^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Featured stories in this issue... Slouching Toward Golgotha "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants." --Al Gore Celebrating (?) Earth Overshoot Day On September 23 (Tuesday last week), our demand surpassed nature's budget. For the rest of 2008, we will be in the ecological equivalent of deficit spending, drawing down our resource stocks -- in essence, borrowing from the future. Global Biodiversity Slumps 27% in 35 Years Ground-living vertebrates have declined by 25%, with most of the slump occurring since 1980. Marine species held fairly steady until the late 1990s before falling sharply to give an overall drop of 28%. Freshwater species have decreased by 25%, primarily since the late 1980s. Black Clouds on the Horizon for Birds of the World "There has been a precipitous decline of more than 50 per cent in the populations of 20 of the most common North American birds over the past four decades, alarming conservationists, who say the trend is an indicator of a serious deterioration in the environment." Chemical Industry To Fight New Proposal "The chemical industry lobby is gearing up to fend off a broad legislative overhaul that marks a significant shift in the way that chemicals are regulated in America." Mobile Phone Use 'Raises Children's Risk of Brain Cancer Fivefold' Last week the European Parliament voted by 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to bring in stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, Wi-fi and other devices, partly because children are especially vulnerable to them. 10 Ways Global Warming Could Hurt Your Health Global warming is not just an abstract ecological and economic issue -- a warmer planet could harm your physical well-being :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #978, Sept. 25, 2008 [Printer-friendly version] SLOUCHING TOWARD GOLGOTHA By Peter Montague Most of my friends want to deny it, but the evidence is compelling: the U.S. and Europe are aggressively advancing the only real plan they've ever had for "solving" the global warming problem. Their plan -- their only published plan -- is to capture carbon dioxide (CO2) gas, compress it into a liquid, and pump it a mile below ground, hoping it will stay there forever. It will be the largest hazardous waste disposal program ever undertaken. Sometimes the plan is called CCS (short for "carbon capture and sequestration") but mostly it's known by its gimmicky PR name "clean coal." On paper, the plan seems simple enough: Bury trillions of tons of hazardous CO2 in the ground. They tell us it will work even though its never been tested. But what if they're wrong? What if it leaks? If that happens, they've got no Plan B. Sorry, kids, we used up your world. The U.S. and Europe have painted the whole planet into a corner: by denying or ignoring global warming science for more than 20 years and refusing to take precautionary action, political "leaders" have allowed the problem to grow so large that it now threatens the future of civilization. To be cynically frank, the CCS plan has three big things going for it: ** First, after the stuff is pumped underground, it will be out of sight and out of mind, no one will know for sure where it is, and there will be no way to get it back. Problem solved. If it starts to leak out a few miles away from the injection site and the leakage is somehow miraculously discovered, chances are that nothing can be done about it, so we might as well forget the whole thing. It's a done deal, so eat, drink, and be merry -- just as we've been doing for the past 30 years. ** Second, with CCS as our "solution," no one important has to change anything they're now doing -- the coal, oil, automobile, railroad, mining and electric power corporations can continue on their present path undisturbed -- and no doubt they will reward Congress handsomely for being so "reasonable." Everyone knows that's how the system works. No one even bothers to deny it. ** Third, CCS cannot actually be tested; it will always require a leap of faith. Even though the goal is to keep CO2 buried in the ground forever, in human terms any test will have to end on some particular day in the not-too-distant future. On that day the test will be declared a "success" -- but leakage could start the following day. So, given the goal of long-term storage, no short-term test can ever prove conclusive. CCS will always rest on a foundation of faith; and, in the absence of conclusive tests, those with the greatest persuasive powers ($$) have the upper hand. Two weeks ago the Germans inaugurated the world's first coal-fired power plant designed to bury its CO2 in the ground as an experiment. As New Scientist magazine told us last March, "In Germany, only CCS can make sense of an energy policy that combines a large number of new coal-fired power stations with plans for a 40 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2020." In other words, the Germans hitched their wagon to a CCS solution long before they designed the first experiment to see if it could work. With the future of the German economy dependent on the outcome, it seems unlikely that this first little experiment will be announced as a failure. Like us, the Germans are playing Russian roulette with the future of the planet. This week saw several new developments: ** A study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences clarified that our past carbon emissions have already committed the world to an unavoidable temperature rise of 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4 C.) -- with the true number perhaps as low as 2.5 Fahrenheit (1.4 C.) or as high as 7.7 Fahrenheit (4.3 C.). This is global warming that is already "in the system" and cannot be reversed no matter what we do. One degree Fahrenheit (0.6 C.) of this "committed warming" has already occurred; the other 3.3 Fahrenheit (1.8 C.) will build up as the century unfolds. It's likely to be very unpleasant and very costly but it's already too late to do anything about it. Sorry, kids. Perhaps a little humor can make us feel better (this from the New York Times June 1, 2008);** Another important study came out this week, this one from the American Physical Society -- the professional association for the nation's 46,000 physicists. It made a couple of really crucial points: 1. In case you had any lingering doubts, it said the physics and chemistry behind the human causes of climate change -- such as heat-trapping pollution from the burning of fossil fuels -- is "well-understood and beyond dispute." 2. It said the need for action now is "urgent." But what kind of action? Burying carbon dioxide in the ground? No. "The bottom line is that the quickest way to do something about America's use of energy is through energy efficiency," said Burton Richter, the chairman of the study panel and a 1976 Nobel Prize winner in physics. "Energy that you don't use is free. It's not imported and it doesn't emit any greenhouse gases. Most of the things we recommend don't cost anything to the economy. The economy will save money." ** Of course Democrats in Congress joined Republicans in ignoring the advice of the nation's 46,000 physicists. Instead, they voted to end the 26-year-old ban on drilling for oil on the nation's coastal waters (both Atlantic and Pacific coasts, plus they ended a ban on oil shale drilling in the Rocky Mountain states) -- thus promising to prolong and worsen the global warming problem. Sorry, kids. ** The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced this week it is offering an $8 billion subsidy for "clean coal" demonstrations. (As a sign of the appalling collapse of governmental independence, the DOE is now parroting the coal industry's loony slogan, "clean coal.") The coal companies are unwilling to put up their own money to start burying CO2 in the ground, so Uncle Sam is using our money to do it. Actually, federal money is increasingly borrowed these days, so it is actually our children's money that is funding this game of Russian roulette with the future of the planet. A double whammy. Sorry, kids. ** Next week U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) holds the first of two public hearings on its proposed "regulation" of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) -- in Chicago Sept. 30 and Denver Oct. 2. But what's the point? EPA has already announced that CCS is a splendid idea. The agency's CCS web site says (evidently with a straight face), "With proper site selection and management, geologic sequestration could play a major role in reducing emissions of CO2." (As we saw a couple of weeks ago, to sequester even 10% of today's CO2 would require an infrastructure of pipelines and chemical processing plants larger than the entire global petroleum industry. Who's going to "properly" manage such a kluged-together behemoth? EPA? DOE? Perhaps the wizards of Wall Street?) Despite the absence of experiments, demonstrations or data, the EPA chief is already firmly on board the CCS Express. Stephen L. Johnson said in 2007 [2.4 Mbyte PDF], "By harnessing the power of geologic sequestration technology, we are entering a new age of clean energy where we can be both good stewards of the Earth, and good stewards of the American economy." Clearly, we cannot look to EPA for careful scrutiny of this untried technology, on which we are betting the farm. No, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already cast aside all doubts about CCS and is prancing with pom poms -- ready to bet the future of humankind on this untested and untestable technology. Those of us who were around -- and were even naively enthusiastic -- when EPA was created by Richard Nixon back in 1970 can only say, with genuine shame and regret, "Sorry, kids." ** This week, Al Gore once again called for civil disobedience to stop the construction of new coal plants. The New York Times reports that Gore told an audience in New York September 24, 2008: "If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration." Since no coal plants have carbon capture and sequestration, Mr. Gore was calling for an end to all coal plants, as he soon made clear: According to the Times, "Mr. Gore said the civil disobedience should focus on 'stopping the construction of new coal plants,' which he said would add tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere -- despite 'half a billion dollars' worth of advertising by the coal and gas industry' claiming otherwise. He added, 'Clean coal does not exist.'" "Clean coal does not exist." Now there's a refreshing blast of simple honesty. The phrase "clean coal" was invented as a public relations gambit by the coal industry to bamboozle regulators and legislators into approving construction of new dirty coal plants. If the deciders can be convinced that some day a fancy end-of-pipe "clean coal" filter might be tacked onto today's dirty coal plants, then imaginary "clean coal" takes on an important reality: it becomes the crucial gimmick that allows more dirty coal plants to be built today even though everyone acknowledges they are destroying our future. And if the "clean coal" filter never materializes because it turns out to be too complicated or too unreliable or too costly or too leaky? Sorry, kids. Yes, kids, the system is rigged. The fossil corporations claim the right to burn all the fossil fuels they own, no matter the cost to the rest of us. And of course they've got the state violence apparatus on their side (judges, police, national guard). To accomplish their goal, they have paid off Congress -- Republicans and Democrats (all perfectly legal, of course, through "campaign contributions"). And yes, all of them know your future is being sacrificed, but they don't care. They simply don't care. But the system has been rigged before. It was rigged against all people of color, against women, against workers, and against children chained to machines in "dark, satanic mills." But in each of those cases, people marched; they picketed; they demonstrated; they took to the streets in hordes; they stuck wooden shoes into the gears of the industrial machine; they flushed pocket combs down toilets to stop up the works; they stashed stinking fish in safe deposit boxes to unnerve the bankers; they sat in restaurants and public libraries and college offices and industrial workplaces and they refused to budge; they conducted strikes and walk-outs and they sat down on the job; they faced dogs and fire hoses and guns and clubs and jail; they chained themselves to fences, they prayed, they sang; in short, they got courageous and creative and obstreperous and disobedient. They pushed the system until it fell over and changed. In sum, they refused to allow their future to be crucified on the altar of the almighty Dollar. And now that spirit is rising again. Item: In early July a dozen protestors shut down rush hour traffic in Richmond, Virginia to protest Dominion Virginia Power's plan for a new $1.8 billion coal plant in Wise, in southern Virginia. Item: Protestors sat in at the headquarters of AMP-Ohio in Columbus July 8 opposing the construction of a coal plant in Meigs County. Eight people occupied the headquarters lobby while another 40 people pressed against the door to the building, obstructing the entrance. Police said they maced "about 20 people," but denied accusations that they had used tasers. Item: In late July an estimated 500 activists gathered in Coburg, Oregon for a week-long "climate action convergence camp" aimed at "low-impact living and high-impact action" -- learning a more sustainable lifestyle and successful protest tactics, including civil disobediance. Similar convergence camps were reportedly going on this summer in New York, Virginia, England, Germany, Australia, Denmark, Russia, and New Zealand. Item: In August, 50 protesters marched noisily through downtown Richmond, Va., on their way to the headquarters of Massey Energy -- the nation's second-largest coal corporation. Item: In early September six Greenpeace protestors were acquitted by a jury in England, despite having caused at estimated $76,000 dollars in damage to the Kingsnorth power station in Kent. During an eight-day trial, the six Greenpeacers argued that they were justified in shutting down coal-fired power plants because of the larger danger posed to the planet by coal emissions. The jury agreed, in a decision that rocked the system to its foundations. In Australia, it was reported this way: "In a decision that will send chills down corporate spines across Britain, the jury decided the dangers of global warming were so enormous that the Greenpeace campaigners were justified in trying to close down Kingsnorth power station in Kent. Jurors at Maidstone Crown Court cleared the six activists of criminal damage, accepting they had a 'lawful excuse' to damage the Kingsnorth property to try to prevent the even greater damage of climate change...." Think of that, kids. An English jury concluded that you've got a lawful excuse to try to shut down coal plants in your role as guardians of the future. "This verdict marks a tipping point for the climate change movement," said Ben Stewart, one of the defendants. "If jurors from the heart of Middle England say it's legitimate for a direct action group to shut down a coal-fired power station because of the harm it does to our planet, where does that leave government energy policy?" Civil disobediance to stop coal is not an idea that Mr. Gore dreamed up yesterday. He's been recommending it for some time. A year ago he said, "I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants." So, for some time now, Mr. Gore has been trying to tell us all something important: Our situation is dire. Our future is threatened. It's time for a new approach. It's time to act. One last thing, kids. As a historian I can tell you that nothing having to do with justice in the United States has ever been accomplished without civil disobedience. Nothing. Not one thing. So Al Gore is right. It's necessary. It's justified. And it's time. Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: Global Footprint Network, Sept. 23, 2008 [Printer-friendly version] CELEBRATING (?) EARTH OVERSHOOT DAY On September 23rd this year we marked an unfortunate milestone: As of that day, humanity will have consumed all the new resources the planet will produce this year, according to Global Footprint Network calculations. For the rest of 2008, we will be in the ecological equivalent of deficit spending, drawing down our resource stocks -- in essence, borrowing from the future. The recent bank failures in the United States have shown what happens when debt and spending get out of control. We are seeing signs of similarly disastrous consequences from our ecological overspending. Climate change, shrinking forests, declining biodiversity and current world food shortages are all results of the fact that we are demanding more from nature than it can supply. Humans now require the resources of 1.4 planets Just like any company nature has a budget -- it can only produce so many resources and absorb so much waste each year. Globally, we now demand the biological capacity of 1.4 planets, according to Global Footprint Network data. But of course, we only have one. Earth Overshoot Day (also known as Ecological Debt Day) was a concept devised by Global Footprint Network partner NEF (New Economics Foundation). Each year, Global Footprint Network calculates humanity's Ecological Footprint (its demand on cropland, pasture, forests and fisheries), and compares this with the amount of resources the world's lands and seas generate. Our data shows us that in less than 10 months we consume what it takes the planet 12 months to produce. Earth Overshoot Day creeps earlier every year Humanity has been in overshoot since the mid 1980s, when the first Earth Overshoot Day fell on December 31, 1986. By 1995 it was more than a month earlier, arriving on November 21. Ten years later it had moved another six weeks earlier, to October 2, 2005. What contributes to our increasing demand? Part of the story is that there are simply more people on the planet requiring nature's services. In some areas of the world -- most notably in high income regions like the U.S. and Europe, as well as industrializing nations like China -- per capita resource consumption has also been increasing. In other areas of the world, however, including India and parts of Africa, per capita Ecological Footprints have actually declined, likely as a result of there being less resources available per person. Carbon is also a big part of the story, as it is the greatest contributor to ecological overshoot. Humanity is emitting carbon faster than the planet can re-absorb it. Our carbon Footprint has increased more than 700 percent since 1961. United Nations business-as-usual projections show humanity requiring the equivalent of two planets by 2050. (For details see Global Footprint Network and WWF's Living Planet Report 2006). This would put Earth Overshoot Day on July 1, and means it would take two years for the planet to regenerate what we use in one year. Reaching this level of ecological deficit spending may be physically impossible. What Can I Do to End Overshoot? Global Footprint Network and its international partner network is focused on solving the problem of overshoot, working with businesses and government leaders around the world to make ecological limits a central part of decision-making everywhere. Citizens can take action to get out of overshoot in their own lives: eating less meat, driving and flying less, and using less energy in the home. They can also encourage government and business leaders to build communities with smart infrastructure planning and best-practice green technology. Use our interactive calculator to determine your own Ecological Footprint and learn what you can do to reduce it. With international commitment to end overshoot, Earth Overshoot Day can become history instead of news. ============== Global Footprint Network 312 Clay Street, Suite 300 Oakland CA 94610 Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: New Scientist, May 16, 2008 [Printer-friendly version] GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY SLUMPS 27% IN 35 YEARS By Michael Marshall The latest data on the global biodiversity of vertebrates shows that it has fallen by almost one-third in the last 35 years. But experts say it may still underestimate the effect humans have had on global species counts. The Living Planet Index (LPI) follows trends in nearly 4,000 populations of 1,477 vertebrate species and is said to reflect the impact humans have on the planet. It is based on a wide range of population datasets, such as commercial data on fish stocks and projects such as the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring scheme. New figures show that between 1970 and 2005, the global LPI has fallen by 27%. This suggests that the world will fail to meet the target of reducing the rate of biodiversity loss set by the 2002 Convention on Biological Diversity. The results were released as part of a WWF report entitled 2010 and Beyond: Rising to the biodiversity challenge [1.5 Mbyte PDF]. "Governments have signally failed to deliver on their biodiversity commitments, and biodiversity declines are continuing," Jonathan Loh, a researcher at the Institute of Zoology and the editor of the report, told New Scientist. Global picture Ground-living vertebrates have declined by 25%, with most of the slump occurring since 1980. Marine species held fairly steady until the late 1990s before falling sharply to give an overall drop of 28%. Freshwater species have decreased by 25%, primarily since the late 1980s. Loh says the most dramatic declines have been observed in the tropics. Tropical ground-living species have seen an average population drop of 46%, while their temperate cousins have shown no overall change. Freshwater vertebrates show different trends in different regions, leading to "no obvious signal", says Loh. European and North American populations show no overall change, but Asian-Pacific populations have declined steeply since the late 1980s. In the world's oceans, northern vertebrate populations have held fairly steady over the entire period, but may have entered a downward trend since 1990. By contrast, southern populations have fallen precipitously, although because less data is collected there the trend is less certain. Rose-tinted view The LPI focuses exclusively on vertebrates, which are relatively well- monitored. Loh says, "We started collecting data on invertebrates, but it's very patchy and not good enough as yet." The survey may be "bird-biased", he adds, because their populations are well-monitored. The LPI tracks 811 bird species but just 241 fish and 302 mammals. Fish should actually comprise the bulk of the Index. The world's 30,000 species of fish compare to just 10,000 bird species and 5,400 mammals. Loh says this suggests that the situation is worse than the data shows. "Birds are doing better than fish," he says, "so if anything, by biasing the survey towards them we're underestimating the global decline." Incomplete picture There is also a lack of good data for Latin America and Africa. Loh says that, frustratingly, "the more species there are in an area, often the less data there are on how they're doing. For instance the UK is well-monitored, but has relatively few species. It's a priority for us to find out what's happening in areas like the Amazon Basin." The WWF report was published ahead of a worldwide conference on biodiversity, the ninth meeting of the Conference of the Parties on 19-30 May. The conference will assess what has been achieved by the Convention on Biological Diversity. Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: Toronto Globe and Mail, Sept. 23, 2008 [Printer-friendly version] BLACK CLOUDS ON THE HORIZON FOR BIRDS OF THE WORLD From field sparrows to boreal chickadees, 20 of the most common species in North America are being decimated, report warns By Martin Mittelstaedt, Environment Reporter There has been a precipitous decline of more than 50 per cent in the populations of 20 of the most common North American birds over the past four decades, alarming conservationists, who say the trend is an indicator of a serious deterioration in the environment. The figures were in the State of the World's Birds, a report released yesterday and posted on a related website. Canadian and U.S. figures showing the decline were based in part on the annual Christmas bird counts compiled by thousands of volunteers across North America, and on a separate breeding bird survey. The species in trouble include those that breed in Canada's boreal forest, such as the evening grosbeak, greater scaup, rusty blackbird and boreal chickadee. Also, many grassland species are listed, including the eastern meadowlark, loggerhead shrike and field sparrow. The drop has also extended to the avian marathon fliers, those birds that migrate from North America to tropical and subtropical designations in Latin America each year. More than half of these migrating species have experienced population declines, including the Canada warbler and bobolink. The sharp declines for many of the most common but lesser known birds comes as some iconic North American species, including bald eagles, whooping cranes and peregrine falcons, are making strong comebacks. The eagle and falcon populations are recovering due to bans on toxic pesticides, and while it isn't known exactly why all of the other species are declining, alterations in habitat are usually the prime suspect. "Though there is much we still need to learn about what is driving the declines, loss and degradation of habitat are usually implicated," said Jon McCracken, a spokesman for Bird Studies Canada, a conservation group in Port Rowan, Ont., that took part in the global survey. "It is particularly worrying when we find that some of our most common species are headed into trouble." The alarming trend found in North America is also occurring elsewhere, according to the report which was issued by Birdlife International, a global umbrella group of environmental organizations. The report said that the status of the world's birds -- 9,856 living species is the current count -- "continues to get worse" and the "deterioration is accelerating, not slowing." Of these species, more than 1,200 are thought to be in trouble. The most threatened are albatrosses (82 per cent of species are at risk), cranes (60 per cent at risk) and parrots (27 per cent at risk). "Alarm calls from the world's birds are becoming ever louder ...," the report said. A total of 153 bird species are thought to have become extinct since 1500, including 18 from 1975 to 1999 and another three known or suspected to have died out since 2000. The rate of species extinctions is "exceptionally high," about 1,000 to 10,000 times what would occur in nature over these time periods. Among the threats to populations are the replacing of natural forests with plantations of only one or two tree species, the biofuel mania that is leading to forests being converted for palm-oil production, logging, industrial agriculture and fishing, and the spread of invasive predators such as rats. Conservationists have identified about 10,000 places in the world that offer crucial habitat for birds. Of these, about 600 are in Canada. They include hot spots such as Point Pelee National Park on Lake Erie, Toronto's Leslie Street Spit, a man-made peninsula that is one of the largest breeding areas on the Great Lakes for colonial water birds, and Boundary Bay, an area near Vancouver that is an important stopover site for migratory birds on the Pacific coast. Only about half the important birding sites in Canada are protected by the federal, provincial or territorial governments. "We've got to make sure we have a strategy to protect all of them," said Sarah Wren, a biologist with Nature Canada, an Ottawa-based conservation group that also worked on the bird counts. *** Birds have evolved to thrive in some of the world's most forbidding environments, but they're facing a huge challenge coping with humans. One in eight bird species around the world is at risk of extinction, with habitat loss and degradation the main reason. In North America, many common species have experienced population declines of 50 per cent since the 1960s. Spix's Macaw from Brazil became extinct in the wild in 2000. Hawaiian Crow became extinct in the wild in 2002. GLOBALLY THREATENED SPECIES Extinct in wild: 4 Critically Endangered: 190 Endangered: 363 Vulnerable: 669 IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS OF THE WORLD NEARCTIC 732 species PALEARCTIC 937 species NEOTROPICAL 3,370 species INDOMALAYAN 1,700 species OCEANIC 187 species AFROTROPICAL 1,950 species AUSTRALASIAN 1,590 species ANTARCTIC 85 species More than 10,000 important bird areas have been identified SOURCE: STATE OF THE WORLD'S BIRDS (BIRD LIFE INTERNATIONAL) Copyright 2008 CTVglobemedia Publishing Inc. Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: Politico.com, Sept. 18, 2008 [Printer-friendly version] CHEMICAL INDUSTRY TO FIGHT NEW PROPOSAL By Samuel Loewenberg The chemical industry lobby is gearing up to fend off a broad legislative overhaul that marks a significant shift in the way that chemicals are regulated in America. The push for chemical reform comes after this summer's revamping of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Now, health advocates hope that success, which introduced the so-called precautionary principle into U.S. chemical regulation, will pave the way for an even more far- reaching overhaul next year. The precautionary approach has faced fierce opposition from the petrochemical industry. Until now, applying it in U.S. chemical regulation had seemed out of reach. "The environment seems to have changed in our favor," said Rep. Hilda L. Solis (D-Calif.), vice chairman of the House Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee. "Consumers are expecting the federal government to do something. They don't want to hear about it at the last minute, after their children have been exposed." The precautionary principle shifts the burden from regulators having to prove a substance is dangerous to manufacturers having to prove it is safe. It's a fundamental part of the new legislation, the proposed Kid Safe Chemical Act, and is already its most divisive aspect. On Tuesday, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held an oversight hearing that will help set the stage for the bill. And its supporters are hoping to push it through next year and are preparing the groundwork with hearings, staff briefings, and lobbying visits by religious organizations, medical professionals and others. A crucial part of their strategy is to gain the support of the retail industry, which also played an important, if at times reluctant, role in the passage of the consumer protection overhaul earlier this summer. The Kid Safe Chemical Act was first introduced in the Senate in 2005 but gained little traction. After a series of high-profile recalls of toys and other children's products over the past two years, it became clear to both industry and consumer groups that the Consumer Product Safety Commission's enforcement was in need of an overhaul. A last-minute protest came from the petrochemical industry, particularly ExxonMobil, which sought to strike down a provision to ban some types of phthalates that advocates say could damage children's reproductive systems. The ban, pushed by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, whose home state of California had already moved to outlaw the chemicals, passed despite fierce opposition from chemical manufacturers. The passage of the phthalates ban was a "seismic shift" because it brought the precautionary principle into play, said Stephanie Lester, vice president for international trade for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents Wal-Mart, Target and other large chains. The group has not taken a position on the Kid Safe Chemical Act. The chemical industry opposes the precautionary principle on the grounds that it could unfairly ban chemicals and wants regulators to focus instead on the riskiest substances. "Better safe than sorry is one thing, but then there is throwing the baby out with the bath water, too," said Marty Durbin of the American Chemistry Council, the trade group for the chemical manufacturers. Durbin was skeptical that the children's chemical reform bill would pass in its current form, even with the success of the consumer and health groups on phthalates. The ban, he said, does not mean that "the walls have come tumbling down and now Congress is going to pass the precautionary principle." But that is exactly what health advocacy groups are hoping for. "That's the endgame for environmental and health groups that were working on the phthalate ban," said Janet Nudelman, chief lobbyist for the Breast Cancer Fund, a major force in pushing the ban through. The ban "was a referendum on chemical policy reform," she said. The health groups are planning to use the same techniques that paid off for them with the consumer protection agency overhaul. The Breast Cancer Fund was able to mobilize more than 100,000 mothers to write into the conferees asking for the ban on phthalates use in kids' toys, because of risks the chemical plastic softener could leach into children's bloodstream. One of the biggest questions with the new bill is how retailers will respond. Especially for large stores, the pressing issue is that they be given sufficient time to introduce changes into their supply chain, said Lester of the retail leaders group, and not be forced to immediately pull items off store shelves. "We need to be clear on the scope of products it applies to, clear on what our responsibility is," she said. The new bill seeks to revamp the current law, the Toxic Substances Control Act, widely acknowledged to be out of date and too weak. The bill would require that chemicals used in tens of thousands of products -- from the plastic in baby bottles to the paint on rocking chairs -- are proved safe before they are allowed to be sold. Currently, the burden is on regulators to show that a product is dangerous before they can force its removal from the shelves. Of the 80,000 chemicals used in household products, the Environmental Protection Agency has required toxicity testing of only 200, according to the bill's sponsors. "We already have strong regulations for pesticides and pharmaceuticals -- it's common sense that we do the same for chemicals that end up in household items such as bottles and toys," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.). The current legislation is modeled on a sweeping overhaul recently passed by the European Union after a long campaign against it by the U.S. chemical industry and the Bush administration. The State Department mobilized U.S. diplomatic missions around the world in opposition. In a cable to U.S. diplomats, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell argued that the European legislation "would be significantly more burdensome to industry" than current approaches. Details of that effort can be found on the website of the investigations division of the House Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), one of the co-authors of the new legislation. The new legislation is likely to be bolstered by the actions of the states, a few of which -- including Arkansas, California, New York, Maine and Washington -- are putting together their own precautionary laws. Myriad state environmental groups have signed on to the new federal legislation, including ones from Republican strongholds such as Alaska, Kentucky and Texas. Other supporters include the American Nurses Association, the National Autism Association and the Service Employees International Union. The National Council of Churches, representing 45 million people in 100,000 churches from 35 mainline denominations, is also mobilizing its membership. It was a strategy that the group also used on the consumer protection reform, said Chloe Schwabe, the council's assistant director of environmental health. "We are educating and engaging congregations to take action to improve our system to regulate chemicals and protect God's creation," Schwabe said. The precautionary approach is especially important, she said, because it "can protect people first, before they or their children are exposed to toxic chemicals." Schwabe said she is hopeful that the legislation will surpass partisan boundaries, especially with the approaching Christmas shopping season. "If these legislators are people of faith, they should be guided by their faith in making that decision to protect children and the most vulnerable among us," she said. "It shouldn't matter if you are a Democrat or a Republican." Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: The Independent (London, U.K.), Sept. 21, 2008 [Printer-friendly version] MOBILE PHONE USE 'RAISES CHILDREN'S RISK OF BRAIN CANCER FIVEFOLD' Alarming new research from Sweden on the effects of radiation raises fears that today's youngsters face an epidemic of the disease in later life By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor Children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones, startling new research indicates. The study, experts say, raises fears that today's young people may suffer an "epidemic" of the disease in later life. At least nine out of 10 British 16-year-olds have their own handset, as do more than 40 per cent of primary schoolchildren. Yet investigating dangers to the young has been omitted from a massive 3.1 million-pound ($5.7 million) British investigation of the risks of cancer from using mobile phones, launched this year, even though the official Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme -- which is conducting it -- admits that the issue is of the "highest priority". Despite recommendations of an official report that the use of mobiles by children should be "minimised", the Government has done almost nothing to discourage it. Last week the European Parliament voted by 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to bring in stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, Wi-fi and other devices, partly because children are especially vulnerable to them. They are more at risk because their brains and nervous systems are still developing and because -- since their heads are smaller and their skulls are thinner -- the radiation penetrates deeper into their brains. The Swedish research was reported this month at the first international conference on mobile phones and health. It sprung from a further analysis of data from one of the biggest studies carried out into the risk that the radiation causes cancer, headed by Professor Lennart Hardell of the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden. Professor Hardell told the conference -- held at the Royal Society by the Radiation Research Trust -- that "people who started mobile phone use before the age of 20" had more than five-fold increase in glioma", a cancer of the glial cells that support the central nervous system. The extra risk to young people of contracting the disease from using the cordless phone found in many homes was almost as great, at more than four times higher. Those who started using mobiles young, he added, were also five times more likely to get acoustic neuromas, benign but often disabling tumours of the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness. By contrast, people who were in their twenties before using handsets were only 50 per cent more likely to contract gliomas and just twice as likely to get acoustic neuromas. Professor Hardell told the IoS: "This is a warning sign. It is very worrying. We should be taking precautions." He believes that children under 12 should not use mobiles except in emergencies and that teenagers should use hands-free devices or headsets and concentrate on texting. At 20 the danger diminishes because then the brain is fully developed. Indeed, he admits, the hazard to children and teenagers may be greater even than his results suggest, because the results of his study do not show the effects of their using the phones for many years. Most cancers take decades to develop, longer than mobile phones have been on the market. The research has shown that adults who have used the handsets for more than 10 years are much more likely to get gliomas and acoustic neuromas, but he said that there was not enough data to show how such relatively long-term use would increase the risk for those who had started young. He wants more research to be done, but the risks to children will not be studied in the MTHR study, which will follow 90,000 people in Britain. Professor David Coggon, the chairman of the programmes management committee, said they had not been included because other research was being done on young people by a study at Sweden's Kariolinska Institute. He said: "It looks frightening to see a five-fold increase in cancer among people who started use in childhood," but he said he "would be extremely surprised" if the risk was shown to be so high once all the evidence was in. But David Carpenter, dean of the School of Public Health at the State University of NewYork -- who also attended the conference -- said: "Children are spending significant time on mobile phones. We may be facing a public health crisis in an epidemic of brain cancers as a result of mobile phone use." In 2000 and 2005, two official inquiries under Sir William Stewart, a former government chief scientist, recommended the use of mobile phones by children should be "discouraged" and "minimised". But almost nothing has been done, and their use by the young has more than doubled since the turn of the millennium. Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: From: U.S. News & World Report, Sept. 15, 2008 [Printer-friendly version] 10 WAYS GLOBAL WARMING COULD HURT YOUR HEALTH By Sarah Baldauf Scientists the globe over have observed changes that are impacting individuals' health and have also created models to predict where we might be headed. Here's a sampling of what we could be discussing with our doctors in the decades to come. ** Stepped-up sniffling. Allergies -- from ragweed in the fall to tree pollen in the spring -- are predicted not only to become stronger but also to enjoy lengthened seasons because of less frost and earlier blooming. Fungal spores (those outdoors and in moist basements) will most likely thrive, tickling the throats of many. ** Algae-related complaints. Cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, thrive and bloom in the rising temperatures of bodies of water, from municipal water systems to the Great Lakes and Florida's Lake Okeechobee. The algae have been linked to digestive, neurological, liver, and dermatological diseases. ** Painful kidney stones. Because of higher temps and more dehydration, the crystallized calcifications that must be passed -- often painfully -- through the urinary tract could plague an additional 2.2 million people a year by 2050, researchers estimate. The current "kidney stone belt," which includes southern states like Florida, the Carolinas, and Arkansas, could extend up into Kentucky and northern California. ** Exotic infections. Dengue fever, malaria, and encephalitis, while not exactly household names, have seen U.S. outbreaks and upticks in incidence in recent years. Mosquitoes and plankton, which flourish in warmer water temperatures, play a key role in transmitting such diseases. ** Itchier cases of poison ivy. Poison ivy appears to become more potent as carbon dioxide levels rise, research has suggested. ** Surplus of stings. Alaska's warming has heralded a sixfold rise in severe stings reported, and the buzzing bees, wasps, and yellow jackets are showing up in spots never before seen. Alaska may be a harbinger for the rest of us, as its temperature changes have been the most significant in the United States. ** Fewer fruits available. The value of crops produced in the Yakima River Valley -- more than 6,ooo square miles of orchards and farmland east of Seattle -- may drop almost a quarter as temperatures rise over the coming decades. Less water for irrigation from nearby mountain snowpack could drive down fruit availability and drive up the cost of the produce. ** Upsurge in summertime hacking and wheezing. Cool breezes coming down from Canada could diminish, driving up ozone pollution at ground level -- particularly in the Northeast and Midwest -- say some Harvard scientists. Possible result: irritated lungs, especially in people with respiratory illness. ** Deluge of heat-wave deaths. Already a risk to the very young and the very old in the summer months, strings of hot and humid days are expected to become more frequent and more severe, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In California, for example, such deaths could double by 2100. ** Bigger coastal storms. The flooding associated with the likes of Katrina and Ike and the physical and mental stresses that ensue are expected to occur more frequently as storms surge around the world. By 2050, a 1-foot rise in sea level is predicted, which could worsen flood damage by 36 to 58 percent. Return to Table of Contents :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment & Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are often considered separately or not at all. The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy, intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and therefore ruled by the few. In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, "Who gets to decide?" And, "How do the few control the many, and what might be done about it?" As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots, please Email them to us at dhn@rachel.org. Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject. Editor: Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy & Health News send any Email to: rachel-subscribe@pplist.net. In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that you want to subscribe. To unsubscribe, send any Email to: rachel-unsubscribe@pplist.net. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::