Papua New Guinea will face a grim reality of a ban on its shipping of oil and hydrocarbons in international waters if it continues to ignore the implementation of a domestic waste oil policy that is 28 years overdue.

The Conservation and Environment Protection Authority’s Director for Renewable Brendan Trawen made this stark revelation in response to queries posed by Post-Courier Online.

In the backdrop of investment projects proposed in the resource space, the issue of waste oil and its disposal has incurred hefty fines and reputational damage to the nation, and could seriously impact the shipments of one of the country’s lucrative exports in oil and LNG.

• READ MORE: Waste oil – a timebomb for Papua New Guinea – Matthew Vari

“International partners are most protective of their waterways. Therefore, PNG has already been issued with a warning on implementation of a ban of oil and hydrocarbon shipments, including LNG from PNG through Indonesian water,” he said.

In addition, the issuing of a complete ban on all hydrocarbon exports from Singapore through Indonesian waters to PNG.

“In light of growing international concern about the need for stringent control of transboundary movement of hazardous waste oil, and of the need as far as possible to reduce such movement to a minimum, and the concern about the problem of illegal transboundary traffic in hazardous wastes oil, CEPA is compelled to take immediate steps in accordance with Article 10 of the Basel Convention Framework,” Trawen said.

He indicated CEPA had limited capabilities of PNG State through to manage hazardous wastes and other wastes.

Safeguarding PNG’s international standing
The government of PNG had been “rightfully seeking cooperation with Singaporean authorities since 2020” to safeguard PNG’s international standing with the aim to improve and achieve environmentally sound management of hazardous waste oil.

“Through the NEC Decision No. 12/2021, respective authorities from PNG and Singapore deliberated and facilitated the alternative arrangement to reach an agreement with Hachiko Efficiency Services (HES) towards the establishment of a transit and treatment centre in PNG.

“In due process, HES have the required permits to allow transit of the waste oils in Singapore, Malaysia and South Korea for recycling.”

Minister of Environment, Conservation and Climate Change Simon Kilepa acknowledged that major repercussions were expected to take effect with the potential implementation ban of all hydrocarbons and oil shipments through Indonesian waters.

Political, economic and security risks emerged without doubt owing to GoPNG through CEPA’s negligence in the past resolving Basel Convention’s outstanding matters.

“It is in fact that the framework and policy for the Waste Oil Project exists under the International Basel Convention inclusive of the approved methods of handling and shipping waste oils. What PNG has been lacking is the regulation and this program provides that through,” he said.

“CEPA will progress its waste oil programme by engaging Hachiko Efficiency Services to develop and manage the domestic transit facility.

“This will include the export of waste oil operating under the Basel and Waigani agreements dependent upon the final destination.”

CEPA will proceed with the Hazardous Waste Oil Management Programme immediately to comply with the long outstanding implementation of the Basel Convention requirements on the management of Hazardous waste oil.

A media announcement and publicity would be made with issuance of Express of Interest (EOI) to shippers and local waste companies

A presentation would be made to NEC Cabinet and a NEC decision before the sitting of Parliament.

Matthew Vari is a senior journalist and former editor of the PNG Post-Courier. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

The Singapore cargo ship Dali chartered by Maersk, which collapsed the Baltimore bridge in the United States last month, was carrying 764 tonnes of hazardous materials to Sri Lanka, reports Colombo’s Daily Mirror.

The materials were mostly corrosives, flammables, miscellaneous hazardous materials, and Class-9 hazardous materials — including explosives and lithium-ion batteries — in 56 containers.

According to the Mirror, the US National Transportation Safety Board was still “analysing the ship’s manifest to determine what was onboard” in its other 4644 containers when the ship collided with Baltimore’s Francis Scott Key Bridge, collapsing it, on March 26.

• READ MORE: Baltimore Key Bridge collapse investigation begins

The e-Con e-News (ee) news agency reports that prior to Baltimore, the Dali had called at New York and Norfolk, Virginia, which has the world’s largest naval base.

