Rachel's Democracy & Health News #997
Thursday, February 5, 2009
From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #997 ..........[This story printer-friendly]
February 5, 2009
THE EMBARRASSING DEATH OF ENVIRONMENTALISM
[Rachel's introduction: The essay, "Death of Environmentalism" has now been expanded into a book called "Break Through" in which two 30- something white guys claim they can show us the way to a new "politics of possibility" including "a new and better ecological movement." It's embarrassing.]
Review of: Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through; From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility (Boston and N.Y.: Houghton-Mifflin, 2007).
By Peter Montague
It's hard to scan the environmental movement without running into a little elephant in the room -- an essay called "The Death of Environmentalism" published in late 2004 by a couple of 30-something white guys, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger. Nordhaus is a pollster and Shellenberger identifies himself as a "strategist." Their essay lit up the horizon for a couple of years -- variously interpreted as a new day dawning or the glow from a fire bombing.
"The Death of Environmentalism" (which I call "Death," for short) criticized the environmental movement for
(a) separating "the environment" from issues like jobs, safe streets, and health care,
(b) offering a message that was too negative, and
(c) proposing solutions that were too technical and too narrow instead of offering an inspiring vision tied to values that voters hold dear.
"Death" caused a stir, perhaps because there was some truth to some of its claims. For the past 30 years, Big Green groups in D.C. -- who are "the environmental movement" in most people's eyes -- have focused on restricting harmful emissions rather than promoting a vision of a sustainable society. In general, they have not given two hoots about workers, people of low income, or people of color. They have advocated more efficient, less-polluting automobiles, without stumping for major investment in public transit. They have tried to curb emissions from coal-fired power plants, instead of embracing a vision of Solartopia. So "Death" was partly right.
"Death" was also partly self-serving. In 2003, Nordhaus and Shellenberger had helped start the "Apollo Alliance" and were dreaming up other projects, such as the "Breakthrough Institute" (where "The era of small thinking is over"), so they needed funding. One way to get funding for a new project is to bash the people who have the funding now. (The "Death" essay was first presented at a meeting of the Environmental Grantmakers Association. It worked. Funding was diverted in a pretty big way.)
Flush with notoriety, new funding, and invitations to speak, Nordhaus and Shellenberger then turned their essay into a book called "Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility." When the book arrived, I was expecting "Death" warmed over, but what I found was something entirely different. Here's where it gets embarrassing.
The aim of the book, we are told, is to offer us nothing less than a grand strategy for remaking America -- a "politics of possibility," as the subtitle of the book says. The goals of the book are grandiose -- not only a new industrial policy for the U.S. [pg. 228] but a "new social contract" [pg. 40], all driven by a new and better ecological movement. [pg. 128]
To my surprise, between the "Death" essay and the "Breakthrough" book, the emphasis changed completely. "Death" was about the failure of big, national environmental groups to address global warming: "Over the last 15 years environmental foundations and organizations have invested hundreds of millions of dollars into combating global warming. We have strikingly little to show for it." [pg. 6] And: "The institutions that define what environmentalism means boast large professional staffs and receive tens of millions of dollars each year from foundations and individuals." [pg. 11] "Death" was an attack on Big Green.
In contrast, in 344 pages the "Breakthrough" book mentions very few national organizations (Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and it even gets NRDC's name wrong [pg. 201]). No, the target of attack in "Breakthrough" is no longer the big corporate-funded enviros like NRDC and EDF; now it's the scrappy people-of-color environmental justice (EJ) movement and the grass- roots community-based environmental movement (which they call "place based" environmentalism). It's not clear why these young white guys chose to attack the people-of-color environmental movement -- perhaps it's as simple as an extended campaign to divert more funding, perhaps it's something even simpler and more historically American -- who can say?
After admonishing environmental activists for being too negative, "Breakthrough" mounts a lengthy and relentless attack against the people-of-color environmental movement, especially African-American organizations. Here's the outline of their argument (which I will then discuss below):
1. EJ activists see "conspiracies that don't exist." [pg. 72] Environmental injustices may exist but there's nothing deliberate about them -- stuff happens, so get over it;
2. There are far more important problems than environmental contamination in EJ communities, so EJ organizations should drop what they're doing and work on only the "most salient" issues,[pg. 74] defined variously as smoking, diet, alcohol, obesity [pg. 73], unemployment, crime, schools, health care [pg. 75], and cockroaches, mold and dust mites [pg. 79].
3. EJ organizations have tried to prove in federal court that their civil rights have been violated by disproportionate burdens of pollution. The courts have generally rejected these suits, which is further evidence that claims of environmental racism and injustice are false. [pg. 81]
4. The EJ movement is "complaint-based" and is therefore "poorly suited to dealing with large, complex and deeply rooted social and ecological problems." [pg. 68]
5. Focusing on a single cause of harm, such as diesel pollution and asthma, is "a strategy that goes against the science of public health, which today focuses on the risks of synergies among multiple risk factors not individual threats." [pg. 82]
6. The EJ movement has failed to develop a "compelling agenda," meaning the movement is small and lacks a mass following. [pg. 87]
7. The EJ movement has failed to expand the definition of environment. [pg. 82]
8. The EJ movement opposes the use of risk assessment because risk assessments prove that the movement is not working on the biggest problems facing people of color. [pg. 74]
9. The EJ movement advocates single-pollutant remedies instead of addressing cumulative impacts. [pg. 82]
At this point, many readers may simply want to give up in dismay or disgust. However, I ask you to walk with me down this path of exploration. There are people in this world who take these young white guys very seriously and some of them are important because they have millions of dollars to support environmental activism. Time Magazine named these two white guys "Heroes of the Environment for 2008" so we will take them seriously, too. We need to explore how these two white guys aim to end "the era of small thinking," which sounds like a worthy goal, doesn't it?
Here we go.
1. Nordhaus and Shellenberger start by defining the basis of "environmental justice" (or environmental racism) very narrowly; they define it as the consequence of malicious acts with racist intent. Then they deny that such things exist.
They write, "To be sure, poor communities have long been subjected to more pollution than wealthier ones, and communities of color have been subjected to more pollution than white ones. But these communities have not been targeted for pollution because of the race of their inhabitants." [pg. 72] They call it a "false accusation" [pg. 73] that corporations target communities of color or low income for siting unwanted facilities and they accuse EJ activists of imagining "conspiracies that don't exist." [pg. 72] (Curiously, they have chosen to ignore the smoking-gun Cerrell report [3 Mbytes PDF]).
This is embarrassing. Young white guys who write books offering a grand strategy for "creating a new progressive political consensus" [pg. 40] -- in a nation that is more than 30% people of color -- really could try to show some understanding of the dynamics of race and racism in American before preaching to people of color and the rest of us. Frankly, they seem clueless. Or is this just a pose?
