Fifteen-year-old boy charged with murder of Steven Grisales, 21 The devastated parents of a student allegedly knifed to death after remonstrating with a group of teenagers who pelted him with conkers, have spoken of their inability to understand the senselessness of his killing. Steven Grisales, 21, from Enfield, who aspired to be an architect, was stabbed in the chest as he made his way to Silver Street railway station, Edmonton, north London, after running a shopping errand for his elderly grandmother. A 15-year-old boy appeared before Enfield magistrates on Wednesday, charged with his murder. Campaigners against gun and knife crime said the situation in the area, parts of which were scarred by the London riots, was among the most serious in the capital. Mr Grisales, who was born in the UK to Colombian parents, had been studying in Argentina but arrived home on 5 August to take up a scholarship at Westminster College. He was due to attend the college last Thursday, the day he died. He had been stabbed a day earlier as he walked along College Close, Edmonton at 7pm. He suffered a single stab wound to the heart. At the scene on Wednesday his mother, Jasmid, sobbed uncontrollably as his father, Andres, called him “a great boy” who was “very responsible” and “really family orientated”. He had been “so happy” at returning home and seeing his sisters, aged 11 and six, and brother, aged two. Determined to become an architect, he had been studying in Argentina for 18 months, but wanted to finish his studies in London, said his father, who was working in catering in Argentina. On the day of his death he went to his grandmother’s to help her with her shopping. “He did the shopping, ate his dinner and left. And then it happened,” he said. “There was no reason for it. He didn’t drink. He didn’t smoke. He had friends. He wasn’t into any gangs or any large groups. His friends and cousins were all professionals, had all finished university. That’s it,” he said as his wife sobbed into his shoulder. “It’s incredible that this could happen to him. It is devastating for all of us that he was stabbed, without a reason, without nothing. “We can’t explain it. This shouldn’t happen to anyone.” As wellwishers continued to leave flowers at the scene a week on, campaigners against knife crime spoke of a sickness devouring communities, which had been evident in the Enfield area. In April, Edmonton schoolboy Negus McClean, 15, was fatally stabbed in the chest, allegedly protecting his 13-year-old brother from hooded youths on mountain bikes reportedly trying to steal his BlackBerry phone as they left a takeaway in Westminster Road. In July two rival gangs carrying guns, machetes and hammers, had a confrontation in Hertford Road, where a 16-year-old boy was stabbed in the hand. And on 17 August, 14-year-old Leroy James died in Ponders End recreation ground, around one mile away, having been stabbed in the chest. The spate of attacks has prompted the Enfield Independent newspaper to launch a “Don’t Carry, Don’t Kill” campaign. Local MPs Nick de Bois, Enfield North, and David Burrowes, Enfield Southgate, areon Thursday due to meet the justice secretary, Ken Clarke, to press for an amendment to a parliamentary motion to impose a six-month mandatory sentence on any adult caught in possession of a knife or bladed weapon. They want the sentencing powers to extend to those aged under 18. The proposals have the backing of Hazel Williams, 51, a former teacher, who organised a peace march through Enfield and Edmonton, which attracted hundreds of people, after Negus McClean’s death. The Nelson Williams Foundation, which she set up four years ago, aims to work with young people and their families to get knifes off north London’s streets. On Thursday supporters were leafleting in the street where Mr Grisales was stabbed, offering counselling to residents, most of whom refused to speak. “People are frightened at what is happening,” said Williams. “My question is what was going through the mind of the others there when one of their friends was suddenly wielding a knife. These are the sorts of questions were are trying to ask the young people in this area. Yes, we have gangs, but no more than anywhere else. And this doesn’t seem to be gang related. “What we are trying to do is work with the young people and their families to make them truly understand the terrible consequences of carrying a knife. Most say they carry for protection. We have to get them to see how dangerous that can be”. To this end, her foundation and its volunteers are organising 16 weeks of workshops and seminars for local families. In addition to the boy charged, police said two males aged 15 and 19, and two females aged 15 and 16, had been arrested and released on bail. Victoria Atta-Saow, 56, outside whose house the stabbing occurred, said a neighbour cradled Mr Grisales in her arms as they waited 27 minutes for an ambulance. “The lady said he had told her the group had thrown conkers at him so he’d thrown one back,” she said. As they waited for an ambulance, a small boy eventually flagged down a