Rachel's Precaution Reporter #78
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
From: Environmental Finance ...............................[This story printer-friendly]
February 15, 2007
TOXIC SHOCK THREATENS INVESTORS IN ASIA
[Rachel's introduction: A new report on the chemical industry in Asia says adopting the precautionary principle could create a competitive advantage for companies that need to distinguish themselves from the laggards who are harming the industry's reputation.]
London, February 15: Investors have been warned that an estimated 70% of listed companies in Asia -- excluding Japan -- are exposed to risks associated with toxic chemicals.
The Association for Sustainable & Responsible Investment in Asia (ASrIA), which made this estimation based on the FTSE Asia ex-Japan All Cap index, has warned in a report that the use of toxic chemicals dangerous to human health and the environment is a "classic sleeper issue" for Asian companies.
"While product scandals and groundwater problems are rising, the broader economic and social implications for human health have largely been ignored by policymakers and the financial community," the report says.
ASrIA puts this down to government failure to put in place policies on chemicals, or effectively police existing policies. With a "policy vacuum" across much of Asia, developments are driven by EU and, to a lesser extent, US legislation on chemicals safety.
But companies are also failing to act on, or embrace, the concept of the precautionary principle to competitive advantage -- which is behind tough new chemicals legislation in the EU.
"Internet bulletin boards in China have become a fast-paced source of consumer views on products. While the reports are not always correct, they can create a high-speed viral response which can dismantle a company's brand equity in a matter of days," the report warns. "Similar patterns are evident in Korea and Japan where product quality problems are frequently raised first on the web before making their way to the traditional media."
In addition to threatening investors in Asian companies, this situation also affects US and European firms with supply chains in the region, the report warns.
Dubbing the supply chain "brittle and unprepared to address many of the emerging toxic chemical issues", the report says: "In part this reflects the history of limited local market regulation, but it is also a by-product of the punishing economics of the supply chain where new, higher cost solutions can be undercut by lower cost producers."
In particular, as the supply chain extends its reaches into more remote parts of China, it has become ever more difficult to police. The report says that it is common practice for suppliers to substitute locally-available chemicals for those specified by the buyer "on the view that the end consumers will not be able to detect the difference".
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Associated Press ...................................[This story printer-friendly]
February 2, 2007
BUDGET GOING GREEN
[Rachel's introduction: N.Y. Governor Spitzer's proposed Pollution Prevention Institute would recruit nonprofits and academics to set up an institute to provide technical assistance to businesses to cut their use of toxic chemicals -- such as solvents used to clean equipment -- when there are less toxic alternatives.]
By The Associated Press
ALBANY -- New Yorkers would face deposits on more beverage bottles, a new office would address global warming and the state would continue acquiring open space -- a hallmark of the Pataki administration -- under the environmental agenda proposed this week by Gov. Eliot Spitzer.
The new Democratic governor's budget, released Wednesday, contains almost $1.17 billion for the state Department of Environmental Conservation for 2007-2008, up $47 million or 4 percent. It proposes $25 million in revenue increases from non-carbonated bottle deposits the first year, and almost $10 million more from industrial permits for pollution discharges and other measures.
Gov. George Pataki "did some good things in the environment, especially with land," Willie Janeway of the Nature Conservancy said of the three-term Republican governor who cut deals to protect more than 1 million acres from development through conservation easements or purchases. "Spitzer's been talking about taking it one step further and really addressing the complex environmental problems."
Janeway, who also chairs a coalition of more than 200 environmental groups, said problems include sprawl, climate change, invasive plant and animal species and protecting farmland and drinking water supplies.
The hot button is expanding the 25-year-old bottle law to cover water, juice, iced tea and sports drinks. A nickel deposit is now required on beer and soda cans and bottles to ensure they get recycled, .
The proposal drew immediate opposition from a business coalition called New Yorkers for Real Recycling Reform, which said the price for each bottle and can sold in stores would rise by about 15 cents.
"Expanding the deposit law is simply about raising money for the state off of our grocery bills," said James Rogers, president of the Food Industry Alliance of New York State, on behalf of the coalition.
Judith Enck, Spitzer's chief environmental adviser, said that group's estimate doesn't make sense. "The only justifiable price increase would be 1.5 cents per container," she said.
Under current law, grocers keep a handling fee of 2 cents per container and the bottling companies keep unclaimed deposits on beer, soda and wine coolers, the beverages that account for about 75 percent of the market. Under the proposal, groceries would keep 3.5 cents, and unclaimed nickel deposits would go to the state -- an estimated $100 million or more a year that would be used for state environmental programs starting next Jan. 1.