Colombo was to be its next scheduled call, going around South Africa’s Cape of Good Hope, taking 27 days.

According to ee, Denmark’s Maersk, transporter for the US Department of War, is integral to US military logistics, carrying up to 20 percent of the world’s merchandise trade annually on a fleet of about 600 vessels, including some of the world’s largest ships.

The US Department of Homeland Security has also now deemed the waters near the crash site as “unsafe for divers”.

13 damaged containers
An “unclassified memo” from the US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) said a US Coast Guard team was examining 13 damaged containers, “some with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] and/or hazardous materials [HAZMAT] contents.

The team was also analysing the ship’s manifest to determine if any materials could “pose a health risk”.

CISA officials are also monitoring about 6.8 million litres of fuel inside the Dali for its “spill potential”.

Where exactly the toxic materials and fuel were destined for in Sri Lanka was not being reported.

Also, it is a rather long way for such Hazmat, let alone fuel, to be exported, “at least given all the media blather about ‘carbon footprint’, ‘green sustainability’ and so on”, said the Daily Mirror.

“We can expect only squeaky silence from the usual eco-freaks, who are heavily funded by the US and EU,” the newspaper commented.

“It also adds to the intrigue of how Sri Lanka was so easily blocked in 2022 from receiving more neighbourly fuel, which led to the present ‘regime change’ machinations.”

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.

It’s also often toxic. The properties we’ve come to know and expect stem from fossil fuel-derived chemicals that, according to a growing body of research, are making people sick.

There are the brominated azobenzene disperse dyes, which give polyester clothes their bright colors but can cause skin inflammation. There are the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or “forever chemicals,” which make clothes waterproof but are linked to thyroid disorders and cancer. There are carcinogens like formaldehyde, used for bleaching or to prevent mold, and hormone disruptors like NPEO, used as a cleaning agent. 

And then there are the hundreds, if not thousands, of chemicals that we know vanishingly little about. Paltry funding and patchy oversight from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an independent federal agency, mean the U.S. government isn’t checking most of the clothes we buy for toxicity. When problems do arise for people — when they suspect that their clothing is behind their pesky rash, their wheezing cough, their splotchy skin — they are often disbelieved and offered little to no recourse from manufacturers, whether in the form of reimbursed medical bills or monetary damages.

This all-too-familiar story played out in a big way during the 2010s, when flight attendants at four major airlines began reporting severe reactions to new uniforms made from synthetic fabrics. Headaches, dizziness, loss of memory — even being near other flight attendants who had the clothes on seemed to cause symptoms, in a few cases. For some employees, the reactions were so bad they had to be hospitalized. Others began limiting their time on the plane, and some eventually quit — or were fired for taking too many unexcused absences. 

Usually, it’s hard to pin symptoms precisely on clothing, but the flight attendants had all begun wearing the uniforms at the same time and were consistently keeping them on for long periods in a small, enclosed space. This suggested that it was the uniforms, and not another factor, that was causing their symptoms. Public health researchers at Harvard University later analyzed contemporaneous survey data and found a significant increase in the prevalence of rashes, itchy eyes, sore throats, shortness of breath, and other health complaints after Alaska Airlines introduced its new uniforms. (Three of the airlines, including Alaska, eventually ordered new uniforms, but without admitting the old ones had caused health problems.)

Alden Wicker, a sustainable fashion writer, documents the story in To Dye For, her new book on the fashion industry’s toxic underbelly. Hazardous substances have been used in clothes for centuries, she told Grist, but with the advent of fossil fuel-based chemistry, the dangers have multiplied, growing alongside the number of unpronounceable chemicals available to today’s clothiers. Many of these chemicals act in concert with each other: toxic on their own, but potentially even worse when mixed together on the same piece of fabric. Scientists know alarmingly little about how these chemical combinations affect human health.

