Questions? Feedback? powered by Olark live chat software

EWIRE

Wildlife Trust Launches International Network at World Conservation Congress in Bangkok

PALISADES, New York, Nov. 17 - /EWire/ -- Wildlife Trust, an innovator in conservation science and the emerging field of conservation medicine, will officially launch the Wildlife Trust Alliance, an international network of leading conservation organizations, during the third annual World Conservation Congress in Bangkok, Thailand, November 17-25, 2004.

During the Congress, The Wildlife Trust Alliance will present its Conservation Platform on November 18, 2004, and will induct Yolanda Kakabadse as the first member of its Advisory Council.

"We believe that the key to conservation success is long-term local involvement," says Dr. Mary C. Pearl, President of Wildlife Trust, noting that, "lessons learned on the local level often do not reach a larger audience." The Alliance will provide a framework for joint research, accreditation and policy analysis and recommendation.

"Given the need for a global voice for local conservation, The Wildlife Trust Alliance will be an important vehicle in bringing attention to urgent issues in the developing world that are being inadequately addressed," comments Dr. Claudio Padua, the Brazil-based Coordinator of the Alliance.

Yolanda Kakabadse, who is stepping down as President of the World Conservation Union this year, is also President of the Ecuador-based Fundacion Futuro Latinoamericano, a conflict resolution organization. She is the former Minister for the Environment for Ecuador. Ms. Kakabadse noted, "The Wildlife Trust Alliance is an innovator in creating successful, egalitarian international partnerships for conservation. I am looking forward to providing advice and drawing attention to this new form of collaboration in my capacity as a Wildlife Trust Alliance Councilor.

The Conservation Platform will feature a brief ceremony honoring Ms. Kakabadse, followed by a roundtable discussion on how conservation organizations around the world can more effectively make common cause for issues of global benefit.

The Congress is being sponsored by The World Conservation Union (IUCN), the international body that brings together individuals, organizations and governments to focus on environmental issues. Every three to four years the Congress is held to address three principal elements: conducting the business of the Union, assessing the work of IUCN Commissions and taking stock of conservation.



The founding organizations of the Wildlife Trust Alliance are:

Argentina: Fundación Aquamarina (www.aquamarina.org/ar) Brazil: Institute for Ecological Research (IPE) (www.ipe.org/br) Chile: Fauna Australis (http://www.fauna-australis.puc.cl/) Cuba: Cuban Conservation Collaborative Guatemala: Center for Biodiversity Conservation India: Asian Nature Conservation Foundation (www.asiannature.org) Indonesia: Yayasan Peduli Konservasi Alam Indonesia (PEKA) United States: Wildlife Trust/Consortium for Conservation Medicine (www.wildlifetrust.org and www.conservationmedicine.org) Venezuela: Provita (www.provitaonline.org)

Individual members include conservation scientists from Mexico, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, and Uruguay.

Dr. Pearl reports that The Wildlife Trust Alliance is also developing seven model projects to address points of conflict between human and natural systems, including: newly settled rural landscapes and deforestation; agricultural systems and chemical pollution; mosaic landscapes and large ranging species; ecology of emerging diseases; coastal marine conservation and fisheries; flagships of conservation practice (e.g., charismatic threatened fauna); and biodiversity conservation in the context of rural economic development.

About Wildlife Trust Wildlife Trust is an international organization dedicated to innovative conservation science and conservation medicine, linking ecology and human health in the New York region and around the world. Wildlife Trust trains and supports a network of local scientists in over twenty countries in their efforts to save endangered species and their habitats and to protect the health of ecosystems that are vital to life on Earth. More information can be found on their website, www.wildifetrust.org.

For more information:

For more information or to speak with Dr. Pearl, Dr. Padua, or Ms. Kakabadse, please contact

Jane Trombley of Temin and Company at (212)588-8788 or news@teminandco.com

www.wildifetrust.org

Comments

Sara

Until the siting is plpeorry regulated and corporations are actually taxed for privatizing profit and socializing impact, industrial wind power must not be imposed upon a community. I cannot support the imposition of industrial wind generation upon Benzie County and Joyfield Township, when Duke Energy, by law is only responsible to their shareholders and CEO salaries and not the people of Michigan.First, the impacts of industrial wind power needs to be treated as pollution:Industrial noise pollution, as stated by regulation in the state of Oregon (far greener than Michigan) must be limited to 10 dB (A or C) above the quietest time of day at the boundary of non-participating property.No industrial generator must be sited in a manner that will cause shadow flicker at any residence. Corporations, as demonstrated at other sites, cannot be trusted to stop generation to mitigate shadow flicker; proper siting is the only guarantee.Aviation lighting is particularly disruptive in dark-skies areas like much of Benzie County. OCAS proximity control must be mandated.Besides the polluting impacts of industrial wind power, siting them onshore when offshore siting in public waters is available is particularly ignorant. Offshore siting does not impose an industrial generation facility upon a populated community and also provides more unidirectional boundary airflow than afforded on land.Also, corporations, like Duke Energy, are mandated not to consider anything but the well being of their shareholders, not the people in the communities within which they operate. Duke is not a model corporate citizen with regards to pollution, regulatory ethics, or taxation. Until there is demonstrable ability of impacted property owners to be made whole by objectionable impact of industrial siting, then we must not allow companies to socialize risk and privatize profit. If demanded by non-participating landowners, industrial windpower corporations must be compelled to purchase the property at the cost of equivalent property outside of the project.Only with the proper protections in place could I even consider industrial wind power in Benzie County.

April 25, 2012, 12:18 AM
Reply
znozafouda

aNVUh8 , [url=http://pdjntmgpsetz.com/]pdjntmgpsetz[/url], [link=http://dnlxavekwhcx.com/]dnlxavekwhcx[/link], http://qhadzrbkhadp.com/

April 25, 2012, 10:06 PM
Reply
Bubi

Duke Energyâ??s Gail Wind Project as proposed is a really bad idea for most people in Benzie and Manistee Counties. For those like me who are not under lease there is no upside to this industrial scale windfarm and plenty of potential downside. From a purely selfish standpoint the very best I could hope for is it would have no impact – that I will not hear the turbines and after some time passes they would become as ubiquitous as utility poles. But I don’t think this would happen. If the siting map going around is accurate my house would have eleven of these things within a mile radius, in all directions. Maybe I could live with one or two, but eleven? The model of wind turbine proposed would tower over the tallest trees and be the dominant feature of the landscape. This would be hard to ignore. A recent trip to the windfarm near Cadillac confirmed for me that they are obnoxiously loud. Bye bye natural paradise, so long peace and quiet! Because wind turbines are noisy and to most people ugly it is obvious to me there would be severe downward pressure on property values since practically no one would choose to buy a house under or near one, so my home would become just about unsellable. Think the real estate market is bad now? The long term effects of wind turbines on human health, birds and bats are unknown â?¦ if you look hard enough you can find â??factsâ?? that support whatever your position on this issue happens to be. A windfarm may have no effect on tourism, but on the other hand I have never heard of anyone taking a vacation to see one. If this project goes through Duke Energy stockholders will get rich at the expense of our community, U.S. taxpayers, and as a consequence of the destruction of this pristine place. Leaseholders will be paid relative peanuts. Gains from tax revenue from this project will be offset by losses in property tax revenue. Regardless of what Dukeâ??s representatives say it does not care about anyone or anything, except making as much money as possible any way it can. I do empathize with the financial plight of local farmers but donâ??t see how signing away control over the family farm to Duke will help keep it in the family. There is no guarantee that jobs created by this project will be filled by local residents. Even though windfarms do not result in any coal-fired power plants coming off line, they are clean and green and a step in the right direction that our society needs to go toward producing sustainable energy. However, if this one goes forward it needs to happen in a way that benefits the most people possible and not just a select few, through zoning restrictions. If they go up the turbines need to be placed on sites that impact only the leaseholders and not their neighbors, or where people do not live â?? out of sight, out of mind to all except those who support the project. If this cannot happen, I am 100% against it.

http://www.edpackages.com/ http://www.comparemedsprices.net/

April 30, 2012, 2:20 AM
Reply
Matthias

My family is dtefnieily opposed to this irresponsible plan by Duke Energy ! No one wins except Duke Energy! There are several BIG RED FLAGS that all property owners should take note of:If you sign a lease with Duke you forfeit your rights as a property owner but retain the liability. You lose the right to go to court about it. You cannot even plant a tree without Duke's permission. They have the right to do or build whatever they choose on your property. You forfeit the right to discuss your lease with anyone (this alone should raise suspiscions). Duke has already been dishonest about where the 500 ft. high turbines will be placed. They met in secret with the large landowners prior to disclosure of their plan to the public to get their foot in the door. They only care about making their shareholders happy. They don't live here. Duke has no qualms about (exploiting) our coastline, our property, our lifestyles, our community and our children's and grandchildren's future. Just so you know their longterm plan includes (exploiting) the entire coastline of upper Michigan. Do your research real research Make informed decisions. Their presence automatically lowers property values and chases vacationers away. Duke will say whatever they think we want to hear so they meet their goal. They ought to be kicked out of this state permanently.

June 5, 2012, 11:28 PM
Reply
cftfcybxhqg

vq09wc <a href="http://wcdgqooeobmq.com/">wcdgqooeobmq</a>

June 6, 2012, 2:41 AM
Reply
Nash

Until the siting is properly regulated and corporations are actually taxed for privatizing profit and socializing impact, industrial wind power must not be imposed upon a community. I cannot support the imposition of industrial wind generation upon Benzie County and Joyfield Township, when Duke Energy, by law is only responsible to their shareholders and CEO salaries and not the people of Michigan.First, the impacts of industrial wind power needs to be treated as pollution:Industrial noise pollution, as stated by regulation in the state of Oregon (far greener than Michigan) must be limited to 10 dB (A or C) above the quietest time of day at the boundary of non-participating property.No industrial generator must be sited in a manner that will cause shadow flicker at any residence. Corporations, as demonstrated at other sites, cannot be trusted to stop generation to mitigate shadow flicker; proper siting is the only guarantee.Aviation lighting is particularly disruptive in dark-skies areas like much of Benzie County. OCAS proximity control must be mandated.Besides the polluting impacts of industrial wind power, siting them onshore when offshore siting in public waters is available is particularly ignorant. Offshore siting does not impose an industrial generation facility upon a populated community and also provides more unidirectional boundary airflow than afforded on land.Also, corporations, like Duke Energy, are mandated not to consider anything but the well being of their shareholders, not the people in the communities within which they operate. Duke is not a model corporate citizen with regards to pollution, regulatory ethics, or taxation. Until there is demonstrable ability of impacted property owners to be made whole by objectionable impact of industrial siting, then we must not allow companies to socialize risk and privatize profit. If demanded by non-participating landowners, industrial windpower corporations must be compelled to purchase the property at the cost of equivalent property outside of the project.Only with the proper protections in place could I even consider industrial wind power in Benzie County.

June 12, 2012, 9:26 PM
Reply
Post a Comment
  1. Leave this field empty

Required Field