AZ Illustrated Politics: Fred DuVal Says Legislature Flunked the Session
Posted By Jim Nintzel on Sun, May 4, 2014 at 9:05 PM
On Friday’s AZ Illustrated Politics: Democratic gubernatorial candidate Fred DuVal said lawmakers earned between a D (for “disappointing”) and F (for “failure”) for recently completed legislative session. DuVal called for more dollars for education and child-welfare programs; said he was opposed to expanding programs that provide public dollars for private schools; criticized lawmakers for passing anti-gay and anti-abortion legislation; and promised to reverse Gov. Jan Brewer’s push to deny driver’s licenses and in-state tuition for DREAM Act kids.
Republican National Committeeman Bruce Ash and Pima County Democratic Party chairman Don Jorgensen tackled immigration issues, the latest skirmish over equal pay in the race between Congressman Ron Barber and Republican challenger Martha McSally, and the legislative session.
- http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2014/ <—; video for article above …fred-duval…
“If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be paid enough to live on.”
Business and education leader Fred DuVal has experience in the renewable energy industry, helping get U.S. trucks off of foreign oil and onto American natural gas. Read Fred’s detailed blueprint to grow good-paying jobs in Arizona.
“It’s time to stop fighting and start fixing.”
The culture of corruption and polarization at the Capitol is hurting Arizona’s national reputation and holding back our economy. Read Fred’s plan to clean up the Capitol and introduce a new Ethics Commission, so we can put aside the political polarization.
“Read my lips — no new cuts to our kids’ schools.”
Restoring funding to our children’s schools is the most important thing we can do to move Arizona forward. Learn about Fred’s experience helping run our public universities and keeping the doors of higher education open to everyone.
Phoenix, AZ — Business and education leader Fred DuVal, who is running for Arizona governor, today announced the endorsement of actor, author, activist, and social media mega-power George Takei.
“I’m incredibly grateful to have the support of an influential and prominent American and part-time Show Low resident like George Takei,” said DuVal. “George has dedicated his life to advancing equality, and together we’ll work to move Arizona Forward.”
Phoenix, AZ — Business and education leader Fred DuVal, who is running for Arizona governor, released the following statement today criticizing Jan Brewer’s decision to re-litigate the Ninth Circuit’s decision blocking her callous prohibition on driver’s licenses for DREAMers.
“When will Jan Brewer stop fighting DREAMers? Her callous ban on driver’s licenses for DREAMers has already been thrown out, but she continues to do everything in her power to make it difficult for them to succeed.”
Resource: Fred Duval website … http://www.fred2014.com
Have you started reclaiming, reusing, recycling, repurposing and or reducing items from your life that will cut the amount of material going into landfills or buying locally to hopefully reduce your eco-footprint as well? I’m in; even PBO alluded to a big change being needed for the next generation.
It’s a rant
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives, led by Republicans are the minority party but they control the purse strings and if you listen closely, they sound like they had different school books, syllabus and teachers, so, the path
to sustainable 21st Century living was is going to be a struggle.
Though after NAFTA the struggle for American workers was bad it also made most us all rely on goods made in foreign lands with questionable ingredients and on the cheap; I for one have looked at my clothes and sighed after finding brands that once sold mostly “made in the USA” went to the dark side. I guess cheap really is too addictive. cheap labor cheap material is addictive
Addictive, but the question is – will authorities at the top recognize that NAFTA needs reforming due to an increase of carbon foot-print, allowed foreign companies to possibly use toxic chemicals, use less than 100% organic and in some cases, let our children play with toys made with excessive amounts of lead. We need a quick acceptance an apology and a big change implemented in every state regulating not just what comes into the US of A, but how, what is dumped, recycled and where; it makes sense on so many levels given what we now know about pollution, climate change, landfills and the effects on Americans …and our at risk population, whether folks want to admit it or not a reality check is needed. Washington State, along with a few others decided they are all in on banning plastic bags though the effort needs to be much more vigorous as cooperation from big corporations who do not always implement the process fast enough, but we have to start somewhere right.
