2/23/01
4:55:53 PM
The Nation
There's lots of new material available currently on a wide-range of subjects on The Nation's website, including the Intifada, Napster, media bias, Ralph Nader and George Bush's less-than-compassionate embrace of the GOP right.
MOUIN RABBANI: Field of Thorns - WEB ONLY
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=special&s=rabbani20010222
EBEN MOGLEN: Liberation Musicology
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010312&s=moglen
DAPHNE EVIATAR: Murdoch's Fox News
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010312&s=eviatar
ERIC ALTERMAN: Unreality Television
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010312&s=alterman
WILLIAM GREIDER: Nader and the Politics of Fear
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010312&s=greider
DAVID CORN: Right With Bush
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010312&s=corn
Also newly available is a forum on politics, religion and activism, sparked by Ellen Willis's essay, "Freedom From Religion, which appeared in the February 19 issue of The Nation. Featuring contributions from Tom Hayden, Michael Kazin, Frances Kissling, Arthur Hertzberg, Richard Parker, Jim Wallis, Rosalind Petchesky and Michael Eric Dyson, with a reponse from Willis herself, this forum goes a long way toward explaining and elucidating the differences among progressives on the question of the role of religion in activism. The forum is currently available at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010312&s=letter
And you can read Willis's original essay at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010219&s=willis.
NATION ARCHIVES
One of the most influential but least remarked on figures currently operating in Washington, DC is longtime Pentagon official Andrew Marshall. Notorious for his enthusiastic support of Star Wars and a well-known proponent of the view that the U.S. is woefully unprepared for a war with China, Marshall was recently appointed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to head the Pentagon's internal review of overall U.S. military strategy, which involves things like which likely military adversaries the U.S. will prepare to go to war with, how many U.S. forces should be prepared to fight at once and what weapons systems should the armed forces buy.
Ken Silverstein's report on Marshall for the October 25, 1999 issue of The Nation clearly showed Marshall's longtime role in the military gravy train. We've dug this piece up from our archives and made it available in its entirety at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=archive&s=19991025silverstein2
TURMOIL AT PACIFICA
Check out The Nation's collection of editorials, columns, articles and letters on the continuing troubles at the Pacifica Radio Network, spanning the range of progressive opinion on the issue, with contributions from Robert McChesney, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Marc Cooper, John Dinges, Dennis Bernstein, Mary Frances Berry, Bill Mandel and many more.
http://www.thenation.com/special/2001pacifica.mhtml
THE NATION DIRECTORY
The Nation Directory, a voluminous database of political material, is a growing collection of links to organizations, agencies, think-tanks, political parties, non-profits and individuals. It can be used as both a stand-alone research tool and as an activist resource, as well as a means to garner further information relating to each Nation article we post on the site. We need your help to make the Directory grow. So, please send our suggestions for new links to directory@thenation.com. You can find the directory at:
http://www.thenation.com/directory
2/23/01
4:55:25 PM
WILD ALERT
The National Park Service (NPS) has recommended closing most of Colorado's Rocky Mountain National Park to recreational snowmobile use. But the snowmobile industry is turning up the heat on the Bush Administration to halt this locally based regulatory process. The Park Service is soliciting public input through March 6th -- your comments are needed! Send them today from
http://www.wilderness.org/standbylands/orv/rocky.htm
SIGNIFICANT SNOWMOBILE DAMAGE Last December, the Park Service released a draft Environmental Assessment of the impacts of recreational snowmobile use on the environment and wildlife of Rocky Mountain National Park. The EA presents dramatic evidence that snowmobiles cause significant damage to the Park's soil chemistry, wildlife, natural quiet, wilderness values, vegetation, and air and water quality. The EA also outlined different management alternatives for snowmobiles in the Park.
As a result of the EA's findings, the Park Service in January published proposed regulations for the Park in the Federal Register. The proposal's "preferred" management alternative -- Alternative 1 -- would close permanently a 16-mile-long portion of Trail Ridge Road to snowmobiles, and would maintain the closure of Summerland Park Snowmobile Trail and Bowen Gulch Access Trail. The small amount of road exempted from the proposal would continue to provide snowmobile access to National Forest land west of the Park.
INDUSTRY TRIES TO STOP PROCESS Even though the route being proposed for closure is little used by snowmobilers, who prefer Forest Service lands west of the Park, the snowmobile industry nevertheless is exerting great pressure on the new Bush administration to halt this locally based regulatory process. This despite the fact that President George Bush campaigned on a platform which promised to forgo "top down" Washington, D.C., based management of National Parks.
TAKE ACTION While a snowmobile "rider" passed last year by Congress prevents NPS from enforcing a snowmobile closure now, NPS can proceed with collecting comments evaluating snowmobile management alternatives.
Your input can make a difference. Please send the Park Service comments from
http://www.wilderness.org/standbylands/orv/rocky.htm
(Comment deadline has been extended to March 6.) Tell NPS that you support the Park Service's preferred Alternative 1 to close Trail Ridge Road to snowmobiles and maintain the closure of Summerland Park and Bowen Gulch Trails in Rocky Mountain National Park.
Or send your comments directly to:
National Park Service, Ranger Activity Division 1849 C Street, NW, Rm 7408, Washington, DC 20240 EMAIL: WASO_regulations@nps.gov FAX: 202/208-6756
FOR MORE INFORMATION To see a copy of the environmental assessment, go to
http://www.nps.gov/romo/home.htm
THANK YOU FOR HELPING TO PROTECT OUR NATIONAL PARKS!
For a full list of Action Items, visit http://www.wilderness.org/whatcan/takeaction.htm
An archive of past WildAlerts can be found at
http://www.wilderness.org/wildalert/wildalerts.htm
Founded in 1935, The Wilderness Society works to protect America's wilderness and to develop a nation-wide network of wild lands through public education, scientific analysis and advocacy. Our goal is to ensure that future generations will enjoy the clean air and water, wildlife, beauty and opportunities for recreation and renewal that pristine forests, rivers, deserts and mountains provide. To take action on behalf of wildlands today, visit our website at
2/23/01
3:52:06 PM
PLEASE GET GEORGE HARRISSON TO CALL ME! UK 01276 489926 - I AM NOT A NUTTER OR STUDIP!
& LEAVE A MESSAGE - WE NEED TO MEET URGENTLY! - IF HE NEEDS PROOF I WILL GIVE IT TO HIM - TELL HIM I'AM #5 (JOHN WAS WRONG ABOUT #9 - TELL HIM (OR NOT) - BYE PS DO NOT GIVE MY EMAIL ADDRESS TO ANYONE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - I MEAN IT - AND NO NUTTERSTO EMAIL ME - PLEASE!
2/23/01
1:29:05 PM
THE LEXINGTON HERALD-LEADER Lexington, Kentucky February 23, 2001
Legalization of industrial hemp takes a major step
By John Cheves
FRANKFORT - Industrial hemp is just a few steps away from returning to Kentucky, the state that once led the nation in hemp production.
The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee Yesterday approved House Bill 100, which would allow state universities to grow and study industrial hemp under closely regulated conditions. The bill also would establish a commission to study the agricultural value of hemp as a crop at a time when tobacco revenues are dwindling.
The bill now goes to the full Senate, which appears receptive to it, and then if the Senate and House agree on the same version to Gov. Paul Patton. The House passed the bill on Feb. 14.
A similar version of the bill died last year for lack of action in the Senate.
Critics of industrial hemp worry because of its relationship to marijuana, a cousin plant that contains much more tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the chemical that gives marijuana its mind-altering qualities when smoked or ingested.
State and federal narcotics laws after World War II outlawed both marijuana and hemp; Kentucky law makes no distinction between them.
But this year, the bill's supporters including former Gov. Louie Nunn are convincing skeptics that the two plants belong to separate subspecies, and an academic study of hemp won't lead to increased marijuana use.
"I'm getting a good comfort level with this legislation," Sen. Bob Leeper, R-Paducah, said yesterday.
The Kentucky State Police, which opposes hemp production because it says legalized hemp could be used to disguise marijuana crops, doesn't object to academic research, Commissioner Ishmon Burks told the committee.
"We're willing to work with whoever regarding the commission to study it and to understand it just a little bit more," Burks said. "But I would say that we stand full and square behind hemp only if there is zero THC."
Last year, Patton opposed the hemp bill, citing the state police's concerns. If the police now are comfortable with the controlled growth of hemp for study at a university, so is the governor, a spokesman said.
"Commissioner Burks was speaking for the governor," said Patton spokesman Mark Pfeiffer.
The Republican-controlled Senate also seems more accepting of the hemp bill this session, said Rep. Joe Barrows, D-Versailles, one of the sponsors. The Senate committee yesterday voted 9-1 to send the bill to the full Senate with a recommendation to approve it. Last year, the same committee sent the bill forward but refused to endorse it.
Among the "yes" votes on the committee yesterday was Senate Majority Leader Dan Kelly, R-Springfield, who helps decide which bills are called for a vote on the Senate floor.
"I don't think they would have gone through this exercise today just for the heck of it," Barrows said after the vote.
Any university would be eligible to apply to the Council on Postsecondary Education to study hemp. None has expressed interest yet, Barrows said.
Industrial hemp's supporters consider it a botanical super hero, a versatile, disease-resistant plant of many uses. Grown in other nations, including Canada, hemp's stalks, fibers, seeds and oils are used to create rope, paper, clothing, animal feed, auto parts and a variety of other products.
