Author: postMigrator

Proceedings of  the National Academy of Sciences
PNAS _ January 9, 2007 _ vol. 104 _ no. 2 _ 543-548
www.pnas.org_cgi_doi_10.1073_pnas.0606078104
Contingent Pacific-Atlantic Ocean influence on
multicentury wildfire synchrony over western
North America
Thomas Kitzberger*, Peter M. Brown , Emily K.
Heyerdahl , Thomas W. Swetnam , and Thomas T.
Veblen _

ABSTRACT : Widespread synchronous wildfires
driven by climatic variation, such as those that
swept western North America during 1996, 2000,
and 2002, can result in major environmental and
societal impacts. Understanding relationships
between continental-scale patterns of drought and
modes of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) such as
El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Pacific
Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) may explain how
interannual to multidecadal variability in SSTs
drives fire at continental scalesÅ .. Since 1550
CE, drought and forest fires covaried across the
West, but in a manner contingent on SST modes. Å .
A current warming trend in AMO suggests that we
may expect an increase in widespread, synchronous
fires across the western U.S. in coming decades.

SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org 940
18 AUGUST 2006 VOL 313
Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity
A. L. Westerling, H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, T. W. Swetnam

ABSTRACT : Much of the public and scientific
discussion of changes in western United States
wildfire has focused instead on the effects of
19th-and 20th-century land-use history. We
compiled a comprehensive database of large
wildfires in western United States forests since
1970 and compared it with hydroclimatic and
land-surface data. Here, we show that large
wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly
in the mid-1980s, with higher large-wildfire
frequency, longer wildfire durations, and longer
wildfire seasons. The greatest increases occurred
in mid-elevation, Northern Rockies forests, where
land-use histories have relatively little effect
on fire risks and are strongly associated with
increased spring and summer temperatures and an
earlier spring snowmelt.

JOURNAL OF HYDROMETEOROLOGY
OCTOBER 2006
Modeling the Recent Evolution of Global Drought and Projections for the
Twenty-First Century with the Hadley Centre Climate Model
ELEANOR J. BURKE, SIMON J. BROWN, AND NIKOLAOS CHRISTIDIS
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and
Research, Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom

Sample quote: ” … the proportion of the land
surface in extreme drought is predicted to
increase from 1% for the present day to 30% by
the end of the twenty-first century.”

ABSTRACT
Meteorological drought in the Hadley Centre
global climate model is assessed using the Palmer
Drought Severity Index (PDSI), a commonly used
drought index. At interannual time scales, for
the majority of the land surface, the model
captures the observed relationship between the El
Niño-Southern Oscillation and regions of relative
wetness and dryness represented by high and low
values of the PDSI respectively. At decadal time
scales, on a global basis, the model reproduces
the observed drying trend (decreasing PDSI) since
1952. An optimal detection analysis shows that
there is a significant influence of anthropogenic
emissions of greenhouse gasses and sulphate
aerosols in the production of this drying trend.
On a regional basis, the specific regions of
wetting and drying are not always accurately
simulated. In this paper, present-day drought
events are defined as continuous time periods
where the PDSI is less than the 20th percentile
of the PDSI distribution between 1952 and 1998
(i.e., on average 20% of the land surface is in
drought at any one time). Overall, the model
predicts slightly less frequent but longer events
than are observed. Future projections of drought
in the twenty-first century made using the
Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A2
emission scenario show regions of strong wetting
and drying with a net overall global drying
trend. For example, the proportion of the land
surface in extreme drought is predicted to
increase from 1% for the present day to 30% by
the end of the twenty-first century.

SCIENCE
13 AUGUST 2004
VOL 305

More Intense,More Frequent, and Longer Lasting
Heat Waves in the 21st Century
Gerald A.Meehl and Claudia Tebaldi

ABSTRACT :

A global coupled climate model shows that there
is a distinct geographic pattern to future
changes in heat waves.  Model results for areas
of Europe and North America,  associated with the
severe heat waves in Chicago in 1995 and Paris in
2003, show that future heat waves in these areas
will become more intense,  more frequent,  and
longer lasting in the second half of the 21st
century.  Observations and the model show that
present-day heat waves over Europe and North
America coincide with a specific atmospheric
circulation pattern that is intensified by
ongoing increases in greenhouse gases, indicating
that it will produce more severe heat waves in
those regions in the future.