However, it is obvious that as those at the top debate and delay changes in our man-made and natural global warming experiences, they are leaving minorities and the poor out of the conversation of sustainable living, let alone offer up alternatives or commit to viable restorations of communities most impacted by bad urban planning. We have all heard or know that certain populations are definitely unable to control the negative impact that some big corporations are having on their communities or environments as more and more cases are revealed, aired and reported. It is disturbing to know that some cases are over twenty – thirty years old or older, the sad truth that there were are too many middle class, minority and poor communities built on or near freeways, landfills, gas lines, ex-chemical plants, manufacturer plants or smokestacks with dirty air while providing jobs at those same facilities though the people had no idea that they and the lives of their families could be negatively affected and life in some cases probably cut short. The abuse of land in rural and or urban settings is not just offensive it is still unchecked and just one more thing the EPA needs to revisit.
The idea of sustainable living is not new, yet, it means something different depending on what State you live in and how your officials deal with the agencies we are supposed to trust whether the issue is about fracking, mad cow, GMO ,salmonella etc. or bird flu. Most people I know love all kinds of food and are careful about at home preparation, but I do believe that the way food is inspected, accepted and processed is still suspect and an update in federal laws regarding food inspection are overdue. I hope we all agree that our food should not be considered a state’s rights issue; it is a keep the American population safe& healthy issue. I come from a fishing based family that believed in staying away from so-called store freshly caught and to always smell the fish, ask if wild or hatchery and if it’s wrapped in plastic question it all because it may look like the real deal but … I will admit I remember when most if not all seafood caught, was “bought and sold fresh” and or” wild” but not farmed because my family preferred to buy at the market or buy at the pier, but mostly from my family fishing for it. When farm fisheries started popping up my family felt it might be a good way to keep wild off the endangered list, but unfortunately some collateral damage was created when some reports of nasty toxic developments at some not all farmed hatcheries were found .
folks did not know in the early stages the influx of farmed fish to grocery stores and restaurants meant insufficient labeling or the profound lack of available information for consumers to make independent and or intelligent decisions by leaving out info whether it’s about fish, beef, chicken, clothes or toys they are selling comes from the most “environmentally friendly” way possible instead of taking risks that could hurt lives
|The NRA’s leadership has a long history of sexism, but this one really takes the cake.
The latest issue of the NRA’s magazine1 portrays Moms Demand Action Founder Shannon Watts as a paper doll surrounded by pots, pans, an iron — and even a feather duster — offensively suggesting that women belong in the home.
This magazine piece is just one part of an established pattern of the NRA leaders’ misogyny. Earlier this year, NRA lobbyists were caught explaining how domestic violence is just “disputes between family members.”2
But this latest smear sickens me. It’s an affront to all women whose top priority is keeping their families safe — whether they work at a paying job or stay at home working hard to care for their families.
It proves beyond a doubt that the NRA’s leadership just doesn’t get it. And the moms, dads, grandparents, and brothers and sisters that make up our movement aren’t going to be intimidated.
Make a donation of $15 or more right now to help rebut the NRA’s attack in the media, online and at the ballot box:
With your help, we can make sure the NRA’s lies never go unanswered.
Thanks for standing up against them,
Sometime around the 21st of November in 2012, Greenpeace discovered and exposed Zara as one of maybe many companies using manufacturers that have toxic chemicals in their clothing…
Achieving the Zero Discharge
Inditex‘s commitment, in connection with the use of chemical substances in the manufacturing process of its products, is reflected in its chemical policy, which establishes restrictions and prohibitions in the use of these substances.
So far, this policy has been developed and periodically updated in conformity with the most demanding international legislation and in collaboration with the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). The policy regulates not only those “substances whose use is legally limited” and which, if present in the product above certain levels, could be hazardous for human health, such as: Formaldehyde, Arylamines, Phenols (PCP, TeCP), Cadmium, Lead, Chromium (VI), Nickel, Allergenic Dyes, among others; additionally, it limits the use of certain parameters not contemplated by the effective legislation, such as: Organochlorinated Compounds and Isocyanates. In order to guarantee the compliance of said policy by Inditex’s suppliers, Inditex carries out audits and regular inspections of the production processes and continuous reviews of the products.