In her long, illuminating essay, "Rethinking Environmental Racism: White Privilege and Urban Development in Southern California" [10 Mbytes PDF] EJ researcher Laura Pulido analyzed the specific arguments put forward by these young white guys -- but she did it four years before "Death" was published. In other words, these young guys are recycling old, discredited arguments that white supremacists have been using for years. To give them the benefit of the doubt, they may not even know that's what they're doing.
Laura Pulido points out, "A final problem with a narrow understanding of racism is that it limits claims, thereby reproducing a racist social order. By defining racism so narrowly, racial inequalities that cannot be attributed directly to a hostile, discriminatory act are not acknowledged as such, but perhaps as evidence of individual deficiencies or choices." This is precisely what the "Breakthrough" book does.
Laura Pulido goes on, "Given the pervasive nature of race, the belief that racism can be reduced to hostile, discriminatory acts strains logic. For instance, few can dispute that U.S. cities are highly segregated. Can we attribute this simply to discriminatory lenders and landlords? No. Residential segregation results from a diversity of racisms. Moreover, there is growing evidence that racial responses are often unconscious...."
Rather than define environmental racism as malicious individual acts, Laura Pulido describes it as a byproduct of white privilege. What is white privilege? In her classic (and must-read) essay, "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack," Wellesley College professor Peggy McIntosh described her own voyage of self-discovery as she came to realize that her whiteness was a major asset she didn't even know she had.
MacIntosh writes, "I think whites are carefully taught not to recognize white privilege, as males are taught not to recognize male privilege. So I have begun in an untutored way to ask what it is like to have white privilege. I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was 'meant' to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools , and blank checks." She then lists 50 specific ways in which she receives benefits every day without having do anything except be white.
Laura Pulido explains the power of white privilege to shape the urban landscape and create environmental injustices. She writes, "Evidence of white privilege abounds. It includes the degree to which whites assume ownership of this nation and its opportunities, people of color's efforts to 'pass' in order to access whiteness, whites' resistance to attempts to dismantle their privilege, and, conversely, even whites' efforts to shed their privilege. Consider the case of white resistance. White resistance to integrating schools, housing, and the workplace have all been well documented. This resistance is hardly surprising and is justified by any number of rationales. What is important is the fact that whites resist because they feel they have something to lose. According to Lipsitz, they have a 'possessive investment in whiteness,' meaning, whiteness pays off and whites wish to retain those benefits. Legal scholar Cheryl Harris has observed, 'The set of assumptions, privileges, and benefits that accompany the status of being white have become a valuable asset that whites sought to protect and that those who passed sought to attain -- by fraud if necessary. Whites have come to expect and rely on these benefits, and over time, these expectations have been affirmed, legitimated, and protected by law.' This 'pay off' can take the form of higher property values, better schools, or the ability to exclude people of color from the workplace. That whites feel they have the right to exclude others attests to the degree to which they assume ownership of this nation's opportunities. The privileged position of whites is visible in almost every arena, including health, wealth, housing, educational attainment, and environmental quality."
Pulido then offers an example of white privilege creating environmental injustice:
"A polluter locates near a black neighborhood because the land is relatively inexpensive and adjacent to an industrial zone. This is not a malicious, racially motivated, discriminatory act. Instead, many would argue that it is economically rational. Yet it is racist in that it is made possible by the existence of a racial hierarchy, reproduces racial inequality, and undermines the well-being of that community. Moreover, the value of black land cannot be understood outside of the relative value of white land, which is a historical product. White land is more valuable by virtue of its whiteness, and thus it is not as economically feasible for the polluter. Nor is it likely that the black community's proximity to the industrial zone is a chance occurrence. Given the Federal government's role in creating suburbia, whites' opposition to integration, and the fact that black communities have been restricted to areas whites deemed undesirable, can current patterns of environmental racism be understood outside a racist urban history?," Pulido asks rhetorically.
In America, some say, we now have "racism without racists." Yes, perhaps "only" 30 million or so Americans are still outright racists. But a subtler racism based on pervasive "white privilege" remains intact even as overt racism diminishes. Last October at the height of the Obama campaign, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote that "a huge array of research suggests that 50 percent or more of whites have unconscious biases that sometimes lead to racial discrimination."
Example: "White participants recommend hiring a white applicant with borderline qualifications 76 percent of the time, while recommending an identically qualified black applicant only 45 percent of the time."
Kristof describes the work of Yale psychologist John Dividio, whose studies of racism over many years have shown that "conscious prejudice as measured in surveys has declined over time. But unconscious discrimination -- what psychologists call aversive racism -- has stayed fairly constant." Aversive racists are people who don't think they're racists but whose behavior produces racist results.
Kristof: "One set of experiments conducted since the 1970s involves subjects who believe that they are witnessing an emergency (like an epileptic seizure). When there is no other witness, a white bystander will call for help whether the victim is white or black, and there is very little discrimination.
"But when there are other bystanders, so the individual responsibility to summon help may feel less obvious, whites will still summon help 75 percent of the time if the victim is white but only 38 percent of the time if the victim is black.
"One lesson from this research is that racial biases are deeply embedded within us, more so than many whites believe," Kristof concludes.
In this context, we can re-examine Nordhaus and Shellenberger's attack on the people-of-color environmental movement.
As we have seen, first they recycle discredited white supremacist arguments, defining environmental injustice and environmental racism very narrowly, which allows them to claim such things don't exist.
2. Next Nordhaus and Shellenberger offer a time-tested "blame the victim" argument: EJ groups have brought several lawsuits under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that excessive pollution in communities of color violates civil rights laws. These lawsuits have generally not succeeded. Instead of viewing this as a failure of Congress and the courts to provide justice, Nordhaus and Shellenberger offer this as further evidence that environmental injustices and environmental racism do not exist. [pg. 81] But to make this argument they had to ignore an important Title VI victory. In 2001 federal judge Stephen Orlofsky blocked the opening of a $60 million cement plant in Camden, N.J. in a highly-polluted neighborhood where 90% of residents are low-income blacks and Hispanics and where they were already living with a sewage treatment plant, a municipal garbage incinerator, three toxic Superfund sites, several malodorous recycling operations, and more.
In his decision, Judge Orlofsky wrote, "In the state of New Jersey there is 'a strong, highly statistically significant, and disturbing pattern of association between the racial and ethnic composition of communities, the number of EPA regulated facilities, and the number of facilities with air permits,'" quoting a study by Michel Gelobter.
