Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
An Assignment For
Presented To: Mr. Nayeem Abdullah Prepared By: Syed Mahmudul Quader ID: 1025075 Date of Submission: 25th Jan, 11
Environmental Constraints
This change was publicly supported by Fernando Gonzlez, the chairman of the council of
Huasco Valley farmers. As of September 2008, the construction hasn't begun yet.
Controversies
Those protesting the project contend that it will involve the removal of 20 hectares of ice, a volume of 300,000 to 800,000 cubic metres, and that this will cause serious environmental harm. Nevertheless, the EIA and IIA approvals in both Chile and Argentina specifically preclude this from happening, and Barrick has confirmed it has no plans to move any ice or glaciers. To do so would be a violation of the permits granted by the relevant authorities.
[4] [9]
Opponents also contend that the project will affect the water supply
of the 70,000 farmers in the Huasco valley, releasing cyanide, sulfuric acid (vitriol) and mercury into the valley's rivers, that the company has bought the support of the farmers with "social assistance" and
promises of US$60 million for infrastructure work, and that the Mining Integration and Complementation Treaty was adopted under pressure from Barrick. In November 2005, a petition of 18,000 signatures was presented to the Chilean government by the Anti Pascua Lama Front, a coalition of environmentalist groups. The original scope of the ore body lay partially under two small glaciers which eventually feed into the rivers of the Huasco Province. Environmental reviews took place over more than two years and
government authorities imposed 400 conditions on the company in order to mine. As a consequence, more than one million ounces of gold at the site will not be mined. However controversy is still rampant as to the real environmental impact, as mine exploration has already been linked to a 56 to 70 % depletion in the three glaciers nearest to the mine site. Extensive water management infrastructure is incorporated into the mine design to mitigate the effects of surface and sub-surface water migration across the operation. The historical record of these types of projects in Chile and the companies' real-world ability to meet legal environmental constraints makes the processing of residual-waste a point of contention. The inability or unwillingness of local authorities to stand up to spills and breaches of environmental requirements is well known and another key point of disagreement with opponents to the project. The recent approval (as of 2000-2009, during the Lagos and Bachelet presidencies ) of many controversial projects such as large mines, dams for power generation, huge salmon farms, forestry, etc. in spite of many legal and environmental concerns, again question the ability or willingness of the Chilean Government to address local communities concerns' when clashing with large corporations and perceived economic benefits These issues have recently even been criticized by the OECD as major impediments for Chile being able to join the 'elite club' of developed countries Barrick Gold contends that the project is environmentally friendly in terms of water treatment, and that the project will create 5,500 direct jobs during the mine's construction phase.
[2]
mining methods are not economically feasible for the mine, only open pit methods.
US$1.5 billion investment "would be directly invested in the Huasco province in Chile and San Juan province in Argentina", that it has "identified more than 600 potential suppliers from Chiles Region III" in pursuance of its policy of sourcing local goods and services, and that "sustainable development projects have been and will continue to be a priority for funding to the tune of millions of dollars focused in the areas of education, health, infrastructure and agricultural improvement".
denied permits to developers if they plan to include a Wal-Mart in their project. Those who defend WalMart cite consumer choice and supposed overall benefits to the economy, and object to bringing the issue into the political arena. A Wal-Mart Superstore opened in 2004 in Mexico, 1.9 miles away from the historic Teotihuacan archaeological site and Pyramid of the Moon. Although Wal-Mart's proposal received protest and media attention, the location was supported by Mexico's National Anthropology Institute, the United Nations, and the Paris-based International Council on Monuments and Sites. Local merchants, helped by environmental groups and anti-globalization groups opposed the construction, and poet Homero Aridjisjoined the protest characterizing the opening as "supremely symbolic" and "...like planting the staff of globalization in the heart ofancient Mexico." Archaeologists oversaw construction and discovered a small clay and stone altar along with some other artifacts where the store's parking lot is now located. In 1998, Wal-Mart proposed construction of a store off Charlotte Pike near Nashville, Tennessee. The building site was home to both Native American burial grounds and a Civil War battle site. Protests were mounted by Native Americans and Civil War interest groups, but the Wal-Mart store was eventually constructed after moving graves and some modifications of the site so as not to interfere with the battlefield. Civil War relics were also discovered at the site. The project developers donated land to permit access to the Civil War historic site.
