoration or greenhouse gas abatement. Fire is a natural part of both forest and grassland ecology and controlled fire can be a tool for foresters. Controlled burning stimulates the germination of some desirable forest trees, thus renewing the forest.
Fumes from paint, hair spray, varnish, aerosol sprays and other solvents
Waste deposition in landfills, which generate methane.Methane is not toxic; however, it is highly flammable and may form explosive mixtures with air. Methane is also an asphyxiant and may displace oxygen in an enclosed space. Asphyxia or suffocation may result if the oxygen concentration is reduced to below 19.5% by displacement
Military, such as nuclear weapons, toxic gases, germ warfare and rocketry
Natural sources
Dust from natural sources, usually large areas of land with little or no vegetation.
Methane, emitted by the digestion of food by animals, for example cattle.
Radon gas from radioactive decay within the Earth's crust. Radon is a colorless, odorless, naturally occurring, radioactive noble gas that is formed from the decay of radium. It is considered to be a health hazard. Radon gas from natural sources can accumulate in buildings, especially in confined areas such as the basement and it is the second most frequent cause of lung cancer, after cigarette smoking.
Indoor air quality (IAQ)
lack of ventilation indoors concentrates air pollution where people often spend the majority of their time. Radon (Rn) gas, a carcinogen, is exuded from the Earth in certain locations and trapped inside houses. Building materials including carpeting and plywood emit formaldehyde (H2CO) gas. Paint and solvents give off volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as they dry. Lead paint can degenerate into dust and be inhaled. Intentional air pollution is introduced with the use of air fresheners, incense, and other scented items. Controlled wood fires in stoves and fireplaces can add significant amounts of smoke particulates into the air, inside and out[8]. Indoor pollution fatalities may be caused by using pesticides and other chemical sprays indoors without proper ventilation.
Carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning and fatalities are often caused by faulty vents and chimneys, or by the burning of charcoal indoors. Chronic carbon monoxide poisoning can result even from poorly adjusted pilot lights. Traps are built into all domestic plumbing to keep sewer gas, hydrogen sulfide, out of interiors. Clothing emits tetrachloroethylene, or other dry cleaning fluids, for days after dry cleaning.
Though its use has now been banned in many countries, the extensive use of asbestos in industrial and domestic environments in the past has left a potentially very dangerous material in many localities. Asbestosis is a chronic inflammatory medical condition affecting the tissue of the lungs. It occurs after long-term, heavy exposure to asbestos from asbestos-containing materials in structures. Sufferers have severe dyspnea (shortness of breath) and are at an increased risk regarding several different types of lung cancer. As clear explanations are not always stressed in non-technical literature, care should be taken to distinguish between several forms of relevant diseases. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), these may defined as; asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma (generally a very rare form of cancer, when more widespread it is almost always associated with prolonged exposure to asbestos).
Biological sources of air pollution are also found indoors, as gases and airborne particulates. Pets produce dander, people produce dust from minute skin flakes and decomposed hair, dust mites in bedding, carpeting and furniture produce enzymes and micrometre-sized fecal droppings, inhabitants emit methane, mold forms in walls and generates mycotoxins and spores, air conditioning systems can incubate Legionnaires' disease and mold, and houseplants, soil and surrounding gardens can produce pollen, dust, and mold. Indoors, the lack of air circulation allows these airborne pollutants to accumulate more than they would otherwise occur in nature.
Carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning and fatalities are often caused by faulty vents and chimneys, or by the burning of charcoal indoors. Chronic carbon monoxide poisoning can result even from poorly adjusted pilot lights. Traps are built into all domestic plumbing to keep sewer gas, hydrogen sulfide, out of interiors. Clothing emits tetrachloroethylene, or other dry cleaning fluids, for days after dry cleaning.
Though its use has now been banned in many countries, the extensive use of asbestos in industrial and domestic environments in the past has left a potentially very dangerous material in many localities. Asbestosis is a chronic inflammatory medical condition affecting the tissue of the lungs. It occurs after long-term, heavy exposure to asbestos from asbestos-containing materials in structures. Sufferers have severe dyspnea (shortness of breath) and are at an increased risk regarding several different types of lung cancer. As clear explanations are not always stressed in non-technical literature, care should be taken to distinguish between several forms of relevant diseases. According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), these may defined as; asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma (generally a very rare form of cancer, when more widespread it is almost always associated with prolonged exposure to asbestos).