The judge continued, "Much of what this case is about is what the NJDEP [N.J. Department of Environmental Protection] failed to consider.... It did not consider the pre-existing poor health of the residents of Waterfront South, nor did it consider the cumulative environmental burden already borne by this impoverished community. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the NJDEP failed to consider the racial and ethnic composition of the population of Waterfront South." In other words, the judge acknowledged that these environmental injustices were real and violated the civil rights of the citizens of Camden.
The cement company appealed, arguing that mere citizens had no standing in court to oppose a polluter's license, because of the way N.J. laws are written. On that basis, the cement company won on appeal, despite Judge Orlofsky's finding of environmental racism. This miscarriage of justice did not erase Judge Orlofsky's decision from the historical record, nor did it in any way refute the legal finding of environmental injustice or racism in Camden. Thus it seems simply dishonest for Nordhaus and Shellenberger to claim that "every" Title VI lawsuit has "failed" and to offer this false assertion as evidence that claims of environmental racism and injustice are "false accusations." Nordhaus and Shellenberger cherry pick facts that allow them to blame the victims of environmental racism and environmental injustice instead of blaming the perpetrators. As the labor song asks, which side are they on?
3. Next, Nordhaus and Shellenberger attack the EJ movement because it is "complaint based" [pg. 68] and therefore "poorly suited to dealing with large, complex and deeply rooted social and ecological problems," they say. Again this distorts the historical record. There is abundant historical evidence that "complaint-based" movements can prevail against "complex and deeply rooted social and ecological problems." Think of the history of New World slavery, the British empire and the Caribbean sugar and rum industries. For that matter, think of child labor, women's suffrage, or the emergence of the public health and labor movements in the U.S. These were all complaint-based movements that ultimately turned the existing order on its head. One of the major obstacles all such movements have to overcome is naysayers -- one is tempted to say ignorant naysayers -- like Nordhaus and Shellenberger, who seem willfully innocent of historical knowledge and who seem to prefer blaming hapless victims of environmental crimes instead of blaming the perpetrators. It seems an odd way to end the era of small thinking and start building a new progressive consensus.
4. Still not satisfied, Nordhaus and Shellenberger then attack the EJ movement (specifically, the WE ACT organization in Harlem, N.Y.) for focusing on the problem of diesel engines as a cause of asthma. They deride this as a "strategy that goes against the science of public health, which today focuses on the risks of synergies among multiple risk factors not individual threats." [pg. 82]
Excuse me? Because asthma can be triggered by several different pollutants, we should not try to reduce diesel pollution? What kind of cockamamie public health strategy is that?
Here is how the New York Times in 2006 described the diesel-and- asthma problem in Harlem where WE ACT works:
"Wendy Agustin, a Dominican mother of five who has lived in New York most of her life, never opens the windows of her cramped, two-bedroom apartment in a drafty six-story building opposite the 126th Street Bus Depot. That is because fumes from the nearly 200 buses that circulate daily through this tiny block, between First and Second Avenues, are making her children sick.
"Recently, Ms. Agustin rushed her 3-year-old, Joshua, to Metropolitan Hospital Center when he started wheezing while strolling outside her building.
"'If I don't keep those windows closed,' she said, 'that smell rises up and comes in, a smell like diesel, a nasty stench. I feel bad that I can't get my kids out of here, so they can breathe a different air. If I could pack up and leave tomorrow, I would.'
"As she spoke, she leaned over her kitchen sink and soaked an asthma mask, which delivers medicine in mist form and is shared by her five children."
The Times story goes on to mention that WE ACT had organized local citizens to testify at a public hearing aimed at reducing diesel fumes in Harlem. Nordhaus and Shellenberger consider it a "strategy that goes against the science of public health" to organize citizens to help Wendy Agustin and family and neighbors fight to eliminate diesel fumes. Here, Nordhaus and Shellenberger have moved beyond embarrassing and dishonest to a realm that could rightfully be labeled cruel and vicious.
5. But these vicious young white guys don't stop there. They continue to denigrate and deride EJ activists who work to reduce diesel fumes or oil refinery emissions because, they say, diesel emissions, refinery pollutants, and asthma are not the most important problems facing communities of color. [pgs. 86] They say "there is simply no evidence that air pollution in general, or diesel exhaust from buses in particular, is the number one preventable cause of childhood asthma..." [pg. 81]
They ride this particular hobby horse relentlessly. They say people of color should only organize around the "most salient" issues [pg. 74], which they say would not include diesel fumes. And of course these young white guys claim to know what's salient for people of color.
Really, to hear these young white guys tell it, there's no need for an EJ movement at all because pollution only creates "relatively insignificant health threats" to the poor and people of color, they tell us. [pg. 88]
It's hard to know where to begin answering these arguments, they are so disconnected from the realities of life in U.S. cities. Let's just say that it is becoming clear that these are not just a couple of vicious young white guys, these are well-to-do, ignorant, vicious young white guys who are preaching down to us all from a tower of protected privilege.
First of all, fine and ultrafine particles -- the kind produced by diesel engines -- kill an estimated 60,000 people in the U.S. each year, and most of these deaths occur in cities where people of color are numerically dominant. So reducing diesel pollution provides a major benefit immediately -- saving lives now.
Inhaled fine particles not only trigger asthma, a problem that disproportionately strikes children in communities of color and kills blacks at about three times the rate of whites. Inhaled fine particles also thicken the blood, leading to fatal or debilitating heart attacks and strokes. Fine particles like diesel soot are also a major contributor to global warming.
In New Jersey, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) estimates that fine particles (such as diesel soot) kill as many as 1200 N.J. citizens each year (that's three funerals every day of the year), but also cause 6000 emergency room visits and 68,000 asthma attacks.
But Nordhaus and Shellenberger mock people who work to eliminate diesel pollution and fine particle pollution because, they say, there are bigger problems in America's cities. [pg. 81] Working to save 60,000 lives each year, preventing millions of asthma attacks, simultaneously reducing the threat of global warming and providing political impetus for mass transit and energy conservation are not "salient" for people of color, according to Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger.
It is apparent that these two young white guys believe they know better than people of color what problems people of color should be working on. This is an all-too-familiar picture from American history: white people who claim to know what's best for darkies. But it does seem just a bit out of place in the 21st century, especially coming from young white guys who are trying to persuade us to adopt their "progressive" agenda to end the "era of small thinking."
6. Next these two privileged white boys attack the EJ movement because it has "failed to develop a meaningful and compelling agenda." [pgs. 87, 88] By this they mean that the movement hasn't attracted a mass following and remains small. Here again, they are blaming the victim.
