US Supreme Court will decide on NO EXEMPTION FOR GENOCIDE for Corporations

The Supreme Court will weigh next week whether corporations can be sued in the United States for complicity in human rights abuses abroad.

The high court on Tuesday will consider the reach of a 1789 U.S. law that had been largely dormant until 1980, when human rights lawyers started using it, at first to sue foreign government officials. Then, over the next 20 years, the lawyers used the law to target multinational corporations.

The case before the court pits the Obama administration and human rights advocates against large companies and foreign governments over allegations that Royal Dutch Shell Plc helped Nigeria crush oil exploration protests in the 1990s.

Administration attorneys and lawyers for the plaintiffs contend corporations can be held accountable in U.S. courts for committing or assisting foreign governments in torture, executions or other human rights abuses.  Other courts ruled corporations can be held liable.

The justices will hear an appeal by a group of Nigerians who argue they should be allowed to proceed with a lawsuit accusing Shell of aiding the Nigerian government in human rights violations between 1992 and 1995.

California attorney Paul Hoffman, who will argue on behalf of the plaintiffs, said corporations, under the 1789 law, were permissible defendants and that corporate civil liability was a general principle of international law.

"Businesses involved in genocide, crimes against humanity or other serious human rights violations deserve no exemption from tort liability," he said in a brief filed with the court.

The Obama administration supported the corporate liability argument, as did international human rights organizations and Navi Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Backing Shell are various multinational corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce business lobby.

In the past two decades, more than 120 lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts against 59 corporations for alleged wrongful acts in 60 foreign countries, lawyers in the case said.

Among the cases: Indonesia villagers accused Exxon Mobil Corp's security forces of murder, torture and other abuses in 1999-2001; Firestone tire company was accused of using child labor in Liberia; and Ford Motor Co and other firms were accused of aiding South Africa's apartheid system.

The Alien Tort Statute from 1789 states that U.S. courts shall have jurisdiction over any civil lawsuit "by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States."

In its first substantive look at the law in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled it can be used for certain well-established international law violations.

A ruling in the case is expected by the end of June.

The Supreme Court case is Esther Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co, No. 10-1491.

Koch and Exxon write your State's legislation

Koch Industries Inc. and Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) are among companies that would benefit from almost identical energy legislation introduced in state capitals from Oregon to New Mexico to New Hampshire -- and that’s by design.

The energy companies helped write the legislation at a meeting organized by a group they finance, the American Legislative Exchange Council, a Washington-based policy institute known as ALEC.

The corporations, both ALEC members, took a seat at the legislative drafting table beside elected officials and policy analysts by paying a fee between $3,000 and $10,000, according to documents obtained by Bloomberg News.


The opportunity for corporations to become co-authors of state laws legally through ALEC covers a wide range of issues from energy to taxes to agriculture. The price for participation is an ALEC membership fee of as much as $25,000 -- and the few extra thousands to join one of the group’s legislative-writing task forces. Once the “model legislation” is complete, it’s up to ALEC’s legislator members to shepherd it into law.


“This is just another hidden way for corporations to buy their way into the legislative process,” said Bob Edgar, president of Common Cause, a Washington-based group that advocates for limits on money in politics.

Chavez 10 : Exxon 1

Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) must pay about $750 million to Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), a 10th of what the U.S. company is seeking, for assets nationalized by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in 2007, according to two people with knowledge of the case.

The International Chamber of Commerce in New York, an arbitration court, gave a “favorable” ruling to Venezuela’s state oil company, a spokesman for PDVSA, as the Caracas-based company is known, said yesterday.

If Exxon & others paid taxes; we'd have the $2 trillion to put into US infrastructure; and guess what... employment problem solved!!!

The United States is falling dramatically behind much of the world in rebuilding and expanding an overloaded and deteriorating transportation network it needs to remain competitive in the global marketplace, according to a new study by the Urban Land Institute.


Burdened with soaring deficits and with long-term transportation plans stalled in Congress, the United States has fallen behind three emerging economic competitors — Brazil, China and India, the institute said.

“Over the next five to 10 years, public concerns will grow over evident declines in the condition of infrastructure,” the report says. “At some attention-getting point after infrastructure limps along, platforms for reinvesting in America could gain significant traction and public support.”

The report is the latest in a series of studies to conclude that the nation will face dire long-term consequences if major investment in transportation revitalization is postponed.

“Infrastructure should be part of the larger conversation about ‘what do you want government to do and how do you want to pay for it?’ ” said Jay Zukerman of Ernst & Young, which conducted the institute’s study.

The report lends global perspective to an issue addressed last fall by a panel of 80 experts led by former transportation secretaries Norman Y. Mineta and Samuel K. Skinner. That group concluded that as much as $262 billion a year must be spent on U.S. highways, rail networks and air transportation systems.

Congress has failed to approve the two major bills that allow for long-term funding and planning for aviation and transportation. The Federal Aviation Administration has been operating under a funding bill that expired in 2007 and has been extended 18 times. The surface transportation act, which provides the balance of federal transportation funding, expired in 2009 and has been extended seven times.