SELECTED QUOTES FROM CONCLUSIONS :

” Å  areas already experiencing strong heat waves
(e.g., southwest, midwest, and southeast United
States and the Mediterranean region) could
experience even more intense heat waves in the
future. But other areas (e.g., northwest United
States, France, Germany, and the Balkans) could
see increases of heat wave intensity that could
have more serious impacts because these areas are
not currently as well adapted to heat waves.”

—

——————————————————————————————————————–
” … scientists didn’t know until now whether such ancient, frozen
organisms and their
DNA could be revived at all or for how long cells are viable after
they’ve been frozen.”
———————————————————————————————————————–

Science Daily
Web address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070807084214.htm

Source:         Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
Date:         August 13, 2007

Ancient Microorganisms May Return To Life As Glaciers Melt

Science Daily – The DNA of ancient microorganisms, long frozen in
glaciers, may return to life as the glaciers melt, according to a
paper published recently online in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences by scientists at Rutgers, The State University of
New Jersey, and Boston University. The article is scheduled to appear
in the print edition on Tuesday, Aug. 14.

The researchers chose Antarctic glaciers for their research because
the polar regions are subject to more cosmic radiation than the rest
of the planet and contain the oldest ice on the planet. (Credit: Joe
Mastroianni, National Science Foundation)

The finding is significant, said Kay Bidle, assistant professor of
marine and coastal sciences at Rutgers, because scientists didn’t know
until now whether such ancient, frozen organisms and their DNA could
be revived at all or for how long cells are viable after they’ve been
frozen. Bidle is lead author of the article, “Fossil Genes and
Microbes in the Oldest Ice on Earth.”

Bidle and his co-authors, Rutgers colleague Paul Falkowski, SangHoon
Lee of Korea’s Polar Research Institute and David Marchant of Boston
University — melted five samples of ice ranging in age from 100,000
to 8 million years old to find the microorganisms trapped inside.

The researchers wanted to find out how long cells could remain viable
and how intact their DNA was in the youngest and oldest ice. “First,
we asked, do we detect microorganisms at all”” Bidle said. “And we did
— more in the young ice than in the old. We tried to grow them in
media, and the young stuff grew really fast. We recovered them [the
microorganisms] easily; we could plate them and isolate colonies. They
doubled every couple of days.” By contrast, Bidle said, the
microorganisms from the oldest ice samples grew very slowly, doubling
only every 70 days.

Not only were the microorganisms in oldest ice slow to grow, the
researchers were unable to identify them as they grew, because their
DNA had deteriorated. In fact, the DNA in the five samples examined
showed an “exponential decline” after 1.1 million years, “thereby
constraining the geological preservation of microbes in icy
environments and the possible exchange of genetic material to the
oceans.” “There is still DNA left after 1.1 million years,” Bidle
said. “But 1.1 million years is the ‘half-life’ — that is, every 1.1
million years, the DNA gets chopped in half.” Bidle said the average
size of DNA in the old ice was 210 base pairs — that is, 210 units
strung together. The average genome size of a bacterium, by
comparison, is 3 million base pairs.

The researchers chose Antarctic glaciers for their research because
the polar regions are subject to more cosmic radiation than the rest
of the planet and contain the oldest ice on the planet. “It’s the
cosmic radiation that’s blasting the DNA into pieces over geologic
time, and most of the organisms can’t repair that damage.” Because the
DNA had deteriorated so much in the old ice, the researchers also
concluded that life on Earth, however it arose, did not ride in on a
comet or other debris from outside the solar system. “…The
preservation of microbes and their genes in icy comets may have
allowed transfer of genetic material among planets,” they wrote.
“However, given the extremely high cosmic radiation flux in space, our
results suggest it is highly unlikely that life on Earth could have
been seeded by genetic material external to this solar system.”

The five ice samples used in the experiment were taken from two
valleys in the Transantarctic Mountains by Marchant, the Boston
University glaciologist. “He sent us blocks of ice,” said Bidle of
Marchant. “Without them, we couldn’t have done the work. Dave is also
one of the few researchers who is knowledgeable about the age of the
ice, and also important information about the formation and geology of
the ice.”

The actual melting of the ice, growing of microorganisms and
examination of DNA was carried out by Bidle and Lee, who was a
visiting researcher at Rutgers at the time. Falkowski co-directed the
research and helped to write the paper.

The work was funded by a grant to Falkowski and Bidle from the Gordon
and Betty Moore Foundation.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey.

