Hi David,
You are witty and uninformed. A good combination. There remains hope that you 1) can learn, 2) aren't a shill, and 3) have an open mind.
To wit:
arianna.vwh.net
pbs.org
and my efforts at being a democrat and a citizen:
>>> Ray Duray <rduray@bendcable.com> 02/02/02 03:19PM >>>
Dear Sirs,
I'd like to take a second to introduce myself. I'm an American citizen,
living in Bend, Oregon. I became aware of your company via the U.S.
public broadcasting system. On Friday Feb. 1, 2002, I watched a segment
of Bill Moyer's "Now" that described how Methanex was attempting to use
the secretive and anti-democratic mechanisms of NAFTA, specifically
Chapter 11, in order to extort the State of California. This act is
quite unseemly, and quite disturbing to me that a Canadian corporation
can attempt to use an erstwhile "free trade" agreement to engage in what
I can only describe as an utter lapse of good judgement on your part.
I have reviewed your News Release, dated March 8, 2001:
methanex.com
I wish to point out to you that Mr. Choquette has engaged in sophistry
of the most venal manner in describing the problem as one of underground
storage tanks. As far as groundwater contamination is concerned, as you
well know, the real problem is that MTBE is a hydrophilic compound that
is spewed in vast quantity into the lakes, reservoirs and rivers of
California by the incomplete combustion of fuel-oil mixes in the two
cycle engines of water craft of many configurations. Mr. Choquette is
being very disingenous. Shame on you.
If you chose to respond to my understanding of the science of MTBE
pollution, I would encourage you in no uncertain terms to provide the
details of your claims that MTBE is not problematic to the environment.
I have reviewed your brief and inconsequential statement of envionmental
concern on your website and I find it utterly convincing, in view of
your suit to continue to pollute California or get paid off. Very
unseemly behavior for a corporation. And completely at odds with your
stated goals of enviromental stewardship.
Please let me know that you are not as obnoxious and evil as Mr. Moyers
is portraying you. Renew my faith that NAFTA was passed to benefit all
Canadians, Americans and Mexicans and not simply a band of rapacious,
devious corporate hucksters.
Furthermore, your attempts to subvert democracy are a serious concern to
me, as they are to hundred of thousands if not millions of citizens of
North America who see your subversion of the processes of
self-governance to be extraoridinary power grabs by some of the most
irresponsible among us.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely, Raymond G. Duray
Bend, OR.
.....................................................
And here's Methanex's reply:
The Bill Moyers Program "Trading Democracy"
Aired on the Public Broadcasting System February 5, 2002
Part of this program dealt with the very complex issue of MTBE. This issue has become highly political and is often
characterized by inaccuracy, including several errors in the Moyers broadcast. For example:
Methanex supports openness. We believe that the NAFTA Chapter 11 process will ensure that the facts about MTBE come out
in an objective forum. Methanex's claim is public and we have provided easy access on our website to that document and others
related to our claim, including rebuttals by the U.S. government. The interests of the U.S. are fully represented by several
governmental departments and agencies. Ultimately the materials presented and findings of the NAFTA Panel will be made
public.
The California MTBE ban is not based on health concerns. Governor Davis' March 1999 executive order banning MTBE does
not even mention health, but rather, it cites environmental concerns. The Moyers references to health issues, animal testing and
cancer, just as other commentators have attempted and succeeded, will no doubt provoke outcry. So let us set the record straight:
MTBE is NOT known to cause cancer. The State of California, which by its own Proposition 65 is required to list every human
carcinogen known to it, has reviewed MTBE and declined to list it as a carcinogen. Likewise, the U.S. National Toxicology
Program and the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer have studied MTBE and both
declined to list it as a human carcinogen.
Chapter 11 of the NAFTA does not protect foreign companies against legitimate environmental legislation. Rather, it affords
certain limited protections to foreign investors against egregious and arbitrary government actions, like California's unfounded and
inequitable MTBE ban. MTBE does not even make the "top 20" list of California ground water contaminants, several of which
are harmful and have not been banned (e.g. benzene, a known human carcinogen). MTBE, on the other hand, has been banned in
California for political reasons, not for any legitimate ones.
The detection of MTBE in California's drinking water resources is not of "epidemic" proportions. The data shows the presence of
MTBE in water to be quite limited and declining. The California Department of Health Services (DHS) has required since 1997,
that public water supplies be tested for MTBE (see data at www.dhs.ca.gov). The DHS's overall summary shows that, as of
February 4th, 2002, a total of 84, or less than 1%, of the almost 10,000 public water sources sampled has reported any level of
MTBE at any time in the past several years. These water sources serve supply systems providing the drinking water for about
91% of Californians and the detection rate above the state-set primary maximum contaminant level is actually only 0.2% based on
all samples ever, and under 0.1% for samples in 2001. Water quality is important; drinking water should be pure. But MTBE
detection in water in California is clearly not of epidemic proportions and does not warrant the extreme measures taken by the
state.