passing police car, she said. A London Ambulance Service spokesman denied it took 27 minutes to get to the victim. He said reports of a stabbing were received at 7.02pm, and that two ambulance crews, two single responders in cars and an air ambulance doctor in a car were sent to the scene. He said: “According to our records our first member of staff reached the patient at 7.16pm, once the police had confirmed that the area was safe. The ambulance crew arrived one minute after that.” On Wednesday police officers were conducting house-to-house inquiries and street interviews exactly one week on from the stabbing. Detective Inspector Richard Beadle said the “unnecessary” conker attack “deteriorated quite quickly” and resulted in murder. “Quite a lot of people have seen what happened and we need to find out exactly who did what, who said what and exactly what that involvement was. “I desperately need those people that saw what happened to come and speak to us because Steven has lost his life totally unnecessarily. It is really, really upsetting for everybody that something so trivial can result in a young man losing his life.” He added: “It’s an indication of how sad, how horrific it is that so many people are not only carrying knives in London but are actually prepared to use them.” Witnesses are asked to call the incident room on 0208 721 4961 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111. Knife crime Crime London Caroline Davies guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Politicians, police and fire chiefs urge end to ‘inhumane’ rules on funding for 9/11 cancer victims ahead of 10th anniversary Politicians, firefighters and police chiefs gathered at Ground Zero ahead of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to call for an end to the “inhumane” rules under which rescue workers who worked amid the toxic rubble and who have developed cancer are ineligible for help with their medical bills. Over the past decade, most of the millions of dollars spent on helping treat sick Ground Zero workers has been focused on respiratory problems and mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Cancer treatment has been specifically excluded from federal health funding, with officials arguing there has been insufficient evidence to prove any direct link between the toxins present at the site and the disease. But last week the results of the first large-scale study, published in the Lancet , found that firefighters who were involved on the day of the attacks and in the weeks that followed had a 19% higher risk of contracting cancer. The study looked at 9,800 male firefighters, comparing those present during and after the attacks with those who were not involved. Carolyn Maloney, who represents a New York district in Congress, said the study provided enough solid evidence for cancer to be included on the list of eligible conditions for federal funding. She was an author of the Zadroga Act introduced in January that provides federal money for 9/11-related treatment. The act excludes cancer, devoting its $4.3bn funds to the treatment and compensation of people with breathing disorders and mental health problems. But it does include a clause that allows new sicknesses to be added to its remit as and when scientific evidence becomes available. “Those who are suffering need treatment now,” Maloney said. Maloney, along with other members of Congress, are petitioning John Howard, the administrator of the Zadroga Act, to have the law amended to include cancer. He has 90 days to respond to the request. Fellow petitioner Jerrold Nadler, who represents the Ground Zero area of Manhattan in Congress, called the exclusion of cancer sufferers “inhumane”. “People all around us are getting sick and some are tragically dying. For those who are sick with cancer it’s infuriating to see the foot-dragging in making the link between Ground Zero and the disease.” Seventy thousand people took part in the Ground Zero operation, including firefighters, police and construction workers. They worked on the “pile”, the 1.8m tonnes of debris that formed once the Twin Towers collapsed. Environmental dangers at the site included 90,000 litres of jet fuel from the two stricken planes, as well as about 1,000 tonnes of asbestos, pulverised lead, mercury and other highly toxic chemicals. John Feal, a construction worker who was injured during the 9/11 clean-up, said he had attended 54 funerals of those present at Ground Zero over the past five years, 52 of whom had died with 9/11-related cancers. He said he planned to launch a popular campaign that would force the Obama administration to change the rules. “You can blame a lot of this on the terrorists who attacked us that day, but you can also blame a lot on the federal government.” Patrick Lynch, who heads a New York police officers’ union, said: “On September 11, we rescued you. Now it’s your turn to rescue us – New York city police officers who are sick and dying.” September 11 2001 Health United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Politicians, police and fire chiefs urge