Copyright (c) 1995-2007 ScienceDaily LLC  -  All rights reserved

—

A new entry titled ‘Arctic sea ice watch’ has been posted to RealClimate.org.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=464

——————————————————

Sample quotes:
“The minimum extent is usually in early to mid September, but this
year, conditions by Aug 9 had already beaten all previous record
minima.”

“The reduction is around 1.2 million square km of ice, a little bit
larger than the size of California and Texas combined.”

—

———————————————————————-
“The next piece of the equation is to define “dangerous climate
change”. This is a bit of a guessing game, but 2 degrees C (above the
present global average – Lance) seems a reasonable danger limit. This
would be decidedly warmer than the Earth has been in millions of
years….”

“One final note: most of the climate change community, steered by
Kyoto and IPCC, limit the scope of their consideration to the year
2100 …. This calculation seems rather callous, almost sneaky, given
the inevitability of warming once the CO2 is released. I suspect that
many in the community are not aware of this sneaky implication of
restricting our attention to a relatively short time horizon.”
———————————————————————————————————————–

Real Climate   http://www.realclimate.org/
6 Nov 2006

How much CO2 emission is too much?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=368
David Archer

This week, representatives from around the world will gather in
Nairobi, Kenya for the latest Conference of Parties (COP) meeting of
the Framework Convention of Climate Change (FCCC) which brought us
the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, and the task
facing the current delegates is to negotiate a further 5-year
extension. This is a gradual, negotiated, no doubt frustrating
process. By way of getting our bearings, a reader asks the question,
what should the ultimate goal be? How much CO2 emissions cutting
would it take to truly avoid “dangerous human interference in the
climate system”?

On the short term of the next few decades, the line between success
and excess can be diagnosed from carbon fluxes on Earth today.
Humankind is releasing CO2 at a rate of about 5 Gton C per year from
fossil fuel combustion, with a further 2 Gton C per year from
deforestation. Because the atmospheric CO2 concentration is higher
than normal, the natural world is absorbing CO2 at a rate of about 2
Gton C per year into the land biosphere and into the oceans, for a
total of about 4 Gton C per year. The CO2 concentration of the
atmosphere is rising because of the 3 Gton C imbalance. If we were to
cut emissions by about half, from a total of 7 down to about 4 Gton C
per year, the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere would stop rising
for awhile. That
would be a stunning success, but the emission cuts contemplated by
Kyoto were only a small step in this direction.

Eventually, the chemistry of the ocean would equilibrate with this
new atmospheric pCO2 concentration of about 380 ppm (the current
concentration), and its absorption of new CO2 would tail off.
Presumably the land biosphere would also inhale its fill and stop
absorbing more. How long can we expect to be able to continue our
lessened emissions of 4 Gton C per year? The answer can be diagnosed
from carbon cycle models. A range of carbon cycle models have been
run for longer than the single-century timescale that is the focus of
the IPCC and the FCCC negotiation process. The models include an
ocean and often a terrestrial biosphere to absorb CO2, and sometimes
chemical weathering (dissolution of rocks) on land and deposition of
sediments in the ocean. The models tend to predict a maximum
atmospheric CO2 inventory of about 50-70% of the total fossil fuel
emission slug. Let’s call this quantity the peak airborne fraction,
and assume it to be 60%.

The next piece of the equation is to define “dangerous climate
change”. This is a bit of a guessing game, but 2 degrees C seems a
reasonable danger limit. This would be decidedly warmer than the
Earth has been in millions of years, and warm enough to eventually
raise sea level by tens of meters. A warming of 2 degrees C could be
accomplished by raising CO2 to 420 ppm and waiting a century or so,
assuming a climate sensitivity of 3.5 degrees C for doubling CO2, a
typical value from models and diagnosed from paleo-data. Of the 420
ppm, 140 ppm would be from fossil fuels (given an original natural
pCO2 of 280 ppm). 140 ppm equals 280 Gton C, which divided by the
peak airborne fraction of 60% yields a total emission slug of about
500 Gton C.

How much is 500 Gton C? We have already released about 300 Gton C,
and the business-as-usual scenario projects 1600 Gton C total release
by the year 2100. Avoiding dangerous climate change requires very
deep cuts in CO2 emissions in the long term, something like 90% of
business-as-usual averaged over the coming century. Put it this way
and it sounds impossible. Another way to look at it, which doesn’t
seem quite as intractable, is to say that the 200 Gton C that can
still be “safely” emitted is roughly equivalent to the remaining
traditional reserves of oil and natural gas. We could burn those
until they’re gone, but declare an immediate moratorium on coal, and
that would be OK, according to our defined danger limit of 2 degrees
C. A third perspective is that if we could limit emissions to 4 Gton
C per year starting now, we could continue doing that for 200/4 = 50
years.