In 1998, a University of Kentucky study predicted that Kentucky could reap hundreds of farm jobs and millions of dollars from hemp, softening the impact of tobacco's weakened value.
2/23/01
1:26:43 PM
Marine Reserves Called Best Hope for Ocean Species
By Cat Lazaroff
SAN FRANCISCO, California, February 22, 2001 (ENS) - There is now compelling scientific evidence that marine reserves conserve both biodiversity and fisheries, and could help to replenish the seas, says a scientific consensus statement signed by 150 of the world's leading marine scientists. The statement was released this week at the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting.
A leopard shark swims among kelp forests in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary - the nation's largest marine sanctuary (Photo by Kip Evans. Three photos courtesy National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) (.jpg attached)
"Dying coral reefs, toxic algal blooms, massive fish kills and the collapse of fisheries are symptoms of fundamental changes in ocean life that are caused, in part, by overfishing," said Stephen Palumbi of Harvard University. "Overfishing, pushed by a hungry world's demand for seafood, has moved species of fish toward extinction and permanent marine parks may be the only answer to save them." "All around the world there are different experiences, but the basic message is the same: marine reserves work, and they work fast," agreed past AAAS president Dr. Jane Lubchenco. "It is no longer a question of whether to set aside fully protected areas in the ocean, but where to establish them. We urge the immediate application of fully protected marine reserves as a central oceans management tool."
Lubchenco is co-chair of the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS), a federally funded think tank on questions of ecology, based at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The new scientific theory of marine reserves presented at the meeting is the culmination of three years of study by an international group of leading marine scientists working through NCEAS.
At the 1997 AAAS meeting in Seattle, Washington, scientists reviewed the state of the oceans and identified research priorities. In response, an international team of scientists was established at NCEAS, and charged with developing a better scientific understanding of marine reserves. This new analysis now provides the scientific evidence necessary to establish additional reserves that scientists can be confident will work.
The declining state of the oceans and the collapse of many fisheries creates a critical need for more effective management of marine biodiversity, populations of exploited species and the overall health of the oceans, marine scientists believe. While marine protected areas (MPA's) and Marine Sanctuaries have been designated to enhance conservation, they often allow activities such as fishing and mining, whereas marine reserves do not.
The Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Marine Sanctuary was created to protect whales and other marine wildlife (Photo by Dave Matilla) (.jpg attached)
Fully protected marine reserves are viewed by many as a key tool to help reverse widespread overfishing and habitat disturbance. Yet because there are gaps of knowledge about how reserves work, and because they are perceived to be furthering limiting dwindling fisheries, they are often vigorously resisted. At present, fully protected marine reserves encompass only 1/100 of one percent of the seas.
Within marine reserves, researchers found: a.. population densities were on average 91 percent higher than those outside reserves b.. biomass was 192 percent higher c.. average organism size was 31 percent higher d.. species diversity was 23 percent higher "The results are startling and consistent," said Dr. Robert Warner of the University of California, Santa Barbara. "We now have strong evidence that reserves work. Within and around marine parks, fish population doubles, fish size grows by 30 percent and reproduction triples."
"Furthermore, it all happens within two to four years and it lasts for decades," Warner said.
This spotted scorpionfish finds good camouflage on the coral reefs of Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary, located off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana (Photo by Frank and Joyce Burek) (.jpg attached).
The size and abundance of exploited species also increases in areas adjacent to reserves, the study found. Reserves serve as natural hatcheries, replenishing populations throughout the region as young fish and other species spill over beyond reserve boundaries. Dr. Callum Roberts of Harvard University has worked closely with fishers around the world and cited numerous case studies of successful marine reserves. In New Zealand, despite violent opposition at the outset, fishers have now become the champions of reserves where they have seen populations of snappers increase 40 fold.
In 1994, three large areas totaling 17,000 square kilometers in the Gulf of Maine were closed to all fishing methods that put groundfish at risk. Scallops flourished in the undisturbed habitat. Within five years their populations rebounded to nine to 14 times their density in fished areas.
Monitoring showed scallop fishers hugging the edge of the closed areas, benefiting from high catches as a result of adults and their offspring moving outside the reserves.
Marine reserves differ from parks on land because most marine species disperse through the water as larvae or spores, moved by tides and currents. Dispersal distances of 20 to 50 kilometers are not uncommon and 500 to 1000 kilometers is possible in some cases due to currents.
Fish boat in Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (.jpg attached). Fish sanctuaries often allow fishing to continue, while marine reserves would not (Photo courtesy U.S. National Marine Sanctuaries) "You want to design reserves so that they have a spillover effect in helping replenish the ocean beyond the protected area," said Dr. Steve Palumbi of Harvard University. "Well designed networks are the key."
Using new knowledge of larval dispersal patterns, scientists can determine the optimal span, spacing and size of the reserves. The NCEAS studies demonstrate that networks of fully protected marine reserves linked both ecologically, through larval dispersal, and physically, through ocean currents, are much more likely to achieve the full array of benefits that marine resource managers are being called upon to deliver.
Single isolated reserves, which have been favored by resource managers in the past, are much less likely to provide meaningful protections, the researchers concluded.
The scientists also presented a new computer based tool that can map and design reserve systems for fishery managers across the U.S. and the world. Fisheries managers will be able to map out reserves based on specific conservation goals such as how representation of 20 percent of all habitats might translate in the water in ways that make stakeholders happy.
This new technology has the potential to revolutionize the design of future protected areas, as in the Channel Islands where it is being applied in efforts to establish fully protected marine zones.
Staghorn corals in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (.jpg attached). Pollution leaking from septic tanks and nutrients in runoff from the Florida mainland have reduced corals in this marine protected area in recent years. (Photo courtesy Marine Conservation Biology Institute) Yet even with the new scientific consensus emerging, the future of reserves in the U.S. is uncertain. Questions about the efficacy of marine reserves are being raised again by the new administration in response to former President Bill Clinton's executive order directing federal and state agencies to work together to develop a national system of marine protected areas (MPAs).
The new science should allay concerns voiced in a letter to President George W. Bush by the new chair of the Senate Resources Committee, Utah Republican James Hansen, the scientists said.
"No goals or purposes of the MPA for a system of MPA's have been identified; and no research has been identified to determine whether the goals of MPAs are being achieved," Hansen wrote. "MPAs must be done in a scientifically defensible manner."
"Conservationists can be reassured that marine reserves are protecting biodiversity, and while fishermen may lose access to some areas, they will reap the benefits outside the reserves," said Dr. Lubchenco. "The overall lesson is that all stakeholders can be served by well designed networks of marine reserves
2/23/01
12:42:50 PM
FAIR
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and news reports
ACTION ALERT:
New York Times on Iraq Airstrikes: Zero Dissent Allowed
February 23, 2001
Despite the chorus of international condemnation that followed last week's large-scale airstrikes on targets in Iraq, not a single word of criticism or dissent could be found anywhere in the New York Times' February 17 coverage of the attack. U.S. and British planes struck five Iraqi air-defense targets February 16 while patrolling their self-declared, internationally unrecognized "no-fly zone" over the south of the country.
The Times ran four articles dealing with the raid-- a news article, a news analysis, an unsigned editorial and an op-ed. None featured any criticism of the airstrikes whatsoever. The lead story on the front page quoted seven sources; all seven were government or military officials, all of whom supported the attack-- a Pentagon spokesman, a "senior Pentagon official," a "senior defense official," a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, President Bush, and a Republican and a Democratic senator.
David Sanger and Frank Bruni's accompanying news analysis, "The World Stage, Act I," mused emptily about what kind of "statement" Bush was making in authorizing the strikes, concluding that Bush had "arrived on the world stage," that "despite his inexperience" in foreign policy, "he was a player." No dissenting views were included.
Official Iraqi media reported 2 civilians killed and 20 injured in the raid. But in the Times' 1,600-word news story, the subject of civilian deaths and injuries was brushed off in two sentences: "Iraqi television reported numerous civilians had been wounded" but "Pentagon officials said they have no evidence of civilian casualties."
The Times appears to have great confidence in the sincerity of official U.S. statements on Iraqi casualties. However, when former U.N. Humanitarian Coordinator in Iraq Hans von Sponeck independently investigated civilian damage from several U.S.-British airstrikes in 1999, finding 144 people killed and 446 injured that year, the Clinton administration tried to have him fired and he soon quit in protest. ("U.N. resignations point to failure of U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq," Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service, 2/26/00). His replacement, Tun Myat, has no plans to investigate the damage from the latest bombing, a U.N. spokesperson in New York told FAIR.
In announcing Bush's arrival on the world stage, the news analysis article quoted his explanation of the attack-- "Saddam Hussein has got to understand that we expect him to conform to the agreement he signed after Desert Storm"-- but refrained from pointing out that Bush had made a gaffe: The post-war agreement with Iraq contained no mention of no-fly zones, dealing only with Iraqi withdrawal and compliance with U.N. resolutions. Unlike the Times, the Washington Post pointed out the mistake in a Feb. 19 article, "Bush on Stage: Deft or Just Lacking Depth?"
