A Savage SanctuaryUKWatch.net - 24 Mar 2008Last week I got an email, subject line “Iraqis leave voluntarily or starve”. The content was a circular from the case resolution directorate of the Border & Immigration Agency (BIA), the body responsible for asylum seekers. The subject line wasn’t the directorate’s – hardly the BIA’s turn of phrase. The circular says the BIA is writing to Iraqis on “hard cases support”, those refused asylum but for whom there is no viable route back to their home country. The catch is, to qualify for “hard cases support” – bed and board – they have to agree to return when the BIA considers it safe to do so. Leave or starve … “The secretary of state,” reads the circular, “considers that travel to Iraq … is both possible and reasonable.” The secretary of state may be alone in failing to consider the implications of this. Even if you can get there safely, Iraq is clearly unstable and dangerous. Failure to respond to the BIA letter within 21 days, and demonstrate plans to return, will meet with forcible removal, although people can appeal. With almost 3,000 Iraqi hard cases, the exodus could be massive. And those refusing to leave will join hundreds who have arrived since the war, had their cases rejected and been left destitute in the UK. Meanwhile, Iraqis who work for British government agencies in Iraq, and are in danger from compatriots who regard them as collaborators, are due to begin arriving In April. After lobbying by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and the Refugee Council, special arrangements were announced last year to resettle Iraqis employed by the UK administration in Iraq, particularly interpreters – and there is every reason to help them. But it throws the reality for other Iraqis seeking sanctuary in the UK into sharp relief. There are three ways for Iraqis to enter the UK as refugees, the first two open to those arriving in April. Iraqis formerly employed by the British in “similarly skilled or professional roles necessitating the use of … English” are eligible to apply under the government’s Gateway scheme, with 500 places reserved for Iraqis this year. To qualify they must have left Iraq and be recognised by the UN high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) under refugee convention criteria. Applications are then processed through the BIA. The second way is to apply through what a Foreign Office official called “the easier scheme” for which there are “not so many checks and balances”. This applies only to people currently employed in Iraq by the Foreign Office, Department for International Development, British Council, or Ministry of Defence. The Foreign Office estimates that 280 employees and their dependants might be eligible. Under both schemes 351 Iraqis have so far been accepted to resettle or take financial compensation; 450 have been rejected, and 100 are still being processed. The third way – and only way open to most – is to spend your life savings on a grim journey organised by people smugglers. Around 1,300 Iraqis claimed asylum in the UK last year. The rejection rate was 88%. Sweden, which refused to get involved in the Iraq war, took in 15,000 Iraqi refugees in 2007. The BIA has no breakdown indicating where Iraqi asylum seekers are from, but most are thought to be from Kurdistan – to where they can be forcibly returned, and have been throughout the past five years. The Foreign Office advises against travel to Kurdistan, citing two suicide bombings last year. Such danger is not exclusive to foreigners. The UNHCR does not recommend return anywhere in Iraq and a spokesman cites Turkish and Iranian incursions over the borders of Kurdistan as adding to the instability. Recently I heard the story of a young Iraqi Kurd, an orphan forced into a violent marriage. Her husband abandoned her to the mercy of her violent father-in-law. She fled to the UK but was refused asylum, despite proof from a consultant gynaecologist that she had been raped. Destitute, she went into hiding. To return would mean the risk of being the target of an “honour” killing. Dashty Jamal, of the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees, describes Kurdistan as lawless and undemocratic. He gets regular reports of honour killings. Kurdistan is deemed safer than the rest of Iraq, to which nobody is forcibly returned (though people return voluntarily). But is this to change? The case resolution directorate’s letter makes no distinction – returns are to Iraq. Making concessions to a few hundred of those who have worked for the British in Iraq doesn’t make up for the cruelty of turning a blind eye to thousands of others who are destitute, locked up in detention centres, or being forced to return to chaos and bloodshed.
Beyond PropagandaUKWatch.net - 24 Mar 2008Oil giant BP Greenwashes Alberta Tar Sands In 1997, after British Petroleum publicly acknowledged the harmful effects of global warming, it quickly became known as the oil company with environmental virtue. While other oil corporations argued that climate change didn?t exist?most notably Exxon Mobil, which funded around 40 public policy groups that disputed the scientific grounds for global warming?BP was investing in emission reductions, going so far as to support the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement established to curb greenhouse gases, which took effect in 2005. In 2005, BP Alternative Energies announced it would manage an investment program in solar and wind technologies, one that could amount to $8 billion over seven years. The company also marketed itself as an environmentally friendly oil corporation dedicated to moving ?beyond petroleum.? But a recent change in corporate policy threatens that green-friendly image. It?s a policy that Greenpeace calls ?the biggest environmental crime in history.? The policy involves BP breaking its long-standing, self-imposed ban on the production of crude oil from tar sands?which are a combination of clay, sand, various minerals and bitumen?found in the Canadian wilderness. The process of extracting and refining tar sands?also known as Canadian crude?involves strip-mining a 50,000-square-mile span of forest (approximately the size of Florida) located in the western Canadian province of Alberta. The region contains an estimated 175 billion barrels of recoverable oil. BP?s decision to tap into the Canadian wilderness is ?based on addiction, not reality,? says Ann Alexander, senior attorney at the National Resource Defense Council (NRDC), a nonprofit environmental group. ?Tar sands crude oil is dirty from start to finish. It?s bad enough that [BP is] fouling our natural resources here in the Midwest, but it?s completely destroying them up in Canada. There are good sources of energy we can turn to that don?t involve turning entire forests into a moonscape.? For oil corporations hoping to extract crude