posted January 03, 2007 03:57 PM            

Untrue. Most corporations follow the triple bottom line and along with profits, the environment is a priority to them as well.

But anyway, have a read.

Eco-terrorism
http://www.ecology.info/ecoterrorism.htm

"Of the multitude of issues pertaining to national, regional and global development, no single concern can truly lay claim to universal application as the environment. In my view, environmental concerns, dealing as they do with the continued existence of Mother Earth and the long-term goal of ensuring its survival, should take precedence over all of humanity’s other concerns.

"Indeed, if there is but one issue which has even the slightest chance of uniting mankind in this millennium, of compelling humanity to lay aside its differences, it can only be the environment. The environment permeates everyone’s existence and cuts through all racial, religious, economic and social barriers. It is the one pot where every man, woman or child, regardless of race, creed or age, has a stake in, and it is the lone gambit which we all cannot afford to lose.

In the fight for Mother Earth, there can be no winners and losers, no one landing in second-place – a consolation prize or honorable mention simply will not do. Either we join hands or we all lose the pot – lock, stock and barrel.

"Having said that let me stress that I am not promoting or inciting advocacy of anything but the rule of law.

"Sustainable development -- the development community’s byword of the 1980s and 1990s – remains to be the end-goal, one that requires a pro-active and visionary approach. In light of the inherently corrective or reactionary nature of judicial and quasi-judicial remedies, this is the challenge for us in the legal profession. For the most part, legal remedies come into play only once the misdeed has been accomplished, and the culprit, apprehended. There is therefore a need to sensitize and re-orient the Bench, Bar and prosecutorial arm of government to the possibilities which abound within current positive and adjective law, in order to combat, for example, illegal fishing.

"What must also be considered is that the law itself has at times been criticized for being slow to adapt to the dynamism and creativity of the criminal mind, especially when assisted by unscrupulous defense counsel. Given the pressure of work and the inevitable advent of specialization, the days seem too short for judges, prosecutors, and lawyers to reflect and realize that even within the current set of legal principles, there is already much to use to effectively address the destruction of our natural resources.

"In the name of sustainable development, the legal profession must be made aware of the degradation of our environment; and that the profession, as a whole, must be re-oriented to the utility of current legal remedies in the war against environmental destruction and specifically, to sufficiently arm advocates of environmental law with the means to save our waters and marine resources.

"In the same manner that Vatican II and its aftermath gave rise to the phrase “preferential option for the poor”, henceforth, all laws, regulations and rules must be written, interpreted, construed, implemented and guided by a “preferential option for the environment.” Several recent decisions of the Supreme Court, in my view, have planted the seed of this preferential option for the environment.

"First, in the seminal and internationally heralded case of Oposa v. Factoran (G.R. No. 101083, 30 July 1993, 224 SCRA 792), the Court allowed petitioners to sue for cancellation of timber license agreements, granting petitioners standing to represent their generation and generations yet unborn, based on the Constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology (Art. II, Sect. 16) and the twin concepts of “inter-generational responsibility” and “inter-generational justice”. In so doing, the Court noted that this right belonged to a different category of rights, for it concerned itself with nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation of humanity, and so the right need not even have been written in the Constitution, for the right was assumed to exist from the inception of humankind.

"Second, in the companion cases of Mustang Lumber v. Court of Appeals (G.R. Nos. 104988, 106424 and 123784, 18 June 1996, 257 SCRA 430), the Court reversed the trial court’s grant of a motion to quash information for illegal possession of lumber; upheld the seizure of a truck transporting illegally procured lumber; and sustained the validity of a search warrant issued for the premises of a lumberyard stockpiling illegally procured lumber. The Court noted that an urgent need existed to take firm and decisive action against despoilers of our forests, whose continuous destruction only ensured to future generations – if not also the present – an inheritance of a parched earth incapable of sustaining life. The Government, the Court opined, should therefore not tire in its vigilance to protect the environment by prosecuting, without fear or favor, any person who dared violate our laws for the utilization and protection of our forests.