“We’re just immersed in this miasma of chemicals that researchers know are toxic, and nobody’s protecting us,” Wicker said. Out of the up to 60,000 chemical substances and polymers currently registered for use in various industries, the U.S. only bans three from textiles, and that’s only for children’s products. 

Grounded in the firsthand experiences of those flight attendants — some of whom are still fighting for their symptoms to be recognized by their airlines, doctors, and insurance companies — To Dye For reveals how the fashion industry got here and what needs to change to keep people safe.

This Q&A has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.

Q.People tend to think that exposure to toxic substances and chemical pollution in the textile industry primarily happens “over there” in developing countries. But chemicals don’t stay put. How is this a global problem?

A.A lot of the chemicals that people hear about being used in garment factories, not all of them are effectively washed off during the process of creating, dyeing, and finishing fashion. Some can be left behind as residues. More importantly, some are deliberately applied and are meant to stay on for a long period of time — like dyes for things like polyester. Recent research out of Duke has shown that those dyes are ending up in our house dust from the polyester textiles we bring into our homes. And we’re breathing them in or touching them or ingesting them.

Q.There have been toxic ingredients in clothing for a long time, but things seem to have gotten particularly bad over the past century or so. What happened?

A.Fashion has been toxic for hundreds of years. Before the advent of fossil fuel chemicals, it was mostly heavy metals, the sorts of things that would make you sick with undefinable symptoms over a period of years — things like mercury or arsenic, where they build up in the body and it can be hard to identify what’s happening. With fossil fuels, though, we’ve been able to create — and are still creating — thousands and thousands of chemicals.

Now there can be at least 50 individual chemicals on a textile, if not more than that. So if you imagine a textile, you have 50, 100, 1,000 chemicals all layered on it. And then you’re also wearing multiple pieces of clothing, and there’s a lining, and there’s buttons. How are the chemicals mixing on the textile, and how are they working together when they get into the body? These are things we don’t have answers for.

Q.What is the U.S. doing to protect us from these chemicals?

A.Nobody is protecting us.

While the European Union has banned over 30 chemicals specifically for use in textiles, the U.S. has only banned three, and only in children’s products. And the Consumer Product Safety Commission is severely underfunded. As long as it’s from a legitimate company and it’s not a counterfeit, nobody is checking to make sure that these products are free from known hazardous substances. Consumers are just being hung out to dry.

Q.At least there are some industry-led efforts to keep toxics out of clothes, right?

A.I have a lot of respect for ZDHC [Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals], the industry group that has come up with a “manufacturing restricted substance list.” The problem is that it’s voluntary. There’s a bunch of big brands in there, but if you look at them in terms of their market share, they’re not covering much. We can’t rely on brands to take care, to do their research, to require testing, to invest in good partnerships with their manufacturers. We have to make this the baseline for the industry or else this is going to keep happening.

Q.On a systemic level, what needs to change to keep people safe?

A.We are long overdue for an overhaul in this country of the way chemicals are evaluated and regulated. I think the first step is transparency — getting ingredient lists. If people actually saw the long list of deliberately applied dyes and finishes, I think people would be really, really shocked. And then watchdogs and journalists can leverage that information to push for more legislation.

We should also definitely be regulating chemicals by class. There are at least 12,000 different types of PFAS, and we are not going to be able to evaluate every single one for its toxicity. If a chemical is known to be extremely hazardous, we should just ban or regulate or restrict everything in that same class. Same thing for phthalates. Also, we need more funding for research.

Q.On a personal level, how do we protect ourselves from these chemicals?

A.The first thing I would tell people is to always avoid ultra-fast-fashion brands. If you’ve never heard of the brand, if it’s too cheap to be true, if it has a gibberish name, it’s very risky to shop that brand. I would also say look for labels such as Oeko-Tex, Bluesign, or GOTS [Global Organic Textile Standard], which are not perfect, but they indicate that the brand has had things tested. And always wash your clothes before you wear them, with fragrance-free laundry detergent.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Clothed in chemicals: A new book sheds light on the toxic substances we wear daily on Jul 28, 2023.