Biological sources of air pollution are also found indoors, as gases and airborne particulates. Pets produce dander, people produce dust from minute skin flakes and decomposed hair, dust mites in bedding, carpeting and furniture produce enzymes and micrometre-sized fecal droppings, inhabitants emit methane, mold forms in walls and generates mycotoxins and spores, air conditioning systems can incubate Legionnaires' disease and mold, and houseplants, soil and surrounding gardens can produce pollen, dust, and mold. Indoors, the lack of air circulation allows these airborne pollutants to accumulate more than they would otherwise occur in nature.
Health effects
The World Health Organization states that 2.4 million people die each year from causes directly attributable to air pollution, with 1.5 million of these deaths attributable to indoor air pollution.[9] "Epidemiological studies suggest that more than 500,000 Americans die each year from cardiopulmonary disease linked to breathing fine particle air pollution. . ."[10] A study by the University of Birmingham has shown a strong correlation between pneumonia related deaths and air pollution from motor vehicles.[11] Worldwide more deaths per year are linked to air pollution than to automobile accidents.[citation needed] Published in 2005 suggests that 310,000 Europeans die from air pollution annually.[citation needed] Direct causes of air pollution related deaths include aggravated asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, lung and heart diseases, and respiratory allergies.[citation needed] The US EPA estimates that a proposed set of changes in diesel engine technology (Tier 2) could result in 12,000 fewer premature mortalities, 15,000 fewer heart attacks, 6,000 fewer emergency room visits by children with asthma, and 8,900 fewer respiratory-related hospital admissions each year in the United States.[citation needed]
The worst short term civilian pollution crisis in India was the 1984 Bhopal Disaster.[12] Leaked industrial vapors from the Union Carbide factory, belonging to Union Carbide, Inc., U.S.A., killed more than 2,000 people outright and injured anywhere from 150,000 to 600,000 others, some 6,000 of whom would later die from their injuries.[citation needed] The United Kingdom suffered its worst air pollution event when the December 4 Great Smog of 1952 formed over London. In six days more than 4,000 died, and 8,000 more died within the following months.[citation needed] An accidental leak of anthrax spores from a biological warfare laboratory in the former USSR in 1979 near Sverdlovsk is believed to have been the cause of hundreds of civilian deaths.[citation needed] The worst single incident of air pollution to occur in the United States of America occurred in Donora, Pennsylvania in late October, 1948, when 20 people died and over 7,000 were injured.[13]
The health effects caused by air pollutants may range from subtle biochemical and physiological changes to difficulty in breathing, wheezing, coughing and aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiac conditions. These effects can result in increased medication use, increased doctor or emergency room visits, more hospital admissions and premature death. The human health effects of poor air quality are far reaching, but principally affect the body's respiratory system and the cardiovascular system. Individual reactions to air pollutants depend on the type of pollutant a person is exposed to, the degree of exposure, the individual's health status and genetics.[citation needed]
A new economic study of the health impacts and associated costs of air pollution in the Los Angeles Basin and San Joaquin Valley of Southern California shows that more than 3800 people die prematurely (approximately 14 years earlier than normal) each year because air pollution levels violate federal standards. The number of annual premature deaths is considerably higher than the fatalities related to auto collisions in the same area, which average fewer than 2,000 per year [14].