Politicians and regulators know the problems, which Moyers chose to ignore. While any contamination of the environment is
disturbing, it is especially so when the root causes are known and there is inaction. We are not insensitive to water pollution,
rather we are keen advocates to fix it, and in the case of MTBE, that means eliminating gasoline releases. MTBE detection is
typically traced to gasoline releases, either from leaking underground gasoline storage tanks or from inefficient 2-stroke boat
engines. California's own state auditor published a scathing commentary in 1999 on the State's failure to manage California's
underground storage tanks and enforce California's laws. MTBE is a symptom (and casualty) of this failure, and banning it will do
nothing to stop leaks from underground gasoline storage tanks. We continue to advocate tighter and diligent management of the
gasoline infrastructure, and any reference to the MTBE issue is simply incomplete without comprehensive coverage of this
broader gasoline issue. California, by singling-out MTBE, has treated Methanex in a manner inconsistent with its obligations under
the NAFTA, and this treatment forms part of our claim.
Here are some of our perspectives and many facts you might consider:
With respect to MTBE in the environment: Based on the typical level of MTBE in California's gasoline, for every gallon of
MTBE found in the environment, at least another 8 gallons of other gasoline components have also been released into the
environment, including benzene, present in every gallon of gasoline sold. As well as leaking underground gasoline storage tanks,
2-stroke boat engines also cause significant gasoline releases. The California Air Resources Board has stated that these engines
emit up to one third of their fuel unburnt in their exhaust, meaning that only seven hours operation of a jet-ski (or personal water
craft) can produce more smog-forming emissions than driving a 1998 model-year car 100,000 miles. Analysis of California's lakes
and water reservoirs shows other gasoline components along with MTBE, and that their levels rise with boating activity. Like the
leaking underground gasoline storage tanks, the source of surface water contamination is known, and banning MTBE will do
nothing to remove the gasoline from the water. In the lakes and reservoirs where 2-stroke engines have now been controlled,
detections of all gasoline components have been greatly reduced.
With respect to health: Health concerns are not cited in the California Governor's 1999 Executive Order banning MTBE, perhaps
because the evidence is actually that MTBE provides positive health benefits. It has been key to allowing Southern Californians
to enjoy their cleanest air in fifty years; the California Air Resources Board noted that cleaner burning gasoline with MTBE has
reduced emissions equivalent to removing 3.5 million vehicles from California's roads. The use of MTBE in gasoline has also
been responsible for significantly reducing the cancer potential of gasoline. And to set the record straight, not one of the more
than 200 health studies we have read evaluating MTBE has found it to be a human health risk and there is no credible record of
any human illness resulting from MTBE exposure. In fact, pure MTBE has been successfully and extensively used as a medicine
to treat gallstones in humans.
With respect to replacing MTBE: California's intention (and indeed the intention of certain interests in Washington) is to replace
MTBE with ethanol, which is a known human carcinogen, a recognized reproductive and developmental toxin and causes
increased gasoline emissions to the air. In water, ethanol is more soluble than MTBE, causes gasoline leaks to spread further and
increases the solubility of other gasoline components. And for all those negative health and environmental impacts, it also costs
more! Understanding the ethanol industry, which has a well-funded political lobby, helps explain much of the attack on MTBE.
With respect to Europe: The most important recent MTBE event is the European Union conclusion that there are "no compelling
reasons to limit use [of MTBE] in motor fuel." This finding adds to the large body of scientific data supporting both the continued
use of MTBE and the diligent management of gasoline. European commentators have noted the political context and ethanol
influence in the MTBE debate in the U.S.
With respect to Chapter 11 of the NAFTA: Trade agreements such as the NAFTA establish frameworks to protect investors
whose capital creates jobs and enables the broad distribution of needed goods and services. Protecting investments protects
workers' jobs. These frameworks in the NAFTA are not intended to, and indeed cannot, change legitimate governmental
regulations. But they are necessary to counter ill-considered or plainly discriminatory governmental measures such as California's
MTBE ban. The U.S. has been including provisions similar to the NAFTA Chapter 11 in its bilateral investment treaties for
decades * it has insisted on these protections for U.S. companies investing in other nations. The utility and appropriateness of
those protections are not invalidated merely because they are being asserted against the U.S., rather than by U.S. companies
against other nations.
With respect to our NAFTA claim: A NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration provides an objective panel of experts in international
dispute resolution, including a process that provides for all the facts to be heard and ultimately much of it be made available for
public access. Because a NAFTA arbitration is a venue where misinformation, deliberate distortions or misrepresentations of the
truth, vested interests and political expediency are properly excluded, the Moyers broadcast is an excellent example of why
Methanex chose to file its NAFTA Chapter 11 claim. While we cannot speak to all NAFTA claims, we do know the facts about
MTBE.
.....................................................
Unsurprisingly, Methanex failed to mention Enron's lobbying on behalf of MTBE, which has gone on for the past decade. If you like Enron, you gotta love MTBE! |