This content originally appeared on Grist and was authored by Joseph Winters.

In a letter to the president and key administration officials, the groups—led by the Drug Policy Alliance—acknowledged Biden's October 2022 pardon of all U.S. citizens and legal residents convicted of simple federal marijuana possession—less than 100 people in total—and other moves like encouraging state governors to forgive cannabis offenses and launching an administrative review of the plant's listing in the most severe category on the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

"Nonetheless, these actions alone will neither fully end future harms of marijuana criminalization nor repair past harms," the letter states. "Accordingly, we urge you and your administration to take the steps necessary to deschedule marijuana in conjunction with other administrative actions that center Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) communities."

"Additionally," the groups wrote, "we implore your administration to support comprehensive marijuana reform legislation in Congress, such as the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA), a bill that deschedules marijuana, repairs the past harms of prohibition, and provides a regulatory framework for marijuana markets."

"Marijuana must be fully removed from the CSA and descheduled," the letter argues. "Rescheduling marijuana to a less restrictive schedule in the CSA would do little to address the harms of federal criminalization. As long as marijuana remains anywhere in the CSA, the majority of the problems associated with its criminalization will persist."

Acknowledging that Biden cannot unilaterally end federal cannabis prohibition, the letter's signers urged the president to "take whatever steps are necessary to make sure marijuana is descheduled and encourage Congress to pass comprehensive legislation that includes criminal justice reform, repairing and centering communities most harmed by prohibition and criminalization, and a regulatory framework that is rooted in equity, justice, and public health."

Over a year after the then-Democratic-controlled House of Representatives passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act—which would decriminalize marijuana nationwide and expunge federal cannabis convictions—numerous members of Congress also called for an end to cannabis criminalization.

U.S. Sen. John Fetterman posted this photo with the caption "It's 4:20 on 4/20. That's the tweet" on his Twitter page on April 20, 2023.

"We need to legalize marijuana AND make the industry more accessible to those who have been unjustly criminalized at its hands so that Black and Brown communities aren't being incarcerated while others are making millions," Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) tweeted.

Noting that Black people are around five times more likely than whites people to be arrested in Pennsylvania for marijuana possession, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) asserted that "it's time to legalize cannabis, expunge all marijuana convictions, and release everyone incarcerated on nonviolent marijuana-related charges."

On Tuesday, Reps. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) reintroduced bipartisan legislation—the Harnessing Opportunities by Pursuing Expungement (HOPE) Act—that, if passed, would incentivize states to offer people with nonviolent marijuana convictions federal grants.

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Brett Wilkins.

In response to President Biden’s pre-released State of the Union outline detailing increased crack downs on fentanyl-related substances, Maritza Perez Medina, Director of the Office of Federal Affairs at the Drug Policy Alliance, released the following statement:

“We are glad to see President Biden continue to call for increased access to evidence-based treatment, harm reduction and recovery services. But, his support for harsher penalties for fentanyl-related substances—which will result in broader application of mandatory minimum sentencing and disproportionately harm Black, Latinx and Indigenous communities—in the same breath is incredibly counterproductive and fails to recognize how we got to this place to begin with. Over 100,000 of our loved ones being lost to avoidable overdoses a year is not because of a lack of enforcement, it’s a direct result of it.

“The reason fentanyl-related substances have overtaken our drug supply at this point is because of the drug trade responding to harsh crack downs and increased seizures of heroin and prescription opioids. And now that we are seeing harsher policies towards fentanyl, there are new and even more potent drugs, such as Xylazine and nitazenes popping up and beginning to overtake some markets. Make no mistake, this pattern will continue and sadly, more lives will be lost as long as we continue down this path.

“And by urging Congress to permanently schedule all fentanyl-related substances on Schedule I without fully testing and researching them, the president is not only creating the conditions for a riskier drug market and backtracking on his commitments to criminal justice reform, but he is also preventing us from finding therapeutic treatments to address the overdose epidemic. From the few fentanyl-related substances that the government has tested, at least one has already shown potential to reverse overdoses. Instead of more punitive policies, it’s time we embrace science and public health measures, such as Senator Booker’s TEST Act, which would require the federal government to begin testing and researching these substances, report their findings, and remove any from the drug schedules that are found to be harmless.