end to ‘inhumane’ rules on funding for 9/11 cancer victims ahead of 10th anniversary Politicians, firefighters and police chiefs gathered at Ground Zero ahead of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to call for an end to the “inhumane” rules under which rescue workers who worked amid the toxic rubble and who have developed cancer are ineligible for help with their medical bills. Over the past decade, most of the millions of dollars spent on helping treat sick Ground Zero workers has been focused on respiratory problems and mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Cancer treatment has been specifically excluded from federal health funding, with officials arguing there has been insufficient evidence to prove any direct link between the toxins present at the site and the disease. But last week the results of the first large-scale study, published in the Lancet , found that firefighters who were involved on the day of the attacks and in the weeks that followed had a 19% higher risk of contracting cancer. The study looked at 9,800 male firefighters, comparing those present during and after the attacks with those who were not involved. Carolyn Maloney, who represents a New York district in Congress, said the study provided enough solid evidence for cancer to be included on the list of eligible conditions for federal funding. She was an author of the Zadroga Act introduced in January that provides federal money for 9/11-related treatment. The act excludes cancer, devoting its $4.3bn funds to the treatment and compensation of people with breathing disorders and mental health problems. But it does include a clause that allows new sicknesses to be added to its remit as and when scientific evidence becomes available. “Those who are suffering need treatment now,” Maloney said. Maloney, along with other members of Congress, are petitioning John Howard, the administrator of the Zadroga Act, to have the law amended to include cancer. He has 90 days to respond to the request. Fellow petitioner Jerrold Nadler, who represents the Ground Zero area of Manhattan in Congress, called the exclusion of cancer sufferers “inhumane”. “People all around us are getting sick and some are tragically dying. For those who are sick with cancer it’s infuriating to see the foot-dragging in making the link between Ground Zero and the disease.” Seventy thousand people took part in the Ground Zero operation, including firefighters, police and construction workers. They worked on the “pile”, the 1.8m tonnes of debris that formed once the Twin Towers collapsed. Environmental dangers at the site included 90,000 litres of jet fuel from the two stricken planes, as well as about 1,000 tonnes of asbestos, pulverised lead, mercury and other highly toxic chemicals. John Feal, a construction worker who was injured during the 9/11 clean-up, said he had attended 54 funerals of those present at Ground Zero over the past five years, 52 of whom had died with 9/11-related cancers. He said he planned to launch a popular campaign that would force the Obama administration to change the rules. “You can blame a lot of this on the terrorists who attacked us that day, but you can also blame a lot on the federal government.” Patrick Lynch, who heads a New York police officers’ union, said: “On September 11, we rescued you. Now it’s your turn to rescue us – New York city police officers who are sick and dying.” September 11 2001 Health United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Politicians, police and fire chiefs urge end to ‘inhumane’ rules on funding for 9/11 cancer victims ahead of 10th anniversary Politicians, firefighters and police chiefs gathered at Ground Zero ahead of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to call for an end to the “inhumane” rules under which rescue workers who worked amid the toxic rubble and who have developed cancer are ineligible for help with their medical bills. Over the past decade, most of the millions of dollars spent on helping treat sick Ground Zero workers has been focused on respiratory problems and mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Cancer treatment has been specifically excluded from federal health funding, with officials arguing there has been insufficient evidence to prove any direct link between the toxins present at the site and the disease. But last week the results of the first large-scale study, published in the Lancet , found that firefighters who were involved on the day of the attacks and in the weeks that followed had a 19% higher risk of contracting cancer. The study looked at 9,800 male firefighters, comparing those present during and after the attacks with those who were not involved. Carolyn Maloney, who represents a New York district in Congress, said the study provided enough solid evidence for cancer to be included on the list of eligible conditions for federal funding. She was an author of the Zadroga Act introduced in January that provides federal money for 9/11-related treatment. The act excludes cancer, devoting its $4.3bn funds to the treatment and