The EJ movement is even younger that Nordhaus and Shellenberger are, having gotten off the ground around 1981-82. This social movement is just getting started. How long did it take a citizens' movement to end slavery? A hundred and eighty years. How long have women in the U.S. been fighting for equal rights? Since 1848 -- 160 years -- with equal pay for equal work still not achieved. How long did workers have to fight -- literally fight, with clubs, guns and sit-down strikes -- for a 5-day work week and an 8-hour day? At least 200 years.
These two young guys don't seem to know much about the history of social change movements. They attribute the civil rights movement of the '60s to the rise of affluence among blacks after World War II [pg. 164]. They seem not to know that blacks in North America started fighting -- often with only their bare hands for weapons against armed whites -- for their civil and political rights in the 1660s in Virginia, and they've never stopped fighting. The visible civil rights actions of the 1960s continued a 400-year history of unbelievably courageous struggle that was not engendered by rising affluence. It was engendered by white oppression. But again these two white guys either don't know history, or forget to mention it whenever it suits their argument to do so. Shocking ignorance? Rank dishonesty? Hard to say.
And here once again we find Nordhaus and Shellenberger blaming the victims of environmental racism and environmental injustice -- an old, familiar trick that has worked well for generations of white supremacists but is jarringly unworthy of young white guys who claim to want to spark a progressive political rebirth in America and "end the era of small thinking."
7. But it doesn't stop there. Next they attack the EJ movement because it has not "expanded the definition of environment." [pg. 82]
This is rich. These two white guys are evidently too young to remember the referendum vote of the Sierra Club's membership in 1968. The question was whether the Club should consider "urban environments" as part of "the environment." A majority of the Club's membership voted against it. Cities were not part of "the environment" in 1968 so far as the Club was concerned. And, then as now, the Sierra Club was at the progressive end of the spectrum of environmental organizations in 1968.
During its brief existence, the environmental justice movement has totally changed the environmental agenda in the U.S. I consider it the movement's major achievement to date and an exceedingly important one. In New Jersey today "environmental justice" concerns are invoked by even the most stiff-necked, narrowly-focused conservationists. The urban environment is now front and center in environmental policy debates. Health disparities, the social determinants of health, so- called "brownfields" (contaminated sites), safe sites for schools, sprawl, urban design, transportation policy, cumulative impacts of multiple stressors -- these are the issues that now dominate the environmental agenda. The EJ movement (and the "place-based" environmental movement that grew from the toxics activism begun by Lois Gibbs in 1978) made all this happen. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when these young white guys accuse the EJ movement of not having changed the nation's environmental agenda. Either they're too young and self-absorbed to recognize how radically it has changed in 30 years, or they are once again pulling their favorite stunt of pretending ignorance and making stuff up just so they can bash the EJ movement (for purposes that remain mysterious).
8. They next attack the EJ movement for opposing the use of risk assessment: "EJ leaders know that pollution is a far smaller threat than smoking, alcohol, and diet, which is why they have long resisted using the established public health tool of risk assessment to guide public policy." [pg. 74]
No, fellas. Once again, you've missed the boat completely. Community- based grass-roots activists oppose the use of traditional risk assessment because...
First, it is a quantitative technique that omits anything that can't be turned into a number -- which is most of the things people actually care about.
Secondly, in the past, the numbers in risk assessments have often been manipulated by risk assessors to achieve a pre-determined political goal.
Third, the science involved in even a simple ecological problem is so complicated that much of the data needed to really assess risks isn't available. That data gap is filled by "best professional judgment" which is a fancy term for guesswork, or, more often, the missing data are assigned a value of zero and simply ignored.
Fourth, even when they aren't intentionally fudging the numbers for a political purpose, two equally qualified groups of risk assessors, given one set of fairly simple data, can (and do) reach vastly different assessments of a particular "risk." We know risk assessment is not a scientific exercise because its results cannot be reproduced from one laboratory to another. Risk assessment is a political tool dressed up in a lab coat, often wielded by the powerful against the weak.
Fifth, because risk assessment is a numerical decision technique, most people cannot participate in it -- so it excludes the public. This is undemocratic in the extreme.
Sixth, risk assessments typically imagine a "most exposed individual" or a "most harmed individual" as the subject of the assessment. If the assessment finds that this individual will not be unreasonably harmed, then the project gets a green light. By this means, millions of "harmless" decisions have been given a green light -- adding up to an endangered planet.
Seventh, traditional risk assessment has no way to take into account the cumulative impacts of multiple stressors, so it cannot accurately assess risks in the real world. As a decision-making device, risk assessment is fatally flawed and therefore is opposed not only by EJ groups but by many scientists and policy analysts as well. In many parts of the world, traditional risk assessment-based decision-making is giving way to precautionary decision-making, which is what EJ groups generally favor in the U.S.
I want to ask, Where have these guys been for the last 20 years as traditional risk assessment has been revealed as an inadequate basis for decisions? Bashing EJ groups for opposing the use of risk assessment sounds like an argument dreamed up by corporate lawyers for Dow Chemical in 1980. These two white boys need to get out more.
9. The final attack on the EJ movement offered by Nordhaus and Shellenberger is that it focuses on single pollutants, a "strategy that goes against the science of public health, which today focuses on the risks of synergies among multiple risk factors not individual threats." [pg. 82] (We encountered this argument above in #4.)
This is the most perplexing attack of all. Are these guys joking? (Unfortunately, there is no indication of humorous or ironic intent.) Anyone who has been following environmental policy over the past 20 years knows that it is the EJ movement that has been blazing this trail for the scientific and policy communities, insisting that cumulative impacts of multiple stressors must be taken into account.
The EJ movement has consistently, aggressively opposed the evaluation of individual environmental threats in a vacuum -- the way traditional risk assessment does it.
Two states are leading the way in this policy research -- California (where I believe these two white guys live) with its "Cal/EPA Cumulative Impacts and Precautionary Approaches (CI/PA) Work Group" and New Jersey with its Environmental Justice Advisory Council (EJAC), which will soon release a report on cumulative impacts. WE ACT and many other EJ groups are actively engaged in meetings, conferences, discussions, document-drafting, and internal movement debates over cumulative impacts and precautionary approaches to decision-making -- all aimed at ending the era of small thinking in risk assessment-based decisions.
To accuse the EJ movement of erroneously focusing on single stressors is ignorant, wrong-headed, unbelievably misinformed, and embarrassing -- unless of course it's another example of studied and willful ignorance in which case it is cruel, vicious, dishonest, racist, and reprehensible.
The politics of possibility
Overall, "Breakthrough" offers ideas for the industrial redevelopment of the U.S., many of which Barry Commoner and others proposed in the 1970s. (Of course Commoner is given no credit in the book. Again, ignorance? Intellectual dishonesty? Hard to say.)
But "Breakthrough" also claims to offer us more -- it offers us a new "politics of possibility." What does that mean? First, they tell us, it means creating the carbon market that the Wall Street banks have been salivating over -- a traditional cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide emissions. These two white guys tell us cap-and-trade "offers us one of the best opportunities to evolve to the 'politics of possibility.'" [pg. 120] Worse, they tout cap-and-trade with offsets.[pg. 121] Yikes! These two guys don't actually argue that cap-and-trade with offsets will reduce carbon emissions in time to avert climate chaos, but they must believe it or they wouldn't assert it as a cornerstone of their new politics. This is embarras- sing. I am reminded of Peggy Lee's song, "Is that all there is?"
No, there's more. Secondly, the politics of possibility means telling people what they want to hear instead of telling them the truth. Time and again the book bashes truth-telling as a political dead end. People don't want the truth, these two white guys seem to believe -- people want dreams and reveries. They want endless promises of endless growth. Growth is not wrecking the planet -- growth is good! [pg. 271] We should not try to limit "intrusions upon nature" [pg. 39] because "Few things have hampered environmentalism more than its longstanding position that limits to growth are the remedy for ecological crises." [p. 15]
Unfortunately, the unpleasant truth is that, in many ways and in many places, the human economy has already grown so large that it is stressing the biosphere beyond the biosphere's capacity to recover. We are drawing down the resources of the planet, and with it, the future. And of course we do this at our peril. We humans are entirely dependent upon the biosphere for everything we have and everything we are. So far as anyone knows, Earth is the only place in the universe that provides suitable habitat for our species. The Earth is our only home and we had better take care of it or we're goners.
Another unpleasant truth is that we humans don't understand the biosphere well enough to discern the limits that we must not breach. We are flying blind. We came dangerously close to making the surface of the planet uninhabitable for humans when we started releasing CFCs [chlorofluorocarbons] from our air conditioners and refrigerators, thereby thinning the earth's ozone shield. We caught a lucky break -- a series of lucky breaks, actually -- and so we abandoned CFCs in time to cause only a few hundred million skin cancers in humans. Will we always be so lucky?
To avoid surpassing and breaching crucial ecological limits that we can't fully perceive -- many of which we doubtless cannot yet perceive at all -- our only hope is to try to stay as far away from those boundaries as we can and still enjoy the fruits of modern technologies. This means limiting the human enterprise with a precautionary decision-making regime, not fooling ourselves by pretending that our risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses can guide us safely into the future.
These two white guys couldn't accept such an argument, which they would denigrate as just more negative "politics of limits." Instead, they think humans should blunder ahead, intruding into ecosystems at will. And if we wreck the planet as a suitable place for human habitation, what then? In that case, they say, we can escape by "bioengineering ourselves and our environments to survive and thrive on an increasingly hot and potentially less hospitable planet." [pg. 253] So this is the real "Break Through" -- the one original Big Idea in the book.
Here we have moved beyond the merely embarrassing to the truly chilling. If this continues to be thought of as "environmental heroism," we're in far deeper trouble than any of us has yet imagined.
To give these two young white guys the benefit of the doubt, perhaps the blame for this travesty of analysis -- this "Breakthrough" book -- lies with the unnamed editor at Houghton Mifflin who encouraged and allowed these guys to put so much arrogant, mean-spirited, ignorant, small-minded misinformation and disinformation into print -- all in service to a Big Idea that would (if anyone were dumb enough to take it seriously) only accelerate humankind's slide down a blind path to extinction.
=========================================================
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #997 ..........[This story printer-friendly]
February 5, 2009
WHAT HAS RACHEL'S NEWS EVER DONE FOR ME?
[Rachel's introduction: Before Rachel's News ceases publication Feb. 26, some of Rachel's friends hope you will write a note (or an essay) expressing what Rachel's has meant to you, and email it to rachel.comments@gmail.com]
By Katie Silberman
Dear Friends,
As you know, Rachel's News will cease publication with issue #1000 on Feb. 26. Do you have a story to share about what Rachel's has meant to you? If so, please email it to rachel.comments@gmail.com.
In these days of Presidential Blackberries, it's hard to remember a world that wasn't wired. It was tricky to access useful information in 1986 (imagine telling a 20-year-old there was no Google! How did we learn anything?).
I remember, as an intern at a non-profit in the '90s, that one of my jobs was to capture the precious issues of Rachel's as they arrived in the mail, triple-hole punch them, and archive them in big binders on the shelves. We consulted those binders religiously, as did thousands of others with their own binders of Rachel's, all across the country.
With the advent of the internet, Rachel's became even more valuable. Publisher Peter Montague was an early adopter of online technology, realizing the potential for crucial information on health, environment and democracy to reach the communities who needed it most. As we all became more plugged in, we also got swamped with the "too much information" age. Once again, Peter's discerning eye for the most important ideas of the day -- as well as his own thoughtful, educated and often radical essays -- helped activists around the country filter through the dross and emerge with the gems they needed. Rachel's has been a crucial tool for thousands of people who helped build the movements for social and environmental health and justice that exist today.
Do you have your own Rachel's story? Was there one idea, one issue that sparked a fire in you that still burns today? Did you rely on those issues arriving by mail, and then email, to help you make sense of the "big ideas" in health, environment and democracy and use them in your own work?
We want to hear from you! February 26 marks the 1000th, and last, weekly issue of Rachel's. Rachel's friends at the Science and Environmental Health Network (whose own ideas have enjoyed a lusciously symbiotic relationship with Rachel's) are collecting stories of how Rachel's has changed the landscape over the past 23 years.
Would you contribute a note, story, or short essay about the effect that Rachel's has had on your work, your life and our national community?
Please email your note, story or essay to: rachel.comments@gmail.com.
Thanks!
(Signed -- SEHN board and staff members)
Benno Friedman Joe Guth Nancy Myers Carolyn Raffensperger Madeleine Scammell Ted Schettler Sherri Seidmon Katie Silberman Sandra Steingraber
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Los Angeles Times ...................................[This story printer-friendly]
February 4, 2009
CALIFORNIA FARMS, VINEYARDS IN PERIL FROM WARMING: CHU
[Rachel's introduction: "I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen," said U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu. "We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California." And, he added, "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going" either.]
By Jim Tankersley
Reporting from Washington -- California's farms and vineyards could vanish by the end of the century, and its major cities could be in jeopardy, if Americans do not act to slow the advance of global warming, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu said Tuesday.
In his first interview since taking office last month, the Nobel- prize-winning physicist offered some of the starkest comments yet on how seriously President Obama's cabinet views the threat of climate change, along with a detailed assessment of the administration's plans to combat it.
Chu warned of water shortages plaguing the West and Upper Midwest and particularly dire consequences for California, his home state, the nation's leading agricultural producer.
In a worst case, Chu said, up to 90% of the Sierra snowpack could disappear, all but eliminating a natural storage system for water vital to agriculture.
"I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen," he said. "We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California." And, he added, "I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going" either.
A pair of recent studies raise similar warnings. One, published in January in the journal Science, raised the specter of worldwide crop shortages as temperatures rise. Another, penned by UC Berkeley researchers last year, estimated California has about $2.5 trillion in real estate assets -- including agriculture -- endangered by warming.
Chu is not a climate scientist. He won his Nobel for work trapping atoms with laser light. He taught at Stanford University and directed the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where he reoriented researchers to pursue "clean energy" technologies to help reduce the use of greenhouse-gas-emitting fossil fuels in the U.S., before Obama tapped him to head the Energy Department.
He stressed the threat of climate change in his Senate confirmation hearings and in a video clip posted on Obama's transition website, but not as bluntly, nor in as dire terms, as he did Tuesday.
In the course of a half-hour interview, Chu made clear that he sees public education as a key part of the administration's strategy to fight global warming -- along with billions of dollars for alternative energy research and infrastructure, a national standard for electricity from renewable sources and cap-and-trade legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
He said the threat of warming is keeping policymakers focused on alternatives to fossil fuel, even though gasoline prices have fallen over the last six months from historic highs. But he said public awareness needs to catch up. He compared the situation to a family buying an old house and being told by an inspector that it must pay a hefty sum to rewire it or risk an electrical fire that could burn everything down.
"I'm hoping that the American people will wake up," Chu said, and pay the cost of rewiring.
Environmentalists welcomed the comments as a sharp break from the Bush administration, which often minimized research about global warming.
"To say the least, it's a breath of fresh air," said Bernadette Del Chiaro, who directs the clean air and global warming program for Environment California. "We've been worried about the impacts of global warming for years, even decades. He's absolutely right -- California stands to lose so much in our way of life."
Global warming skeptics were not swayed. "I am hopeful Secretary Chu will take note of the real-world data, new studies and the growing chorus of international scientists that question his climate claims," Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a statement. "Computer model predictions of the year 2100 are simply not evidence of a looming climate catastrophe."
jtankersley@tribune.com
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Times (London, U.K.) ...........................[This story printer-friendly]
January 22, 2009
ECOLOGISTS WARN THE PLANET IS RUNNING SHORT OF WATER
[Rachel's introduction: "There are concerns that water will increasingly be the cause of violence and even war."]
By Leo Lewis in Tokyo
A swelling global population, changing diets and mankind's expanding "water footprint" could be bringing an end to the era of cheap water.
The warnings, in an annual report by the Pacific Institute in California, come as ecologists have begun adopting the term "peak ecological water" -- the point where, like the concept of "peak oil", the world has to confront a natural limit on something once considered virtually infinite. [Data tables from the new report are available online.]
The world is in danger of running out of "sustainably managed water", according to Peter Gleick, the president of the Pacific Institute and a leading authority on global freshwater resources.
Humans -- via agriculture, industry and other demands -- use about half of the world's renewable and accessible fresh water. But even at those levels, billions of people live without the most basic water services, Dr Gleick said.
A key element to tackling the crisis, say experts, is to increase the public understanding of the individual water content of everyday items.
A glass of orange juice, for example, needs 850 litres of fresh water to produce, according to the Pacific Institute and the Water Footprint Network, while the manufacture of a kilogram of microchips -- requiring constant cleaning to remove chemicals -- needs about 16,000 litres. A hamburger comes in at 2,400 litres of fresh water, depending on the origin and type of meat used.
The water will be returned in various forms to the system, although not necessarily in a location or at a quality that can be effectively reused.
There are concerns that water will increasingly be the cause of violence and even war.
Dan Smith, the Secretary-General of the British-based peacebuilding organisation International Alert, said: "Water is a basic condition for life. Its availability and quality is fundamental for all societies, especially in relation to agriculture and health. There are places -- West Africa today, theGanges-Brahmaputra river system in Nepal, Bangladesh and India, and Peru within ten years -- where major changes in the rivers generate a significant risk of violent conflict. Good water management is part of peacebuilding."
David Zhang, a geographer at the University of Hong Kong, produced a study published in the US National Academy of Sciences journal that analysed 8,000 wars over 500 years and concluded that water shortage had played a far greater role as a catalyst than previously supposed.
"We are on alert, because this gives us the indication that resource shortage is the main cause of war," he told The Times. "Human beings will definitely have conflicts over this."
Although in theory renewable sources of water were returned to the ecosystem and their use could continue indefinitely, Dr Gleick said, changes in the way water was exploited and how its quality degraded meant that methods of processing it would become more expensive.
"Once we begin appropriating more than 'peak ecological water' then ecological disruptions exceed the human benefit obtained," Dr Gleick said. Defined this way, many regions of the world had passed that peak and were using more water than the system could sustain.
A significant part of the problem is the huge, and often deeply inefficient, use of water by industry and agriculture. UN calculations suggest that more than one third of the world's population is suffering from water shortages: by 2020 water use is expected to increase by 40 per cent from current levels, and by 2025, according to another UN estimate, two out of three people could be living under conditions of "water stress".
The World's Water report sounds a particularly strong note of alarm over the state of water usage and pollution in China, where rampant economic expansion has overtaxed freshwater resources and could even begin to threaten stability.
"When water resources are limited or contaminated, or where economic activity is unconstrained and inadequately regulated, serious social problems can arise," wrote Dr Gleick, "and in China, these factors have come together in a way that is leading to more severe and complex water challenges than in almost any other place on the planet."
Drop by drop
-- Water footprint calculations are still only rough. They differ around the world and depend on climate, soil types, irrigation methods and crop genetics. The water footprint of different meats depends on what the animals are fed and the relative "thirst" of the crops used to feed them
-- The amount of water required to produce a single litre of soft drink may be only three or four litres, but vast quantities are used to produce the sugar and corn syrup feedstocks. For example, one kilogram of paper requires 125 litres of water to process, but that excludes the water needed to grow the tree
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: BBC News ...........................................[This story printer-friendly]
January 30, 2009
ACID OCEANS 'NEED URGENT ACTION'
[Rachel's introduction: A group of 150 scientists has issued the "Monaco Declaration," warning that the world's oceans are being severely damaged by carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.]
The world's marine ecosystems risk being severely damaged by ocean acidification unless there are dramatic cuts in CO2 emissions, warn scientists.
More than 150 top marine researchers have voiced their concerns through the "Monaco Declaration," [5 Mbytes PDF] which warns that changes in acidity are accelerating.
The declaration, supported by Prince Albert II of Monaco, builds on findings from an earlier international summit.
It says pH levels are changing 100 times faster than natural variability.
Based on the research priorities identified at The Ocean in a High CO2 World symposium, held in October 2008, the declaration states:
"We scientists who met in Monaco to review what is known about ocean acidification declare that we are deeply concerned by recent, rapid changes in ocean chemistry and their potential, within decades, to severely affect marine organisms, food webs, biodiversity and fisheries."
'The other CO2 problem'
It calls on policymakers to stabilise CO2 emissions "at a safe level to avoid not only dangerous climate change but also dangerous ocean acidification".
The researchers warn that ocean acidification, which they refer to as "the other CO2 problem", could make most regions of the ocean inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050, if atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase.
The also say that it could lead to substantial changes in commercial fish stocks, threatening food security for millions of people.
"The chemistry is so fundamental and changes so rapid and severe that impacts on organisms appear unavoidable," said Dr James Orr, chairman of the symposium.
"The questions are now how bad will it be and how soon will it happen."
Another signatory, Patricio Bernal, executive secretary of the UN Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, outlined how the marine research community intended to respond to the challenge.
"We need to bring together the best scientists to share their latest research results and to set priorities for research to improve our knowledge of the processes and of the impacts of acidification on marine ecosystems."
Prince Albert II used the declaration to voice his concerns, adding that he hoped the world's leaders would take the "necessary action" at a key UN climate summit later this year.
"I strongly support this declaration. I hope that it will be heard by all the political leaders meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Journal of the American Medical Association (pg. 425) [This story printer-friendly]
January 28, 2009
RELATIVE CHILD POVERTY, INCOME INEQUALITY, WEALTH, AND HEALTH
[Rachel's introduction: Exposure to relative poverty or having a low socioeconomic position in childhood has been associated with increased adult morbidity [sickness] and mortality [death] resulting from (among other causes): stomach, liver, and lung cancer; diabetes; coronary heart disease; stroke; respiratory diseases; nervous system conditions; diseases of the digestive system; alcoholic cirrhosis; unintentional injuries; and homicide.]
By Eric Emerson, Ph.D.
Abundant evidence now suggests that living in relative poverty and exposure to relative income inequality, especially in childhood, may have a detrimental influence on health and well-being during childhood and across the life course. This Commentary discusses the importance of relative poverty in childhood and the implications of income inequality for population health.
Child relative poverty (ie, children living in a household with relative income poverty) appears to be a potentially important indicator for children's health. Relative income poverty is commonly defined as having equivalized household income of less than 50% of the national median.[1] Equivalization is calculated by dividing household income by an indicator of household composition or need, for example, the square root of the number of individuals living in the household.[2] Child relative poverty is strongly related to overall income inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient, which reflects inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth for the population of a nation; a lower Gini coefficient suggests more equal income or wealth distribution, whereas a high Gini coefficient reflects more unequal distribution of income and wealth.[3] For instance, the United States has both the highest national wealth and the highest Gini coefficient.[3] Thus, in the United States, as with many of the world's richest countries, there is little or no association between national wealth and the levels of income inequality evident within those nations.
Given that relative poverty is defined in terms of deviation from country-specific median income, there is no a priori reason to expect an association between relative poverty and national wealth. Two factors appear to be particularly relevant to understanding the variation in relative poverty.[1,2] First, clear international differences in income inequality (and the consequent risk of exposure to relative poverty) result from levels of participation in and the operation of labor markets. Second, redistributive income policies (the combined effects of progressive direct taxation and provision of welfare benefits) play a key role in attenuating market-driven inequalities and thereby in determining rates of child relative poverty and income inequality experienced by the population.
For instance, a recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study reported that child relative poverty rates in 2000 calculated without taking into account any effects due to taxation and benefits were more than 25% in the United Kingdom, France, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.[2] However, the effects of redistributive income policies varied markedly across these countries, reducing actual child relative poverty rates by more than 70% in France (from 28% to 7%) by more than 50% in Australia (from 27% to 15%), by more than 40% in the United Kingdom (from 29% to 16%) and New Zealand (from 29% to 15%), and by just 18% in the United States (from 27% to 22%).[2]
Relative child poverty appears to be associated with health and, in particular, the health of nations. For example, international or interstate variation in rates of income inequality or child relative poverty have been associated with higher rates of adverse health outcomes1,[4-11] including the following: poorer overall child well- being, infant mortality, low birth weight, not having polio immunizations, child mortality due to unintentional injuries, juvenile homicide, low educational attainment, dropping out of school, nonparticipation in higher education, aspiring to low-skilled work, poorer peer relations, having been bullied, teenage birth rate, physical inactivity, childhood obesity, not eating breakfast, feeling lonely, and mental health problems.[5] Moreover, across nations with wide ranges of per capita income and poverty levels, there appears to be an ecologic association between child relative poverty rates and mortality rates for children younger than 5 years (see Figure in the PDF). Similarly, exposure to relative poverty or having a low socioeconomic position in childhood has been associated with increased adult morbidity and mortality resulting from (among other causes): stomach, liver, and lung cancer; diabetes; coronary heart disease; stroke; respiratory diseases; nervous system conditions; diseases of the digestive system; alcoholic cirrhosis; unintentional injuries; and homicide.[9-10] See Figure in the PDF.
Relationship Between Relative Child Poverty and Under Age 5 Mortality in High-Income OECD Countries
Child relative poverty rates were extracted from data reported in the 2005 United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) report on child poverty in the world's rich countries.[12] Child relative poverty was defined as having equivalized household income (equivalized by dividing total household income by the square root of the number of individuals living in the household) of less than 50% of the national median.
Mortality rates of children younger than 5 years for the same period covered by the poverty estimates were extracted from data reported in the 2003 UNICEF report on the State of the World's Children.[13] Data are presented for all high-income Organisation for Economic and Co- operative Development (OECD) countries for which data were available in the 2 reports. Linear regression was used to estimate and plot the linear trend between relative child poverty and mortality rates of children younger than 5 years (r2 = 0.56; relative child poverty = -0.09 + 0.04 x mortality in children younger than 5 years).
It is therefore not surprising that increasing attention is being paid to reducing child relative poverty (or ameliorating the effects of child relative poverty) as a central component of attempts to improve the health of nations and reduce health inequalities between and within nations.[4,11] Indeed, there exists a sound evidence base regarding the determinants of child relative poverty and many examples of successful approaches to reducing child relative poverty.[4,12,14] Addressing these issues is not merely a matter for health professionals and health policy but centrally concerns the willingness of the electorate in democracies to tolerate the existence of inequality and its effects.
Author Information
Corresponding Author: Eric Emerson, PhD, Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YT, United Kingdom (eric.emerson@lancaster.ac.uk).
Author Affiliations: Division of Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England; and Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
References
[1] Graham H. Unequal Lives: Health and Socioeconomic Inequalities. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press; 2007.
[2] Whiteford P, Adema A. What Works Best in Reducing Child Poverty: A Benefit or Work Strategy? Paris, France: OECD; 2007. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 51.
[3] United Nations Development Programme. Human Development Report 2007: Fighting Climate Change. Human Solidarity in a Divided World. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme; 2007.
[4] World Health Organization. Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity Through Action on the Social Determinants of Health: Final Report of the Commission on the Social Determinants of Health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2008.
[5] Pickett KE, Wilkinson RG. Child wellbeing and income inequality in rich societies: ecological cross sectional study. BMJ. 2007;335(7629):1080-1086.
[6] Kuh D, Power C, Blane D, Bartley M. Socioeconomic pathways between childhood and adult health. In: Kuh D, Ben-Shlomo Y, eds. A Life Course Approach to Chronic Disease Epidemiology. 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2004.
[7] Marmot M. Social determinants of health inequalities. Lancet. 2005;365(9464):1099-1104.
[8] Wilkinson RG. The Impact of Inequality. New York, NY: The New Press; 2005.
[9] Galobardes B, Lynch JW, Davey Smith G. Childhood socioeconomic circumstances and cause-specific mortality in adulthood: systematic review and interpretation. Epidemiol Rev. 2004;26:7-21.
[10] Galobardes B, Lynch JW, Davey Smith G. Is the association between childhood socioeconomic circumstances and cause-specific mortality established? update of a systematic review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62(5):387-390.
[11] Irwin LG, Siddiqi A, Hertzman C. Early Child Development: A Powerful Equalizer. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2007.
[12] UNICEF. Child Poverty in Rich Countries 2005. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre; 2005.
[13] UNICEF. State of the World's Children 2003. New York, NY: UNICEF; 2002.
[14] UNICEF. Child Poverty in Perspective: An Overview of Child Well- being in Rich Countries. Florence, Italy: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre; 2007.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Salt Lake Tribune (Utah) ............................[This story printer-friendly]
January 23, 2009
IN CLIMATE FIGHT, A TIME FOR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE?
[Rachel's introduction: Large-scale, peaceful civil disobedience to oppose coal plants will occur March 2, 2009 near the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. The event is called Power Shift '09 and everybody's welcome, young and old.]
By Patty Henetz, The Salt Lake Tribune
Take the train. Dial down your heat. Write your senator.
Taking those individual steps surely helps in the battle against global warming. But, scientists and advocates warn, it's no longer enough to fend off climate disaster.
Get ready, some of them say, to hijack oil-lease sales (like a college student did in Utah), to climb smokestacks in protest (like Greenpeace activists did in England), to trespass at power plants (like demonstrators plan to do in Washington, D.C.).
It's time, these environmentalists say, for some good, old-fashioned civil disobedience -- the types of nonviolent acts proven effective by the famous Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and the faceless students at Tiananmen Square, anti-war protesters on college campuses, women suffragists in street marches.
At a recent Environmental Ministry meeting at Salt Lake City's First Unitarian Church that drew more than 300 people, Tim DeChristopher, the 27-year-old University of Utah economics student who disrupted a December drilling-lease auction, called for an "uprising."
DeChristopher didn't use the word lightly, he said, yet "anything short of that will not get us where we need to go."
Heeding such calls, organizers are mobilizing for a mass act of nonviolent civil disobedience March 2 to protest coal-fired power plants and the damage industrial pollution has caused to the planet's climate.
"We're hoping and preparing for thousands," said Matt Leonard, the Greenpeace coordinator for the event. "It will certainly be the largest such action on climate change in U.S. history. We hope it will be the first of many."
Protesters will gather at the Capital Power Plant in Washington -- source of heat and refrigeration for the entire Capitol complex -- walk on to the property, sit down and thereby break the law.
"Enough is enough. Action needs to be taken," Leonard said. "But to really meet the climate crisis, we need collective action. You can't do that by buying light bulbs and hybrid vehicles."
Gore's plea: The March 2 demonstration will be the first major protest since former Vice President Al Gore, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, in September called for moral lawbreaking.
"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," Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause, according to Reuters news service.
Since then, author and environmentalist Bill McKibben and poet Wendell Berry have chimed in. Last month, they wrote an open letter, which has circulated widely on the Web, urging mass civil disobedience against coal in March.
"We will cross the legal boundary of the power plant, and we expect to be arrested," they wrote. "The worldwide daily reliance on coal is the danger; this is one small step to raise awareness of that ruinous habit and hence help to break it."
But the thought of moving beyond conventional acts -- voting, lobbying, giving up cars -- stumps or scares some would-be activists. Others would never dream of breaking the law.
After the First Unitarian Church meeting, Robert and Amy Matheson said they felt more aware of the enormity of climate disruption but were unsure what to do next. They didn't know what civil disobedience looked like and were wary of it -- given the risks.
"I'm kind of a chicken," Amy Matheson said. "I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice my family, my freedom, my life."
Maybe if he were emotionally invested, Robert Matheson reasoned, he would be less afraid.
Personal stake: All humans are invested in coal, activists say, even if they don't recognize it.
Coal-industry advocates point out that the United States gets about half its electricity from coal; nearly all of Utah's electricity is coal fired. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates domestic coal could last for over 250 years at current-use levels.
The countries where coal is the primary energy fuel are polluting everyone's lives. Some of the evidence: unprecedented asthma rates in children, the enduring drought in the American Southwest, the worst drought in Australia in 1,000 years, crop failures in Africa, the filthy air on the Wasatch Front, the cheat grass on the Western range and the fires that feed on it.
Growing awareness of coal's downside led a British jury in September to acquit Greenpeace activists who climbed a 650-foot coal-plant smokestack in an attempt to shut it down. The jury reasoned that global warming is causing greater harm than Greenpeace.
DeChristopher saw his own transgression as a step toward Earth's salvation. With climate chaos looming, he said, "How could I not do this? How could I sit by and be complicit in my own destruction?"
The U. student could face federal felony charges and even prison for his protest. Still, he urges more people to do what he did: If an opportunity presents itself, find your voice and stand your ground.
But don't go all out without cause, warned Daniel Kessler, a Greenpeace spokesman in San Francisco. "There's no reason for civil disobedience if another [measure] is more effective."
phenetz@sltrib.com
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Democracy & 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?"
Rachel's Democracy and Health News is published as often as necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the subject.
Editors:
Peter Montague - peter@rachel.org
Tim Montague - tim@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy & Health News send a blank Email to: rachel-subscribe@pplist.net
In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that you want to subscribe.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
dhn@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::