Bottom line, it’s impossible to save lives if we don’t even know what’s in the drug supply or have the knowledge and tools to reverse it.”

Additionally, Susan Ousterman, founder of Vilomah Memorial Foundation, who lost her son to an accidental overdose in 2020, and Dr. Gregory Dudley, Professor of Chemistry and Department Chair at West Virginia University, provided the below remarks:

"I lost my son Tyler to an accidental overdose in 2020, and it's incredibly disheartening to see the president co-opting the grief of mothers like me in an attempt to increase penalties, rather than prioritizing the health measures that are desperately needed to save lives," said Ousterman. "Increased penalties for people who use or sell drugs, including fentanyl-related substances, would not have kept my son alive or the countless children of other mothers I have met. In fact, it's policies such as these that created the increased stigma and fear that kept our children from accessing help, and it's what has led to the increasingly dangerous drug supply that resulted in their deaths. It's time for the president and other policymakers to prioritize the lives of all humans by embracing a health approach rather than engaging in politics that only perpetuate this disastrous war on drugs. As a person who understands the profound impact both substance use and child loss have on families, I expected more."

“The push to place all fentanyl related substances in Schedule I is unfortunate and misguided. Schedule I is supposed to be for substances that we know to be harmful and not helpful," said Dr. Dudley. "We don’t know which of these substances would be harmful or helpful, and how could we without testing them? Some of these substances could be lifesaving opioid antagonists like naloxone, or better. This proposal prioritizes criminalization over health care.”

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams and was authored by Newswire Editor.

Ukraine's state-run energy operator warned Saturday that "there are risks of hydrogen leakage and sputtering of radioactive substances" from the country's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant as shelling in the Russian-occupied area continues, despite international pleas for a ceasefire.

"As a result of periodic shelling, the infrastructure of the station has been damaged," Energoatom said in a statement, cautioning that "the fire hazard is high" and that the plant "operates with the risk of violating radiation and fire safety standards."

The firm's statement came two days after fire damage disconnected the massive nuclear complex from Ukraine's power grid for the first time in the facility's history, heightening fears of a Chernobyl-like disaster.

Russia and Ukraine have repeatedly accused each other of imperiling the structural integrity and day-to-day operations of the plant, which Russia seized in the early days of the invasion. Ukrainian workers are still running the plant under the watch of Russian forces.

Rising concerns of a catastrophe at the largest nuclear energy plant in Europe have added fresh urgency to negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to allow International Atomic Energy inspectors to safely examine the facility as the devastating war rages on with no end in sight.

The New York Times reported Saturday that "Russia had given its approval to the inspection team and indicated that it had acceded to Ukraine's demand that the mission originate in territory it controls rather than in Russian-occupied land."

"A list of the team's members seen by The New York Times includes the nuclear agency's chief, Rafael Mariano Grossi of Argentina, and 13 other experts from mostly neutral countries," according to the newspaper. "Neither the United States nor Britain, countries that Russia scorns as unfairly biased because of their strong support for Ukraine, is represented."

This content originally appeared on Common Dreams - Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community and was authored by Jake Johnson.

Meanwhile, even though IRA is loaded with good stuff to fight global warming, it’s not likely enough to put out the heat. After all, the Inflation Reduction Act is the third or fourth iteration of Biden’s Build Back Better $3.5T prominently mentioned in an article in The Economist d/d July 21st, 2022: American Climate Policy is in Tatters—Manchin Single-handedly scuttled Biden’s BBB Plans for $3.5 trillion.

There’s real tragedy behind the slimmed down version of Biden’s BBB $3.5T. Even though the Inflation Reduction Act of a few hundred billion is a big number, inclusive of tax-oriented deductions, it is challenged by a capricious global climate system that appears to be broken down and totally out of kilter.