Diesel exhaust (DE) is a major contributor to combustion derived particulate matter air pollution. In several human experimental studies, using a well validated exposure chamber setup, DE has been linked to acute vascular dysfunction and increased thrombus formation.[15][16] This serves as a plausible mechanistic link between the previously described association between particulate matter air pollution and increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
Effects on cystic fibrosis
Main article: Cystic fibrosis
A study from 1999 to 2000 by the University of Washington showed that patients near and around particulate matter air pollution had an increased risk of pulmonary exacerbations and decrease in lung function.[17] Patients were examined before the study for amounts of specific pollutants like Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Burkholderia cenocepacia as well as their socioeconomic standing. Participants involved in the study were located in the United States in close proximity to an Environmental Protection Agency.[clarification needed] During the time of the study 117 deaths were associated with air pollution. A trend was noticed that patients living closer or in large metropolitan areas to be close to medical help also had higher level of pollutants found in their system because of more emissions in larger cities. With cystic fibrosis patients already being born with decreased lung function everyday pollutants such as smoke emissions from automobiles, tobacco smoke and improper use of indoor heating devices could add to the disintegration of lung function
The worst short term civilian pollution crisis in India was the 1984 Bhopal Disaster.[12] Leaked industrial vapors from the Union Carbide factory, belonging to Union Carbide, Inc., U.S.A., killed more than 2,000 people outright and injured anywhere from 150,000 to 600,000 others, some 6,000 of whom would later die from their injuries.[citation needed] The United Kingdom suffered its worst air pollution event when the December 4 Great Smog of 1952 formed over London. In six days more than 4,000 died, and 8,000 more died within the following months.[citation needed] An accidental leak of anthrax spores from a biological warfare laboratory in the former USSR in 1979 near Sverdlovsk is believed to have been the cause of hundreds of civilian deaths.[citation needed] The worst single incident of air pollution to occur in the United States of America occurred in Donora, Pennsylvania in late October, 1948, when 20 people died and over 7,000 were injured.[13]
The health effects caused by air pollutants may range from subtle biochemical and physiological changes to difficulty in breathing, wheezing, coughing and aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiac conditions. These effects can result in increased medication use, increased doctor or emergency room visits, more hospital admissions and premature death. The human health effects of poor air quality are far reaching, but principally affect the body's respiratory system and the cardiovascular system. Individual reactions to air pollutants depend on the type of pollutant a person is exposed to, the degree of exposure, the individual's health status and genetics.[citation needed]
A new economic study of the health impacts and associated costs of air pollution in the Los Angeles Basin and San Joaquin Valley of Southern California shows that more than 3800 people die prematurely (approximately 14 years earlier than normal) each year because air pollution levels violate federal standards. The number of annual premature deaths is considerably higher than the fatalities related to auto collisions in the same area, which average fewer than 2,000 per year [14].
Diesel exhaust (DE) is a major contributor to combustion derived particulate matter air pollution. In several human experimental studies, using a well validated exposure chamber setup, DE has been linked to acute vascular dysfunction and increased thrombus formation.[15][16] This serves as a plausible mechanistic link between the previously described association between particulate matter air pollution and increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
Effects on cystic fibrosis
Main article: Cystic fibrosis
A study from 1999 to 2000 by the University of Washington showed that patients near and around particulate matter air pollution had an increased risk of pulmonary exacerbations and decrease in lung function.[17] Patients were examined before the study for amounts of specific pollutants like Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Burkholderia cenocepacia as well as their socioeconomic standing. Participants involved in the study were located in the United States in close proximity to an Environmental Protection Agency.[clarification needed] During the time of the study 117 deaths were associated with air pollution. A trend was noticed that patients living closer or in large metropolitan areas to be close to medical help also had higher level of pollutants found in their system because of more emissions in larger cities. With cystic fibrosis patients already being born with decreased lung function everyday pollutants such as smoke emissions from automobiles, tobacco smoke and improper use of indoor heating devices could add to the disintegration of lung function
Air pollution in British Columbia
Provincial air quality law
Provincial environmental regulation is largely contained in BC's Environmental Management Act, which defines air pollution as follows:
"pollution" means the presence in the environment of substances or contaminants that substantially alter or impair the usefulness of the environment[edit] Federal air quality law
Federal pollution law is largely embodied in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and its associated schedules. The act of scheduling a toxin under CEPA starts a process of elimination or virtual elimination from the Canadian environment.
The National Pollutant Release Inventory indexes sources by pollutant and location.
