I recommend checking out the Mann V Ford post and click on some of the links … the link above is a hidden gem of fierce documentation of corporate excessive use of and possibly the worse abuse of power …
I was looking through my posts for environmental cases that have been resolved or not and found that the Mann V Ford case is probably not the only one but it is still active. Sometime around 2006, I read about this case and when the trailer came out as well as info about the Environmental Waste Disaster case named Mann V Ford I posted it several times. I am still looking for the author of the article below, but the words are not to be denied or ignored. I also wrote pop tort for an update on the case but have not heard back so I went to wiki and found among other things that the Mann V Ford case is active, though a settlement was determined in 2009 with an amount of 12.5 million. The so-called experts claimed they could not find a connection a correlation or attach any health issues or the many deaths to Fords environmental waste. The claimants however, received checks in 2010 and the max given out was 35K. However, most got less. The truth is beyond offensive,but get this … the EPA has had 5 attempts to finish the job but residence found and keep finding more paint sludge even while Lisa Jackson was in charge, meanwhile more folks have died since. The question environmentalist need to ask and the EPA needs to answer … did/is Ford doing what they were expected and required to ensure the residence were all compensated appropriately, the land water and grounds deemed safe lest we talk about a constant watch on the health of the next generation …
The information written below is from poptort.com around 2006- 2011
If you’re a PopTort.com fan, you know that there have been a few documentaries already out this year about the civil justice system, except that the business community, with all their money, can’t seem to make ones that anyone wants to watch. I dunno, maybe the problem is their basic theme:
“please feel sorry for us, we can’t make as much money as we want at the expense of everyday people, wah wah wah”.
Last Monday night, an example of this phenomenon aired on the Reelz channel, a film called Injustice that received almost no news coverage except by piggy-backing off publicity for the critically-acclaimed film Hot Coffee, and even so, was covered mostly by a few legal blogs like Above the Law, which lambasted it saying, “I’m not sure if anyone was even able to watch it. And if they had been able to do so, I’m pretty sure they would have changed the channel pretty quickly….” (We were happy to see them pick up our “this isn’t a film, it’s an infomercial” theme! ) Even noted film and media scholar Patricia Aufderheide, professor of Film and Media Arts in the School of Communication at American University and director of the Center for Social Media, noticed, tweeting: Dueling documentaries ; looks like the big-biz folks aren’t as good filmmakers….
On the other side of that coin, once again tonight HBO airs another very powerful documentary film, called Mann v. Ford, by co-directors Maro Chermayeff and Micah Fink, which showcases how vitally important the civil justice system and plaintiff’s lawyers are to help communities seek justice when powerful corporations have harmed them. Here is what HBO says about it:
The Ramapough Mountain Indians have lived in the hills and forests of northern New Jersey, less than 40 miles from midtown Manhattan, for hundreds of years. In the 1960s, their neighbor in nearby Mahwah, the Ford Motor Company, bought their land and began dumping toxic waste in the woods and abandoned iron mines surrounding their homes. Ford has acknowledged the dumping.
In the 1980s, the Ramapough’s homeland was placed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s list of federally monitored Superfund sites – and supposedly cleaned up by Ford. However, thousands of tons of toxic waste were left behind. In 2006, the residents of Upper Ringwood, after suffering for years from a range of mysterious ailments, including deadly cancers, skin rashes and high rates of miscarriage, filed a mass action lawsuit seeking millions of dollars from Ford as compensation for their suffering. Ford denied all responsibility for the illnesses devastating the community and claimed its flawed cleanup had fully complied with all EPA rules.
MANN v. FORD tells the story of a small community’s epic battle against two American giants: the Ford Motor Company and the Environmental Protection Agency, which failed to ensure that Ford cleaned the land of deadly toxins and erroneously declared the community safe and clean of toxic waste. The documentary debuts MONDAY, JULY 18 (9:00-10:45 p.m. ET/PT), exclusively on HBO.
Impressive. We should point out the New Jersey newspaper, The Record (reporters Jan Barry, Thomas E. Franklin, Mary Jo Layton, Tim Nostrand, Alex Nussbaum,Tom Troncone, Debra Lynn Vial, Lindy Washburn, Barbara Williams) initially broke this story for the wider public in an award-winning series called Toxic Legacy. The paper’s web site says,
A generation ago, the Ford Motor Company churned out six millions cars and trucks at a sprawling assembly plant in Mahwah. But that remarkable production came at a cost. Before the plant closed in 1980, it also generated an ocean of pollution that was dumped in the forests of North Jersey, contaminating a mountain community in Ringwood and threatening the region’s most important watershed.
In 2005, a team of reporters from The Record spent months conducting an investigation of the failed cleanups that had taken place up to that point, and documenting its impact on the people living amid the waste.
So again, the film aired on MONDAY, JULY 18 (9:00-10:45 p.m. ET/PT), exclusively on HBO.
First posted ~ November of 2012
Second hand or flea market shopping has been in the news a lot lately, but as folks join the movement to keep material out of landfills or reduce our eco-footprint some push buy made in the US of A others believe reusing is best. However, the idea of wearing toxic fashions let alone recycling it is a disturbing thought given what we know and at the end of the day, it always seems to go back to making that dollar dollar
There are a few who do 2ndhand because of financial issues, some wear it for personal reasons and even more are on that path toward total sustainable living, but as a whole 2nd hand, up-cycling or Eco-friendly seem like great names but being ethically stylish? I guess that means intentionally buying, wearing, devoting your dollar dollars to sustainably made only. The fact is …it is a lot tougher than folks think. Have you looked at your labels? The dictionary states that being ethical means acting in an ethical manner from an ethical point of view. Again, the fact is being “ethically stylish” is almost a mission impossible.
Before you say she needs more education don’t get me wrong because I definitely get being “ethically stylish,” “acting with intent” but when store buyers, the fashion industry and whatnot go out of their way to use cheap labor or toxic material, being ethical demands that the industry cooperate. Unfortunately, this fight is just beginning. I have bought and overpaid for a dress or two; tried buying American made only as well, but found myself buying because of the cute factor first then finding out later that it was not made in the US of A or out of sustainable material, which definitely offends the “ethically stylish “code. The fact is fashion corporations decided outsourcing was more cost effective, cheap material maybe not sustainable meant more for the money; remember when big name models, entertainment folks and designers were caught using sweatshops. I know Levis are made both in the US as well as imported, believe me 501’s are my favorite but the prices can be insane though more sustainable. I buy them.
Lately, I have to say hearing the fashion industry in all its forms, say they are selling or being more ethically stylish is frustrating. There are reports of companies and brands, which sell USA, made, but may among others in the industry possibly be using toxic materials, which made the giant move toward 100% Organic, Natural or Sustainable take several giant steps backward. We need to buy and sell local, but again, almost a mission impossible as” Made in America” is not only more expensive the labels are far and few these days , the material is often blended with stuff we cannot pronounce . The history of the fashion industry and American Made is definitely a love hate thing as designers and stars back in the day were wearing fabulous clothes rarely found on the racks, only to find out they were actually getting their clothes made by sweat shops, in some well-known and unknown countries … and sustainable; probably not.
Yes, “Made in the USA” faded out to a blank whiteboard and the NYC garment district was but a memory for quite a while. There were some great “Where and what are they doing now” shows with older “go to” fashion designers, clothiers stating the fabric just is not the same nor are the people. The opportunity to make more clothes with cheap labor & material seemed to have become addictive and the image of what was going on in those countries is not good. Fashion will always be a work in progress, but learning that unfair labor practices and or that companies are producing great looking garments, but possibly using toxic material in 2013 is sad given all that has happened to the industry over the last fifteen years or so.
Thus, making it tough to be ethical let alone wear fashion that is ethically stylish or sustainable.
I believe in reuse reclaim repurpose redecorate and reduce … which keeps most material out of landfills
FYI … this was written back in November of 2012
More shopping means more plastic … unless your State is going green
So, if you live in LA remember to BYORB …reusable bag! Because plastic is banned and paper bags will cost you .10cents. After seeing the latest move made by Governor Brown who would like to implement the ban quickly, it’s apparent the people of Cali need some recycle classes, better information and some enlightenment. As ugly, as the reusable bags are to you and the notion that Plastic bags are more convenient is possibly true, but to say that they double as garbage bags is disturbing. The environment needs help which in turn keep us healthy, a lifestyle that younger folks need to take up and a battle that will be ongoing while cities need to provide containers that help consumers sort out their garbage with little or no confusion and keeps the smell to a minimum …thanks
Poly-bags are made from petroleum, are non-biodegradable and manufacturing paper bags requires large quantities of wood. The problem and question, is whether the attempt to clean up our act state by state has a great department where folks are determined to regulate the use of these environmental killers properly, so that our next generation has a chance.
The ban or reduction of plastic bags was implemented on July 1 of 2012 in Seattle, WA. It’s now 2014 and as spring& summer time weather begins, folks start shopping. I get it, it is not lucrative to ask for reusable bags or to inform the public about the .5 to .10cent charge for each bag, but given the idea that we all should be concerned about the environment; I do expect a little more effort to push reusable bags. Some states have implemented their Ban or Reduction plans, but not much information is available about who will or is enforcing the new rules or how they are measuring the reduction rate, if at all. The struggle to clean up our environment should not be this complicated or hard and hopefully our city councils will keep at it with great zeal as the plastic’s industry has big $$ incentives to stall or stop it …
They need to think about the next generation … the Seattle City Council rules and regulations on plastic bags are below
Be a Seed for Change has a couple of great bags as well, much larger
www.bonanza.com/booths/BeaSeedforChange started in 2006
Tony deBrum, a Minister and assistant to the Marshall Islands’ President, said the island nations were facing opposition from Security Council permanent members Russia and China and more than 130 developing nations.
They are arguing that the United Nation‘s most powerful body is the wrong place to address climate change.
After a closed Security Council meeting on the “Security Dimensions of Climate Change”, organised by Britain and Pakistan, DeBrum said he hoped more council members would be convinced “this is a security issue”, not just an economic, political or social one.
The low-lying islands, which are already being inundated with sea water, want the council to bring its “political weight” to the issue to help their countries survive, for example, by harnessing new technologies and ensuring alternative energy supplies.
DeBrum said it was “ironic, bizarre perhaps” that 35 years after he was before the Security Council seeking the independence of the Marshall Islands, he was back “to appeal for the survival of my country”.
He said climate change had already taken a toll on the Marshall Islands.
Wells had filled with salt water, making drinking water scarce and affecting food production. One small island was under water, and coastlines are being eroded.
The impact of climate change was also causing migration to other islands, as well as to Australia and the US, he said.
Rachel Kyte, the World Bank’s vice-president for sustainable development, said since the council’s last discussion of climate change “the sense of immediacy and urgency has increased”.
First posted 2/17/2013