The planet has turned into a heat machine. It’s not only America that’s sweltering. According to NASA and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, the planet as a whole is trapping heat twice as fast as 15 years ago. That’s more than threatening; it’s an outright emergency requiring the big guns.

Of even more immediate concern, as the planet dries out, major reservoirs fail, power outages hit, rivers run dry, and tens of thousands of people scramble for water. This is happening right now well ahead of several years build-out of the Inflation Reduction Act.

The vastness and reach of this existential climate threat is finally sinking in with the public as developed mature countries are reduced to third-world status, people standing in line with bottles and jugs waiting for water trucks, for example, more than 200 towns and villages in France and Italy have run out of water. Local reservoirs are dry. They’re gone!

This dystopian illustration is spreading across the globe. The real question is whether there’s enough time to press ahead with the Inflation Reduction Act. It needs to be rapidly accelerated with considerably more funding. Plus, this same climate bill also promotes fossil fuels. There’s something unsettling and untenable about that.

As the entire world reels from extremes of global warming, the United States has a moral obligation to take a leadership role. It has caused more global warming than any other country. Nobody has emitted more CO2 than America.

The United States has emitted more than 400 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere since the birth of the industrial revolution. This makes the U.S. the biggest contributor to global carbon dioxide emissions by far, having produced almost twice the amount of emissions as the second biggest emitter, China. ¹

Climate scientists, fully aware of the dangers of rampant global warming, are now demanding the government take stronger steps than the Inflation Reduction Act to cut emissions in the US and to serve as an example to the world.

A distinguished gr0up of academics and climate scientists, including James Hansen, Dan Galpern, and Donn Viviani of the Climate & Restoration Initiative are petitioning the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. This has the potential to be a powerful approach for mitigation purposes. Hopefully, their plan will gain a lot of public support.

They have filed a legal document with the EPA stating that greenhouse gas emissions present a danger to the climate and should be regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (“TSCA”) the same act that was used to halt CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons destroying atmospheric ozone, also phased out by the Montreal Protocol in 1987. TSCA was used in 1978 on CFCs, which are, in fact, gases similar to fossil fuel gases like CO2. This is an important distinction and precedent, supporting the case for using TSCA today for protection of the atmospheric environment.

Of course, it’s a well-established fact that without strong regulations to stop CFCs, civilization’s closest brush of all time with total annihilation would have wiped out complex life, humans included. Ozone molecules at 10-20 miles up in the stratosphere are absolutely essential to block the UVC radiation, which packs the force of a welder’s torch. Meaning, without ozone molecules life on Earth would cease, full stop. All of which sets a perfect example for TSCA as the ideal mechanism for also stopping greenhouse gases like CO2. It’s all about preserving the life forces of the planet.

The following video explains the petition to the EPA as undertaken by the Climate Emergency Forum:

Please sign the petition to support Dr. James Hansen’s submission to the EPA to Phase Out Greenhouse Gas Pollution To Restore A Stable & Healthy Climate. Your signature is important. A signature form supporting Hansen’s petition is found by searching the following web page: Climate Protection & Restoration Initiative.

The legal document filed by Hansen, et al, argues that greenhouse gas emissions, like CO2, present a danger to the climate and therefore qualify for regulation under the act that allows the EPA to initiate monitoring requirements on companies and to enforce strict controls on substance abuse. TSCA has already been used to stop or restrict asbestos, lead in paint, and PCBs.

Because the act covers substances that “pose an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment,” Hansen believes TSCA can be used to phase-out greenhouse gas emissions, which shockingly are subsidized in the Inflation Reduction Act with provisions for fossil fuel expansion alongside climate mitigation policies. The irony of these two clashing issues endorsed side-by-side is breathtaking, in fact, stupefying beyond belief. Who’s on first?