"And third, in Tano et al vs Socrates et al (G.R. No. 110249, 21 August 1997), the Court upheld the validity of several issuances of local government legislative councils and officials, tested against the Constitution and the Local Government Code, which in essence aimed to prohibit cyanide fishing. There, the Court declared: “[W]e commend the Sangguniang Panglungsod of the City of Puerto Princesa and Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Palawan for exercising the requisite political will to enact urgently needed legislation to protect and enhance the marine environment, thereby sharing in the Herculean task of arresting the tide of ecological destruction. We hope that other local government units shall now be roused from their lethargy and adopt a more vigilant stand in the battle against the decimation of our legacy to future generations. At this time, the repercussions of any further delay in their response may prove disastrous, if not irreversible.”

"The platitudes and idealism are well and good, but there is another aspect of protecting our environment and fisheries resources that I most strongly feel cannot be overlooked.

"Greenpeace founding member Paul Watson left the organization to take what he felt was more direct and urgently needed action to protect whales, dolphins and other forms of marine life against whalers and driftnet fishermen. For those not familiar with the term, “driftnetters” are fishermen who, in the open sea, cast nets with a tight mesh pattern that span anywhere from 20 to 30 miles, indiscriminately snaring even the youngest of marine creatures.

Responding to what he perceived was a lack of political will among nations to enforce international fishing regulations, Watson took it upon himself to police the seas. This he accomplished by sabotaging whaling ships, preventing them from even leaving port. He reinforced the hull of his ship, named the Sea Shepherd II, with 700 pounds of concrete, so he could use the vessel to ram whaling ships or boats of driftnetters.

"Watson justified his conduct by declaring, among other things, that he was taking all necessary precautions so as not to endanger human life, for example, by ramming ships only near a port, so that sailors from the damaged vessel can make it safely to shore.

"Among his opponents, especially those whose ships he had sabotaged or sunk, Watson was a vigilante or terrorist, without respect for property rights nor their way of life. Watson’s supporters responded with this familiar line, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

"Where does this leave us? We cannot condemn Paul Watson for his determination, or disapprove of his goals. But those of us who have taken the lawyer’s oath, and all those who have sworn to uphold the primacy of the rule of law cannot sanction his methods and means. Our dilemma is that, given the perceived magnitude of the problem, the innocence and helplessness of the victims, and the seeming apathy of the general populace, we sometimes find ourselves rooting for the success of his missions.

My law clerk, for one, confessed that at least a part of him was willing to turn a blind eye to Watson’s modus operandi – that is, until he saw his six-year-old son admiring Watson as the personification of Robin Hood, and he found himself in a pickle trying to extricate his little boy from the expediency of Machiavellian thinking.

"This is that second aspect of protecting the environment that we cannot overlook, that we must also hold sacred and inviolable: That in our effort to leave a living, breathing planet to our children, we must also ensure that they inherit the legal and moral fortitude by which to provide a good home for their children.

"Unless the law is imbued and implemented with this preferential option for the environment, the temptation to take the law into one’s own hands may one day prove too seductive even for us who are duty-bound to uphold the law. This we cannot allow. We cannot – must not – cross the line that separates us from the very outlaws we denounce and castigate. As the development of search and seizure jurisprudence has shown, the constable cannot and must not be the lawbreaker himself, for at bottom, the end does not justify the means.

"We no longer have the luxury of turning our backs or remaining fence-sitters insofar as the destruction of our environment is concerned. But while our window of opportunity is slim, it is there. In advocating or administering justice, we must not forget that Mother Nature, just like any party to a dispute – indeed a party as indispensable as no other to the continuance of life itself – must be given what is due Her, regardless of any short-term difficulties. It is the only way that we can look forward to a common future."

posted January 03, 2007 06:13 PM            

But I think I get the gist of it. IMO the first signs of this was El Nino about ten years ago her in the U.S. This was where Florida was getitng snow in January and up here in the Northeast it was much like the tropics. (Although I wondered why they called it El Nino? They should've picked something more fitting...like Diablo or something )

I saw "The Day after Tommorow"...and its scary that in such in such years that it could become a reality.

Also, its sad that the rainforest is dissapearing. Even back at home, my pops said that everything is getting cleared. The animals are dissapearing and they have to be put in game reserves.