As Congress debates how much should be spent and where to find the money, China has a plan to spend $1 trillion on high-speed rail, highways and other infrastructure in five years. India is nearing the end of a $500 billion investment phase that has seen major highway improvements, and plans to double that amount by 2017. Brazil plans to spend $900 billion on energy and transportation projects by 2014.

The United States, the institute report concludes, needs to invest $2 trillion to rebuild roads, bridges, water lines, sewage systems and dams that are reaching the end of their planned life cycles.

The report says the desire of Congress to curtail spending will push costs onto “budget-busted” state and local governments. It points to highways and water treatment plants, built with federal funds 40 to 50 years ago, that will become financial burdens to local governments as the time comes for replacement.

“We’re seeing less federal support and less local revenues because of unemployment,” said Maureen McAvey, executive vice president of the institute, a non-profit group that analyzes policies and programs. “Some of the ambitions some growing cities had just a few years about are being cut back or put on hold.”

Candian Oil to the USA not soon enough....

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration gave a crucial green light on Friday to a proposed 1,711-mile pipeline that would carry heavy oil from Canada across the Great Plains to terminals in Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast, saying the project would provide a secure source of energy without significant damage to the environment.

In reaching its conclusion that the Keystone XL pipeline from the oil sands deposits in Alberta would have minimal environmental impact, the administration dismissed criticism from environmental advocates, who said that extracting the oil would have a devastating impact on the climate and that a leak or rupture in the 36-inch-diameter pipeline could wreak ecological disaster. Opponents also said the project would prolong the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels, threaten sensitive lands and wildlife and further delay development of clean energy sources.


The State Department said in an environmental impact statement that the pipeline’s owner, TransCanada, had reduced the risks of an accident to an acceptable level and that the benefits of importing oil from a friendly neighbor outweighed the potential costs.

Final approval of the $7 billion project will not come before the end of the year, after public hearings and consultation with other federal agencies. But the State Department report Friday gave the clearest signal yet that the administration was prepared to see Keystone proceed.


The pipeline is expected to open in 2013 unless delayed by lawsuits or other challenges.


For many in the environmental movement, the administration’s apparent acceptance of the pipeline was yet another disappointment, after recent decisions to tentatively approve drilling in the Arctic Ocean, to open 20 million more acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil leasing and to delay several major air quality regulations.


TransCanada has insisted that its pipeline will be as safe as any in North America. It has refused to change its application in the face of critics who say the half-inch thick pipe wall in the pipeline is insufficiently sturdy for maximum flow pressures, a claim the company denies.


TransCanada agreed to 57 conditions set by the Department of Transportation last spring, including burying the pipeline four feet below the surface, committing to frequent aerial and ground monitoring and setting the maximum distance between shut-off valves at 20 miles.

“We believe we are building the safest pipeline in North America,” said Terry Cunha, a TransCanada spokesman.


The Canadian government has lobbied hard for the pipeline extension, joining forces with oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil that have large investments in Canadian oil sands production. The future expansion of oil sands production is largely at stake since planned production growth could overwhelm current pipeline capacity in less than five years.


Gary Doer, the Canadian ambassador to the United States, said building the pipeline would produce 20,000 construction jobs and 100,000 additional indirect jobs in services and supplies. “It’s good for the U.S. economy, U.S. jobs and U.S. energy security,” he said. “If you ask Americans, would you choose Canada over the Middle East, they’d say yes.”


Mr. Doer said the carbon emissions from oil sands production and refining have declined by roughly 40 percent per barrel since1990, and further improvements were being developed. “We have to continue working on the sustainability of development,” he said. “We believe in clean water and air too.”


Canada, already the United States’ No. 1 source of imported oil, produced 1.5 million barrels a day of synthetic crude from oil sands in 2010 and hopes to expand that total to 2.2 million barrels in 2015 and then to 3.7 million barrels a day by 2025. That level of expansion will require not only the Keystone project, but also pipelines to the west coast of Canada, where the crude could be exported to China and the rest of Asia.


The Keystone expansion would increase Canada’s pipeline capacity by 700,000 barrels a day, roughly equivalent to the amount of oil Malaysia produces. Proponents say that would give a big lift to Canada’s economy, and increase trade between the two countries.


If Keystone is not ultimately approved, Canada could proceed with plans to build pipelines to its west coast to increase exports, but that would mean regulatory delays spurred by opposition from Native Canadian groups that have a large say in territories they occupy.


The Canadian Energy Research Institute, a research group with ties to the oil industry, estimates that the Keystone extension would mean more than $600 billion in additional investments and revenue from operations in existing and future oil sands projects through 2035.


According to IHS-Cera, a consultancy, carbon dioxide emissions from the oil sands, including the full cycle from production through combustion and exhaust from an automobile tailpipe, is greater than many Saudi, Mexican and Venezuela crudes but is comparable or even lower than heavy crudes produced in California, Nigeria and the Middle East and pumped in American gas stations.