One final note: most of the climate change community, steered by
Kyoto and IPCC, limit the scope of their consideration to the year
2100.  By setting up the problem in this way, the calculation of a
safe CO2 emission goes up by about 40%, because it takes about a
century for the climate to fully respond to rising CO2. If CO2
emission continues up to the year 2100, then the warming in the year
2100 would only be about 60% of the “committed warming” from the CO2
concentration in 2100. This calculation seems rather callous, almost
sneaky, given the inevitability of warming once the CO2 is released.
I suspect that many in the community are not aware of this sneaky
implication of restricting our attention to a relatively short time
horizon.

—

—————————-Original Message —————————-
Subject: New York Times: Navajos and Environmentalists Split on Power Plant –
TAKE ACTION TODAY!
————————————————————————–

Ya’a’teh,

Please take action today to RESIST THE DESERT ROCK POWER PLANT!

You can take action to support the Desert Rock Resistance today!

1. Send a comment to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) today!

Make your comment online: http://www.desertrockenergy.com/fileupload/
comment.aspx
(The Desert Rock Project’s website is unclear on who to send written
comments to.  Contact them to see who to send comment to:
DesertrockEIS@urscorp.com)

ANYONE can submit comments to the BIA, not just those living on the
Navajo Reservation. You can submit as many comments on different
issues as you need.

The BIA will be looking for comments that address specific elements
of the proposal. The comment deadline is August 20th, 2007.

Read the full Draft Environmental Impact Statement here: http://
www.desertrockenergy.com/textfiles/
archive_of_projectdocuments_presentations.html

Check out the San Juan Citizens Alliance’s Desert Rock Comment
Talking Points at: http://www.sanjuancitizens.org/air/desertrock.shtml

2. Support the Dooda’ Desert Rock resistance!
A resistance camp has been established near the proposed site of the
Desert Rock Power plant.
Visit this website for more information: www.desert-rock-blog.com

Contact Dooda’ Desert Rock to find out what their current needs are:
Elouise Brown, Doodá Desert Rock Committee
Ph: 505.947.6159  – Email: thebrownmachine@hotmail.com

3. Donate online!
Follow this link to make a financial contribution to the resistance!
http://www.desert-rock-blog.com/blog/DDROnlineDonationsandContributions

4. Host a comment writing party!
Get together with your friends, relatives and community members to
write comments and send them to the BIA!

5. Write letters to the editors of your local papers!

Visit these sites to find out more of how you can support healthy
environments for our communities!

www.desert-rock-blog.com

www.www.sanjuancitizens.org

www.blackmesawatercoalition.org

www.dinecare.org

###

LINK TO THE NY TIMES AUDIO FEATURE: http://www.nytimes.com/packages/
html/us/20070727_NAVAJO_FEATURE/blocker.html

Navajos and Environmentalists Split on Power Plant

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us/27navajo.html?
_r=3&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login

Jim Wilson/The New York Times
Elouise Brown, foreground, protesting the Navajos planned 1,500-
megawatt power plant near Burnham, N.M., with her sister Victoria Alba.

By FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: July 27, 2007
BURNHAM, N.M. í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬” For the Navajo nation, energy is the most valuable
currency. The tribal lands are rich with uranium, natural gas, wind,
sun and, most of all, coal.

The Energy Challenge
Coal as Currency
Articles in this series will periodically examine the ways in which
the world is, and is not, moving toward a more energy efficient,
environmentally benign future.
But two coal-fired power plants here, including one on the
reservation, belch noxious fumes, making the air among the worst in
the state. Now the tribe is moving forward with plans for a bigger
plant, Desert Rock, that Navajo authorities hope will bring in $50
million a year in taxes, royalties and other income by selling power
to Phoenix and Las Vegas.

The plan has stirred opposition from some Navajos who regard the $3
billion proposal as a lethal í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…”energy monsterí¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬? that desecrates
Father Sky and Mother Earth and from environmental groups that fear
global warming implications from its carbon dioxide emissions.

New Mexico, which has no authority over the tribal lands, has also
expressed misgivings and has refused to grant the plant tax breaks.

The struggle is a homegrown version of the global debate on slowing
climate change.