compensation of people with breathing disorders and mental health problems. But it does include a clause that allows new sicknesses to be added to its remit as and when scientific evidence becomes available. “Those who are suffering need treatment now,” Maloney said. Maloney, along with other members of Congress, are petitioning John Howard, the administrator of the Zadroga Act, to have the law amended to include cancer. He has 90 days to respond to the request. Fellow petitioner Jerrold Nadler, who represents the Ground Zero area of Manhattan in Congress, called the exclusion of cancer sufferers “inhumane”. “People all around us are getting sick and some are tragically dying. For those who are sick with cancer it’s infuriating to see the foot-dragging in making the link between Ground Zero and the disease.” Seventy thousand people took part in the Ground Zero operation, including firefighters, police and construction workers. They worked on the “pile”, the 1.8m tonnes of debris that formed once the Twin Towers collapsed. Environmental dangers at the site included 90,000 litres of jet fuel from the two stricken planes, as well as about 1,000 tonnes of asbestos, pulverised lead, mercury and other highly toxic chemicals. John Feal, a construction worker who was injured during the 9/11 clean-up, said he had attended 54 funerals of those present at Ground Zero over the past five years, 52 of whom had died with 9/11-related cancers. He said he planned to launch a popular campaign that would force the Obama administration to change the rules. “You can blame a lot of this on the terrorists who attacked us that day, but you can also blame a lot on the federal government.” Patrick Lynch, who heads a New York police officers’ union, said: “On September 11, we rescued you. Now it’s your turn to rescue us – New York city police officers who are sick and dying.” September 11 2001 Health United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Politicians, police and fire chiefs urge end to ‘inhumane’ rules on funding for 9/11 cancer victims ahead of 10th anniversary Politicians, firefighters and police chiefs gathered at Ground Zero ahead of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to call for an end to the “inhumane” rules under which rescue workers who worked amid the toxic rubble and who have developed cancer are ineligible for help with their medical bills. Over the past decade, most of the millions of dollars spent on helping treat sick Ground Zero workers has been focused on respiratory problems and mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Cancer treatment has been specifically excluded from federal health funding, with officials arguing there has been insufficient evidence to prove any direct link between the toxins present at the site and the disease. But last week the results of the first large-scale study, published in the Lancet , found that firefighters who were involved on the day of the attacks and in the weeks that followed had a 19% higher risk of contracting cancer. The study looked at 9,800 male firefighters, comparing those present during and after the attacks with those who were not involved. Carolyn Maloney, who represents a New York district in Congress, said the study provided enough solid evidence for cancer to be included on the list of eligible conditions for federal funding. She was an author of the Zadroga Act introduced in January that provides federal money for 9/11-related treatment. The act excludes cancer, devoting its $4.3bn funds to the treatment and compensation of people with breathing disorders and mental health problems. But it does include a clause that allows new sicknesses to be added to its remit as and when scientific evidence becomes available. “Those who are suffering need treatment now,” Maloney said. Maloney, along with other members of Congress, are petitioning John Howard, the administrator of the Zadroga Act, to have the law amended to include cancer. He has 90 days to respond to the request. Fellow petitioner Jerrold Nadler, who represents the Ground Zero area of Manhattan in Congress, called the exclusion of cancer sufferers “inhumane”. “People all around us are getting sick and some are tragically dying. For those who are sick with cancer it’s infuriating to see the foot-dragging in making the link between Ground Zero and the disease.” Seventy thousand people took part in the Ground Zero operation, including firefighters, police and construction workers. They worked on the “pile”, the 1.8m tonnes of debris that formed once the Twin Towers collapsed. Environmental dangers at the site included 90,000 litres of jet fuel from the two stricken planes, as well as about 1,000 tonnes of asbestos, pulverised lead, mercury and other highly toxic chemicals. John Feal, a construction worker who was injured during the 9/11 clean-up, said he had attended 54 funerals of those present at Ground Zero over the past five years, 52 of whom had died with 9/11-related cancers. He said he planned to launch a popular campaign that would force the Obama administration to change the