Pollution law governing emissions from marine vessels is complicated; Transport Canada holds primary authority for regulating ship traffic in Canada, while the International Maritime Organization governs global shipping rules (including pollution from marine vessels). Environment Canada and other agencies are working to better understand and address this issue, which is increasingly important due to growing international tradeRegional and municipal air quality law
Within the province, various Regional Districts and municipalities have enacted laws to control pollution. There are also area-based plans to manage pollution along geographic lines that recognize airsheds instead of political boundaries. This system is especially relevant to BC because of its mountainous topography. The BC Environmental Management Act recognizes airsheds and notes that managers under the Act "may give consideration" to them, but their full legal status is uncertain. Some plans have had a considerable effect, and this trend is likely to continue.
The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) has a clearly defined role in air pollution control and has delegated authority from the province (Montreal is the only other jurisdiction in Canada with this delegated authority). The Fraser Valley Regional District has delegated authority to plan but not manage air quality.
British Columbia is a participant in the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), which includes processes for fine particulates and ground level ozone. Because BC generally has lower levels of pollution than the standards set by the Environmental Protection Act, the CI/KCAC ("Continuous Improvement" and "Keeping Clean Areas Clean") principles of the federal strategy is of special importance.
International law and treaties such as the Kyoto Accord further affect air pollution in BC.
The precautionary principle embodied in international agreements is gaining recognition in Canada and BC as a guide to interpreting pollution law.
Provincial environmental regulation is largely contained in BC's Environmental Management Act, which defines air pollution as follows:
"pollution" means the presence in the environment of substances or contaminants that substantially alter or impair the usefulness of the environment[edit] Federal air quality law
Federal pollution law is largely embodied in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) and its associated schedules. The act of scheduling a toxin under CEPA starts a process of elimination or virtual elimination from the Canadian environment.
The National Pollutant Release Inventory indexes sources by pollutant and location.
Pollution law governing emissions from marine vessels is complicated; Transport Canada holds primary authority for regulating ship traffic in Canada, while the International Maritime Organization governs global shipping rules (including pollution from marine vessels). Environment Canada and other agencies are working to better understand and address this issue, which is increasingly important due to growing international tradeRegional and municipal air quality law
Within the province, various Regional Districts and municipalities have enacted laws to control pollution. There are also area-based plans to manage pollution along geographic lines that recognize airsheds instead of political boundaries. This system is especially relevant to BC because of its mountainous topography. The BC Environmental Management Act recognizes airsheds and notes that managers under the Act "may give consideration" to them, but their full legal status is uncertain. Some plans have had a considerable effect, and this trend is likely to continue.
The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) has a clearly defined role in air pollution control and has delegated authority from the province (Montreal is the only other jurisdiction in Canada with this delegated authority). The Fraser Valley Regional District has delegated authority to plan but not manage air quality.
British Columbia is a participant in the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), which includes processes for fine particulates and ground level ozone. Because BC generally has lower levels of pollution than the standards set by the Environmental Protection Act, the CI/KCAC ("Continuous Improvement" and "Keeping Clean Areas Clean") principles of the federal strategy is of special importance.
International law and treaties such as the Kyoto Accord further affect air pollution in BC.
The precautionary principle embodied in international agreements is gaining recognition in Canada and BC as a guide to interpreting pollution law.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) (French) (Spanish) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time, fundamental human rights to be universally protected.This website contains any available UDHR translations with no distinction between languages and dialects since all of them serve the purpose of global dissemination. At present, there are 364 different translations of UDHR, available in HTML and/or PDF format.OHCHR also maintains a worldwide collection of materials on the UDHR which is permanently based in the OHCHR Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. To know more about the collection, click on UDHR materials in the left-hand column.The goal of this website is to disseminate UDHR broadly. You can help by contributing translations that not already included in the collection and also by sending us any UDHR materials that you have produced. For further instructions on submitting a translation, please refer to the submission guide. If you wish to send us UDHR materials, click on Contact the UDHR Team in the left-hand column to see the mailing address.Important:Efforts have been made to select the official or best available translations, produce new translations in widely spoken languages and, most importantly, make them easily accessible to the public. It should be noted, however, that OHCHR bears no responsibility for the quality and accuracy of any translations other than those of the six official UN languages. OHCHR would appreciate receiving any feedback in this sense by competent agencies.If UDHR translations or materials are reproduced, users should make reference to this website as a source by providing a link.All suggestions or modifications concerning translations posted on this website
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
