Rachel's Precaution Reporter #125
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
From: Juneau Empire (Alaska) .............................[This story printer-friendly]
January 9, 2008
CONSIDERING KNOWLEDGE'S LIMITS FOR TOMORROW'S SAKE
[Rachel's introduction: Both science and the economists are wrong if either imagines that judicious prudence originates in their perspective fields of understanding. The precautionary principle isn't a new idea. It is a natural element of human free will.]
By Rich Moniak, for the Juneau Empire
On Alaska's Shishmaref Island in the Chukchi Sea, global warming is not about the ability of scientists to predict the future. The retreating sea ice has robbed the community of its natural barrier against storm surges. Coupled with the melting of the once stable permafrost, the island is rapidly eroding and threatening the present day community of predominantly Native Alaskans.
The cause of global warming is debatable, though. Even as new studies add credibility to the possibility that the changes are human-induced, it is still a theory limited by the inability to truly model the earth's complexity. It's not a question of certainty as much as trust in the advances of scientific knowledge. And those most vigorously questioning science's conclusions are politicians with a focus on our economy.
Scientists and economists come together at the astrologer's table. Both see predictions through the glass ball of their professions. They are reading the global warming scenarios as cautions, one claiming a desire to protect physical human communities, the other to guard against erosion of the American machine that keeps almost all of us employed.
At the 1998 Wingspread Conference in Wisconsin, scientists, philosophers, lawyers and environmental activists met to discuss ways to implement the "precautionary principle" into American policy. This ideal that has been incorporated into more than a few international agreements states: "When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically."
The principle might well be imagined as an admission that science hasn't always been a basis of solid knowledge. Scientists supporting it seem to be reacting to past mistakes which have contributed to the present crisis they believe we're facing. At the same time, though, they are attempting to elevate their role in directing more of the affairs of our society.
Absent from the conference were the nation's economists. But replace the words human health and environment with economy, and it's apparent the two sides agree on safeguarding society from the recklessness of acting without complete certainty of knowledge. They only disagree over who should lead the way.
Both science and the economy [sic; economists?] are wrong if either imagines that judicious prudence originates in their perspective fields of understanding. The precautionary principle isn't a new idea. It is a natural element of human free will.
What's allowed us to progress to the point where science and the economy are at odds is that for too long the side effects of their advancements have been cast aside. When other people were harmed in relatively subtle ways, we've dismissed it as the price of progress. Only disasters like Love Canal, Chernobyl and Bhopal caused us to look at what might be lurking in our backyards.
In Discourse of Method, a philosophical classic published more than a hundred years before the industrial age began, Rene Descartes explored the limits of human knowledge. "I think, therefore I am" he famously wrote. A precept for all his thinking was never to accept anything "for true which [he] did not plainly know to be such."
The most obvious truth we will never know is tomorrow's. And this applies to both the doomsayers and those who predict that our actions today will have no serious consequences to our children's future health and the well being of their communities.
Security has always trumped the unknown, and thus the wish for certainty has made it easy to dismiss the philosopher. We've trusted the knowledge of experts only to learn later they never fully understood the world and its human inhabitants.
The cause of global warming challenges our belief systems. One is the economy with the metaphorical lifeline "In God We Trust" printed on our currency. Another is science, which we rely on more than money when our body is failing. We believe in preventative medicine to detect the worst diseases at the earliest stages. If we trust the doctor whose oath is to treat our individual ailments "so long as the treatment of others is not compromised," then perhaps we need a philosophy of life that grants greater respect to the unknown inhabitants of tomorrow's world.
** Rich Moniak is a Juneau resident.
Copyright Copyright 1997-2007 Juneau Empire
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Guardian (Manchester, U.K.) ........................[This story printer-friendly]
January 13 2008
FRENCH GOVT MOVE TO BAN MONSANTO GMO DRAWS FIRE
[Rachel's introduction: "(The decision) means simply that when the precautionary principle is at stake I will make the political choice to put our country at the front of the debate on the environment," French President Sarkozy said in announcing the ban on Monsanto's genetically modified corn.]
By Reuters
PARIS, Jan 13 (Reuters) -- French government moves to ban the country's only genetically modified (GMO) crop drew fire on Sunday from the speaker of the country's parliament, farmers and biotechnology industry groups.
The government said on Friday it would activate a "safeguard clause" in European law to suspend the commercial use of MON 810, a maize developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto.
Writing in the Sunday newspaper Journal Du Dimanche, National Assembly President Bernard Accoyer of the ruling centre-right UMP party said decisions to ban GMOs should be based on "irrefutable" evidence, implicitly criticising the government for basing its decision on a panel's controversial opinion.
"The scientists on this (panel) have disassociated themselves publicly from the conclusions expressed by the chairman of this body," wrote Accoyer.
"Can our country really bind its future to this fragile and hasty opinion...?" he added, arguing GMOs offered potential public health benefits and calling for parliament to establish its own "high authority" to oversee their authorisation.
When a country activates the safeguard procedure it has to provide the European Commission, the EU's executive body, with proof there is new scientific evidence justifying a ban.
If the Commission and European Union member states deemed France's arguments invalid, France would probably receive an order to lift its ban, a decision it could then appeal.
INDUSTRY, FARMERS UPSET In an interview with Reuters, Jacques Beauville, a farmer near Toulouse who had planted 80 percent of his 127 hectares with MON 810, accused Paris of caving in to anti- globalisation protestor Jose Bove, who had gone on hunger strike to protest the use of GMOs. Bove ended his protest on Saturday.
"If we obey this moratorium then we will end up polluting more and using more water. Even worse, as yields fall we will from next August have to buy Argentine maize, which is made using GMOs," Beauville said.
Around 22,000 hectares -- or 1 percent of France's cultivated land -- was sown with MON 810 last year.
In a statement on Sunday, the U.S. based Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) said there were no safety concerns that could justify France's MON 810 ban.
"BIO urges the U.S. government and the European Commission to object to this unnecessary and unscientific policy at the highest levels," it said in a statement.
France's announcement on Friday coincided with a deadline for the EU to comply with a WTO ruling to end a ban on imports of genetically modified (GMO) food. The EU is not due to respond until Jan. 21, leaving it open to possible trade sanctions.
The MON 810 technology, which is also used by other seed makers, is designed to resist the European corn borer, a pest that attacks maize stalks and thrives in warmer climates.
Monsanto says the protein contained in its maize has selective toxicity but is harmless to humans, fish and wildlife.
The Commission has approved the use of MON 810 around the 27-nation bloc, but several EU countries have expressed concern about its safety, including Austria, Greece and Hungary.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy defended his government's decision in a speech on Saturday while emphasising he was not hostile in principle to the development of GMOs.
"(The decision) means simply that when the precautionary principle is at stake I will make the political choice to put our country at the front of the debate on the environment," he said in a speech to a UMP conference. (Reporting by Nick Antonovics and Nicolas Fichot; editing by Rory Channing)
Copyright Guardian News and Media Limited 2008 f
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Washington Post (pg. A6) ............................[This story printer-friendly]
January 12, 2008
FOOD FROM CLONES SAFE, E.U. DRAFT SAYS
[Rachel's introduction: "It remains unclear, however, whether the European Union will ultimately approve the sale of cloned products... Unlike in the United States, such decisions in Europe must incorporate social and ethical factors. And the European public broadly supports the 'precautionary principle,' which calls for society to err on the side of caution when risks are uncertain."]
By Rick Weiss, Washington Post Staff Writer
The European Food Safety Authority yesterday declared that meat and milk from healthy cloned cattle and pigs is "very unlikely" to pose risks to consumers, opening the door to possible European sales of those controversial foods in the future.
The highly anticipated draft scientific opinion of the European agency comes just days before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is due to release its final report on food from clones, which is expected to reach virtually the same conclusion. Some backers of the fledgling agricultural cloning industry have said they hoped that a positive report from Europe might help ease the process of gaining acceptance by American consumers.
It remains unclear, however, whether the European Union will ultimately approve the sale of cloned products, and if so, under what conditions.
Unlike in the United States, such decisions in Europe must incorporate social and ethical factors. And the European public broadly supports the "precautionary principle," which calls for society to err on the side of caution when risks are uncertain.
Moreover, the European agency, which provides scientific advice to the European Commission, noted in its report that many cloned farm animals have health problems, including life-threatening physiological abnormalities. In Europe, where animal welfare is a much higher- profile issue than it is in the United States, that reality could also become a stumbling block.
The 47-page report concluded, however, that unhealthy clones would be screened out by standard food inspection methods. And, echoing earlier assertions by the FDA, it found that milk and meat from healthy clones are as nutritious and safe as milk and meat from ordinary animals.
"Based on current knowledge there is no expectation that clones or their progeny would introduce any new food safety risks compared with conventionally bred animals," the report said.
The report also concluded that sexually produced offspring of clones -- far more likely to enter the food supply than clones themselves, which are too valuable to slaughter -- are fully normal.
Scientists at a handful of companies around the world, including at least two in the United States, want to clone prize-winning beef cattle, dairy cows and pigs as a way to bring more consistently high- quality products to market. But consumer reaction has been chilly.
Some fear that clones may harbor hidden health risks, while others decry the high death rates seen in newborn clones and the suffering of their surrogate mothers, which can have trouble giving birth to their often oversize offspring.
Despite that wariness, and despite European agriculture's general lack of interest in adopting the technology, the EU has been under international pressure to rule on the products' safety -- in part so other nations can export their meat and milk products there without worrying about trade challenges.
The issue is also of interest in Europe because farmers there use semen from American cattle.
New Zealand has released a positive report on the safety of food from clones and their progeny, and Canada and Argentina are expected to follow soon.
The "draft risk assessment" released by the FDA in December 2006 found no unique health risks from meat or milk from clones or their offspring. The agency has been reworking that analysis, taking into account new science and the more than 30,500 public comments it received. It is expected to release its final report any day.
Last February, noting progress made by the FDA, the European Commission asked its Food Safety Authority also to provide a "scientific opinion" on the safety of foods from clones and an assessment of cloning's effects on animal health and welfare and on the environment.
Yesterday's report was a first draft of that opinion and will be open for public comment for 45 days. It asserted that the introduction of cloned animals into agriculture will not affect the environment.
"Cloning does not involve changes in DNA sequences and thus no new genes would be introduced into the environment," it said.
The report noted that a different European advisory group is preparing a study of the ethical implications of bringing cloning to European agriculture. And it recommended further research, especially on older clones, very few of which, it said, have been carefully studied.
Joseph Mendelson, legal director at the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, which has petitioned the FDA to delay approving cloned food, predicted that Europeans would demand marketing restrictions on the products.
"Human health is only part of the equation in Europe," Mendelson said. "And even if Europe gives it a green light, we believe they will require labels."
The FDA has said it is unlikely to require that cloned food be labeled as such if no novel risks are identified.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization, a Washington-based trade group whose members include the nation's two largest farm animal cloning companies, applauded the European action and encouraged the FDA to release its long-delayed final report.
Foreign correspondent Molly Moore contributed to this report from Paris.
Copyright 2008 The Washington Post Company
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Greenwire ..........................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 15, 2008
FEDERAL AGENCY OKS CLONED FOOD
[Rachel's introduction: FDA tentatively ruled in 2006 that products from cloned animals, like meat and milk, are no different than those from naturally bred adult animals, calling cloning "a more advanced form of" breeding technologies already widely used in the cattle industry.]
The Food and Drug Administration has concluded that food for healthy cloned animals and their offspring are as safe to consume as food from ordinary animals.
In its unreleased "final risk assessment" obtained by the Washington Post, the agency found no evidence to support concerns that cloned food products could present a danger to humans.
The 968-page report includes hundreds of pages of raw data to support the agency's conclusions against opposition to cloned foods from multiple groups.
"Moral, religious and ethical concerns... have been raised," the agency notes in a document accompanying the report. But because the agency is banned by law to evaluate those issues, the risk assessment is "strictly a science-based evaluation."
FDA tentatively ruled in 2006 that products from cloned animals, like meat and milk, are no different than those from naturally bred adult animals, calling cloning "a more advanced form of" breeding technologies already widely used in the cattle industry.
Some consumers and consumer groups remain skeptical about cloning, as well as genetically altered foods. Some big food companies say they will not sell cloned products, while others worry about the safeguards in place to inform and protect consumers (Greenwire, Jan. 4).
Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group that petitioned FDA to restrict the sale of food from clones, said his group is considering legal action.
"One of the amazing things about this," Mendelson said, "is that at a time when we have a readily acknowledged crisis in our food safety system, the FDA is spending its resources and energy and political capital on releasing a safety assessment for something that no one but a handful of companies wants" (Rick Weiss, Washington Post, Jan. 15). -- EB
Copyright 1996-2007 E&E Publishing, LLC
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Grist Magazine .....................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 14, 2008
GREEN CLOROX
[Rachel's introduction: "Also I'd look to see whether Clorox put any money into the Chlorine Chemistry Council, an industry group that formed to prevent any efforts to apply the precautionary principle to chlorine products... but, oh, there I go again, not being happy enough."]
By David Roberts
Joel Makower has a characteristically thorough and thoughtful look at Clorox's launch of their new "Green Works" line of cleaning products, in which he was peripherally involved (does the guy sleep?).
I'll admit, when I read these things, I feel positive and hopeful, and then I think, hm, how will some enviro manage to spin this as a hopelessly cynical greenwashing ploy from The Man? Sometimes I can predict in advance, sometimes I can't, but it's inevitable. Sigh.
Anyway, here's the uplifting conclusion:
"But there's a potentially bigger story here. Clorox -- a 95-year-old, relatively stodgy company -- seems to have discovered its green gene. CEO Knauss has identified sustainability as one of three core consumer trends with which he wants to align Clorox products. The combination of Green Works, Burt's Bees, and Brita give it a toehold in that market space, a foundation on which it can build more offerings. Already, additions to the Green Works line are being planned.
All of which has invigorated the company, says Buttimer, a thirtysomething mother of two who has become the corporate face of Green Works. "I can't keep my calendar clear of associate marketing managers, our entry-level positioning and marketing people, asking, 'How do I work on this project?' Or people coming to me and announcing, 'My parents are members of Sierra Club.' Everyone wants to be involved."
Moreover, she adds, "What's really exciting is that we're building knowledge and confidence within the rest of the company that we can do the same things with a lot of our other product lines." Every success story is another brick in the wall.
========================================================
A Grist Magazine reader, identified only as JMG, posted this response to David Roberts:
You need a new gig
"I'll admit, when I read these things, I feel positive and hopeful, and then I think, hm, how will some enviro manage to spin this as a hopelessly cynical greenwashing ploy from The Man? Sometimes I can predict in advance, sometimes I can't, but it's inevitable. Sigh. I'll admit, when I read these things, I think 'Gee, about time' and then I think, hm, how will some pundit use this to attack enviros, the very people whose insistence on environmental consciousness propelled this? Sometimes I can predict in advance -- no wait, pretty much all the time. Every positive step will be presented with a big 'So there, now stop whining you big babies,' no matter how otherwise odious the companies involved are."
I had to laugh at the description of chlorine atoms as benign simply because they come from table salt -- hey, uranium and arsine are totally 100% natural products too! Mmmm, mmm, good, right!
At some point, when an editor starts to dislike his audience enough, it's time for a break.
(I personally am pleased with this and provisionally say "Huzzah" -- but will first wait to see if they take the other products (which their own research admits work no better) -- off the market before cheering too loud. Also I'd look to see whether Clorox put any money into the Chlorine Chemistry Council, an industry group that formed to prevent any efforts to apply the precautionary principle to chlorine products... but, oh, there I go again, not being happy enough.)
P.S. For Makower
Rebuts is not the same as refutes, even when you're writing about a paying client. Clorox's responses were offered as a refutation for environmentalists concerns about chlorine; they hardly qualify as a refutation.
Copyright 2007. Grist Magazine, Inc.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: CommonDreams.org ....................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 14, 2008
COCA-COLA ALLY RECOMMENDS BOTTLING PLANT CLOSURE IN INDIA
[Rachel's introduction: "The Coca-Cola company is part of the UN Global Compact and as a result, it has agreed to uphold the precautionary principle," Srivastava continued. "The Coca-Cola company must apply the precautionary principle and cease its operations in water stressed areas as well as areas with excessive pollution around Coca-Cola plants in India."]
NEW DELHI -- January 15 -- In a major blow to the Coca-Cola company in India, a report by its ally, the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), has called for the closure of one of its bottling plants in India -- in the village of Kala Dera in the state of Rajasthan.
Citing the widespread water shortages being experienced by villages around Coca-Cola's bottling plant, the report by TERI released yesterday recommends that either the Coca-Cola bottling find alternative sources of water -- a highly impractical option -- or either relocate or shut down the plant altogether.
The 500 page report, -- "Independent, Third Party Assessment of Coca- Cola Facilities in India" -- came as the result of high profile student-led campaigns in the US, Canada and the UK. Over twenty colleges and universities have removed Coca-Cola products as a result of the international campaign which aims to hold the Coca-Cola company accountable for creating water shortages and pollution in the areas where it operates in India. The report assessed only 6 of Coca-Cola's 50 bottling plants in India.
The University of Michigan had placed the Coca-Cola company on probation in 2006 and had asked for an independent assessment of its operations in India.
"We are absolutely thrilled that finally the source of so many of our problems, the Coca-Cola bottling plant, will be shut down," said Rameshwar Kudi of the Kala Dera Sangharsh Samiti, the local group that has led the campaign for the plant's closure.
It remains to be seen how the Coca-Cola company will respond to the recommendations by TERI. But activists in India have vowed to ensure that Coca-Cola meets the recommendations for Kala Dera.
The report by TERI is a damning indictment of Coca-Cola's operations in India.
The report takes the company to task for siting its bottling plants in already water stressed areas, without much thought given to the impacts on communities. The report also validates the concerns of water scarcity and pollution that have been raised by communities in Kala Dera, Mehdiganj as well as others. A list of Coca-Cola's shortcomings, according to the report, follows this press note.
"The report confirms what we have been saying all along. The groundwater situation in Mehdiganj is deteriorating, and we are not going to wait till we also become like Kala Dera. The company must stop its operations immediately," said Nandlal Master of Lok Samiti which is leading the campaign to shut down the Coca-Cola plant in Mehdiganj.
The report points out the heavy pollution present in the immediate vicinity if the Coca-Cola bottling plants and calls for additional studies. The report also shows that the Coca-Cola company has failed to meet its own standards regarding waste management, and that the company has hampered the TERI assessment because it has refused to share the Environmental Impact Assessments for any one of the six plants.
It remains unclear as to why the six plants were chosen. Community activists would have expected to see the Coca-Cola bottling plant in Plachimada in Kerala, which has been shut down since March 2004, also included because the Coca-Cola company is still trying to re-open the plant. Similarly, a franchisee operated Coca-Cola bottling plant in Ballia in Uttar Pradesh should have been included in the assessment because community members found industrial waste scattered all across the plant premises less than a year ago.
"Enough is enough. Now even Coca-Cola's ally in India has found the company to not be up to the mark when it comes to protecting water resources and preventing pollution," said Amit Srivastava of the India Resource Center, an international campaigning group.
"The Coca-Cola company is part of the UN Global Compact and as a result, it has agreed to uphold the precautionary principle," Srivastava continued. "The Coca-Cola company must apply the precautionary principle and cease its operations in water stressed areas as well as areas with excessive pollution around Coca-Cola plants in India."
The precautionary principle states that "where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
The India Resource Center has opposed the choice of TERI as the "independent" assessor of Coca-Cola because the two groups have worked together in the past, including funding from Coca-Cola to TERI, co- organizing Earth Day, and TERI naming Coca-Cola as among the most responsible companies in India in 2001.
Among others, the report notes that:
* The Coca-Cola company's decision to site their plants is strictly driven by business and comes at a heavy cost to the communities. The report notes that "the basic focus of the Coca-Cola Company water resource management practices is on business continuity--community water issues do not appear to form an integral part of the water resource management practices of the Coca-Cola Company."
* The concerns being raised by the community about water scarcity and pollution have been validated by the report. The report notes that, "In general, the community perceptions were found in conformity to the results obtained from the detailed technical assessment of groundwater resources."
* In Mehdiganj, the site of another vibrant community-led campaign against Coca-Cola, the report acknowledges that "the water tables have been depleting and the aquifer may move from a safe to semi-critical situation." The Coca-Cola company, on the other hand, has actually claimed that groundwater levels are rising as a result of its operations in the past.
* The report also found excessive pollution in the immediate vicinity of the Coca-Cola bottling plants, and has recommended additional studies to establish the reasons. "Regional water quality assessment of four out of six sites (Kaladera, Mehndiganj, Nemam, and Sathupalle) revealed that villages located in the immediate vicinity of the plant showed the excess presence of certain parameters. However, since this assessment here could not relate the regional groundwater quality to the operations of the Coca-Cola plant, there is a need to carry out a further detailed study to establish/rule out the reasons for such presence."
* The Coca-Cola company hampered the assessment by not sharing the Environmental Due Diligence reports (environmental impact assessments) with the assessment team, citing "legal and confidential" reasons.
* The report noted that farmers' rights to groundwater for farming must be respected, and given precedence over industrial demands for water, particularly in areas that have been declared critical or overexploited in terms of groundwater resources.
* The report also noted that while the bottling plants assessed may have met some, but not all, of the government regulatory standards, the plants had not achieved the wastewater standards set by the Coca- Cola company itself. "The presence of faecal coliform and several other physico-chemical pollutants in the treated wastewater in almost all the plants calls for an urgent and stringent definition (and implementation) of standards and practices as well as source identification."
CONTACT: India Resource Center Rameshwar Kudi, India (Hindi only) +91 9414049053 Amit Srivastava, India +91 98103 46161 US + 1 415 336 7584
Copyright Copyrighted 1997-2008
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Zenit.org ...........................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 13, 2008
WHAT A FEARFUL WORLD NEEDS
[Rachel's introduction: In this long, rambling article we find the precautionary principle offered as evidence that people have lost hope. To us, it is just the opposite: the worldwide advance of the precautionary principle is one of the most hopeful signs of the past 20 years. If the glass half empty or half full?]
By Father John Flynn, LC
ROME -- In a timely message for the New Year, Benedict XVI urged the world to rediscover the Christian virtue of hope. In his homily during the Dec. 31 vespers to mark the end of 2007 the Pontiff referred to the lack of hope and trust in life prevalent in modern Western society, calling it an "obscure" evil.
Since the publication of his encyclical on hope, "Spe Salvi," the Pope has returned on a number of occasions to this theme. On Dec. 2, during his Angelus address for the First Sunday of Advent, the Pontiff commented that modern science has tended to confine faith and hope to the private sphere.
He said that this unfortunately tends to deprive the world of hope. "Science contributes much to the good of humanity, but it is not able to redeem it," Benedict XVI affirmed.
Then, in his opening words of the address preceding the Christmas Day blessing "urbi et orbi" (to the city of Rome and the world), the Pope said the feast is "a day of great hope: Today the Savior of mankind is born." With the birth of the child Jesus, "a great hope entered the hearts of those who awaited him," he added.
The Holy Father isn't the only one to perceive how contemporary society needs to rediscover hope. On Jan. 1 the New York Times published an article titled "In 2008, a 100% Chance of Alarm."
The article referred to the constant warnings of climate change, and how often the media tend to concentrate on the most pessimistic warnings. Too many journalists and scientists, the article contended, are constantly on the lookout for the new sin -- producing excessive carbon.
This often results in misleading articles. The New York Times noted how British forecasters predicted 2007 would be the hottest on record. It turned out not to be so, but in any case at the end of the year, the BBC exclaimed that 2007 data had confirmed the warming trend.
The Times article also observed that the media ignored recent evidence of cooling in Antarctica, along with higher ice levels, in contrast to the widespread publicity given to lower ice levels in the Arctic.
Be afraid
Fear tactics are also common in politics. In its Dec. 24 issue the magazine Newsweek dedicated a four-page article to examining how fear is used by many of the candidates in the U.S. presidential campaign under way. "A candidate who neglects the fear factor should have a concession speech ready to go," concluded the article.
In a book published in November, Christopher Richard and Booker North looked at the high costs of excessive fears. We run the risk of falling into a new age of superstition, warns "Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares Are Costing Us the Earth" (Continuum).
Genuine threats do exist, the authors admit. But too often preliminary scientific evidence is exaggerated, the media inflate the dangers, and then politicians impose new laws, with high economic costs, Richard and North contend.
For example, when in 1996 the BSE, or mad cow disease, broke out, media reports predicted hundreds of thousands of deaths. One newspaper went so far as to forecast a half-million deaths a year. The final death toll was calculated at around a couple of hundred.
In their conclusion to the almost 500-page analysis of food and environmental scares during the last years, the authors observe that in part the fear is due to the secularization of society. Once people no longer draw the meaning of their lives from religion, society's highest value is now related to bodily existence. Moreover, the need to find a substitute for notions of sin and evil encourages the presentation of dangers in an apocalyptic manner.
Negative focus
Other authors have also commented on the increasingly fearful nature of modern society. In 2005 British sociologist Frank Furedi published the third edition of his book "Culture of Fear" (Continuum).
We run the risk of being dominated by the belief humanity is confronted by destructive forces that threaten our existence, Furedi warned. Scares range from killer asteroids to lethal viruses and global warming. A corollary to the culture of fear is that we now celebrate victimhood more than heroes, and people are urged to prove they are the most deserving of counseling and compensation, instead of encouraging initiative.
Furedi followed up his analysis with a further book, published in 2005, "Politics of Fear" (Continuum). The terms of left and right, he noted, are no longer an adequate way to describe politics. Instead, today the cultural environment is one of skepticism, relativism and cynicism, which leads in the political arena to what Furedi terms "the conservatism of fear."
Unlike the conservatism of the past, which believed in the unique character of a human being, the current conservatism is driven by a "profound misanthropic impulse," he argued. "The ethos of sustainability, the dogma of the precautionary principle, the idealization of nature, of the 'organic,' all express a misanthropic mistrust of human ambition and experimentation.
Darkness
The theological counterpart to this sociological and political analysis came in the Pope's recent encyclical. He started by observing the novelty of the Christian message of hope. St. Paul, the Pontiff noted, told the Ephesians that before coming into contact with Christ, they were "without hope and without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:12).
The pagan gods were questionable and the myths contradictory, the encyclical added. Therefore, without Christ they were, "in a dark world, facing a dark future" (No. 2).
Christians, by contrast, know that their lives will not end in emptiness, even if the details of their future life are not all clear. This certainty changes our lives, and so the Christian message, the Pope continued, is not just informative but it is life-changing. "The one who has hope lives differently; the one who hopes has been granted the gift of a new life," he said.
The current crisis of faith in modern society is "essentially a crisis of Christian hope," the Pope explained (No. 17). The encyclical went on to urge a dialogue between modernity and Christianity, and its concept of hope.
In this dialogue Christians "must learn anew in what their hope truly consists, what they have to offer to the world and what they cannot offer" (No. 22). For its part contemporary society needs to re-examine its uncritical faith in material and scientific progress. Benedict XVI does not reject progress, but notes that it is ambiguous.
Progress
"Without doubt, it offers new possibilities for good, but it also opens up appalling possibilities for evil -- possibilities that formerly did not exist," he observed. True progress, the Pope went on to say, also needs to be moral, and if reason opens itself to faith, then it becomes possible to distinguish between good and evil.
The encyclical does not disparage material and scientific progress, and in fact, Benedict XVI acknowledged the need for "the greater and lesser hopes that keep us going day by day" (No. 31). Nevertheless, the text continued, these hopes are not enough without the "great hope" that is God.
"God is the foundation of hope: not any god, but the God who has a human face and who has loved us to the end, each one of us and humanity in its entirety," the Pope concluded.
A world without God is a world without hope, the Pontiff observed further on in the encyclical. Perhaps, then, we should not be surprised at the fear-ridden state of modern society. Along with science, humanity needs to rediscover its faith in God if it is to heal the deeper sources of its fears.
Copyright Innovative Media, Inc.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
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: rpr-subscribe@pplist.net
Table of Contents edition: rpr-toc-subscribe@pplist.net
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160
New Brunswick, N.J. 08901
rpr@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::