The Times' opinion pages kept up the cheerleading, with a lead editorial judging the airstrikes "justified" and "timely." Instead of printing a balancing view, the facing op-ed page ran a piece by military hawk Anthony Cordesman headlined "No Choice But To Strike" that declared the bombing a "necessary if not vital" step. Cordesman was condemned by Amnesty International last year for a report he authored for the Center for Strategic and International Studies proposing the use of "interrogation methods that border on psychological and/or physical torture" against Palestinians as one viable method of enforcing a peace agreement. See "ABC News Analyst Advocates Brutality," 11/21/00,
http://www.fair.org/activism/abc-cordesman.html
The total absence of criticism in the Times stands in marked contrast to the outpouring of criticism around the world. In the days that followed, one country after another, including key NATO allies, lined up to condemn the attack. Several said the bombings were a blatant violation of international law. France expressed "incomprehension" and "disappointment" (AFP, 2/17/01); the Italian prime minister called it "counterproductive" (ANSA, 2/21/01); the German foreign minister, though publicly circumspect, protested the bombing in diplomatic meetings in Washington (Agence Europe, 2/19/01). Turkey, Jordan, and Iran-- three of the neighboring countries supposedly being protected from Iraqi aggression-- denounced the strikes, later joined by even Saudia Arabia (London Guardian, 2/22/01), while the other Gulf states "maintained an embarrassed silence" (AFP, 2/17, 2/18/01). None of this was reported by the New York Times.
All of this raises poignant questions about the Times' journalistic priorities. Instead of printing a windy disquisition on Bush's "arrival" to the world stage, the paper could have dispatched a reporter to Baghdad to check on Iraqi reports of U.S.-caused civilian deaths. Rather than invite Anthony Cordesman to make exactly the same pro-bombing argument on the op-ed page as the editorialists did on the facing page, the editors could have published an opposing view.
ACTION: Write to the New York Times and tell them to report on criticism of U.S. policy toward Iraq and not just quote U.S. officials. Ask them to do original reporting on the effects of U.S. airstrikes on the ground in Iraq. Remind them that balance in news reporting is essential.
CONTACT:
New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036-3959
Toll free comment line: 1-888-NYT-NEWS
As always, please remember that your comments will be more effective if you maintain a polite tone. Please cc fair@fair.org with your correspondence.
2/23/01
12:00:08 PM
World Environment News from Planet Ark
Doing environmental research? Search our news archives at: http://www.planetark.org/searchhome.cfm
58 pct of Americans favor biofood labels - industry survey - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9893
New York power plants okayed, NYPA still faces lawsuits - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9895
Monsanto seeks to ease biotech wheat concerns - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9898
UN top environment official heartened by Bush moves - UNITED NATIONS http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9900
Green group calls on UN to ban shark finning - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9899
UPDATE - Mozambique floods kill 41, govt appeals for help - MOZAMBIQUE http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9897
Mexican Green Party smarting from Cabinet snub - MEXICO http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9896
INTERVIEW - GMO sugar seen distant prospect in Mideast - EGYPT http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9892
UPDATE - China pledges "Great Wall" Olympic building blitz - CHINA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9891
UPDATE - Boise Cascade cancels $160 mln Chile forestry project - CHILE http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9894
2/23/01
11:58:23 AM
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE (ENS)
"We Cover the Earth For You"
MARINE RESERVES CALLED BEST HOPE FOR OCEAN SPECIES
By Cat Lazaroff
SAN FRANCISCO, California, February 22, 2001 (ENS) - There is now compelling scientific evidence that marine reserves conserve both biodiversity and fisheries, and could help to replenish the seas, says a scientific consensus statement signed by 150 of the world's leading marine scientists. The statement was released this week at the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-22-06.html
DASH OF ICE LEAVES LONDONERS SHAKEN, STIRRED
LONDON, United Kingdom, February 22, 2001 (ENS) - As if living by the world's busiest airport were not unhealthy enough, residents under Heathrow Airport's flight path are dealing with a more intrusive hazard - falling ice.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-22-10.html
NUCLEAR PLANTS TURN UP THE HEAT ON ENDANGERED CREATURES
WASHINGTON, DC, February 22, 2001 (ENS) - A endangered brown pelican was found dead this morning by workers at the San Onofre nuclear plant on the California coast.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-22-02.html
BOISE CASCADE PULLS OUT OF CHILE
BOISE, Idaho, February 22, 2001 (ENS) - Forest products company Boise Cascade has announced cancellation of plans to build and operate an oriented strand board manufacturing plant and deep water port in Puerto Montt, Chile.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-22-01.html
BEIJING PROMISES CLEAN UP FOR 2008 OLYMPIC BID
BEIJING, China, February 22, 2001 (ENS) - The city of Beijing, a finalist to host the 2008 Olympic Games, has announced new environmental protections. The controls on auto emissions, water, industrial, and solid waste pollution are intended to convince an Olympic evaluation committee visiting this week that it is the best place for the world's athletes to compete.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-22-01.html
WWF LISTS TOP 10 MOST VULNERABLE FORESTS
WASHINGTON, DC, February 22, 2001 (ENS) - The World Wildlife Fund has achieved its objective of protecting 10 percent of the world's forests, but today listed 10 forests still lacking protection or management.
For full text and graphics, visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-22-11.html
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: FEBRUARY 22, 2001
Environmental Republicans Call for Bush's Support
Norton Denies Plans to Overturn Monuments
Last 34 Woodland Caribou Threatened by Logging
Harmful Algal Blooms On The Rise
Northwest Killer Whales May Face Extinction
Coal + Sewage Sludge = Dangerous Pollution
Biodiesel Demand Fuels Hope for New Industry
Electric Sparrow Hits the Road in Georgia
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-22-09.html
SEND NEWS STORY TIPS TO news@ens-news.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Eurotech's EKOR Makes U.S. Debut at Waste Management 2001 Symposium
FAIRFAX, VA, Feb. 22 -/E-Wire/-- EUROTECH Ltd. (Amex: EUO - news) announces that representatives from Eurotech will be participating at the Waste Management 2001 Symposium (WM'01), February 25 - March 1 in Tucson, Arizona to introduce the radiation-resistant EKOR to the nuclear waste managers attending from around the world.
/CONTACT: investors, Dawn Van Zant of ECON Investors Relations Inc., 800-665-0411, or dvanzant@investorideas.com, for EUROTECH Ltd./
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/Feb01/22Feb0104.html
TO BUSINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDITORS:
GARP Honors William Martin As Risk Manager of the Year and Richard Sandor With the Life Time Achievement Award
NEW YORK, NY, Feb. 22 -/E-Wire/-- The Global Association of Risk Professionals (GARP) honored William Martin, Head of Group Risk Management for the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, as the Risk Manager of the Year, and Dr. Richard L. Sandor, the principal architect of interest rate derivatives, with the Lifetime Achievement Award.
/CONTACT: Igor Lamser, RiskCenter.com, (212) 825-1525, (212) 825-1530 fax, lamser@riskcenter.com/
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/Feb01/22Feb0102.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
The Internet Drives Environmental Cost Savings of up to $44 Million Best Performing Companies Spend 56% Less on Environmental Management
BOSTON, MA, Feb. 22 -/E-Wire/-- A new study by the BTI Consulting Group (Boston) of how more than 225 companies use the Internet to manage environmental information found that the best performing industrial companies can save up to 56% percent on environmental costs. BTI's exclusive research shows that a typical large company spends $80 million on environmental costs, while the best companies can reduce that to less than $40 million through strategic use of the Internet.
/CONTACT: Roanne Neuwirth, Phone (617) 439-0333, Rneuwirth@bticonsulting.com/
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/Feb01/22Feb0101.html
SEND YOUR PRESS RELEASE ON E-WIRE -- 1-888-764-NEWS
2/23/01
11:51:09 AM
Plantations already certified by FSC
The following is a selection of plantations already certified by the FSC. We have excluded the smaller plantations (less than 10,000 hectares), as well as those described as "plantation/semi-natural", "plantation/natural" and similar mixes, so as to highlight only those which can be characterized as typical industrial tree plantations (figures are in hectares). Shell's plantations are not included because they were certified after the last update in the FSC's web page.
BRAZIL V&M Florestal Ltda.: 235,886 Klabin Fabricadora de Papel e Celulose SA: 218,545 Eucatex SA - Salto & Botucatu and Buri: 48,962 Duratex SA - Botucatu, Lencois Paulistas, & Agudos Districts: 47,904 Plantar SA: 13,414
INDONESIA Perum Perhutani: Districts of Cepu, Kebonharjo, Mantingan, Kendal Lawu and Madiun: 62,278
NEW ZEALAND Fletcher Challenge Forests Ltd: 360,000
SOUTH AFRICA Mondi Forests - Lowveld, Komati, Piet Retief, Natal and Zululand: 431,301 SAPPI Forest Products: 48,507 South African Forestry Company Ltd. - Eastern Cape Region: 42,714 South African Forestry Company Ltd. - KwaZulu-Natal Region: 51,922 South African Forestry Company Ltd. - Mpumalanga North Region: 64,378 South African Forestry Company Ltd. - Mpumalanga South Region: 58,818 South African Forestry Company Ltd. - Western Cape Region: 53,530
UNITED KINGDOM Northern Ireland Forest Service: 75,500
ZIMBABWE Border Timbers Ltd.: 47,654 Forestry Commission: 19,085
Source: FSC web page (Information accurate as of December 31, 2000 )
- South Africa: Something appears to be wrong
South Africa is perhaps the country when the contradictions about FSC-certified plantations stand out most clearly. Of the three major plantation companies, two of them have large areas of certified plantations: Mondi has 431,301 hectares and SAFCOL 271,362. The third company (SAPPI) is following the same policy and has begun the certification process with an initial 48,507 hectares certified. In total, 828,128 hectares of plantations have until now received the FSC stamp of approval --all certified by the UK-based SGS Qualifor-- and more will follow.