A similar measure passed the Assembly the past two years and, despite some Senate Republican sponsors, was blocked by Senate Republican Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, said Laura Haight of the New York Public Interest Research Group. There would still be exceptions for milk, baby formula and wine in the proposed new law. "The money is nice, but what is really of value is it produces clean communities," she said.
On Wednesday, Bruno had called the expanded bottle bill "more than a little fee," adding some estimates show it would generate up to $200 million as an "additional tax" on people who drink bottled and canned beverages. "So we're going to look at that very closely because we don't want any new taxes .. However, I'm not dead set against anything. We're open to explore whatever makes sense in the context of negotiating a new budget."
Matthew Maguire, spokesman for the Business Council of New York State, said his group is concerned about new industrial fees and has reservations about the bottle bill. "Whether you call it a tax or a fee, any new cost imposed on facilities is a concern in a state where businesses are already struggling to cope with high costs," he said.
The executive budget proposes adding 109 positions for a DEC staff of 3,480, including a new Climate Change Office with a staff of 12. During the election campaign, Spitzer said global warming was the major issue facing his generation. The DEC currently has 1.5 staffers working on the issue and a proposed rule carried over from the Pataki administration for participating in a regional initiative to limit carbon dioxide from power plants and auction off greenhouse gas allowances.
That program is to start in 2009, Enck said. Also, New York is going to follow California in issuing a regulation for cuts in vehicle emissions of carbon dioxide, which was also proposed by the Pataki administration, she said.
"We're watching that like hawks" for congressional attempts at federal pre-emption, Enck said.
The Spitzer budget's proposed Pollution Prevention Institute would recruit nonprofits and academics to set up an institute to provide technical assistance to businesses to cut their use of toxic chemicals - such as solvents used to clean equipment -- when there are less toxic alternatives, Enck said. "It's completely voluntary for companies, and we think it's going to improve their bottom line," she said.
The budget would rise from $50 million to $58 million for land acquisition, including closing some of Pataki's easement deals, Enck said. "And we want to do more land acquisitions," she said.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Muswell Hill Journal 24 (London, England) ...........[This story printer-friendly]
February 15, 2007
RADIATION FEAR AT SCHOOLS
[Rachel's introduction: Exposing young children to increased electromagnetic radiation from computer networks is controversial in England.]
Youngsters at some Muswell Hill primary schools could have their health put at risk by new technology that hasn't been proven as safe, it is claimed.
Controversy continues to surround the possible dangers of using wireless internet connections in primary school classrooms -- yet one school has had the technology for years and another is to make the leap in the near future.
Tetherdown primary school, in Grand Avenue, was one of the first schools to install the technology -- which allows laptop computers to link to the internet wirelessly by using radio waves to beam information back and forth.
And Coldfall primary school, Coldfall Avenue, is set to follow soon.
But there is still debate over how much electromagnetic radiation a young child can safely be exposed to.
Current advice from the Health Protection Agency says increases in sensitivity "may occur in infants and children", but there is "no firm evidence" of exposure to such radiation having adverse health effects.
But a number of schools in the UK have dismantled their "wi-fi" networks after pressure from parents, and Austria's Salzburg public health department is one of many official bodies to have issued warnings about its effects, having advised all schools and nurseries not to install wi-fi at all.
Alasdair Philips, scientific and technical director of lobby group Powerwatch, said:
"It strikes us as completely irresponsible to be putting these in schools -- particularly primary schools -- without the monitoring equipment to see if this is a sensible thing to do.
"It just seems so unnecessary. I can't see the great advantage of filling the whole school with radiation.
"The radiation levels are obviously weaker than from a mobile phone mast, but on the other hand you are sitting right on top of them.
"We are looking at connecting it with chronic fatigue, attention deficit disorder, headaches and more."
Sarah Purdy, whose children attend Tetherdown, argues the system hasn't been proved safe and has no educational benefits.
She said: "They just do it because it's new technology, but no-one has thought of beaming microwaves at children all day long.
"Why are we risking our children's lives when cabled computer systems are quite possible?
"The precautionary principle should prevail -- we should not expose children unless this system is tested and proved safe, which it has not been to date. We have no option and our children are being irradiated."
Tetherdown has the system installed in its classrooms, but its head teacher Evelyn Pittman said: "We have had a lot of communication with parents and every aspect of the issue has been looked at, and I don't think it needs to be something that is discussed outside of that."
Plans are afoot to install wi-fi in Coldfall Wood Primary, but Carol O'Brien, head teacher at St James C of E Primary, Woodside Avenue, said her school didn't have wi-fi.
Muswell Hill Primary and Our Lady of Muswell Hill Primary schools did not respond before the Journal went to press.
Copyright 2007 Archant Regional
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Summit (Colorado) Daily News .......................[This story printer-friendly]
February 14, 2007
ASK EARTHA STEWARD
[Rachel's introduction: "So, when scientists say that more studies should be done on parabens, especially on long-term effects, I like to exercise the 'precautionary principle' because there are options for products without parabens."]
By Eartha Steward, High Country Conservation Center
Just because I pride myself on being (and feeling like) a natural woman doesn't mean that I don't enjoy my share of lotions, shampoos and other beauty products. I may not shave my legs in the winter, but in our mountain climate I apply gobs of lotions year-round.
Recently I read an article that recommended avoiding synthetic ingredients called parabens that are found in lotions and beauty products. At that point I didn't quite understand what parabens were, but I was confident that the products I use don't include anything that warranted a warning. So I decided to take a look on the back of my favorite 'natural' sunscreen.
The sunscreen said it was "Chemical Free," so when I read the ingredients I was surprised to find methylparaben listed on the label. Confusion set in and I thought to myself, "So what ingredients are truly "natural?"
In the shampoo, lotion and makeup aisles I notice products labeled "natural" or "organic." Those products always appeal to me, so after reading the article I started to turn them around and read the labels. I was confronted with names like "methyl-,propyl-, butyl-, and ethyl- parabens" or the even harder to pronounce name "imidazolidinyl urea." On bottle after bottle there were names I couldn't pronounce, and I'm the kind of person that feels anything I can't pronounce shouldn't be put on or in my body.
Still, I didn't quite understand what parabens were, so I did a little research. Parabens are a widely used preservative in cosmetics and lotions, especially those containing botanical ingredients. The parabens used in lotions and makeup are synthetically produced, though one of them, methylparaben, can occur naturally.
The concern about parabens is that they mimic estrogen. Higher levels of estrogen may cause breast cancer or reproductive problems. While there have been studies done on parabens that link them to breast cancer, more research is still needed for solid scientific evidence. And most conclusions lead to the need for more studies.
So, when scientists say that more studies should be done on parabens, especially on long-term effects, I like to exercise the "precautionary principle" because there are options for products without parabens.
One product, recently recommended to me by local eco-mama Caroline Foley, is Aubrey Organics sun care products. She had done her research because Aubrey Organics sun care products do not contain strange ingredients and work wonderfully for protection against our mountain sun. Plus, Aubrey Organics is a completely paraben-free company and has been since the 1970s.
The new Vitamin Cottage in Dillon offers almost the full line of Aubrey products and you can find more about the company at www.aubrey- organics.com. A couple other Aubrey favorites, used by Eartha's Angels, are the calendula deodorant spray and the chamomile shampoo.
But if you're looking to support a local company, check out MyChelle Dermaceuticals, which is based in Frisco. MyChelle products are also available at the Vitamin Cottage or can be found online at www.mychelleusa.com. And MyChelle products along with Aubrey products, are never tested on animals.
Testing on animals is another important issue that should be considered when choosing a beauty product. Personally, it doesn't make me feel very good to think about bunnies being mistreated just so a new shampoo can be made. Viable alternatives for testing ingredients are available, without the use of animals.
A great resource for a list of hundreds of companies that don't test on animals is www.caringconsumers.com. As consumers we have the choice to say no to companies that test on animals because, as I mentioned before, there are viable alternative testing methods. Check out Caring Consumer's list of companies that do test on animals as well and take a moment to write a letter. Its sounds super-grassroots but it really does work because a good company will value feedback from its customers.
So, next time you reach for that delicious lotion that helps cure your mountain climate dry skin, take a look at the ingredients on the back. If you are looking at a favorite product you've been using for a while and you notice something you're not quite sure about, take a moment to research it. Or, be totally wild and try something new. By supporting companies that use truly natural, healthy ingredients and that are cruelty-free, we can set a higher standard for beauty products in general.
Who knows, maybe someday you'll see Eartha Steward on a glossy magazine cover modeling the latest all natural, totally organic lipstick brand. Well, only if the magazine is printed on 100 percent post-consumer paper, of course.
==============
Eartha Steward is written by Carly Wier, Holly Loff, and Beth Orstad, consultants on all things eco and chic at the High Country Conservation Center, a nonprofit 501(c)3 organization dedicated to waste reduction and resource conservation in our mountain community. Eartha believes that you can walk gently on our planet, even if you're wearing stylie shoes.
Submit questions to Eartha at recycle@colorado.net with Ask Eartha as the subject or to High Country Conservation Center, PO Box 4506, Frisco, CO 80443.
Summit Daily -- 40 West Main Street -- Frisco, CO 80443 P.O. Box 329 ** Frisco, CO 80443-0329 E-mail: news@summitdaily.com
Copyright Copyright 2007 summitdaily.com
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Earthjustice ........................................[This story printer-friendly]
February 14, 2007
PLAN COLOMBIA'S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, REPORT TO US CONGRESS
[Rachel's introduction: "Given the number of unanswered questions about the safety of the [pesticide] spraying, and considering the precautionary principle and the international obligation not to cause impacts to the territories of other States, the Colombian government should halt spraying immediately...."]
Oakland, Calif./Mexico City, Mexico -- In December, the Colombian government violated a bilateral accord with Ecuador by spraying a mixture of herbicides intended to destroy coca crops within 10 kilometers of the Ecuadorian border. To justify the spraying, Colombia relied on studies by a team from the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD) of the Organization of American States (OAS), claiming that the spray mixture is safe. However, an independent review of CICAD's recent studies, released to members of the U.S. Congress today, shows that the pesticide mixture being sprayed has not, in fact, been proven safe for the environment, and that Ecuador has substantial cause to oppose the spraying.
According to the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), the first CICAD Environmental and Human Health Assessment of the Aerial Spray Program for Coca and Poppy Control in Colombia, released in 2005, did not assess many of the greatest potential ecological and human health risks posed by the aerial eradication program in Colombia. Because of these omissions and the potential environmental risk of the spraying, the U.S. Congress requested further studies to better assess whether the mixture is truly safe for the environment.
Preliminary results from the follow-up studies, released in August 2006, show that the mixture is indeed potentially harmful to the environment, and particularly to amphibians -- the spray mixture killed 50 percent of the amphibians exposed in less than 96 hours. According to Earthjustice scientist and AIDA's Program Director Anna Cederstav, "Contrary to what is argued by the government, this study shows sufficient cause for concern to suspend the sprayings due to potential environmental impacts, especially considering that Colombia has the second highest amphibian biodiversity in the world and the most threatened amphibian species."
Many other key questions about the environmental impacts of the spraying also remain unanswered, despite the U.S. Congressional mandate to conduct the studies. For example, the State Department has not provided adequate information about the location of and risk to sensitive water bodies and has done nothing to address whether other threatened species are likely to be harmed. Without these determinations, the claim by the Colombian government that it is safe to spray along the Ecuadorian border is misinformed.
"Given the number of unanswered questions about the safety of the spraying, and considering the precautionary principle and the international obligation not to cause impacts to the territories of other States, the Colombian government should halt spraying immediately, and instead implement more effective and environmentally safe alternatives for coca eradication," said Astrid Puentes, AIDA's Legal Director.
Read AIDA's report about the omissions of the original CICAD studies
Read AIDA's critique of the follow-up studies
Read more information about AIDA's work on Plan Colombia
Contact:
Anna Cederstav, AIDA (510) 550-6700, acederstav@aida-americas.org Astrid Puentes, AIDA (5255) 52120141, apuentes@aida-americas.org
Earthjustice was founded as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in 1971
Earthjustice: 426 17th Street, Oakland, CA 94612 1.800.584.6460 info@earthjustice.org
Copyright 2007 Earthjustice
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: New York Times .....................................[This story printer-friendly]
February 20, 2007
THE PROBLEMS IN MODELING NATURE, WITH ITS UNRULY NATURAL TENDENCIES
[Rachel's introduction: Mathematical models often provide the basis for numerical risk assessments, which are government and industry's main tools for assuring the public that chemicals, pesticides, food additives, biotechnology, nanotechnoology and radiation are all "safe." But mathematical models are often based on faulty data and assumptions.]
By Cornelia Dean
When coastal engineers decide whether to dredge sand and pump it onto an eroded beach, they use mathematical models to predict how much sand they will need, when and where they must apply it, the rate it will move and how long the project will survive in the face of coastal storms and erosion.
Orrin H. Pilkey, a coastal geologist and emeritus professor at Duke, recommends another approach: just dredge up a lot of sand and dump it on the beach willy-nilly. This "kamikaze engineering" might not last very long, he says, but projects built according to models do not usually last very long either, and at least his approach would not lull anyone into false mathematical certitude.
Now Dr. Pilkey and his daughter Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, a geologist in the Washington State Department of Geology, have expanded this view into an overall attack on the use of computer programs to model nature. Nature is too complex, they say, and depends on too many processes that are poorly understood or little monitored -- whether the process is the feedback effects of cloud cover on global warming or the movement of grains of sand on a beach.
Their book, Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future, originated in a seminar Dr. Pilkey organized at Duke to look into the performance of mathematical models used in coastal geology. Among other things, participants concluded that beach modelers applied too many fixed values to phenomena that actually change quite a lot. For example, "assumed average wave height," a variable crucial for many models, assumes that all waves hit the beach in the same way, that they are all the same height and that their patterns will not change over time. But, the authors say, that's not the way things work.
Also, modelers' formulas may include coefficients (the authors call them "fudge factors") to ensure that they come out right. And the modelers may not check to see whether projects performed as predicted.
Eventually, the seminar participants widened the project, concluding that erroneous assumptions, fudge factors and the reluctance to check predictions against unruly natural outcomes produce models with, as the authors put it, "no demonstrable basis in nature." Among other problems, they cite much-modeled but nevertheless collapsed North Atlantic fishing stocks, poisonous pools unexpectedly produced by open pit mining, and invasive plants and animals that routinely outflank their modelers.
Two issues, the authors say, illustrate other problems with modeling. One is climate change, in which, they say, experts' justifiable caution about model uncertainties can encourage them to ignore accumulating evidence from the real world. The other is the movement of nuclear waste through an underground storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, not because it has failed -- it has yet to be built -- but because they say it is unreasonable to expect accurate predictions of what will happen far into the future -- in this extreme case, tens or even hundreds of thousands of years from now.
Along the way, Dr. Pilkey and Ms. Pilkey-Jarvis describe and explain a host of modeling terms, including quantitative and qualitative models (models that seek to answer precise questions with more or less precise numbers, as against models that seek to discern environmental trends).
They also discuss concepts like model sensitivity -- the analysis of parameters included in a model to see which ones, if changed, are most likely to change model results.
But, the authors say it is important to remember that model sensitivity assesses the parameter's importance in the model, not necessarily in nature. If a model itself is "a poor representation of reality," they write, "determining the sensitivity of an individual parameter in the model is a meaningless pursuit."
Given the problems with models, should we abandon them altogether? Perhaps, the authors say. Their favored alternative seems to be adaptive management, in which policymakers may start with a model of how a given ecosystem works, but make constant observations in the field, altering their policies as conditions change. But that approach has drawbacks, among them requirements for assiduous monitoring, flexible planning and a willingness to change courses in midstream. For practical and political reasons, all are hard to achieve.
Besides, they acknowledge, people seem to have such a powerful desire to defend policies with formulas (or "fig leaves," as the authors call them), that managers keep applying them, long after their utility has been called into question.
So the authors offer some suggestions for using models better. We could, for example, pay more attention to nature, monitoring our streams, beaches, forests or fields to accumulate information on how living things and their environments interact. That kind of data is crucial for models. Modeling should be transparent. That is, any interested person should be able to see and understand how the model works -- what factors it weighs heaviest, what coefficients it includes, what phenomena it leaves out, and so on. Also, modelers should say explicitly what assumptions they make.
And instead of demanding to know exactly how high seas will rise or how many fish will be left in them or what the average global temperature will be in 20 years, they argue, we should seek to discern simply whether seas are rising, fish stocks are falling and average temperatures are increasing. And we should couple these models with observations from the field. Models should be regarded as producing "ballpark figures," they write, not accurate impact forecasts.
"If we wish to stay within the bounds of reality we must look to a more qualitative future," the authors write, "a future where there will be no certain answers to many of the important questions we have about the future of human interactions with the earth."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Precaution Reporter offers news, views and practical examples of the Precautionary Principle, or Foresight Principle, in action. The Precautionary Principle is a modern way of making decisions, to minimize harm. Rachel's Precaution Reporter tries to answer such questions as, Why do we need the precautionary principle? Who is using precaution? Who is opposing precaution?
We often include attacks on the precautionary principle because we believe it is essential for advocates of precaution to know what their adversaries are saying, just as abolitionists in 1830 needed to know the arguments used by slaveholders.
Rachel's Precaution Reporter is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
As you come across stories that illustrate the precautionary principle -- or the need for the precautionary principle -- please Email them to us at rpr@rachel.org.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Precaution Reporter send a blank Email to one of these addresses:
Full HTML edition: join-rpr-html@gselist.org
Table of Contents edition: join-rpr-toc@gselist.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::