rules. “You can blame a lot of this on the terrorists who attacked us that day, but you can also blame a lot on the federal government.” Patrick Lynch, who heads a New York police officers’ union, said: “On September 11, we rescued you. Now it’s your turn to rescue us – New York city police officers who are sick and dying.” September 11 2001 Health United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Politicians, police and fire chiefs urge end to ‘inhumane’ rules on funding for 9/11 cancer victims ahead of 10th anniversary Politicians, firefighters and police chiefs gathered at Ground Zero ahead of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to call for an end to the “inhumane” rules under which rescue workers who worked amid the toxic rubble and who have developed cancer are ineligible for help with their medical bills. Over the past decade, most of the millions of dollars spent on helping treat sick Ground Zero workers has been focused on respiratory problems and mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Cancer treatment has been specifically excluded from federal health funding, with officials arguing there has been insufficient evidence to prove any direct link between the toxins present at the site and the disease. But last week the results of the first large-scale study, published in the Lancet , found that firefighters who were involved on the day of the attacks and in the weeks that followed had a 19% higher risk of contracting cancer. The study looked at 9,800 male firefighters, comparing those present during and after the attacks with those who were not involved. Carolyn Maloney, who represents a New York district in Congress, said the study provided enough solid evidence for cancer to be included on the list of eligible conditions for federal funding. She was an author of the Zadroga Act introduced in January that provides federal money for 9/11-related treatment. The act excludes cancer, devoting its $4.3bn funds to the treatment and compensation of people with breathing disorders and mental health problems. But it does include a clause that allows new sicknesses to be added to its remit as and when scientific evidence becomes available. “Those who are suffering need treatment now,” Maloney said. Maloney, along with other members of Congress, are petitioning John Howard, the administrator of the Zadroga Act, to have the law amended to include cancer. He has 90 days to respond to the request. Fellow petitioner Jerrold Nadler, who represents the Ground Zero area of Manhattan in Congress, called the exclusion of cancer sufferers “inhumane”. “People all around us are getting sick and some are tragically dying. For those who are sick with cancer it’s infuriating to see the foot-dragging in making the link between Ground Zero and the disease.” Seventy thousand people took part in the Ground Zero operation, including firefighters, police and construction workers. They worked on the “pile”, the 1.8m tonnes of debris that formed once the Twin Towers collapsed. Environmental dangers at the site included 90,000 litres of jet fuel from the two stricken planes, as well as about 1,000 tonnes of asbestos, pulverised lead, mercury and other highly toxic chemicals. John Feal, a construction worker who was injured during the 9/11 clean-up, said he had attended 54 funerals of those present at Ground Zero over the past five years, 52 of whom had died with 9/11-related cancers. He said he planned to launch a popular campaign that would force the Obama administration to change the rules. “You can blame a lot of this on the terrorists who attacked us that day, but you can also blame a lot on the federal government.” Patrick Lynch, who heads a New York police officers’ union, said: “On September 11, we rescued you. Now it’s your turn to rescue us – New York city police officers who are sick and dying.” September 11 2001 Health United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Politicians, police and fire chiefs urge end to ‘inhumane’ rules on funding for 9/11 cancer victims ahead of 10th anniversary Politicians, firefighters and police chiefs gathered at Ground Zero ahead of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to call for an end to the “inhumane” rules under which rescue workers who worked amid the toxic rubble and who have developed cancer are ineligible for help with their medical bills. Over the past decade, most of the millions of dollars spent on helping treat sick Ground Zero workers has been focused on respiratory problems and mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Cancer treatment has been specifically excluded from federal health funding, with officials arguing there has been insufficient evidence to prove any direct link between the toxins present at the site and the disease. But last week the results of the first large-scale study, published in the Lancet , found that firefighters who were involved on the day of the attacks and in the weeks that followed had a 19% higher risk of contracting cancer. The study looked at 9,800 male firefighters, comparing those present