INDITEX Commitment to Zero Discharge
27th November 2012
In line with Inditex’s long-term sustainability program Inditex recognizes the urgent need for eliminating industrial releases of all hazardous chemicals (1). According to its approach based on prevention (2) and the Precautionary Principle (3) Inditex is committed to zero discharges (4) of all hazardous chemicals from the whole lifecycle and all production procedures that are associated with the making and using of all products Inditex sells (5) by 01 January 2020. Inditex recognises that to achieve this goal, mechanisms for disclosure and transparency about the hazardous chemicals used in its global supply chain are important and necessary, in line with the ‘Right to Know principle’ (6). In line with this principle Inditex will increase the public availability and transparency of its restricted substance list and audit process and will set up public disclosure of discharges of hazardous chemicals in its supply chain.
Inditex also commits to support systemic (i.e. wider societal and policy) change to achieve zero discharge of hazardous chemicals (associated with supply chain and the lifecycles of products) within one generation (7) or less. This commitment includes sustained investment in moving industry, government, science and technology to deliver on systemic change and to affect system change across the industry towards this goal.
The 2020 goal also demands the collective action of industry, as well as engagement of regulators and other stakeholders. To this end, Inditex will work with other companies in the apparel sector and other brands it could sell, as well as material suppliers, the broader chemical industry, NGOs and other stakeholders to achieve this goal.
Inditex understands the scope of the commitment to be a long term vision – with short term practice to be defined by the following individual action plan:
Individual action plan.
1. Supply-chain disclosure.
In line with Inditex’s commitment to the public’s ‘right to know’ the chemical substances used within its global supply-chain and the products it sells, Inditex will be taking the following actions:
1. publish its updated ‘Restricted Substances List’ and audit processes by the end of April 2013, and annually thereafter.
2. begin public disclosure of discharges of hazardous chemicals in its supply chain via individual facility level disclosure of chemical use and discharges data, to be achieved via an incremental process, beginning with the following actions:
i) by no later than end of March 2013 public disclosure of at least 10 Chinese supplier facilities, plus at least 10 additional facilities in other parts of the “global south” (i.e. 20 facilities in total);
ii) by no later than December 2013, at least another 30 Chinese supplier facilities (in addition to the facilities in i) above), plus at least another50 additional facilities in other parts of the “global south” (in addition to the facilities in i) above, i.e. 100 facilities in total;
using a credible public online platform, with full facility transparency (i.e. location and individual data of facilities) and covering at least the hazardous chemicals within the 11 priority groups of chemicals (8)
2. APEO elimination policy.
Inditex recognises the intrinsic hazardousness of all APEOs, and therefore acknowledges it is a priority to eliminate their use across its global supply chain. There are multiple supply-chain pathways for potential APEO contamination (including chemical formulations). Inditex will enhance both training and auditing of its supply-chain in conjunction with other global brands, as well as ensuring its suppliers have the latest information on APEOs, highlighting where there is a risk that APEOs may enter into the undocumented contamination of chemical supplier formulations.
In addition to these actions, Inditex will enforce its APEO ban with the following actions:
i. initiate an investigation into the current compliance to this requirement, reporting the findings to the public and simultaneously strengthening its supplier legal agreement language to ensure only APEO-free chemical formulations are utilized by the end of April 2013,
ii. work with its supply chain and other global industry leaders, to ensure the most current technological limits of detection are reflected via the lowest detectable limits within its testing regimes.
3. Perfluorocarbon (PFC) elimination policy.
In application of the precautionary principle, and recognizing that enough scientific evidence is available pointing towards a recognizable hazard posed by PFCs, Inditex commits to impose a ban on PFOS, PFOA, their salts and derivatives, and telomeric alcohols by January 2013. This prohibition includes the manufacturing of any products Inditex sells.
With respect to the use of PFCs, Inditex agrees to the following actions:
i. Inditex commits to eliminate C8, C7, C6 PFC based substances in manufacturing, and in any of the products it sells no later than the end of 2013.
ii. Inditex commits to work with suitable technical / scientific partners and stakeholders to find safer, non-fluorinated alternatives in the shortest timespan possible, with the goal of substituting all perfluorocarbon compounds with suitable, non-hazardous, non-fluorinated alternatives.
iii. The timelines for the elimination of all remaining PFCs will be as follows: elimination of 50% of all remaining PFCs (from the base of PFCs used as of 2012) used by January 2015; and the total elimination of all PFC use in manufacturing and in products by the end of 2015.