However, those same plantations are being opposed by a broad number of individuals and organizations in South Africa because of their environmental and social impacts. Many people were driven off the land --particularly during the Apartheid period-- to make way for those plantations and received no benefits from them. Plantation species have not only occupied 2 million hectares of fertile lands, but have also invaded another 2 million hectares through spontaneous seed dispersion. Both plantations and invaded areas have resulted in strong negative impacts on supplies of water --a scarce resource in South Africa-- and therfore on people and biodiversity.
South Africa is a megabiodiverse country and most of the flora and fauna is not located in forests but in grasslands and wetlands. The country has always had a relatively small area of forests. None of the plantation companies can therefore be accused of having caused deforestation. However, they can certainly be accused of having degraded enormous areas of the country's dominant ecosystem --grasslands-- which constitutes the support for its very diverse and unique wildlife and flora.
The contradiction is therefore clear. On the one hand, a certification firm --accredited to the FSC-- is telling the public that these plantations are sustainable. On the other hand, local networks such as Timberwatch have been created to oppose those same plantations because of their basic unsustainability. Something appears to be wrong and the FSC should look more closely into this matter.
Aotearoa/New Zealand: A challenging certification
In October 2000, all of Fletcher Challenge Forests' New Zealand plantations received Forest Stewardship Council certification, after an evaluation carried out on behalf of Scientific Certification Systems (SCS). Included in the certification is the world's largest continuous radiata pine plantation.
Ian Boyd, Fletcher Challenge Forests' then-Acting Chief Executive, said, "Forest Stewardship Council Certification will provide Fletcher Challenge Forests with a significant marketing opportunity in those markets which demand environmental responsibility."
However, the certification of Fletcher Challenge Forests' operations raises serious questions about SCS' assessment process, as well as about Fletcher Challenge Forests' plantation management itself.
According to FSC principle 6, all World Health Organisation type 1A and 1B pesticides "shall be prohibited". Fletcher Challenge Forestry uses sodium fluoroacetate. Commonly known as 1080, it is a poison used to kill wildlife such as possums, which can damage plantation trees. In SCS' public summary of the assessment of Fletcher Challenge Forests' operations, the assessors acknowledge that 1080 is "a compound appearing on WHO Table 1". Yet, rather than refusing to award the certificate, SCS applied a condition which is so loose it is almost meaningless: "Within 12 months of award of certification, Fletcher Challenge Forests should be able to demonstrate that they are actively seeking alternatives to 1080, e.g. by supporting research into alternatives."
In other words, Fletcher Challenge Forests can continue to use 1080 without risking their FSC certificate, as long as they support research into alternatives. SCS does not mention what form such support should take, or even if it matters whether the research yields any results or not.
FSC principle 2 states that disputes over land rights "of a substantial magnitude . . . will normally disqualify an operation from being certified." To the Maori, land is sacred and they have several outstanding land claims on Fletcher Challenge Forests' plantation land under the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. In their assessment, SCS' assessors describe the "uncertainty over ownership of a significant proportion of [Fletcher Challenge's] forest lands" as a "significant" issue. Once again however, this does not prevent SCS from awarding the certificate.
According to FSC Principle 6, "Use of genetically modified organisms shall be prohibited". Since 1995, Fletcher Challenge Forests has worked with Genesis Research and Development Corporation, New Zealand's biggest biotechnology company, on research into genetic modification of trees. SCS' assessors acknowledge that Fletcher Challenge Forests is involved in research on genetically modified plant tissues. Although Fletcher Challenge Forests does not currently use genetically modified trees in its plantations, rather than discussing whether Fletcher Challenge Forests' research conflicts with the spirit of FSC principles, the public summary of the assessment simply states: "All materials are classed as low risk and the laboratory is fully compliant with regulatory requirements."
In 1999 Fletcher Challenge Forests, Genesis, Monsanto, International Paper and Westvaco announced a US$60 million joint venture. The joint venture company, called ArborGen, will produce and market genetically modified tree seedlings, focussing on radiata pine and eucalyptus trees in New Zealand. Monsanto has since withdrawn from active partnership.
Whether Fletcher Challenge Forests use the genetically modified seedlings in its own plantations or, as part of the ArborGen joint venture, sells them to other forestry operations, Fletcher Challenge Forests is effectively using genetically modified organisms, and promoting their use in forestry operations. Whether Fletcher Challenge Forests is therefore in breach of FSC's principles should surely be a matter for the assessors to discuss in the public summary of the assessment. Yet, in describing Fletcher Challenge Forests' research and development activities, the assessors conclude: "The company has a clear commitment to the FSC principles".
Three of the four assessors hired by SCS to carry out the assessment of Fletcher Challenge Forests' operations work for the New Zealand company Forest Research. In 1982, Forest Research hosted an international meeting on genetic research with radiata pine. By September 1995, the institute's greenhouses in Rotorua were stuffed full of genetically modified radiata pine. Forest Research also runs projects funded by Fletcher Challenge Forests. Could this perhaps explain the assessors' unquestioning acceptance of Fletcher Challenge research into genetically modified trees?
By: Chris Lang; e-mail: chrislang@t-online.de
2/23/01
11:49:40 AM
Comments on the FSC's Principle on Plantations
It is important to begin by highlighting the fact that to receive FSC certification, a plantation company needs to comply with all FSC's principles and not only with the principle concerning plantations specifically-- principle 10.
Having said that, we shall focus on principle 10, which, as it currently stands, appears to allow unsustainable industrial tree plantations --particularly in the South-- to receive certification in spite of their negative social and environmental impacts. What follow are comments on the different criteria included under principle 10.
"Plantations shall be planned and managed in accordance with Principles and Criteria 1 - 9, and Principle 10 and its Criteria. While plantations can provide an array of social and economic benefits, and can contribute to satisfying the world's needs for forest products, they should complement the management of, reduce pressures on, and promote the restoration and conservation of natural forests."
In the South, all of these claims have already been proven unachievable in practice:
- Large-scale industrial monocrops have provided "an array of social and economic benefits" only to the rich.
- What does "can contribute to satisfying the world's needs for forest products" mean in a Southern context? Plantations produce only two forest products: timber and pulpwood. These two --and especially the latter-- are aimed at endless over-consumption by Northern countries and Southern elites. The beneficiary is therefore not "the world" but the rich world. All the other products which are produced by real forests (food, fodder, water, medicine, shelter, fuelwood, etc.), which satisfy the needs of local communities, are almost totally absent from plantations and the local world therefore does not benefit from plantations.
- In most cases, plantations have resulted in the destruction of native forests or other native ecosystems such as grasslands and have not contributed to "complement the management of, reduce pressures on, and promote the restoration and conservation of natural forests". The fact that, despite this, the principle states only that plantations "should" promote conservation, not that they "must", signals its detachment from the real world.
"Principle 10.1. The management objectives of the plantation, including natural forest conservation and restoration objectives, shall be explicitly stated in the management plan, and clearly demonstrated in the implementation of the plan."
- The management objectives of industrial plantations are always explicitly stated: the production of large quantities of timber in the shortest time possible. Large plantation companies often write natural forest conservation and restoration objectives into their plans, but more as a public relations exercise than as a genuine management objective.
"10.2 The design and layout of plantations should promote the protection, restoration and conservation of natural forests, and not increase pressures on natural forests. Wildlife corridors, streamline zones and a mosaic of stands of different ages and rotation periods, shall be used in the layout of the plantation, consistent with the scale of the operation. The scale and layout of plantation blocks shall be consistent with the patterns of forest stands found within the natural landscape."
- There is no positive relationship between industrial plantations and forest conservation. Wood produced in industrial plantations does not, as a rule, substitute for wood extracted from natural stands: the former is mostly aimed at the production of pulp and paper, while the latter is aimed at the timber industry, which requires high-quality wood.
- There are a number of negative relationships, through which large-scale plantations actually promote deforestation. In the first place, most plantations in the tropics substitute for primary or secondary forest, which are clearcut and/or set on fire prior to planting. Secondly, people displaced from their land by plantations have to clear new forest areas in order to survive. Thirdly, it is not unusual for the news that plantations are going to be established in a certain area to result in its deforestation by local speculators in order to be able to sell the land to the plantation companies. Additionally, roads leading to plantations upen up new forest areas to encroachment. Fires originating in plantations, in addition, can extend to nearby forests. In consequence, large-scale plantations are usually both direct and indirect causes of deforestation.
- Most plantation companies are able, if pressed, to make at least a token attempt to set up "wildlife corridors, streamline zones and a mosaic of stands of different ages and rotation periods." However, this does not mean that local ecosystems (forests, grasslands, wetlands and so forth) will not suffer, because there will usually be a number of companies occupying a given area. Wildlife corridors isolated within a sea of eucalyptus or pines are not of much significance for the conservation of wildlife. The same is applicable to the preservation of streamline zones. The impact of these plantations on water must be dealt with at a basin level and not at plantation level. The impact of large masses of fast-growing trees in a given area have already resulted in the disappearance of water courses and profound changes in the water cycle. Finally, almost all companies plant what could be loosely interpreted as "mosaics" of stands of different ages and rotation periods. By itself, however, this implies nothing about the impacts on water, soils, flora and fauna. The size of each "tile" in these so-called "mosaics" is likely to be far larger than in a forest because it is determined by the commercial need to be able to have something to harvest every year, not by ecological criteria.