[19]
In 2005, developers tore down the long-closed Dixmont State Hospital in Kilbuck Township, Pennsylvania near Pittsburgh, with plans to build a shopping complex anchored by a Wal-Mart on the site. While there were initially no general objections to Wal-Mart itself, many residents didn't want to see Dixmont torn down, despite the fact that the Dixmont complexhaving been abandoned in 1984 was beyond maintainable condition and teenagers were dangerously trespassing onto the property on a regular basis.
[20]
However, while the land was being excavated after the complex was torn down in order
to create a plateau for the Wal-Mart to sit on, a landslide covered Pennsylvania Route 65 and the railroad tracks in between PA 65 and the Ohio River, shutting down both routes for weeks. While WalMart did "stabilize" the landslide, many residents argued that Wal-Mart merely stabilized the hillside so that it could continue with work to build a Wal-Mart. Ultimately, in 2007 Wal-Mart decided against
developing the site, allowing the land to return to nature. PA 65 remains restricted to one lane northbound near the site for safety concerns, though the entire roadway has since been cleared of debris. Despite this, Wal-Mart is the largest retail chain in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, and is the secondlargest grocery store to locally-based Giant Eagle.
A Clean Air Act first Department of Justice and EPA lawyers said the Citgo case marks the first time that criminal violations of the Clean Air Act have gone to trial rather than being settled out of court. They said guilty verdicts in two of the four counts addressed by the trial should send a message to other U.S. refiners about the goverment's commitment to enforcing air-quality laws. "Today's convictions are a strong signal to the industry that emissions controls are not optional and those who knowingly disregard the regulations will face the consequences," said Ronald Tenpas, acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's environment and natural resources division. But Anthony Sabino, professor of law and business at St. John's University in New York, said the biggest message the case may send is that refiners should pause before they take the next case of this kind to court instead of settling. Given the growing public awareness of environmental concerns, the government is likely to keep stepping up enforcement of the Clean Air Act, rather than retreating from it, he said. Two leading industry trade groups, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association and the American Petroleum Institute, declined to comment on the potential impact of the case, referring questions to Citgo. But community and environmental activists who have followed the case closely celebrated the verdict as a first step in getting the companies to acknowledge responsibility for health problems they believe are tied to refineries. "This is a tremendous victory for so many people that have been unjustly treated by Citgo and other oil refineries for several decades," said Suzie Canales, director of the Citizens for Environmental Justice in Corpus Christi. "The tide is finally starting to turn." Citgo contends no evidence links the refinery to health problems in the nearby neighborhoods.
Misdemeanor charges
In the trial scheduled for July, Citgo will face five misdemeanor charges, including allegations against the plant's environmental manager and alleged violations of federal migratory bird laws. Judge Rainey is still considering a separate felony charge alleging Citgo made false statements relating to its compliance with environmental laws.
Ethical Constraint
go, I recommend Canon. And no, I have never been paid a penny by Canon to endorse its gear. So what's the beef? As an industry leader, Canon should know that the first job of the photojournalist is to faithfully and accurately report the news through images, not to become an image unto themselves. Forcing photojournalists to become props at the events they cover violates the first principle of the job. And now Canon is using just such images to promote its gear:
CIA doctors who oversaw enhanced interrogation techniques violated medical ethics, researchers say. A report out this month in the Journal of the American Medical Association claims that physicians in the CIA Office of Medical Services (OMS) violated medical ethical standards by approving and overseeing enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding. "According to OMS guidelines, physicians and other health care professionals performed on-site medical evaluations before and during interrogation, and waterboarding required the presence of a physician," say researchers Leonard S. Rubenstein, of Johns Hopkins, and retired Brigadier General Dr. Stephen Xenakis, of the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences. "Exercising these functions violated the ethical standard that physicians may never use their medical skills to facilitate torture or be present when torture is taking place." Rubenstein and Xenakis based their commentary on documents released by the Obama administration in 2009. OMS physicians who advised the agency and the Justice Department approved most techniques for use as long as certain limitations were observed, such as decibel levels for noise exposure, weight loss or malnutrition from starvation techniques, and time limits for cold exposure and confinement. These limits, the authors claim, allowed OMS doctors to certify that no one practice would lead to "severe mental of physical pain or suffering," but say the doctors failed to take into account the effect these methods in aggregate could have on detainees. Rubenstein and Xenakis also claim the physicians did not follow standard protocols in making their recommendations.
"The OMS failed to take account of pertinent medical and nonmedical literature about the severe adverse effects of enhanced methods," including waterboarding. They claim such oversights were made deliberately, in order to encourage the use of enhanced interrogation. "[I]t is possible that the DOJ might have been more constrained in approving techniques that amounted to torture," had doctors at the highest levels been responsible in their research and recommendations, Rubenstein and Xenakis write. According to a U.S. intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity given the multiple investigations currently underway into past detention practices, says the government stands by decisions made during the Bush Administration to employ enhanced methods, and supports the role CIA physicians played. "The authors of the commentary in the Journal of the American Medical Association appear to believe the terrorist detention program should never have gone forward. They're entitled to their opinion, but that's not what the U.S. Government decided in the wake of 9/11," the official told Fox. "The White House approved the concept, and the Justice Department endorsed the methods. If someone wants to re-argue history, they can, but they don't have the right to distort the role played by the CIA's medical personnel. Their job was to give key terrorists-who were being held legally-the best possible medical care and to ensure that interrogation techniques, which the Justice Department had ruled to be lawful, were applied safely. For that they deserve thanks, not criticism." The Obama Administration has held that CIA officials involved in the enhanced interrogation program would not face repercussions. "It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Attorney General Eric Holder said in an April 2009 statement. Rubenstein and Xenakis call for further investigation into the CIA physicians' role, but the administration is unlikely to retroactively punish anyone who lawfully carried out their directives under the program, and it doesn't appear the doctors will face repercussions from the medical community. The CIA's treatment of detainees came under scrutiny in 2005 during the Bush Administration, when reports surfaced of the use of waterboarding and other enhanced methods came to light. President Obama has publicly decried the method as torture and later banned its use in interrogations.
"I believe that waterboarding was torture. And I think that the-whatever legal rationales were used, it was a mistake," Obama said at a primetime news conference in April 2009. Interrogation methods have since been pared back to those that are specifically outlined in the Army Field Manual, but the U.S. has yet to officially declare any of the enhanced methods torture. Still, the intelligence official said, despite the fact that the enhanced interrogation program ended early in Obama's term, it will still garner criticism.
Regulatory Constraint
Case 3: Google
Danger of influencing the society through page rank manipulation : A group of Austrian researchers claim that they observe a tendency to misuse the Google engine as a "reality interface". Not just ordinary users, but even journalists tend to rely on the first pages of Google search, assuming that everything not listed there is either not important or merely does not exist. The referenced source says that "Google has become the main interface for our whole reality. To be precise: With the Google interface the user gets the impression that the search results imply a kind of totality. In fact, one only sees a small part of what one could see if one also integrates other research tools". The mentioned group warns that page rank can be influenced by individual views of the Google staff: "it became clear that not only mathematical algorithms and software, but also human brains in the Google headquarter will edit information processed by Google and decide what will go online and in which form." The New York Times reported on an online business whose owner had discovered poor customer service would generate higher Page Rank due to online criticism at consumer watchdog sites. He subsequently sought a bad reputation as his search engine optimization strategy. Page ranking related lawsuits: In 2006, the parental advice Internet site Kinderstart.com sued Google for setting its Page rank to zero, claiming that the reset caused the site to lose 70 percent of its audience.
[4]
In this lawsuit, it was stated, that "Google does not generally inform Web sites that they have
been penalized nor does it explain in detail why the Web site was penalized". Kinderstart claimed that they were penalized for being a Google competitor (setting up the search engine). Kinderstart has formally lost the process (while their rank seems no longer zero). Google claims that allowing one to win such process would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging other penalized sites to protest as well. Google bombing: The page ranking algorithm of Google can and has been manipulated for political and humorous reasons. To illustrate the view that Google's search engine could be subjected to manipulation, Google Watch implemented a Google bomb by linking the phrase "out-of-touch executives" to Google's own page on its corporate management. The attempt was mistakenly attributed to disgruntled Google employees by The New York Times, which later printed a correction. Tax avoidance: Google has been criticized for using legal, but aggressive tax avoidance strategies to minimize its corporate tax bill. Google cut its taxes by $3.1 billion in the period of 2007 to 2009 using a technique that moves most of its foreign profits through Ireland and the Netherlands to Bermuda. Googles income shiftinginvolving strategies known to lawyers as the Double Irish and the Dutch Sandwich -- helped reduce its overseas tax rate to 2.4 percent, the lowest of the top five U.S. technology companies by market capitalization, according to regulatory filings in six countries.