The Obama administration announced today a reversal of Big Proportions to cheers of victory for the environmental world.

A month before the spill began, in a move largely viewed as a bid to appease Republicans, the Interior Department decided that its next 5-year offshore drilling plan would seek to end the longstanding drilling ban in the Atlantic Ocean and eastern Gulf of Mexico around Florida. Today, citing too much risk of another disaster, the Administration reversed that decision. This ensures there will be no drilling in these areas until at least 2017 (by then, hopefully we’ll have come to our senses, and it won’t even be a question).

The spill was the event that launched 1,000 campaigns asking Obama to crack down/slow/end various forms of offshore drilling, and this is a victory for many of those campaigns. (A few on our site included petitions from Oceana and Greenpeace and the National Wildlife Federation, along with many users).

But it is not a victory in full.

For one, deepwater drilling in the western Gulf, in the area of the spill, will continue in accordance with revamped safety regulations.

What’s even more concerning is that the Administration is still very open to drilling by oil companies in the Arctic’s fragile Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The decision, for example, sets the Interior Department on a new course to review Shell’s planned project in Alaska’s Beaufort Sea. But only after it takes, “utmost caution.” Given the acknowledged dangers of a spill in this area, as detailed by Change.org’s Paul Tullis recently, I take that “utmost caution” with a grain of salt.

As Defenders of Wildlife said in a statement, “The President now needs to apply the same lessons to the more immediate and very dangerous plans for offshore drilling in the harsh conditions of the Arctic Ocean, where long dark winters and the absence of response infrastructure, combined with the complete lack of effective spill cleanup capabilities, would lead to catastrophic impacts.

The Wilderness Society has been using Change.org to fight offshore drilling in the Arctic. “The Department of Interior must take the time needed to do the Supplemental EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] right—and not rush through it like a teenager writing a term paper the night before it’s due.”

Secretary Salazar said he’ll be careful, but let’s make sure that’s more than lip service. Sign The Wilderness Society’s petition below.

Photo credit: Courtesy of 350.org via Flickr

Follow Change.org’s Environment page on Facebook and Twitter.

In Big Reversal, Obama Takes (Some) Offshore Drilling Off the Table

Lincoln, chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee who is gearing up for a tough re-election battle this fall, has been fighting for the funds since July when they were removed as a compromise deal from a small business stimulus bill.  The Obama administration had promised to approve the package, which was designed to provide “disaster aid” to farmers who lost crops in 2009, by Aug. 31.

August has come and gone, and there’s no sign of the package. But before we get all sad for the poor farmers down the street whose crops were ruined, let’s examine this plan. America’s biggest, least sustainable farms — many of them in Blanche’s Arkansas — would benefit most from the plan, while smaller, more damaged farms would be left high and dry. Why? The funds would not be distributed based on losses, but on how much they received or should have received under a federal subsidy program based on farm size. As the New York Times explained last week, it’s an “unjustified” windfall, as farms with as little as five percent loss would receive an additional chunk of 90 percent of the subsidy in aid. Bigger, more profitable farms — the ones least damaged by rains — are far more likely to qualify. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the top 10 percent of wealthiest farmers would receive about two-thirds of the money, and about a quarter of the funds would (curiously) go to Arkansas farms.

Lincoln herself told the Arkansas News, “If you have a large farm, you had a large loss, which means you’re going to have a large assistance.”  She lambasted critics of the plan, saying they just do not understand farms: “I think it’s just another example of how those folks truly, I don’t think, understand production agriculture and how important it is to our economy and how important it is to feeding the world.”

Well, “these folks” understand the major problem with the aid: It applies to all farms unilaterally rather than proportionally to the hardest-hit farms. Southern rice and cotton farmers, who faced damages after heavy rainfall last year, have pleaded for aid, even if their losses were minimal. The Environmental Working Group (EWG) considers the package “a six-figure windfall for hundreds of plantation-scale, highly subsidized rice and cotton farms across the South.” Even large corn, wheat, and soybean farms would benefit. EWG President Ken Cook wrote to the Office of Management and Budget earlier this week to urge the White House not to push the package, arguing that  it should only give aid to farms with a 30 percent threshold of losses.