during and after the attacks with those who were not involved. Carolyn Maloney, who represents a New York district in Congress, said the study provided enough solid evidence for cancer to be included on the list of eligible conditions for federal funding. She was an author of the Zadroga Act introduced in January that provides federal money for 9/11-related treatment. The act excludes cancer, devoting its $4.3bn funds to the treatment and compensation of people with breathing disorders and mental health problems. But it does include a clause that allows new sicknesses to be added to its remit as and when scientific evidence becomes available. “Those who are suffering need treatment now,” Maloney said. Maloney, along with other members of Congress, are petitioning John Howard, the administrator of the Zadroga Act, to have the law amended to include cancer. He has 90 days to respond to the request. Fellow petitioner Jerrold Nadler, who represents the Ground Zero area of Manhattan in Congress, called the exclusion of cancer sufferers “inhumane”. “People all around us are getting sick and some are tragically dying. For those who are sick with cancer it’s infuriating to see the foot-dragging in making the link between Ground Zero and the disease.” Seventy thousand people took part in the Ground Zero operation, including firefighters, police and construction workers. They worked on the “pile”, the 1.8m tonnes of debris that formed once the Twin Towers collapsed. Environmental dangers at the site included 90,000 litres of jet fuel from the two stricken planes, as well as about 1,000 tonnes of asbestos, pulverised lead, mercury and other highly toxic chemicals. John Feal, a construction worker who was injured during the 9/11 clean-up, said he had attended 54 funerals of those present at Ground Zero over the past five years, 52 of whom had died with 9/11-related cancers. He said he planned to launch a popular campaign that would force the Obama administration to change the rules. “You can blame a lot of this on the terrorists who attacked us that day, but you can also blame a lot on the federal government.” Patrick Lynch, who heads a New York police officers’ union, said: “On September 11, we rescued you. Now it’s your turn to rescue us – New York city police officers who are sick and dying.” September 11 2001 Health United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Al Gore makes a blunt public attack on the Obama administration for its failure to enforce stricter pollution standards If Barack Obama didn’t have enough on his plate – with the sagging economy, dismal employment figures and falling approval ratings – on Wednesday he also endured an unusual and highly public rebuke from Al Gore over environmental policy. The former US vice president turned environmental campaigner published a blog on his official website , entitled “Confronting disappointment,” that castigated Obama personally for pulling the Environmental Protection Agency off the trail of enforcing tougher emissions standards . Gore’s most stinging rebuke in the brief post came when he said: “President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution,” saying the net result will be lung disease and asthma: On Friday afternoon, as brave and committed activists continued their non-violent civil disobedience outside the White House in protest of the tar sands pipeline that would lead to a massive increase in global warming pollution, President Obama ordered the EPA to abandon its pursuit of new curbs on emissions that worsens disease-causing smog in US cities. Earlier this year, the EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson, wrote that the levels of pollution now permitted – put in place by the Bush-Cheney administration – are “not legally defensible.” Those very same rules have now been embraced by the Obama White House. Instead of relying on science, President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution – even though economists have shown that the US economy would benefit from the job creating investments associated with implementing the new technology. The result of the White House’s action will be increased medical bills for seniors with lung disease, more children developing asthma, and the continued degradation of our air quality. Gore is not alone. The White House’s decision last Friday created considerable anger among enviromentalists and Democratic activists . Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org , had this to say about the decision: Many MoveOn members are wondering today how they can ever work for President Obama’s reelection, or make the case for him to their neighbors, when he does something like this, after extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and giving in to tea party demands on the debt deal. This is a decision we’d expect from George W Bush. Al Gore Barack Obama Obama administration US politics US domestic policy United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Al Gore makes a blunt public attack on the Obama administration for its failure to enforce stricter pollution standards If Barack Obama didn’t have enough on his plate – with the sagging economy, dismal employment figures and falling approval ratings – on Wednesday he also endured an unusual and highly public rebuke from Al Gore over environmental policy. The former US vice president turned environmental campaigner published a blog on his official website , entitled “Confronting disappointment,” that castigated Obama personally for pulling the Environmental Protection Agency off the trail of enforcing tougher emissions standards . Gore’s most stinging rebuke in the brief post came when he said: “President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution,” saying the net result will be lung disease and asthma: On Friday afternoon, as brave and committed activists continued their non-violent civil disobedience outside the White House in protest of the tar sands pipeline that would lead to a massive increase in global warming pollution, President Obama ordered the EPA to abandon its pursuit of new curbs on emissions that worsens disease-causing smog in US cities. Earlier this year, the EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson, wrote that the levels of pollution now permitted – put in place by the Bush-Cheney administration – are “not legally defensible.” Those very same rules have now been embraced by the Obama White House. Instead of relying on science, President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution – even though economists have shown that the US economy would benefit from the job creating investments associated with implementing the new technology. The result of the White House’s action will be increased medical bills for seniors with lung disease, more children developing asthma, and the continued degradation of our air quality. Gore is not alone. The White House’s decision last Friday created considerable anger among enviromentalists and Democratic activists . Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org , had this to say about the decision: Many MoveOn members are wondering today how they can ever work for President Obama’s reelection, or make the case for him to their neighbors, when he does something like this, after extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and giving in to tea party demands on the debt deal. This is a decision we’d expect from George W Bush. Al Gore Barack Obama Obama administration US politics US domestic policy United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Al Gore makes a blunt public attack on the Obama administration for its failure to enforce stricter pollution standards If Barack Obama didn’t have enough on his plate – with the sagging economy, dismal employment figures and falling approval ratings – on Wednesday he also endured an unusual and highly public rebuke from Al Gore over environmental policy. The former US vice president turned environmental campaigner published a blog on his official website , entitled “Confronting disappointment,” that castigated Obama personally for pulling the Environmental Protection Agency off the trail of enforcing tougher emissions standards . Gore’s most stinging rebuke in the brief post came when he said: “President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution,” saying the net result will be lung disease and asthma: On Friday afternoon, as brave and committed activists continued their non-violent civil disobedience outside the White House in protest of the tar sands pipeline that would lead to a massive increase in global warming pollution, President Obama ordered the EPA to abandon its pursuit of new curbs on emissions that worsens disease-causing smog in US cities. Earlier this year, the EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson, wrote that the levels of pollution now permitted – put in place by the Bush-Cheney administration – are “not legally defensible.” Those very same rules have now been embraced by the Obama White House. Instead of relying on science, President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution – even though economists have shown that the US economy would benefit from the job creating investments associated with implementing the new technology. The result of the White House’s action will be increased medical bills for seniors with lung disease, more children developing asthma, and the continued degradation of our air quality. Gore is not alone. The White House’s decision last Friday created considerable anger among enviromentalists and Democratic activists . Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org , had this to say about the decision: Many MoveOn members are wondering today how they can ever work for President Obama’s reelection, or make the case for him to their neighbors, when he does something like this, after extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and giving in to tea party demands on the debt deal. This is a decision we’d expect from George W Bush. Al Gore Barack Obama Obama administration US politics US domestic policy United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …