The litigation that Mark Nutritionals filed against four search engines last week is the subject of an article by Danny Sullivan in the latest Search Engine Report. It's excellent, in-depth analysis of some of the issues involved in the suits.
Can failure to include the Mark Nutritional site in the top results for their trademarked product be considered trademark infringement? Is the fact that the advertisement based sites have the appearance of relevance based search engines important? Does Altavista fit with the other three named defendants? Is the old "bait and switch" tactic taking place? What is Google's opinion of the suit?
Interesting questions. Good answers. The Search Engine Report also links to the actual complaints filed.
- William Slawski
Monday, February 04, 2002
slight pollution or light pollution?
A recent report of an oil spill at a southern Delaware DuPont plant at first said that there was no impact upon the environment, and then later said that there was not yet any confirmation of impact upon wildlife.
Can there be a fuel oil spill in a river that doesn't hurt the environment?
I applaud the worker who risked his neck to turn off the pump and limit the amount of the spill. It was in the middle of the night, on a slippery barge, and he was being sprayed with fuel oil. He was courageous.
But let's not dance around whether there is an environmental impact - of course there is. Is it less of an impact because of the efforts of the barge operator and other workers? Yes, and thank goodness.
While this pollution was on my mind, and while web surfing for a replacement light fixture, I came across a list of web sites dealing with light pollution. At first I didn't understand (not being an enviromental attorney by specialty). Were they talking about a little pollution?
No, it turns out that there is a thing called light pollution dealing with too much light, or light of the wrong color, or light during the wrong hours of the day. There are even ordinances controlling all of these things (pdf), in some jurisdictions.
Just another argument to buy a 100,000 acre ranch in Montana and hunker down smack dab in the middle.
Can there be a fuel oil spill in a river that doesn't hurt the environment?
I applaud the worker who risked his neck to turn off the pump and limit the amount of the spill. It was in the middle of the night, on a slippery barge, and he was being sprayed with fuel oil. He was courageous.
But let's not dance around whether there is an environmental impact - of course there is. Is it less of an impact because of the efforts of the barge operator and other workers? Yes, and thank goodness.
While this pollution was on my mind, and while web surfing for a replacement light fixture, I came across a list of web sites dealing with light pollution. At first I didn't understand (not being an enviromental attorney by specialty). Were they talking about a little pollution?
No, it turns out that there is a thing called light pollution dealing with too much light, or light of the wrong color, or light during the wrong hours of the day. There are even ordinances controlling all of these things (pdf), in some jurisdictions.
Just another argument to buy a 100,000 acre ranch in Montana and hunker down smack dab in the middle.
vexatious litigants
I noticed a news article today about an attempt in the UK to allow people to file lawsuits online. Here's the beginning of what I was going to write:
It's not something that we have in Delaware, but it seems to have found its way into other state courts.
It appears that legislatures have passed laws limiting, or denying, the use of the courts to people who pursue pro se actions that may seem to be an attempt to use litigation as a weapon to harm others. People are put on an official blacklist, barring them from filing any litigation, except possibly in small claims court.
California has such a statute, as does Florida. I stopped looking for others after I found out next that Texas also has a similar statute.
These statutes are aimed at people who aren't represented by an attorney. One of the means of being declared a "vexatious litigant" under a number of these statues, is to lose five (pro se) civil actions in a span of five years.
Is there a constitutional right to access to the courts? Does a statute like this deny that right? Or, is the statute a necessary evil, used to protect against those who would use civil litigation to frivilously harass others? I hope that we don't see something like this come to Delaware.
- William Slawski
An Online cybercourt is in the works in the UK. See the pilot page for the service, which is called Money Claim Online."That's when I saw that "Vexatious Litigants cannot use the service." So what, exactly, is a Vexatious Litigant?
It's not something that we have in Delaware, but it seems to have found its way into other state courts.
It appears that legislatures have passed laws limiting, or denying, the use of the courts to people who pursue pro se actions that may seem to be an attempt to use litigation as a weapon to harm others. People are put on an official blacklist, barring them from filing any litigation, except possibly in small claims court.
California has such a statute, as does Florida. I stopped looking for others after I found out next that Texas also has a similar statute.
These statutes are aimed at people who aren't represented by an attorney. One of the means of being declared a "vexatious litigant" under a number of these statues, is to lose five (pro se) civil actions in a span of five years.
Is there a constitutional right to access to the courts? Does a statute like this deny that right? Or, is the statute a necessary evil, used to protect against those who would use civil litigation to frivilously harass others? I hope that we don't see something like this come to Delaware.
- William Slawski
Saturday, February 02, 2002
hear ye hearsay? we hear hearsay
One of the most confusing set of rules of evidence are the ones that deal with hearsay. The concept of hearsay is a little difficult to explain (and understand), and it has more exceptions than swiss cheese has holes. And, sometimes there are certain types of hearings where the rules of evidence aren't always applied, or are applied in a way that makes you tilt your legal head.
Hearsay is "an out of court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted." What that means is that the courts want to use the best evidence available to them that they can - the evidence that is the most reliable. So when you have someone saying something, or making a statement by their words or gestures, you should have that person on the stand testifying as to what they said or meant. Having someone else on the stand testifying to the other person's statement is much less reliable, because you can't ask that someone else the motivations behind the statement, or cross examine them very effectively.
Hearsay doesn't even need to be words. It can be the act of another person. So, for instance, if I wanted to prove that it was raining on a certain day, and I brought someone in to testify that it was raining because they were looking out a window and saw someone opening an umbrella, that act of opening an umbrella would be hearsay. If the person testified that they saw raindrops, that would be direct testimony, and would bring very little possibility of objection.. But the umbrella testimony could be objected to under the hearsay rule.
Keep in mind that everytime an objection is made to a statement involving hearsay, there is the possibility to overcome that objection by referring to one of the exceptions. The exceptions are important because they can limit the way the "out of court statement" is interpreted by the judge or jury.
Hearsay can also be a written statement. You want the author in court to testify about what is written, if possible. Not having the author there means that you might have difficulties using the document to prove what is said within it. You might be able to use it to prove something else, such as what the state of mind its author was in at the time of writing. The rule of hearsay can be frustrating, and limiting, but it is valuable because its use produces good results. The idea is that such hearsay is inherently unreliable, and that allowing the testimony would violate our constitutional right to hear and question witnesses brought against us.
There are many exceptions to that rule. Most of the exceptions reflect circumstances where we might tend to give more weight to the words, such as the last few words of a dying person (if he knew he was dying), or a spontaneous excited utterance, or papers kept as normal business records.
In Delaware Civil Commitment Hearings, a doctor can testify that the social worker told her that the social worker heard a neighbor say another neighbor said that you were walking around naked in your back yard.
And this will be heard officially by the Court with only the doctor's testimony and nobody else available to ask about what happened. We aren't usually given a practical opportunity to question either the social worker nor the neighbors because the first time we hear about some of this is in the middle of a hearing. And these hearings usually only have one witness, the State Hospital's witness, a psychiatrist.
This is the only type of hearing that I am aware of that hearsay is so freely admitted, and makes up such a high percentage of the overall case. I recall my first hearing of this nature, almost 10 years ago now, where I jumped up to object to what I thought was inadmissible hearsay. It was that day that I learned that these types of Court hearings are mostly hearsay and opinion.
Since then, I have worked on thousands of mental commitment cases. There are a small number of attorneys and judicial officers who work on these matters. Once in a while an attorney who is not familiar with the process will appear for a hearing, usually as a favor to the client or a family member. I see the same bewildered expression on their faces that mine must have displayed years ago...thinking "this can't be right".
We conduct hearings that are not open to the public, not publicized, and rarely appealed. I think that everyone in the process does have the best interests of the mental patients at heart, but I also am continually reminded as to the vastly different manner in which these hearings are conducted as compared to "normal" cases.
This application of hearsay rules in civil commitment hearings serves the interests of the State by shortening the hearings and moving the calendar along more efficiently. And those are legitimate things.
But it does so at the cost of the rights of our citizens. These are our silent citizens though. They usually don't vote and nobody pays them any mind. We don't really want to know about the mentally ill. We just want them put away out of sight.
Hearsay is "an out of court statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted." What that means is that the courts want to use the best evidence available to them that they can - the evidence that is the most reliable. So when you have someone saying something, or making a statement by their words or gestures, you should have that person on the stand testifying as to what they said or meant. Having someone else on the stand testifying to the other person's statement is much less reliable, because you can't ask that someone else the motivations behind the statement, or cross examine them very effectively.
Hearsay doesn't even need to be words. It can be the act of another person. So, for instance, if I wanted to prove that it was raining on a certain day, and I brought someone in to testify that it was raining because they were looking out a window and saw someone opening an umbrella, that act of opening an umbrella would be hearsay. If the person testified that they saw raindrops, that would be direct testimony, and would bring very little possibility of objection.. But the umbrella testimony could be objected to under the hearsay rule.
Keep in mind that everytime an objection is made to a statement involving hearsay, there is the possibility to overcome that objection by referring to one of the exceptions. The exceptions are important because they can limit the way the "out of court statement" is interpreted by the judge or jury.
Hearsay can also be a written statement. You want the author in court to testify about what is written, if possible. Not having the author there means that you might have difficulties using the document to prove what is said within it. You might be able to use it to prove something else, such as what the state of mind its author was in at the time of writing. The rule of hearsay can be frustrating, and limiting, but it is valuable because its use produces good results. The idea is that such hearsay is inherently unreliable, and that allowing the testimony would violate our constitutional right to hear and question witnesses brought against us.
There are many exceptions to that rule. Most of the exceptions reflect circumstances where we might tend to give more weight to the words, such as the last few words of a dying person (if he knew he was dying), or a spontaneous excited utterance, or papers kept as normal business records.
In Delaware Civil Commitment Hearings, a doctor can testify that the social worker told her that the social worker heard a neighbor say another neighbor said that you were walking around naked in your back yard.
And this will be heard officially by the Court with only the doctor's testimony and nobody else available to ask about what happened. We aren't usually given a practical opportunity to question either the social worker nor the neighbors because the first time we hear about some of this is in the middle of a hearing. And these hearings usually only have one witness, the State Hospital's witness, a psychiatrist.
This is the only type of hearing that I am aware of that hearsay is so freely admitted, and makes up such a high percentage of the overall case. I recall my first hearing of this nature, almost 10 years ago now, where I jumped up to object to what I thought was inadmissible hearsay. It was that day that I learned that these types of Court hearings are mostly hearsay and opinion.
Since then, I have worked on thousands of mental commitment cases. There are a small number of attorneys and judicial officers who work on these matters. Once in a while an attorney who is not familiar with the process will appear for a hearing, usually as a favor to the client or a family member. I see the same bewildered expression on their faces that mine must have displayed years ago...thinking "this can't be right".
We conduct hearings that are not open to the public, not publicized, and rarely appealed. I think that everyone in the process does have the best interests of the mental patients at heart, but I also am continually reminded as to the vastly different manner in which these hearings are conducted as compared to "normal" cases.
This application of hearsay rules in civil commitment hearings serves the interests of the State by shortening the hearings and moving the calendar along more efficiently. And those are legitimate things.
But it does so at the cost of the rights of our citizens. These are our silent citizens though. They usually don't vote and nobody pays them any mind. We don't really want to know about the mentally ill. We just want them put away out of sight.
silence please
The Delaware Constitution guarantees a stronger constitutional right to remain silent than does the U.S. Constitution. The recent case cited below, in which the Delaware Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision, was decided based upon the right to remain silent and not because the defendant's request to talk with his mother in some way was the same as a request to talk with an attorney.
Robert W. Draper, the Defendant, repeatedly said to police that he wanted to talk to his mother before he talked to police. This left it ambiguous as to whether he was invoking his right to remain silent, according to the Delaware Supreme Court decision. Under the federal constitution, the police would have been authorized to continue to question him. But Delaware's Constitution requires that when it is ambiguous, the police must clarify the situation before they may proceed with interrogation. In this case, there was never a clarification and the police continued with interrogation until there was a confession. Therefore the State must go back and proceed without the confession. It wouldn't have made any difference if the Defendant had said, " I won't talk with you until after I have had a drink of water", the legal point is that he said he didn't want to talk. This really had nothing to do with his mother.
Now, if his mother was an attorney we would have a different kettle of fish.
Robert W. Draper, the Defendant, repeatedly said to police that he wanted to talk to his mother before he talked to police. This left it ambiguous as to whether he was invoking his right to remain silent, according to the Delaware Supreme Court decision. Under the federal constitution, the police would have been authorized to continue to question him. But Delaware's Constitution requires that when it is ambiguous, the police must clarify the situation before they may proceed with interrogation. In this case, there was never a clarification and the police continued with interrogation until there was a confession. Therefore the State must go back and proceed without the confession. It wouldn't have made any difference if the Defendant had said, " I won't talk with you until after I have had a drink of water", the legal point is that he said he didn't want to talk. This really had nothing to do with his mother.
Now, if his mother was an attorney we would have a different kettle of fish.
Friday, February 01, 2002
miranda and mom
The Delaware Supreme Court ordered a retrial in a case in which police officers ignored a man's repeated request to talk to his mother before they took his confession. (opinion - pdf)
pay for placement = extortion?
A Texas diet pill manufacturer has brought a number of search engines to court, claiming that people who search for their products are being sent to competitors who pay for higher placement on the engines. This is a major challenge to the way that some search engines conduct business. The suit is requesting $440 million in damages. Named as defendants are: AltaVista, Overture, FindWhat and Kanoodle. One example, quoted in the article:
russell peterson revisited
Energy efficiency without pollutants is within reach, by Russell Peterson. A well written summation of the message Delaware's former governor began to present on Wednesday night at the University of Delaware.
shaggy dog tale
The following from the ever interesting InstaPundit.com:
legal essay contest
The Bench Bar Media Conference of Delaware is sponsoring a contest for high school students in 11th and 12th grades. The conference includes members of the media, the Delaware Judiciary, and the Delaware legal community.
- William Slawski
pay for placement = extortion?
A Texas diet pill manufacturer has brought a number of search engines to court, claiming that people who search for their products are being sent to competitors who pay for higher placement on the engines. This is a major challenge to the way that some search engines conduct business. The suit is requesting $440 million in damages. Named as defendants are: AltaVista, Overture, FindWhat and Kanoodle. One example, quoted in the article:
PerfectHealth4Life.com, for example, recently paid Overture 72 cents per click to be the top result for queries about Mark Nutritionals' Body Solutions, though it does not sell that product. It was followed in the rankings by Visionizin' America, a shopping site that paid 71 cents for each person sent to a sales pitch for its own brand of diet pills.If the suit is successful, it might trigger some extreme changes in the way that pay-for-placement search engines conduct business. Perhaps they will switch to a search method that returns results based upon relevance. You know, people might like that.
russell peterson revisited
Energy efficiency without pollutants is within reach, by Russell Peterson. A well written summation of the message Delaware's former governor began to present on Wednesday night at the University of Delaware.
shaggy dog tale
The following from the ever interesting InstaPundit.com:
After getting nailed by a Daisy Cutter, Osama makes his way to the pearly gates. There, he is greeted by George Washington. "How dare you attack the nation I helped conceive!" yells Mr. Washington, slapping Osama in the face.
Patrick Henry comes up from behind. "You wanted to end the Americans' liberty, so they gave you death!" Henry punches Osama in the nose.
James Madison comes up next, and says "This is why I allowed the Federal government to provide for the common defense!" He drops a large weight on Osama's knee.
Osama is then caned by John Randolph of Roanoke and soundly thrashed by James Monroe, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and 65 other men who love liberty and America. As he writhes on the ground, Thomas Jefferson picks him up and hurls him back toward the gates, where he is to be judged.
As Osama awaits the ferry to take him to his final, very hot destination, he screams, "Aieee! This is not what I was promised!"
An angel replies, "I told you there would be 72 Virginians waiting for you! What did you think I said?"
legal essay contest
The Bench Bar Media Conference of Delaware is sponsoring a contest for high school students in 11th and 12th grades. The conference includes members of the media, the Delaware Judiciary, and the Delaware legal community.
The Bar-Bench-Media Conference of Delaware is sponsoring a 500-word essay contest on the importance of an independent judiciary and free press for 11th and 12th grade Delaware public high school students. Three students (one from each county) will win the opportunity to intern with a Delaware judge or justice, a Delaware lawyer, and the electronic and print media for one day each during a one week period. Each winner will also earn a $500 stipend. A maximum of one entry from each school will be considered. The three winning essays will be published in The Delaware Lawyer magazine, various Delaware newspapers and posted on the web site of the Bar-Bench-Media Conference hosted by the Supreme Court of Delaware.For more details, visit their Programs page.
- William Slawski
Enron Met Cheney Six Times in 2001, and Other Ecological Catastrophe's
It isn't easy to argue with some of the common sense that is coming out of Washington, D.C. these days. Especially the words we hear about lessening dependence upon foreign sources of oil. The University of Delaware was host to a presentation sponsored by a number of environmentally conscious organizations on Wednesday night, and it was interesting to hear viewpoints expressed over our nation's proposed energy plan.
Attached is a press release issued prior to the event, but unfortunately, it misses some of the issues raised during the forum held at the University. What it fails to capture is the plain spoken honesty and integrity of Floris Johnson, representing the Gwich'in people of Northern Alaska, who rely upon the wildlife of Alaska for much of their sustenance, and the inclusion of Tom Evans, former congressman for Delaware.
Floris Johnson spoke of life in Alaska for a people who live upon a land that they respect immensely. She talked about the beauty of Alaska, and the reverance her people hold for the land which they live upon. Gathering berries in the wilderness was rough but was also part of the happiest times she has lived. Many of her people rely upon the land to provide food, clothing, and shelter. She spoke of the elders who guided her people, and how they have given up on the Congressmen of Alaska, who are in favor of drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
As I listened to the words of Russell Peterson and Tom Evans, I wondered if their plain speech on this subject could be considered the words of the elders of Delaware. The words they used were filled with reasonableness and common sense.
Tom Evans mentioned the controversy over Vice President Dick Cheney, and Enron. He said that Mr. Cheney had met with Enron six times to discuss our country's energy policy, and that the Vice President should disclose information about the meetings, and about with whom he met. He said that legally, the Vice President was probably on firm ground, but from a public relations standpoint, he was causing himself and the President a considerable amount of damage.
Sponsoring Organizations:
Delaware Chapter of the Sierra Club
Delaware Audubon Society
Delaware Clean Air Council
Alaska Coalition
Union of Concerned Scientists
Delaware Nature Society
University of Delaware Students for the Environment
State PIRGs
National Environmental Trust
Participants:
Russell Peterson
Former Delaware Governor, elected in 1968.
Past Chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality
Past Director of the Office of Technolgy Assessment of the U.S. Congress
President of the National Audubon Society (1979 - 1985)
Chaired the Center on the Biological Consequences of Nuclear War, working with Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich.
Served on the National Commission to investigate the nuclear accidnet at Three Mile Island.
Tom Evans
Former member of Congress, representing Delaware from 1977-1983, and former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Author of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
Board member of the Alaska Wilderness League and the Coast Alliance.
Dr. John Byrne
Director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy.
Co-founder and co-executive director of the Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future.
Coordinator of the Delaware Climate Change Consortium (pdf). See their Action Plan (pdf) for an idea of what they do.
Floris Johnson
Southeastern Regional Coordinator for the Gwich'in Steering Committee.
Former Administrative Director for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Clinic for the Council of Athabaskan Tribal Government in Fort Yukon.
Edwin L. Mongan, III
Manager, Environmental Stewardship for DuPont
Responsible for worldwide environmental management systems, including planning, performance measures, pollution prevention programs and goals, public reporting and auditing for DuPont. Represents DuPont on the Partnership for Climate Action, and is a member of the American Chemistry Council's Product Stewardship Team, and the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable.
The Press Release:
January 30, 2002
Delaware's Energy Future Debated at Public Energy Forum
Panel Features Former Governor Russell Peterson
Wilmington, Delaware -- Russell Peterson, Former Governor of Delaware; Dr. John Byrne, Director of UD Center For Energy and Environmental Policy; Edwin L. Mongan, Dupont's Manager of Environmental Stewardship; and Floris Johnson, representative of the Gwich'in people of Northern Alaska today participated in a public energy forum held at the University of Delaware's Student Center Bacchus Theatre. The discussion centered on America's energy future during this time of great concern over national security and a need to reduce our dependence on oil. The panelists presented reasonable energy solutions that would benefit Delaware and the nation.