Payments and politics shouldn’t go hand in hand, especially in times of such economic distress. The administration should reject Lincoln’s plan. After all, an initiative that merely rewards Lincoln’s supporters is an extraordinary waste of taxpayer dollars. These funds should go towards supporting the farmers who need help the most.

Photo credit: takomabibelot via Flickr

Sen. Lincoln’s Farm "Aid" Plan Falls Flat

Only a few weeks ago, Radcliff attended a ground-breaking ceremony for a new $34.9-million affordable housing development near Los Angeles International Airport designed for low-income veterans.    Joined by U.S. Representative Maxine Waters, Senator Barbara Boxer, and veterans from each branch of the Armed Services, Radcliff commented on the importance of the new project:

“Affordable housing for heroes is an objective that everyone supports.  Veterans are committing suicide at a rate of 18 deaths per day, according to VA reports, and we must realize that the VA alone can’t help and can’t be the sole answer to these veterans’ needs. This is serious work.”

The new facility is an excellent example of the types of programs needed to assist returning veterans, but much more still needs to be done. As Paul Rieckhoff, founder and director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, explained earlier this week, the time has come for the Obama administration to deliver results on promises made for helping veterans and for the Senate to pass the End Veteran Homelessness Act.  I can’t think of a better way to honor the memory of Dwight Radcliff.

Photo Credit: Beverly & Pack

Remembering Dwight Radcliff, Hero To Homeless Veterans

With mid-term elections closing in, politicians are out doing their hand-shaking, baby-kissing thing. They’re also collecting campaign contributions, including nearly $14 million contributed so far, just to the 2010 election cycle, by the oil and gas industry. That kind of money says Don’t forget us when you’re in office. Unfortunately, wildlife doesn’t have the luxury of buying loyalty from representatives. That’s why Defenders of Wildlife is calling on Congress to donate all oil company campaign contributions to help save wildlife in the Gulf of Mexico.

Some people argue that oiled birds are better off dead because it takes so many resources to clean, rehabilitate and release — as much as tens of thousands of dollars per bird — and then many of them don’t even make it. But if I had to choose between throwing millions of dollars at that effort, or funding my representatives’ campaigns, my vote would be on the wildlife. Every time.

But it’s not just the birds and other animals showing up covered in oil that need help; the disaster threatens the survival of entire species. Earlier this week, a batch of critically endangered baby Kemp’s ridley sea turtles was released into the Gulf of Mexico. Todd Steiner, director of the Turtle Island Restoration Network, thinks it was a mistake. “We believe they’re going to get into the oil and die.”

How long could it take before the waters are healthy again for marine life? Well, 20 years after the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska, oil is still impacting wildlife in the area.

The Center for Biological Diversity has filed its sixth oil-related lawsuit against the government this week, and plans to file at least two more. They’re calling for a new analysis on the impact of offshore drilling on endangered whales and sea turtles because the last report said that drilling really didn’t pose much of a threat to wildlife. Miyoko Sakashita, the Center’s oceans director said, “Like Obama’s April 2 statement that ‘oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills’ … the government must revisit its slipshod analysis that oil drilling poses no risk to the Gulf’s endangered species.”

Instead of fueling politics with money from Big Oil, our government should be focusing on restoring the Gulf and protecting wildlife from corporate interests. Tell your representatives and senators to donate any and all campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry to support local Gulf charities working to save wildlife. Now is the time for government officials to start doing the right thing.

Photo credit: LDWF Biologist Rescues Oiled Sea Turtle

Congress Should Donate Oil Company Campaign Contributions to Save Gulf Wildlife

The blogosphere is abuzz over an apparently leaked document showing the United States trying to push its controversial DMCA-style notice-and-takedown process on the world. But since Threat Level already lives in the land of the DMCA, or Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we’re more bothered by the fact that the U.S. proposal goes far beyond that 1998 law, and would require Congress to alter the DMCA in a manner even more hostile to consumers.

