Dear Stan,
For years, you've stood with the people of Appalachia in the fight to end mountaintop removal coal mining. Now, some members of Congress are trying to undo all of the progress we have made to protect Appalachian mountains and streams, and we need your help to stop them.
Several U.S. Representatives are using the federal budget bill (H.R. 1) to add extraneous amendments that could eliminate the ability of the EPA and other agencies to do their jobs to protect Appalachian citizens.
Call your member of Congress RIGHT NOW and urge them to oppose budget bill Amendments 109 and 216-- if approved, these amendments would roll back of years of progress toward stopping the wholesale destruction of Appalachian mountains, streams and communities by mountaintop removal coal mining. Be sure to refer to oursample script, then please let us know that you called and tell us what they said.
Here is more background on the Congressional amendments to de-fund the EPA:
Thanks for all you do,
Matt Wasson
iLoveMountains.org
P.S. -- Please help us spread the word on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.
You are receiving this message because you expressed an interest in ending mountaintop removal coal mining to one of the partner organizations of www.iLoveMountains.org. To modify your subscription preferences, click here.
For years, you've stood with the people of Appalachia in the fight to end mountaintop removal coal mining. Now, some members of Congress are trying to undo all of the progress we have made to protect Appalachian mountains and streams, and we need your help to stop them.Several U.S. Representatives are using the federal budget bill (H.R. 1) to add extraneous amendments that could eliminate the ability of the EPA and other agencies to do their jobs to protect Appalachian citizens.
Call your member of Congress RIGHT NOW and urge them to oppose budget bill Amendments 109 and 216-- if approved, these amendments would roll back of years of progress toward stopping the wholesale destruction of Appalachian mountains, streams and communities by mountaintop removal coal mining. Be sure to refer to oursample script, then please let us know that you called and tell us what they said.
Here is more background on the Congressional amendments to de-fund the EPA:
- Amendment 109 -- Would remove the EPA’s ability to evaluate mountaintop removal permits and would reverse all of the actions taken by the administration over the past two years to safeguard Appalachian streams and communities.
- Amendment 216 -- Would remove EPA’s ability to veto “dredge and fill” permits that do not meet Clean Water Act standards. The Spruce No. 1 Mine permit was the first time the EPA used this authority in relation to a mountaintop removal site.
Thanks for all you do,
Matt Wasson
iLoveMountains.org
P.S. -- Please help us spread the word on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.
You are receiving this message because you expressed an interest in ending mountaintop removal coal mining to one of the partner organizations of www.iLoveMountains.org. To modify your subscription preferences, click here.
1 opmerking:
Beste Stan,
Je schrijft dat Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn (PFZW) bezoekers van de NL-talige website van het fonds misleidt.
Reden 1 die je aandraagt: er staan Israelische bedrijven op de lijst van beleggingen, terwijl PFZW heeft aangegeven sinds medio 2010 uit deze te zijn gestapt. Dat komt omdat de lijst de beleggingen van PFZW per 31 december 2009 bevat, zoals ook duidelijk op de website is aangegeven. Die lijst dateert dus van vóór medio 2010. Dit argument vervalt dus.
De nieuwe lijst per 31 december 2010 is rond 1 april op de site te vinden.
Reden 2 die je noemt: op de Nederlandse lijst van beleggingen staan geen Israelische bedrijven die wel op de Engelstalige lijst staan. Dit klopt niet. Waarschijnlijk heb je gezocht op Israel in plaats van op Israël. Probeer het nog eens, en kies anders voor de optie "sorteren op land".
Dit argument vervalt dus ook.
Het laatste argument dat je aandraagt: tegen het Russell Tribunaal heeft PFZW gezegd nog in 13 bedrijven te beleggen die zaken doen in Israel. Dat klopt, maar dit zijn geen Israelische, maar internationale ondernemingen die opereren in Israel. Er zit dus geen licht tussen de verschillende verklaringen van PFZW, waar jij stelt dat dit wel het geval is. Daarmee is ook je laatste argument niet geldig, lijkt me.
Hoe je ook denkt over het PFZW-beleggingsbeleid of het programma van dialoog met ondernemingen die actief zijn in de bezette gebieden, het lijkt het me goed de feiten te kennen en te gebruiken en je oordeel daarop te baseren.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Bram van Els
woordvoerder PFZW
Een reactie posten