- What is the meaning of "The scale and layout of plantation blocks shall be consistent with the patterns of forest stands found within the natural landscape"? What happens in cases such as Uruguay, Argentina and South Africa, where plantations are established on grasslands? Such plantations have already been certified in those three countries. Can this be interpreted as meaning that grassland ecosystems are unimportant to the FSC? And in all cases, how can a eucalyptus or pine plantation "be consistent with the patterns of forest stands found within the natural landscape"?
"10.3. Diversity in the composition of plantations is preferred, so as to enhance economic, ecological and social stability. Such diversity may include the size and spatial distribution of management units within the landscape, number and genetic composition of species, age classes and structures."
- This clause is so vague that it could be satisfied merely by planting two species of eucalyptus in a huge industrial plantation rather than just one, and planting two different areas a couple of years apart rather than planting all the trees at once. In fact, most large industrial plantations already comply with the letter of this principle simply because to do so enhances economic stability (more protection against specific predators). However, such inadequate measures cannot appreciably enhance either ecological or social stability (although the protection against pests provided by some diversity could protect the jobs of plantation workers who might otherwise lose their jobs if the plantation were to be decimated by insects or fungi). And even this call for minimum diversity is not mandatory but merely "preferred".
"10.4. The selection of species for planting shall be based on their overall suitability for the site and their appropriateness to the management objectives. In order to enhance the conservation of biological diversity, native species are preferred over exotic species in the establishment of plantations and the restoration of degraded ecosystems. Exotic species, which shall be used only when their performance is greater than that of native species, shall be carefully monitored to detect unusual mortality, disease or insect outbreaks and adverse ecological impacts."
- This criterion leaves the door wide open to fast-growth exotic tree plantations, which "are based on their overall suitability for the site and their appropriateness to the management objectives" (the production of large volumes of homogeneous raw material for industry). Native species are again only "preferred", not "required", and if "performance" is measured only by how much industrial wood a species produces, then all industrial plantations will comply with this criterion automatically. There is therefore a need to define "performance" clearly, because most native species' "performance" in the production of water, soil, food, medicine, fodder, etc. is usually far better than that of alien species which produce little --or none-- of these goods. The last sentence ("Exotic species . . . shall be carefully monitored to detect unusual mortality, disease or insect outbreaks and adverse ecological impacts") is very confusing. Are the adverse ecological impacts referred to impacts on the plantation or of the plantation on neighbouring ecosystems and local production?
"10.5. A proportion of the overall forest management area, appropriate to the scale of the plantation and to be determined in regional standards, shall be managed so as to restore the site to a natural forest cover."
- Here again appears the confusion between forest and plantation. (the "overall forest management area" includes industrial plantations, which are not forests.) In addition, what "proportion" of the plantation is to be returned to "natural forest cover"? One per cent? 10 per cent? 50 per cent? Who will determine the regional standards? What if the area never had forest cover (e.g. Uruguay, Argentina, South Africa)? Are plantation owners then exempted from restoring part of their operations to non-plantation vegetation?
"10.6. Measures shall be taken to maintain or improve soil structure, fertility, and biological activity. The techniques and rate of harvesting, road and trail construction and maintenance, and the choice of species shall not result in long term soil degradation or adverse impacts on water quality, quantity or substantial deviation from stream course drainage patterns."
- If this criterion were to be applied consistently, then no large-scale, fast growth, exotic tree plantation could be certified. Yet if applied carelessly, the criterion would allow a great deal of environmentally damaging practice. Who will decide whether this clause has been met or not? Most large plantation companies include (at least on paper) measures and techniques for environmental conservation. However, all their activities will necessarily have impacts --almost always deleterious-- on soil structure, fertility, biological activities and water. From our perspective, there is already enough evidence that, other things being equal, the species, harvesting methods, and maintenance techniques chosen for industrial monoculture plantations will result, as a rule, "in long term soil degradation or adverse impacts on water quality, quantity or substantial deviation from stream course drainage patterns." Yet of course theoretical studies can be found that claim that this need not be the case, and company studies that claim that fertility and hydrology have not been affected. Who will decide which experiences or set of studies are to be taken seriously? The FSC criterion is mysteriously silent about this key question.
"10.7. Measures shall be taken to prevent and minimize outbreaks of pests, diseases, fire and invasive plant introductions. Integrated pest management shall form an essential part of the management plan, with primary reliance on prevention and biological control methods rather than chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Plantation management should make every effort to move away from chemical pesticides and fertilizers, including their use in nurseries. The use of chemicals is also covered in Criteria 6.6 and 6.7."
- This clause relies so heavily on vague wording such as "minimize", "primary reliance", and "every effort" that it becomes worthless in practice.
- What are referred to as "pests" and "diseases" are frequently those native species which happen to be able to find food within the plantation (a food desert for most native fauna). Eradicating them is in fact a blow to local biodiversity. "Integrated pest management" is hardly great boon in itself if it implies nothing more than the protection of the exotic species against its few local (or exotic) predators. In addition, companies can easily claim that they are "making every effort" to move away from chemical pesticides and fertilizers without actually doing anything to lower their chemical use. In accordance with clause 10.6 (soil fertility), they will argue that there is no available substitute (given the scale of their plantations) to chemical fertilizers. They are already trying, they will say, to replace pesticides with silvicultural methods (thinning, prunning, spacing, etc.) for economic reasons, but, sadly, must still rely on chemical pesticides to a high degree. It is revealing, moreover, that criterion 10.7 says nothing about "moving away" from using herbicides, which are also harmful chemicals.
- In many countries, plantation trees themselves easily become "invasive plant introductions". What "measures shall be taken to prevent and minimize" such introductions in South Africa, for instance, where it is the introduced eucalyptus, wattles and pines which have turned into "invasive species" in the native ecosystems?
"10.8. Appropriate to the scale and diversity of the operation, monitoring of plantations shall include regular assessment of potential on-site and off-site ecological and social impacts (e.g. natural regeneration, effects on water resources and soil fertility, and impacts on local welfare and well-being), in addition to those elements addressed in principles 8, 6 and 4. No species should be planted on a large scale until local trials and/or experience have shown that they are ecologically well-adapted to the site, are not invasive, and do not have significant negative ecological impacts on other ecosystems. Special attention will be paid to social issues of land acquisition for plantations, especially the protection of local rights of ownership, use or access."
- This is perhaps the best-written criterion. However, its presupposition that "local trials" --which are always small-scale-- can prove the appropriateness of a large-scale industrial planting of a species to an ecosystem in general is mistaken. Small local trials can determine, up to a point, likely rates of growth of an industrial species on a site. They can also determine, to a certain extent, whether the species is likely to be invasive (although if it is in fact invasive, the trial itself will probably result in an invasion). But the only effective test of the social and environmental effects of large-scale plantations are large-scale plantations themselves. The criterion should therefore be revised to specify that no plantations will be certified in areas where there is enough evidence of substantial negative impacts (social, environmental or both) caused by existing large-scale plantations.
- The last sentence ("Special attention will be paid to social issues of land acquisition for plantations, especially the protection of local rights of ownership, use or access") points in the right direction, but what does "special attention will be paid" actually mean? Does it mean that no certification will take place if any local right has been violated? What if the violation occurred at the hands of speculators or the government before the company bought or rented the land? And again, who decides whether enough "attention" has been paid to land rights issues? The clause is tellingly silent on this question.
"10.9: Plantations established in areas converted from natural forests after November 1994 normally shall not qualify for certification. Certification may be allowed in circumstances where sufficient evidence is submitted to the certification body that the manager/owner is not responsible directly or indirectly of such conversion."
This raises a series of questions --why November 1994? Why "normally" shall not qualify for certification --who decides what is "normal"? Who judges the evidence presented and on what criteria? Would a signed slip of paper saying "I wasn't there when it happened and I didn't do it" suffice? If a second company buys up the plantation from the company responsible for clearing the forest, can the second company then be certified? Presumably the second company wasn't directly or indirectly responsible for the "conversion".
In sum, Principle 10 does not seem to offer nearly enough guarantees to end-consumers that wood from industrial plantations is produced in a socially equitable and environmentally-friendly manner. Neither is the principle very useful for people struggling against plantations at the local or national levels. The main issue (large-scale monocrops) is not taken into account. The problem is not the tree species (eucalyptus, pines, acacias, etc.) but the overall plantation model, which the FSC unjustifiably accepts without discussion. We believe that this principle is clearly insufficient and needs to be substantially modified before it can be said to be appropriate to the reality of large scale industrial tree monocrops.
2/23/01
11:46:03 AM
The FSC should review plantation certification
A troubling fact has come to our attention: an increasing number of large-scale tree monocrops are receiving Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification throughout the world.
Among the plantations recently given a "green" stamp of approval are Shell's plantations in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay; SAPPI's, MONDI's and SAFCOL's in South Africa; Klabin's and V&M Florestal's in Brazil; Perum Perhutani's in Indonesia; Fletcher Challenge's in New Zealand/Aotearoa and many others (see details below). If this trend continues, many more tree monocultures will also be guaranteed "sustainable" by the FSC, an organization which enjoys great credibility among the public.