At issue is the internet section of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being developed under a cloak of secrecy by dozens of countries. The leaked document is a three-page European Commission memo written by an unnamed EU official, which purports to summarizes a private briefing given in September by U.S. trade officials.

The language in the Sept. 30 memo shows the United States wants ISPs around the world to punish suspected, repeat downloaders with a system of “graduated response” — code for a three-strikes policy that results in the customer eventually being disconnected from the internet with the ISP alone deciding what constitutes infringement and fair use.

While the proposal specifically says that three strikes wouldn’t be mandated, it might as well be. That’s because companies that refused to implement the policy would be ejected from the immunity or “safe harbor” that otherwise protects them from copyright infringement lawsuits over the actions of their customers.

Currently, the DMCA grants safe harbor status to internet companies that promptly remove allegedly infringing content at the request of the copyright holder. Only if they fail to do so can they be held liable in court, and face up to $150,000 in damages per infringement.

Under the U.S. proposal described in the memo, removing infringing content would no longer be enough to qualify for safe harbor. Companies would have to actively work to combat the flow of unauthorized copyrighted material through their pipes, and specifically implement the “graduated response” program.

Here is the key paragraph:

“On the limitations from 3rd party liability: to benefit from safe-harbours, ISPs need to put in place policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of IP infringing content (ex: clauses in customers’ contracts allowing, inter alia, a graduated response). From what we understood, the US will not propose that authorities need to create such systems. Instead, they require some self-regulation by ISPs.”

Threat Level obtained the document on condition it not be posted, and we haven’t independently verified its authenticity, or that it accurately reflects the positions of the U.S. trade representatives. The document indicates the U.S. refused to turn over anything in writing itself, and briefed E.U. representatives on the plan orally in the hope of avoiding leaks.

The Obama administration has been obsessively secretive about the draft ACTA treaty — even, at one point, claiming national security could be jeopardized if the proposed treaty’s working documents were disclosed to the public. Now, it seems, we know what the administration is hiding.

Obama hasn’t asked Congress to implement a three-strike policy, which could anger consumers and watchdog groups. But if the administration gets three strikes written into ACTA, and the United States signs and ratifies the treaty, Congress would be obliged to change the DMCA to comply with it, while the administration throws its hands in the air and says, “It wasn’t our idea! It’s that damn treaty!”

That practice is common enough to have a name: policy laundering.

Language in the leaked text throws open the door to ISP filtering for unauthorized content, though there’s no way for filters to know whether the material constitutes fair use. That plan is similar to a proposal by the Motion Picture Association of America, which wants ISPs to filter for unauthorized motion pictures.

The three-strikes language would be gold to companies like MediaSentry, which browse peer-to-peer networks for infringing content, and identify a user’s IP address and ISP. MediaSentry’s work was crucial in the RIAA’s 6-year-long litigation campaign that amounted to about 30,000 copyright lawsuits against individual file sharers using Kazaa, Limewire and other services.

Until today, the most alarming thing in the proposed ACTA treaty has been the secrecy surrounding it. But now the threat level is higher. It seems the executive branch would rather negotiate with other nations, instead of its own elected officials, about the future of a free and open internet.

La blogosphère est en effervescence sur un document montrant apparemment fui les États-Unis tentent de pousser son controversé DMCA avis de style et de processus de takedown sur le monde. Mais depuis Threat Level vit déjà dans le pays de la DMCA, ou Digital Millennium Copyright Act, nous sommes plus gênés par le fait que la proposition des États-Unis va bien au-delà de cette loi de 1998, et nécessiterait le Congrès pour modifier la DMCA d'une manière même plus hostile pour les consommateurs. L'enjeu est la section Internet de l'Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement développé sous le sceau du secret par des dizaines de pays. La fuite d'un document est un de trois pages de la Commission européenne note rédigée par un fonctionnaire anonyme de l'UE, qui prétend résume un exposé privée donnée en Septembre par des responsables américains du commerce. La langue dans la note de service le 30 septembre montre que les États-Unis veulent que les FAI à travers le monde pour punir les suspects, downloaders répéter avec un système de "riposte graduée" – code pour la politique de la grève de trois qui se traduit par le client d'être finalement déconnecté d'Internet avec l'ISP seul de décider ce qui constitue une infraction et l'usage loyal. <! —
Télécommandes Universelles »http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/policy-laundering/ ';
/ / -> Alors que la proposition est dit expressément que trois grèves ne seraient pas prescrites, cela aurait tout aussi bien. C'est parce que les entreprises qui ont refusé d'appliquer la politique serait éjectée de l'immunité ou la "sphère de sécurité» qui protège contre les poursuites autrement les droits d'auteur d'infraction dans les actions de leurs clients. Actuellement, les subventions DMCA statut de "sphère de sécurité pour Internet d'entreprises qui éliminent rapidement incriminées des contenus à la demande du titulaire du droit d'auteur. Seulement si elles ne le font pas peuvent-ils être tenus responsables en justice, et faire face à 150.000 $ en dommages et intérêts par infraction. En vertu de la proposition américaine décrit dans le mémo, élimination de la teneur de contrefaçon ne serait plus suffisante pour bénéficier d'une "sphère de sécurité. Les entreprises auraient à travailler activement pour lutter contre le flux de matériel non autorisé sous copyright par leurs tuyaux, et en particulier mettre en œuvre la "riposte graduée" du programme. Voici le paragraphe clé: "Sur les limites du 3e responsabilité civile: pour bénéficier de« refuge », les FAI doivent mettre en place des politiques visant à dissuader le stockage et la diffusion illicites de contrefaçon de la propriété intellectuelle du contenu (ex: les clauses dans les contrats clients» permettant, entre entre autres, une réponse progressive). D'après ce que nous avons compris, les USA ne proposera que les autorités doivent créer de tels systèmes. Au lieu de cela, ils nécessitent une certaine auto-régulation par les FSI. "Threat Level obtenu le document à la condition qu'il ne pas être affiché, et nous n'avons pas vérifiées de manière indépendante l'authenticité, ou qu'il reflète fidèlement les positions des représentants commerciaux des États-Unis. Le document indique que les États-Unis ont refusé de remettre quelque chose dans l'écriture elle-même, et a informé l'UE représentants sur le plan oralement dans l'espoir d'éviter les fuites. L'administration Obama a été obsessivement secret sur le projet de traité ACTA – même, à un moment donné, en faisant valoir la sécurité nationale pourrait être compromise si des documents de travail du projet de traité ont été divulgués au public. Maintenant, il semble, nous savons ce que l'administration se cache. Obama n'a pas demandé au Congrès pour mettre en œuvre une politique à trois grève, qui pourrait la colère des consommateurs et des groupes de surveillance. Mais si l'administration reçoit trois grèves inscrit dans l'ACTA, et les États-Unis le signent et ratifient le traité, le Congrès serait obligé de changer le DMCA pour s'y conformer, tandis que l'administration lève ses mains en l'air et dit: "Il n 'était pas t notre idée! C'est ce traité damn! "Cette pratique est assez commun d'avoir un nom: le blanchiment des politiques. Langue dans le texte fuite ouvre grand la porte à l'ISP de filtrage des contenus non autorisés, mais il n'existe aucun moyen pour les filtres de savoir si le matériel qui constitue une utilisation équitable. Ce plan est similaire à une proposition de la Motion Picture Association of America, qui veut que les FAI à filtrer pour les films non autorisés. Les trois grèves de la langue serait l'or à des sociétés comme MediaSentry, qui broutent peer-to-peer pour avoir enfreint le contenu et identifier un utilisateur, l'adresse IP et ISP. MediaSentry travail a été crucial dans la 6, la RIAA ans de campagne à long contentieux qui s'élevait à environ 30.000 poursuites en justice contre les partageurs de fichiers individuels en utilisant Kazaa, Limewire et autres services. Jusqu'à aujourd'hui, la chose la plus alarmante dans le projet de traité ACTA a été le secret qui l'entoure. Mais maintenant le niveau de menace est plus élevé. Il semble que le pouvoir exécutif serait plutôt de négocier avec d'autres nations, au lieu de ses propres fonctionnaires élus, sur l'avenir d'un Internet libre et ouvert.