from the area, access is often a major hurdle. Bitumen is thick, which means tar sands can?t be pumped from the ground the same way traditional oil is. Tar sands need to be mined, and the deeper they are beneath the earth?s surface, the more difficult?and harmful?the extraction. In Alberta?s case, nearly 80 percent of the oil lays so deep underground that it needs to be either injected with steam or put through a ?fireflood? process, which introduces compressed air to the bitumen and burns the oil for better flow. To extract a single barrel of bitumen from tar sands requires an energy input of 250 cubic feet of natural gas. The first step, then, involves razing vast amounts of wilderness for open-pit mining?meaning that small plants, trees and topsoil must be extracted by the ton. And because five barrels of water are typically needed to produce a single barrel of crude, surrounding rivers must be routed to the pits, then re-routed to man-made lakes of toxic sludge. But the leveling of the Canadian wilderness is only the beginning. Once the forest and wildlife are out of the way and the pits have been dug, the raw process of extraction requires substantial manpower, heavy machinery (some of which can be up to three stories tall and weigh as much as a jetliner) and an incredible amount of energy. And that?s to produce only a single barrel of unrefined crude oil from two tons of tar sands. Also, because of the machinery involved, tar sand extraction generates up to four times more carbon dioxide than conventional drilling. Over the next seven years, global warming pollutants released into the atmosphere from tar sands oil production are projected to quintuple to 126 megatons, up from 25 megatons in 2003, according to the Pembina Institute, a nonprofit environmental group based in Canada. What?s more, the tar sands industry consumes enough gas in a single day to heat approximately 4 million American homes, according to the NRDC. Yet none of these estimates has deterred BP from going forward with a plan to produce 200,000 barrels of Canadian crude per day over the next 15 years. Tar sand boom One of the biggest hurdles in combating the Albertan tar sand boom is Canada?s lack of environmental standards and regulations. Canada doesn?t have a Clean Air Act like the United States does, only guidelines. And even the guidelines the national government has in place can be circumvented by powers granted to each province. The Albertan government, in fact, has openly stated that it is not in line with the Kyoto Protocol, a direct rebuff to Canada?s national pledge. The question then raised, says Melanie Nakagawa, attorney for the NRDC?s International Program, is ?should the provinces have authority over global warming emissions?? Currently, 16 percent of American oil imports comes from Alberta. And with corporations such as BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon already committed to investing $125 billion in imports from Alberta over the next 20 years, that percentage will only increase. Of the 1.25 million barrels extracted daily from the sands, 1 million of it goes directly to the United States. By 2020, that number could be as high as 5 million, according to the NRDC. ?Canadian crude is simply the absolute wrong direction,? the NRDC?s Alexander says. ?If you look at the new technology we have regarding much cleaner resources, we should decide what is best. That is not Canadian crude. It?s destructive on every level.? Perched along Lake Michigan Once crude is extracted from the tar sands, it still needs to be refined before it can be used. For the most part, that refinement takes place in the United States?and creates another set of environmental hazards in the process. In Whiting, Ind., where one of BP?s refineries is perched along Lake Michigan?s shores, the company is undergoing a $3.8 billion expansion that will allow it to refine crude oil originating from Canadian tar sands. The expansion, which will be completed by 2011, will allow BP to refine 260,000 barrels of Canadian crude per day, triple its current capacity. Canadian crude contains more sulfur and carbon than traditional oil. According to Simon Dyer, oil sands program director and policy director for the Pembina Institute, this means that the process of refining heavier oil has the potential to release up to four times more greenhouse gases. In a Nov. 30 statement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alleged that the BP refinery in Whiting made equipment modifications that resulted in a significant increase in sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and carbon monoxide emissions. All are ozone-depleting chemicals that BP, according to its website, is working to reduce ?before it is required by international and national obligations.? The EPA stated that in 2006, BP made modifications to the fluidized catalytic cracking unit at its Whiting plant. Developed in 1942 by Exxon, this unit converts heavier oil, such as crude, into lighter, more valuable products like gasoline and naphtha (a mixture used as feedstock for producing high octane gas). These allegations come at a time when the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) is reviewing the company for an update to its air emissions permit. (BP has sought higher thresholds in the amount of pollutants it releases.) The review has drawn comparisons to the controversial water permit that IDEM issued to BP in summer 2007. According to IDEM Assistant Commissioner for the Office of Air Quality Dan Murray, as was the case with the water permit, the air permit renewal is a reflection of the Whiting expansion. BP has already withdrawn from IDEM?s proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit, which would have forced BP to take expensive steps to reduce emissions. If BP had accepted the PSD permit, it would have been required to install the latest pollution control technology and prove that its upgrades would not harm the environment. The NRDC?s Alexander has seen these methods before. The water permit that IDEM granted BP made Indiana?s anti-degradation laws almost meaningless, she says. And backing off the PSD permit could mean BP has some new tricks up its sleeves. ?It?s in BP?s interest to get around the need for a PSD permit,? Alexander says. ?They can potentially accomplish that either with real emissions reductions or with funny math.? Tar sands extraction isn?t just another hurdle for environmentalists to combat. It merely reveals a simple truth: when it comes to ?being green,? even the most publicly boastful of the oil corporations?such as BP?will keep their promises only as far as their bottom line allows. Without action, it?s empty rhetoric. As the world continues to crawl toward environmental sustainability, tar sands extraction, says Nakagawa, is ?scraping the bottom of the barrel to get our energy needs.?