Anerica uses a quarter of the world's oil, but has just 3 percent of known reserves. Sixty-five percent of reserves lie beneath the Persian Gulf States. The only way to end the economic and security risks caused by this imbalance is to reduce our oil dependence by increasing the use of renewable energies like wind and solar to meet our electricity demands, building better cars, and making better fuels. The panelists tonight outlined some of these alternatives to domestic drilling and highlighted Delaware's role in creating those alternatives.
"We are leaving an energy era with too many brownfields, blackouts and waste, and too little environmental and economic sense. Importantly, a new era is before us that will rely on environmentally benign sources such as solar energy and wind, and smart technologies such as high-efficiency vehicles and the fuel cell," said Dr. John Byrne, Director of University of Delaware's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy. "The implications for Delaware are great: we have the largest U.S. manufacturer of solar cells - Astropower - and the industry leaders in fuel cell development - W.L. Gore and DuPont. In this case, what's good for Delaware is good for the country and for our environment.
"DuPont has already recognized a need to position itself in a marketplace calling for an ever increasing demand for a smaller environmental footprint and thus has steered down a corporate path of sustainable development, establishing a set of tangible business goals that create both shareholder and societal value; goals which include using renewable energy sources to meet its global energy needs and achieving an increasing amount of revenues from non-depletable resources," said Edwin L. Mongan, DuPont Manager of Environmental Stewardship.
The alternative solutions to drilling on sensitive areas like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge have roots and important ties right here in Delaware. These practical steps include fuel economy standards and implementation of a nationwide Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires electricity producers to gradually increase the potion of electricity produced from renewable resources such as wind and solar.
"The Big Three U.S. auto companies promise to improve the fuel efficiency of their passenger trucks. They have been promising to do so for years. Our government should require them to meet a much higher efficiency in the near term. A fleet average of 40 miles a gallon is a good target," said Russell Peterson, former Delaware Governor.
By raising fuel economy standards to a technologically feasible 40 mpg for the entire fleet of new cars, SUV's and light duty trucks, the U.S. could save about one billion barrels of oil annually. Experts from industry, government, and academia have all estimated that average fuel economy of about 40 mpg is achievable for the entire U.S. fleet, including SUV's, minivans, and pickup trucks within 10 to 15 years using existing and emerging technologies. The potential oil savings from such an achievement represents 2.7 times the likely yield of economically recoverable oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Delaware's large number of autoworkers would benefit from the investment in producing more efficient cars and trucks.
- William Slawski
Attached is a press release issued prior to the event, but unfortunately, it misses some of the issues raised during the forum held at the University. What it fails to capture is the plain spoken honesty and integrity of Floris Johnson, representing the Gwich'in people of Northern Alaska, who rely upon the wildlife of Alaska for much of their sustenance, and the inclusion of Tom Evans, former congressman for Delaware.
Floris Johnson spoke of life in Alaska for a people who live upon a land that they respect immensely. She talked about the beauty of Alaska, and the reverance her people hold for the land which they live upon. Gathering berries in the wilderness was rough but was also part of the happiest times she has lived. Many of her people rely upon the land to provide food, clothing, and shelter. She spoke of the elders who guided her people, and how they have given up on the Congressmen of Alaska, who are in favor of drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
As I listened to the words of Russell Peterson and Tom Evans, I wondered if their plain speech on this subject could be considered the words of the elders of Delaware. The words they used were filled with reasonableness and common sense.
Tom Evans mentioned the controversy over Vice President Dick Cheney, and Enron. He said that Mr. Cheney had met with Enron six times to discuss our country's energy policy, and that the Vice President should disclose information about the meetings, and about with whom he met. He said that legally, the Vice President was probably on firm ground, but from a public relations standpoint, he was causing himself and the President a considerable amount of damage.
Sponsoring Organizations:
Delaware Chapter of the Sierra Club
Delaware Audubon Society
Delaware Clean Air Council
Alaska Coalition
Union of Concerned Scientists
Delaware Nature Society
University of Delaware Students for the Environment
State PIRGs
National Environmental Trust
Participants:
Russell Peterson
Former Delaware Governor, elected in 1968.
Past Chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality
Past Director of the Office of Technolgy Assessment of the U.S. Congress
President of the National Audubon Society (1979 - 1985)
Chaired the Center on the Biological Consequences of Nuclear War, working with Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich.