Developed countries are trying to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide,
the most ubiquitous gas usually linked to climate change, and argue
that rapidly growing nations like India and China should avoid
building coal-fired power plants. The criticsí¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ targets say it is
unfair to keep them from powering their way to prosperity with cheap
and abundant coal.

The Navajo president, Joe Shirley Jr., said his tribe felt similar
pressure. Mr. Shirley said the plant here would mean hundreds of
jobs, higher incomes and better lives for some of the 200,000 people
on the reservation. The tribe derives little direct financial benefit
from the operation of the existing coal-fired plants and it has not
yet invested heavily in casinos.

í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…”Why pick on the little Navajo nation, when ití¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s trying to help
itself?í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬? he asked.

The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, teaming
with local groups like the San Juan Citizensí¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ Alliance, point to
environmental shortcomings in the federal governmentí¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s tentative
blessing of the plant, as laid out in a 1,600-page draft
environmental impact statement and an analysis by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.

The staff of Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic presidential
aspirant, recently issued a statement saying that the plant í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…”would
be a significant new source of greenhouse gases and other pollution
in the regioní¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬? and that Mr. Richardson í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…”believes, as planned, it
would be a step in the wrong direction,í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬? undoing his proposed
reductions in emissions.

In 2003, the Navajo invited Sithe Global Power, a merchant power
company based in New York, to build the $3 billion 1,500-megawatt
plant with the Navajo-owned Dine (pronounced dee-NAY) Power Authority.

In most respects, the plant would be relatively clean, with emissions
of mercury, soot and smog-forming pollutants lower than most such
operations. But each year, it would emit 12 million tons of carbon
dioxide, the equivalent of adding 1.5 million average cars to the roads.

Coal-fired electricity contributes more than half of the 57 million
tons of annual carbon-dioxide emissions in New Mexico. Together, the
two existing plants emit 29 million tons.

Tom Johns, a vice president of Sithe Global Power, said he, too, was
concerned about climate change. Desert Rock, Mr. Johns said, would be
part of the solution.

í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…”Carbon is emitted when we use energy,í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬? Mr. Johns said. í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…”By not
building one plant but another or by using older inefficient plants
instead of new ones, we doní¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t solve the problem. The solution to
carbon issues is to be more efficient in how we use energy.í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬?

Worries about pollution from a new plant build on lingering concerns
about the ill effects of previous energy exploitation on the tribal
lands. Navajos have been sickened and killed by uranium tailings,
leading the tribal government to ban uranium mining. Mercury
contamination has led New Mexico to warn children and pregnant women
against eating large carp and catfish from much of the San Juan
River, which passes through the northeastern end of the 26,600-square-
mile reservation. And the ozone levels in San Juan County, which
includes the eastern part of the reservation, have exceeded suggested
new federal standards.

Elouise Brown, a Navajo whose family is from the area around the
proposed plant, has led a group called Dooda (pronounced dough-DAH)
Desert Rock, Navajo for í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…”No to Desert Rock,í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬? in a seven-month
protest at the site.

The tribal council voted overwhelmingly to back the project, but
Navajos are divided, with each side claiming to speak for the majority.

í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…”Ití¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s not just that ití¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s so close to my house or my family,í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬?
Ms. Brown said. í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…”Ití¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s the pollution and what the impacts are going
to be from the pollution to all the people that live there. Not only
the people that live there, but it adds to global warming. So ití¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s
going to be a worldwide issue.í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬?

The fight, in one of the emptiest regions, echoes in many respects
the debates over the more than 100 proposals to build coal-fired
power plants.

A major Texas utility, TXU, was bought by a financial group that
agreed to scrap 8 of its 11 proposed coal-fired plants.

The Desert Rock fight is complicated by the status of the Navajos as
a sovereign nation within a nation. Although some federal approvals
are required for the project to proceed, no state regulators can tell
the tribe what to do. Even with their divisions, the Navajos are
thinking big about the possibilities. The tribal council is trying to
find banks to lend it up to $750 million to buy a 25 percent
ownership stake.

The council also plans a transmission line to carry electricity from
Desert Rock and, perhaps, future wind farms.

The arrangement would be lucrative for the struggling tribe, which
earns $102 million a year, much of it from selling coal and other
minerals, and $400 million or so in government grants. The new power
line might help send electricity to 20,000 remote houses í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬” one-third
of the residences on the reservation í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬” that lack it.

Local opponents, like Mike Eisenfeld of the San Juan group, are more
concerned about potential health and environmental costs.

í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…”Your conclusion when you read the federal environmental impact
statement is things are so bad already that you woní¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t even notice
another power plant,í¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬? Mr. Eisenfeld said.

Some backers of the plant hope that Desert Rock could be a proving
ground for an experimental technology to reduce carbon emissions by
capturing them and injecting them deep in the ground.

Mr. Johns of Sithe Global Power and Senator Jeff Bingaman, the New
Mexico Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Energy Committee,
expressed hope that the carbon-capture technology could be
incorporated into the plant with an additional $1 billion investment.

The Senate Finance Committee approved a measure for a production tax
credit of $20 a ton for sequestered carbon dioxide, and Mr. Bingaman
said he was looking for bill to attach it as an amendment.

Mr. Shirley, the Navajo president, said he hoped that the plant would
be running by 2012. That may be optimistic. The plans are subject to
final approval not only by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but also
from at least three other federal agencies. If they come, lawsuits
are a good possibility.

###

From our AIM allies in Denver….

Western Shoshone Defense Project
P.O. Box 211308
Crescent Valley, NV  89821
775-468-0230
775-468-0237 (fax)
www.wsdp.org
wsdp@igc.org

—–Original Message—–
From: Glenn Morris [mailto:gtm303@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:55 PM
To: denveraim@coloradoaim.org
Subject: Protest – Newmont Gold Mining Corp. — Invader of Indigenous
Peoples’ Territories

THURSDAY, AUGUST 30TH, 2007
MARRIOT HOTEL, 17th and CALIFORNIA STREET, DOWNTOWN DENVER
5:00 PM
BRING YOUR COURAGE, YOUR VOICE, YOUR BULLHORNS, and YOUR MOST CREATIVE
PROTEST STRATEGIES —

On Thursday, August 30, 2007, the University of Denver Graduate School
of International Studies (GSIS) will honor Wayne Murdy, CEO of Newmont
Mining Corporation for the company’s “progressive” work around the
world. That work happens on every continent, and involves the invasion
of indigenous peoples’ territories from the Western Shoshone in Nevada
to the Quechua/Aymara in Peru and Bolivia to the Aboriginal peoples of
Australia.

Two years ago, Colorado AIM joined with the Stop Newmont Coalition to
force Newmont to be accountable to the communities that it is
destroying through its mining. Brothers and sisters from Peru, Ghana
and Western Shoshone joined us at the annual shareholder’s meeting to
expose Newmont’s practices. Newmont was so frightened by our
mobilization that it changed locations for the meeting three times,
and ended up in an armed location with sharpshooters on the roof of
the building where the meeting was held. This year, Newmont was so
frightened of a repeat performance in Denver that it held its annual
meeting in Delaware.

Newmont has been put on notice that as long as it is invading and
poisoning indigenous peoples’ territories, and steal Native peoples’
natural resources, that there will be no business as usual. It will be
exposed for its actions at every opportunity. Such an opportunity is
Thursday, August 30, in downtown Denver.

Colorado AIM has joined the call for a mass protest action at the
University of Denver’s annual Korbel Dinner, the largest fundraiser
for the Graduate School of International Affairs. The keynote speaker
will be Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State under Bill
Clinton. On the estimated death of 500,000 children in Iraq because of
U.S. sanctions there, Albright had the following exchange on CBS’ “60
Minutes.”

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half
million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in
Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard
choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.
–60 Minutes (5/12/96)

This statement alone is worth picketing the dinner for, but, in
addition to Albright (after whose father the dinner is named), DU will
be giving an award to Wayne Murdy of Newmont. Attached to this message
are two letters — one from activists in communities being destroyed
by Newmont, and one from OXFAM International, the renowned
international human rights group. Both give reasons to protest this
event. This is the link to the OXFAM letter:
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/earthworks/campaig
n.jsp?campaign_KEY=6822&t=nodirtygold_sansleft.dwt

Indigenous leaders are in imminent threat. Father Marco Arana, whom we
in Colorado AIM honored two years ago, is under death threats right
now for opposing Newmont.

Our Native sisters and brothers are asking for us to stand for them
against Newmont here in Denver, Newmont’s international headquarters.
Can you give one or two hours of your time to walk with a sign, to
raise your voice, and to let Newmont and DU know our outrage? We march
against Columbus and Columbus Day, but Newmont is the heir of
Columbus, it is the living expression today of the Columbus legacy —
invasion, greed and destruction. Join us in the streets, for all of
our Native relations. Please let Glenn know if you are arrestable at
this action, and if you are willing to risk arrest at this protest.
Thanks.