The FSC was created as a result of increased awareness by consumers about their role in forest destruction, resulting from successful NGO campaigns, particularly regarding unsustainable logging practices in the tropics. When consumers began to ask their suppliers for certified wood, a number of NGOs decided to promote a process which could give them the choice of a "green" product. The NGOs came up with a number of principles and criteria that they insisted should be met before an FSC certificate was granted.
Nine of those principles are focused on forests and one on plantations (number 10). We believe that it is this decision --to allow large-scale monoculture plantations to be certified along with other forestry operations-- which lies at the root of the current disturbing trend. People throughout the world are increasingly aware that plantations are not forests. Numerous local communities and organizations have documented the impacts of large-scale plantations and opposed them because of their social and environmental impacts. The plantations in question have resulted either in deforestation or in the degradation of other ecosystems, particularly grasslands and wetlands. On the ground reality is showing that large-scale tree monocultures --no matter how many mitigation measures are implemented-- inevitably result in large-scale impacts on water, soils, flora, fauna and people because of their sheer scale.
Even if one accepts --which we don't-- that plantations are forests, the fact is that Principle 10 is so weak that most plantations --with the exception of those in areas marked by land conflict-- can be declared "sustainable" and given FSC certification (see article below).
We do not pretend to challenge the FSC and even less to question our NGO friends involved in it. What we do request is for them to revisit the whole issue of plantation certification, to take into account the plentiful existing documentation regarding the basic unsustainability of the plantation forestry model and either to exclude plantations from FSC certification altogether or to modify substantially Principle 10.
The FSC's main strength is its public credibility. Certification of unsustainable forestry operations --such as large-scale tree monocultures-- can erode this credibility. A critical review of its own principles by the FSC can only increase it. We sincerely hope that the FSC will be able to accomplish the latter.
RE-THINKING PLANTATION CERTIFICATION
- Plantations are not forests
One of the main problems for those struggling against large-scale industrial tree plantations is the existing confusion (generated by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization) between forests and plantations (i.e. "natural" forests and" planted" forests.) The FSC's definition contributes to support such confusion by stating that plantations are forests: "Plantation: Forest areas lacking most of the principal characteristics and key elements of native ecosystems as defined by FSC-approved national and regional standards of forest stewardship, which result from the human activities of either planting, sowing or intensive silviculture treatments." That definition enables the FSC to include plantations in its list of "certified forests".
The FSC's definition might be a useful way of defining Northern managed forests, where the original forest has been so simplified that it has become more akin to a plantation than to a forest. But it is not useful at all for people struggling in Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa, Thailand and many other countries against large-scale monocultures of exotic species such as eucalyptus or pines. Such plantations are not forests: they are tree crops.
In spite of the propaganda about "plantations helping to alleviate pressures on forests", experience has proven that not only do plantations not alleviate pressures on forests but, on the contrary, that they are a major direct and indirect cause of deforestation. At the same time, they result in widespread environmental and social problems
(see http://www.wrm.org.uy/plantations/index.html )
What foresters call "afforestation" --creating so-called "forests" where they didn't exist before-- usually results in environmental destruction insofar as diverse local ecosystems are replaced by uniform tree monocultures. Despite the FSC's focus on the protection of forests, this type of environmental degradation was not sufficiently taken on board when the organization elaborated its principles and criteria. That perhaps helps explain the contradictions of certification in countries such as South Africa, with its predominant grassland ecosystem (see article below).
The FSC was created to protect the world's forests and forest peoples against destructive logging practices, by promoting the sustainable use of forests. Large-scale monoculture tree plantations have little in common with forests and result in serious environmental and social problems. We therefore strongly urge the FSC to exclude such type of plantations from its mandate.
2/22/01
9:02:06 PM
International Forum on Globalization
As corporate driven globalization has accelerated the free-trade mantra across borders, numerous groups and organizations have emerged to contest this trend. One of the most venerable is the International Forum on Globalization. The IFG, formed in 1994 in the wake of the passage of the NAFTA agreement, is an alliance of sixty leading activists, scholars, economists, researchers and writers formed to stimulate new thinking, joint activity and public education in response to the threats posed by corporate globalization.
The IFG has staged a number of groundbreaking public events in its history, including a two-day Teach-In on the WTO and a debate on free-trade in Seattle, both during WTO week in December, 1999, and a hugely succesful two-day conference on the World Bank and the IMF last April in Washington, DC during the A16 protests.
This weekend the IFG stages its latest conference. Taking place at Hunter College (695 Park Avenue) in New York City, "Technology and Globalization," co-sponsored by The Nation Institute, will feature more than forty speakers participating in 25 workshops over the course of Saturday and Sunday, February 24 and 25th. The illustrious list of panelists includes some names familiar to Nation readers, including Kirkpatrick Sale, Mark Crispin Miller, Karl Grossman and John Cavanagh, as well as Lori Wallach, Jerry Mander, Jeremy Rifkin, Vandana Shiva, Walden Bello, Frances Moore Lappe, Sarah Anderson, Randy Hayes, Maude Barlow and Lori Wallach, among many others.
Ticket Information: $30 for Saturday, $25 for Sunday and $50 for the whole weekend. To purchase, call 212-219-2527, Ext. 110 or 1-888-629-9269 or email to nyocreg@aol.com. And find out more about the conference at:
2/22/01
8:56:35 PM
Public Citizen
Premature Infants Would Go Untreated, Die in Proposed Latin American Drug Trial
FDA May Endorse Unethical Placebo-Controlled Study of Drug for Respiratory Distress Syndrome
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Hundreds of premature infants with a potentially fatal medical condition would be given placebos -- and thus be more likely to die -- in a drug company study in Latin America that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is considering endorsing, Public Citizen has learned.
In a letter sent today to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson, Public Citizen called on the FDA to immediately halt plans for the study unless it is redesigned to treat all patients. A copy of the letter is available at
http://www.citizen.org/hrg/publications/1558.htm.
"One expects drug companies to be profit-driven and act accordingly," said Dr. Peter Lurie, deputy director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group. "But the FDA's job is to stop this kind of unethical behavior, not encourage or endorse it. The fact that the agency is seriously considering this study is beyond belief."
In the study, hundreds of infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome (RDS) would be treated with an experimental synthetic surfactant drug called Surfaxin, while a control group of hundreds of premature infants with the syndrome would be given placebos -- instead of one of four FDA-approved surfactant drugs that could save the infants' lives. Many infants given placebos likely would die unnecessarily, a Public Citizen analysis shows. Surfactant is a kind of drug that makes it easier to inflate the lungs of newborns with RDS. A third group of infants would get an already-approved drug.
The study is to be conducted in one or more of the following four countries: Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Mexico. The company proposing the study is Discovery Laboratories Inc., which is based in Doylestown, Pa., and which has licensed the drug from Johnson & Johnson. Although approved surfactants are available in some hospitals in these countries, Discovery Laboratories plans to conduct the study in hospitals where surfactant is not available.
The FDA has acknowledged in internal documents that the proposed study would be unethical in the United States, where the new drug would be studied by treating one group of infants with the new drug and a second group with a drug already proven to treat RDS, but no infant would receive a placebo. One surfactant drug has been approved in the U.S. on the basis of studies with this design, and Discovery Laboratories plans to use this design in a European study.
But the FDA has long expressed a preference for studies with placebo controls, even for conditions that are not minor, and companies prefer them because it is easier to prove one's drug is superior to nothing than to prove that it is as effective as a competitor's drug that is known to work.
Public Citizen learned about the proposed study through documents obtained from an internal meeting at the FDA at which the proposed study was discussed. The meeting was entitled, "Use of placebo-controls in life threatening diseases: is the developing world the answer?" Because the drug is still under development, some details of the proposed study -- such as the name of the drug company -- were not included in the FDA documents. However, in a phone call with Public Citizen, Discovery Laboratories' president, Robert J. Copetola, confirmed that his company is the sponsor of the proposed trial.
Surfactant was heralded in a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine article as "without doubt the most thoroughly studied new therapy in neonatal care." A statistical summary of studies of synthetic surfactant has concluded that the drug reduces neonatal mortality by 34 percent and that "further placebo controlled trials of synthetic surfactant are no longer warranted."
The use of a placebo in this study violates the Declaration of Helsinki, an international ethics document. A recent revision to the Declaration says that, "The benefits, risks, burdens and effectiveness of a new method should be tested against those of the best current prophylactic, diagnostic, and therapeutic methods." Public Citizen's letter notes that in light of this language, "the sort of study contemplated here is expressly forbidden" by the Declaration.
Discovery Laboratories claims that it will make the drug available at a reduced cost in thosecountries where it conducts the study, but it hasn't defined those costs precisely. Pharmaceutical sales in Latin America represented just 7 percent of international pharmaceutical sales in 1999, compared to 40 percent in North America and 27 percent in Europe.
"The infants who would get placebos are being used by the company for reasons having to do with corporate bottom lines in order to get their drug approved," said Public Citizen's Health Research Group director, Sidney M. Wolfe, MD. Public Citizen also is asking the new Office of Human Research Protections in HHS to use its influence to immediately stop the study.
"If this study occurs, it will be a landmark of unethical and exploitative behavior, " Lurie said. "We have a profit-driven drug company turning to the developing world to conduct studies that could never be done in the United States or even in some parts of the study countries. This company wants to experiment on the poorest of the poor, and that is despicable."
2/22/01
8:54:03 PM
FAIR
Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
Media analysis, critiques and news reports
ACTIVISM UPDATE: New York Times Responds on Inauguration Criticism
February 22, 2001
In response to a letter-writing campaign initiated by FAIR
( see http://www.fair.org/activism/inauguration-times.html )
New York Times senior news editor Bill Borders (borders@nytimes.com) sent this letter (or a variation of it) to several activists:
I have your correspondence about our coverage of the protest demonstrations that coincided with the inauguration of President Bush on Jan. 20. I am sorry we disappointed you. But it seems to me that your objection confuses the fact of this, or any, protest demonstration with the events that the demonstrators are protesting against.
The marchers in Washington and elsewhere on Jan. 20 were protesting the irregularities of Bush's election, which we have covered extensively almost every day since Nov. 7. All the Florida electoral peculiarities have been front page news.
In general, we devote more space to events, developments and situations than to demonstrations protesting (or supporting) the events, developments and situations. One reason for this is that the demonstrations are staged events, designed to be covered. So, as we did with this one, we cover them, but modestly. I think our coverage of this demonstration, both on the front page and with the full article inside, was appropriate to the event.
This modest coverage of the demonstration, a staged event, is wholly separate from our coverage of the details of the election. That has been, of course, considerably more substantial.
I assure you that our coverage the Bush presidency will continue to be as vigorous and independent as you might expect. I appreciate your writing, and holding us to a high standard.
FAIR replies:
The New York Times' argument that it did not need to give significant coverage to the anti-inaugural demonstrations because it had already covered the electoral dispute in Florida is akin to saying that it was not necessary to give much coverage to sit-ins in the segregated South because the paper had already covered the Jim Crow laws the sit-ins were protesting. Or arguing that there was no reason to cover the anti-Vietnam War movement because the war itself was being fully reported. Or refusing to cover the civil disobedience arrests around the Diallo shooting because the shooting itself had been in the news.
The fact is that rallies, marches and sit-ins *are* real events, not merely peripheral phenomena that respond to events. Throughout history, they have had a significant effect on the course of American politics, and they are one of the most effective ways that ordinary people can have an impact on the society that they live in.
As for the charge that they "are staged events, designed to be covered," that could be said of almost the entire inauguration process, as well as of a large percentage of events that the New York Times reports on in Washington. The difference is that demonstrations are staged by ordinary citizens, whereas the inaugurations, official press conferences, etc. that the New York Times prefers to cover are staged by people with access to power.
The Washington Post, often thought of as a paper comparable to the New York Times, made a different decision about how to cover the inauguration. Its lead story on January 21 included, in its fifth paragraph, the fact that "thousands of sign-waving protesters, some chanting 'Hail to the Thief,' roamed the streets, which were patrolled by about 7,000 officers from more than a dozen law enforcement agencies." One of the front-page photos depicted an injured demonstrator, and five others inside showed signs of protest. One front-page story and three inside stories were wholly or largely devoted to discussing the protests.
Decades from now, historians reviewing the Washington Post's coverage will recognize that that paper covered the most remarkable features of the 2001 presidential inauguration. Those same historians will find that the New York Times, as our action alert noted, attempted to ignore reality.
2/22/01
8:48:34 PM
World Environment News from Planet Ark
Doing environmental research? Search our news archives at: http://www.planetark.org/searchhome.cfm
Unspoilt Alaska worth billions, say eco-activists - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9883
Drought threatens Washington state hydropower, salmon - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9884
More energy supply crucial for US economy-report - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9888
UPDATE - Britain test fires depleted uranium into sea - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9887
Global warming linked to melting ice cap - study - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9890
Greens seek to bar Pakistan park gas exploration - PAKISTAN http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9886
India defends importing nuclear fuel from Russia - INDIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9881
German Greens attack Fischer for Iraq strike stance - GERMANY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9889
China to raise water prices over next five years - CHINA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9882
Ambitious bid launched for worldwide marine census - AUSTRALIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9885
2/22/01
8:45:55 PM
DONELLA MEADOWS, SUSTAINABILITY PIONEER, DEAD AT 59
HANOVER, New Hampshire, February 21, 2001 (ENS) - Donella Meadows, a pioneering environmental scientist and writer, died Tuesday in New Hampshire after a brief bout with bacterial meningitis.
Meadows was best known as the lead author of the 1972 international best seller, "The Limits to Growth." The book, which reported on a study of long term global trends in population, economics and the environment, sold millions of copies and was translated into 28 languages.
"Limits to Growth" began a debate about the limits of the Earth's capacity to support human economic expansion that continues to this day. Meadows was also the lead author of the 20 year follow up study, "Beyond the Limits", published in 1992 with original co-authors Dennis Meadows and Jørgen Randers.
Professor Meadows, known as "Dana" to friends and colleagues, was a leading voice in what has become known as the sustainability movement, an international effort to reverse damaging trends in the environment, economy and social systems. Her work influenced hundreds of other academic studies, government policy initiatives and international agreements.
For 29 years, Meadows also taught environmental systems, ethics and journalism to her students at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. Her writing appeared most often as a weekly column called "The Global Citizen," nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in 1991.
In 1981, together with her former husband Dennis Meadows, she founded the International Network of Resource Information Centers, which built avenues of scientific communication during the Cold War.
As the group's coordinator for 18 years, Meadows helped build a global process of information sharing and collaboration among hundreds of researchers and activists in the sustainability movement.
In 1997, Professor Meadows founded the Sustainability Institute, which she described as a "think-do-tank." The Institute combines research in global systems with practical demonstrations of sustainable living, including the development of an ecological village and organic farm in Hartland Four Corners, Vermont.
2/22/01
8:36:39 PM
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE (ENS)
"We Cover the Earth For You"
AQUACULTURE MAY BE FISHING FOR TROUBLE
By Cat Lazaroff
Second in a two part ENS special report
SAN FRANCISCO, California, February 21, 2001 (ENS) - New studies released this week reveal that farmed fish and shellfish, which form a growing percentage of the seafood consumed around the globe, may pose unexpected risks to wild species, as well as to the environments in which they are raised.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-21-06.html
TALKS FAIL TO DEFUSE FOREST CERTIFICATION WAR
ROME, Italy, February 21, 2001 (ENS) - An ongoing battle for supremacy between the two largest sustainable forestry certification plans continued this week at a seminar organized in Rome by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) plus German aid agency GTZ and the International Tropical Timber Organization.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-21-02.html
BRAZILIAN JOURNALISTS SENTENCED FOR WHALE HARRASSMENT
PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil, February 21, 2001 (ENS) - More than five years after two Brazilian journalists and a fisherman chased and rammed a right whale and her calf in pursuit of video footage, the men have been sentenced for violating a federal law.
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens-news.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-21-01.html
FEMALE PUP FIRST TO SUCCUMB TO NORWAY'S WOLF CULL
OSLO, Norway, February 21, 2001 (ENS) - Norway's licensed wolf cull has claimed its first victim, believed to be a female pup. On snowmobiles and skis, 11 hunters and four trackers under the leadership of Leonhard Mikalsen, followed and killed the wolf in the Østerdalen Valley, in Hedmark County, 200 kilometers (125 miles) north of Oslo.
For full text and graphics, visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-21-11.html
OCEAN ANARCHY THREATENS BLUE WHITING'S SURVIVAL
BRUSSELS, Belgium, February 21, 2001 (ENS) - In language rare for any European Union institution, the European Commission has condemned as "anarchic," the current catch of the northeast Atlantic's blue whiting population.
For full text and graphics, visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-21-12.html
UK SIMPLIFIES RULES FOR OFFSHORE WIND FARMS
LONDON, United Kingdom, February 21, 2001 (ENS) - The UK government wants to make it easier for companies to build offshore wind farms. Potential developers currently face up to seven steps to gain the approval they need.
For full text and graphics, visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-21-10.html
ENVIRONMENT NEWS SERVICE AMERISCAN: FEBRUARY 21, 2001
Donella Meadows, Sustainability Pioneer, Dead at 59
Record Fine Imposed on Caviar Smugglers
Sprawl Imperils California Species
Science Supports Restoration Plan For California Delta
Federal Funds Authorized To Help Fight Florida Wildfires
Oregon Town Seeks Permanent Watershed Protections
Shark Attacks Hit Record High in 2000
Register Now To Watch Prairie Chickens Dance
For full text and graphics visit:
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/feb2001/2001L-02-21-09.html
SEND NEWS STORY TIPS TO news@ens-news.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
American Lung Association of Connecticut Releases Report That Supports Continuation of Emissions Testing To Provide Cleaner Air
HARTFORD, CT, Feb. 21 -/E-Wire/-- 97% of Connecticut's citizens breathe air that is considered seriously unhealthy by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Today, the American Lung Association of Connecticut released the results of a comprehensive report on the impacts of the state's vehicle emissions testing program calling the current program essential to ensuring clean air and public health in Connecticut.
/CONTACT: Margaret LaCroix, 860-289-5401, Cindy Drucker, 617-448-6466/
For Full Text Visit: http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/Feb01/21Feb0103.html
TO ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL EDITORS:
Con Edison Reinforces Environmental Commitment
Energy Provider Endorses CERES Principles
NEW YORK, NY, Feb. 21 -/E-Wire/-- Consolidated Edison, Inc. (Con Edison) and CERES (the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies) announced today that the energy provider has formally endorsed the CERES Principles, a ten-point code of corporate environmental conduct. Embraced by more than 50 companies including American Airlines, Coca-Cola USA, General Motors, Northeast Utilities, and Sunoco, the CERES Principles represent a voluntary commitment to continual environmental improvement that reaches beyond the performance required by government regulations.