The elimination of all PFC use by the products it sells will be supported by:
i. A review of all products it produces to ensure there are no PFCs in the products we sell,
ii. a rigorous system of control to ensure that no traces of PFCs find their way into its supply chain in line with the above.
4. Targets for other hazardous chemicals.
Inditex commits to regularly review the science of the chemicals used in the textiles/apparel industry and periodically update its chemical policy, at least annually, to further restrict or ban chemicals, as new evidence on their impact becomes available.
In this context, its recognizes the need to not only report to the public the evidence of elimination of the 11 groups of hazardous chemicals identified as a priority but also set clear intermediate progress targets on the elimination of hazardous chemicals (beyond these 11 priority chemical groups) and the introduction of non-hazardous chemicals by 2015 on the road to elimination by 01 January 2020.
Inditex will also ensure that it is part of an industry wide approach to ensure the use of chemicals in the products its sells and that is managed responsibly and in line with the above commitment, and in particular the intrinsic hazards approach. In line with this, Inditex commits to reinforce the work of the sectoral chemical inventory and hazardous substance black list, aiming to establish this inventory, and the black list, based on an intrinsically hazardous screening methodology, by no later than December 2013.
The individual actions covered above will be reassessed by Inditex at regular intervals – at least annually.
5. Further Actions.
Within 8 weeks of the public release of this commitment, Inditex will publish further actions for its Individual Action Plan:
Including a number of substitution case studies (e.g. where in the past, or currently, Inditex has substituted any of the 11 groups of hazardous chemicals as per below (8), with others non-hazardous chemicals) via a credible format (e.g. ‘Subsport system’).
Download – Further actions included in the Individual Action Plan (updated as of 1st February 2013)
(1) All hazardous chemicals means all those that show intrinsically hazardous properties: persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT); very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB); carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction (CMR); endocrine disruptors (ED), or other properties of equivalent concern, (not just those that have been regulated or restricted in other regions). This will require establishing – ideally with other industry actors – a corresponding list of the hazardous chemicals concerned that will be regularly reviewed.
(2) This means solutions are focused on elimination of use at source, not on end-of-pipe or risk management. This requires either substitution with non-hazardous chemicals or where necessary finding non- chemical alternative solutions, such as re-evaluating product design or the functional need for chemicals.
(3) This means taking preventive action before waiting for conclusive scientific proof regarding cause and effect between the substance (or activity) and the damage. It is based on the assumption that some hazardous substances cannot be rendered harmless by the receiving environment (i.e. there are no ‘environmentally acceptable’/’safe’ use or discharge levels) and that prevention of potentially serious or irreversible damage is required, even in the absence of full scientific certainty. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including, where necessary, substitution through the development of sustainable alternatives where they do not already exist. The Precautionary Principle is applied across all products sold by Inditex (and any entities directed by, or licenced by the Inditex “Group” of entities).
(4) Zero discharge means elimination of all releases, via all pathways of release, i.e. discharges, emissions and losses, from its supply chain and its products. “Elimination” or “zero” means ‘not detectable, to the limits of current technology’, and only naturally occurring background levels are acceptable.
(5) This means the commitment applies to the environmental practices of the entire company (group, and all entities it directs or licences) and for all products sold by Inditex or any of its subsidiaries. This includes all its suppliers or facilities horizontally across all owned brands and licensed companies as well as vertically down its supply chain.
(6) Right to Know is defined as practices that allow members of the public access to environmental information – in this case specifically about the uses and discharges of chemicals based on reported quantities of releases of hazardous chemicals to the environment, chemical-by-chemical, facility-by-facility, at least year-by-year.
(7) One generation is generally regarded as 20-25 years.
(8) the 11 priority hazardous chemical groups are : 1. Alkylphenols 2. Phthalates 3.Brominated and chlorinated flame retardants 4. Azo dyes 5. Organotin compounds 6. Perfluorinated chemicals 7. Chlorobenzenes 8. Chlorinated solvents 9. Chlorophenols 10. Short chain chlorinated paraffins 11. Heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, mercury and chromium (VI).
Stay tuned in to see if they are able to succeed … Be a Seed for Change