Served on the National Commission to investigate the nuclear accidnet at Three Mile Island.
Tom Evans
Former member of Congress, representing Delaware from 1977-1983, and former co-chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Author of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
Board member of the Alaska Wilderness League and the Coast Alliance.
Dr. John Byrne
Director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy.
Co-founder and co-executive director of the Joint Institute for a Sustainable Energy and Environmental Future.
Coordinator of the Delaware Climate Change Consortium (pdf). See their Action Plan (pdf) for an idea of what they do.
Floris Johnson
Southeastern Regional Coordinator for the Gwich'in Steering Committee.
Former Administrative Director for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Clinic for the Council of Athabaskan Tribal Government in Fort Yukon.
Edwin L. Mongan, III
Manager, Environmental Stewardship for DuPont
Responsible for worldwide environmental management systems, including planning, performance measures, pollution prevention programs and goals, public reporting and auditing for DuPont. Represents DuPont on the Partnership for Climate Action, and is a member of the American Chemistry Council's Product Stewardship Team, and the National Pollution Prevention Roundtable.
The Press Release:
January 30, 2002
Delaware's Energy Future Debated at Public Energy Forum
Panel Features Former Governor Russell Peterson
Wilmington, Delaware -- Russell Peterson, Former Governor of Delaware; Dr. John Byrne, Director of UD Center For Energy and Environmental Policy; Edwin L. Mongan, Dupont's Manager of Environmental Stewardship; and Floris Johnson, representative of the Gwich'in people of Northern Alaska today participated in a public energy forum held at the University of Delaware's Student Center Bacchus Theatre. The discussion centered on America's energy future during this time of great concern over national security and a need to reduce our dependence on oil. The panelists presented reasonable energy solutions that would benefit Delaware and the nation.
Anerica uses a quarter of the world's oil, but has just 3 percent of known reserves. Sixty-five percent of reserves lie beneath the Persian Gulf States. The only way to end the economic and security risks caused by this imbalance is to reduce our oil dependence by increasing the use of renewable energies like wind and solar to meet our electricity demands, building better cars, and making better fuels. The panelists tonight outlined some of these alternatives to domestic drilling and highlighted Delaware's role in creating those alternatives.
"We are leaving an energy era with too many brownfields, blackouts and waste, and too little environmental and economic sense. Importantly, a new era is before us that will rely on environmentally benign sources such as solar energy and wind, and smart technologies such as high-efficiency vehicles and the fuel cell," said Dr. John Byrne, Director of University of Delaware's Center for Energy and Environmental Policy. "The implications for Delaware are great: we have the largest U.S. manufacturer of solar cells - Astropower - and the industry leaders in fuel cell development - W.L. Gore and DuPont. In this case, what's good for Delaware is good for the country and for our environment.
"DuPont has already recognized a need to position itself in a marketplace calling for an ever increasing demand for a smaller environmental footprint and thus has steered down a corporate path of sustainable development, establishing a set of tangible business goals that create both shareholder and societal value; goals which include using renewable energy sources to meet its global energy needs and achieving an increasing amount of revenues from non-depletable resources," said Edwin L. Mongan, DuPont Manager of Environmental Stewardship.
The alternative solutions to drilling on sensitive areas like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge have roots and important ties right here in Delaware. These practical steps include fuel economy standards and implementation of a nationwide Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS), which requires electricity producers to gradually increase the potion of electricity produced from renewable resources such as wind and solar.
"The Big Three U.S. auto companies promise to improve the fuel efficiency of their passenger trucks. They have been promising to do so for years. Our government should require them to meet a much higher efficiency in the near term. A fleet average of 40 miles a gallon is a good target," said Russell Peterson, former Delaware Governor.
By raising fuel economy standards to a technologically feasible 40 mpg for the entire fleet of new cars, SUV's and light duty trucks, the U.S. could save about one billion barrels of oil annually. Experts from industry, government, and academia have all estimated that average fuel economy of about 40 mpg is achievable for the entire U.S. fleet, including SUV's, minivans, and pickup trucks within 10 to 15 years using existing and emerging technologies. The potential oil savings from such an achievement represents 2.7 times the likely yield of economically recoverable oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Delaware's large number of autoworkers would benefit from the investment in producing more efficient cars and trucks.
- William Slawski
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)