Moreover and most significantly, TSCA embodies very strong legal language that allows the EPA to go so far as prohibition of (1) production, (2) importation, (3) processing (4) distribution (5) commercial use and (6) disposal of harmful substances. In short, it’s all encompassing.

Thus, TSCA is a very strong tool with a firm legal foundation for de-carbonization. Additionally, TSCA provides for EPA to utilize other authorities or other agencies to accomplish its goals.

Importantly, there’s no ambiguity in the language underlying TSCA, therefore dissimilar to the language in the Clean Air Act that was recently negatively ruled upon by the far-right Supremes. In fact, the language of section six of TSCA is crystal clear: Where there are chemical substances or mixtures that present the risk of injury to health of the environment the agency is to act based upon a full gamut of requirements delineated by Congress to eliminate that risk.

Based upon the June 2022 filing date of the Hansen petition, the EPA must respond, by law, by mid September 2022. Your signature as an endorsement will be meaningful. Governmental agencies respect a show of force of signatures by the public.

Search for the web page: Climate Protection & Restoration Initiative to find access to a preset signature form that takes all of two minutes to complete. Make your day!

Postscript:

People vs. Fossil Fuels, a national coalition of more than 1,200 organizations from all 50 states, recently delivered a petition with more than 500,000 signatures to the White House calling on Biden to declare a climate emergency, which would unlock new funds for urgently needed climate adaptation in hard-hit communities, and use executive actions to stop the expansion of fossil fuels. ²

1. “Cumulative CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion Worldwide 1750-2020, by Country”, Statista.com.
2. Mother Jones, August 10, 2022.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Robert Hunziker.

The Indonesian government has filed a K105.6 million (US$30 million) writ against Papua New Guinea, naming two senior officials as persons of interest toward the illegal shipments of hazardous materials.

The two officials named are acting managing director for Conservation and Environment Protection Authority (CEPA) Gunther Joku and State Solicitor Daniel Rolpagarea.

Republic of Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry-Basel Protocol’s Department’s Chief Compliance Officer Siti Muhammad told the Post-Courier they had been given the cold shoulder by the PNG government over the issue.

• READ MORE: Other PNG environmental reports

Last week the Indonesian government, in a letter addressed to the CEPA’s’s acting managing director Gunther Joku demanded that the PNG government pay a fine of K105.6 million (US$30 million) in 14 days for the management and storage of six illegal oil shipments.

Muhammad said that by 1 August 2022 PNG would be required to seek written approval from Indonesia Environment prior to the loading of any oil-related products, including but not limited to HS 1511 – Palm Oil HS 2710 – Crude Oil.

“We have advised Sime Darby (Malaysia) of the new process required effective August 1 2022 toward any oil palm shipments which transit through our waters and Indonesia Customs is advising PNG customs as such,” she said.

“It is my intent to ensure that any shipments coming from Papua New Guinea are monitored and checked for correct information due to the ongoing mislabeling issues.

Filed a writ
“We have filed a writ against the State of Papua New Guinea, naming Mr Gunther Joku and Mr Daniel Rolpagarea as persons of interest toward the illegal shipments of Hazardous Materials from Papua New Guinea and they will be advised in due course and requested to attend the hearing in Jakarta.”

Muhammad said they were currently planning a ban on any oil shipments through Indonesian waters either to or from PNG until such a time they had assurance that the products which were being claimed, were indeed what were being shipped.

This includes oil palm and crude oil.

“The waters of Indonesia are critical to the Asia-Pacific region and we acknowledge that on the previous instance of PNG causing a spill from an illegal shipment, no recognition or rectification was provided,” Muhammad said.

“Our waters provide transit for fuel to Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific. Closing our waters due to an issue from Papua New Guinea will see the entire Indo-Pacific shut down and provide an unthinkable security risk to the region.

“Many countries will suffer if our waterways are blocked due to this occurrence. Indonesia will not take such risks purely because Papua New Guinea lacks the interest to implement programs which she has signed to.”

Melisha Yafoi is a PNG Post-Courier reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.