/CONTACT: Dan Bakal of CERES, 617-247-0700 ext. 13 or Brenda Perez of Con Edison (212) 460-4111/
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/Feb01/21Feb0102.html
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
2001: A Spay Odyssey Blasts Off February 27th
The Doris Day Animal Foundation's SPAY DAY USA Program Unites Thousands of Volunteers and Organizations to Save Animal Lives and Reduce Pet Overpopulation
WASHINGTON, DC, Feb. 21 -/E-Wire/-- The seventh annual "Spay Day USA," the national campaign of the Doris Day Animal Foundation, blasts off Tuesday, February 27th, uniting thousands of volunteers and organizations across the country devoted to ending the tragedy of pet overpopulation.
/CONTACT: Linda Dozoretz / Jane Covner, Linda Dozoretz Communications, 323.656.4499, Email: pr@ldcomm.com/
http://ens.lycos.com/e-wire/Feb01/21Feb0101.html
SEND YOUR PRESS RELEASE ON E-WIRE -- 1-888-764-NEWS
2/22/01
8:25:59 PM
The Nation
Comedian Jon Stewart might want to exchange his microphone for a referee's whistle as he hosts tonight's Grammy Music Awards, which are looking to be the most conrtroversial in the contest's 43-year history.
Detroit's hip-hop artist Eminem, up for three Grammys, is at the center of the storm. For a nuanced portrait of the best-selling rap musician in history; his critics charges; and the state of cultural discourse in America today, check out Richard Kim's essay, "Eminem - Bad Rap?" from the pages of the most recent issue of The Nation. It's currently available in its entirety at:
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010305&s=kim
Also, don't miss recent Nation columns, editorials and articles on a wide-range of subjects by Katha Pollitt, Christopher Hitchens, Gregory Palast, Vincent Bugliosi, Ellen Willis, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Paul Wellstone, Marc Cooper, Bob Filner, Michael Eric Dyson, Gore Vidal and JoAnn Wypijewski, among many others. All currently available at:
2/21/01
5:37:05 PM
Environmental news from GRIST MAGAZINE
<http://www.gristmagazine.com>
1. CHEVY SUBURBAN, MEET THE CHRYSLER SUBURB DaimlerChrysler plans to start selling a four-wheel-drive vehicle that will make the largest family vehicles now on the road seem tiny -- nay, minute -- in comparison. The vehicle, dubbed the Unimog, will be 20 feet long and 9 feet 7 inches tall; the front seat is reached by a three-step ladder. It is almost three feet taller than the tallest SUV, and a foot longer then the Ford Excursion. It weighs over six tons, more than the weight of two Chevrolet Suburbans. The Unimog gets about 10 miles to the gallon on diesel fuel, worse than any SUV. In contrast, the Honda Insight, a gas-electric hybrid car, is 12 feet 11 inches long and 4 feet 5 inches tall; it gets about 65 miles to the gallon on gasoline.
straight to the source: New York Times, Keith Bradsher, 21 Feb 2001 <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/21/business/21BIG.html>
catch it only in Grist Magazine: America has spoken -- the comic adventures of Zed, last of his species <http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/zed/zed032900.stm>
2. YOU DROPPED A BOMB ON ME, NAVY Opposition to Navy bombing exercises on the island of Vieques in Puerto Rico is growing stronger as researchers on the island have found toxic levels of heavy metals in crabs, edible plants, and human hair. The Navy has been testing bombs and artillery shells on Vieques for the last six decades, and many islanders believe pollutants released during the military exercises have poisoned their land and bodies. About 3,600 of the island's 9,400 residents are suing the Navy for compensation for illnesses they claim were caused by military exercises. The Navy disputes the accusations.
straight to the source: Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, 21 Feb 2001 (access ain't free) <http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB982710220855869293.htm>
3. WOUNDS IN OUR SALT Forget underground storage for high-level nuclear wastes, says John Leivia, director of Strategic Environmental Technologies. Last week, his company proposed plans to inject thousands of canisters of plutonium into salt formations beneath the Gulf of Mexico. The announcement was a big surprise to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy, which plan to send high-level radioactive wastes to underground sites in Nevada and New Mexico. Lisa Gue, of the watchdog organization Public Citizen, said that storing nuclear waste under the seabed "could have disastrous consequences" for ocean life. A DOE spokesperson said the agency wasn't even considering the company's proposal and noted, "The United States is a signee to a United Nations treaty which prohibits ocean disposal of nuclear waste."
straight to the source: Dallas Morning News, Bill Lodge, 20 Feb 2001 <http://www.dallasnews.com/metro/291890_nuclearwaste_2.html>
Also in GRIST MAGAZINE today:
Feeling lucky -- a day in the life of Brenda Morehouse, Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development <http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/week/morehouse022001.stm>
All I really need to know about reducing greenhouse gas emissions I learned in kindergarten -- a cartoon by Suzy Becker <http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/ha/ha021901.stm>
Dance of the burning Vails -- a review of Powder Burn: Arson, Money and Mystery on Vail Mountain -- in our Books Unbound section <http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/books/books021901.stm>
2/21/01
5:23:32 PM
Public Citizen
Public Citizen Urges FDA to Deny Food Irradiation Petitions Until Up-to-Date Toxicology Tests Are Conducted
FDA Failed to Follow Safety Rules Before Legalizing Irradiated Food
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Public Citizen is urging Dr. Bernard Schwetz, acting commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to deny all pending applications to "treat" food with ionizing radiation until new and up-to-date toxicology tests on irradiated food are performed. In legalizing irradiation, the FDA relied on tests from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
Conducting modern tests is critical, because among the pending applications is a request from the food industry to irradiate ready-to-eat foods, which comprise more than one-third of the typical American's diet.
Since 1983, the FDA has legalized the irradiation of numerous classes of food, including beef, poultry, pork, lamb, fruit, vegetables, eggs, juice and spices - at the equivalent radiation dose ranging from 33 million to 1 billion chest X-rays. Although it has given the go-ahead for foods that comprise about half of the U.S. food supply to be irradiated, the FDA has failed to determine a level of radiation to which food can be exposed and still be safe for human consumption, according to Public Citizen research detailed in the recent report, A Broken Record. A copy of that report is available at
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/rad-food/brokenrecord/brokenrecord.PDF.
Additionally, the FDA has relied on decades-old tests that do not meet current scientific protocols designed to determine whether irradiated food could be toxic, or cause mutations or reproductive problems in the people who eat it.
The FDA has dismissed a vast body of scientific evidence suggesting that irradiated food may not be safe to eat. Dozens of experiments conducted since the 1950s have revealed a variety of health problems in animals that have consumed irradiated food, including premature death, a rare form of cancer, fatal internal bleeding, chromosome aberrations, stillbirths, nutritional deficiencies and liver damage. Additionally, irradiation cannot kill the pathogen that causes "mad cow" disease, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization.
In a letter to Schwetz, available at
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/rad-food/LetterDrSchwetz.htm
Public Citizen urged the FDA to deny the ready-to-eat food application, as well as requests from the food industry to irradiate crustaceans (such as shrimp, lobsters and crabs) and mollusks (such as oysters, clams, scallops, mussels, octopus and squid).
"The very integrity of our food supply is at stake, as are the health and well-being of the American people," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program. "The FDA's record on food irradiation is a national embarrassment. The time to go back to the drawing board is now."
2/21/01
4:58:45 PM
U.S. MILITARY MOVES TO "CONTROL SPACE" AND BE "ENFORCEMENT ARM FOR THE GLOBAL ECONOMY"
Presentation at Technology and Globalization Teach-In New York City February 24, 2001
By Karl Grossman
The United States is seeking to "control space" and from space "dominate" the Earth below and "control" and "dominate" are words used repeatedly in U.S. military documents. The U.S. military, further, would like to base weapons in space.
The new Bush administration is gung-ho for U.S. projection of space military power. As last month's report of the "Space Commission" chaired by incoming Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld puts it: "In the coming period, the U.S. will conduct operations to, from, in and through space in support of its national interests both on the Earth and in space." Star Wars is back.
But there's a difference since Star Wars first emerged under Ronald Reagan in 1983. Then it was purportedly needed to fend off what Reagan called the "evil empire," the Soviet Union.
There is no Soviet Union any longer. And a key rationale for Star Wars now, U.S. military documents acknowledge, is the global economy of which the U.S. is the engine. The U.S. would, from the "ultimate high ground" of space, "dominate" the planet below in part to keep the global economy on track. Says the U.S. Space Command's "Vision for 2020" report , its cover depicting a laser weapon shooting a beam down from space zapping a target below: "The globalization of the world economy will also continue with a widening between `haves´ and `have-nots.´" From space, the U.S. would keep those "have-nots" in line.
The U.S. Space Command, set up by the Pentagon in 1985, describes itself in "Vision for 2020" this way: "US Space Command dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict."
"Vision for 2020" compares the U.S. effort to "control space" and Earth below to how centuries ago "nations built navies to protect and enhance their commercial interests," referring to the great empires of Europe that ruled the waves and thus the Earth to maintain their imperial economies. Consider the "Long Range Plan" of the U.S. Space Command. "The United States will remain a global power and exert global leadership," it says. "The United States won't always be able to forward base its forces. Widespread communications will highlight disparities in resources and quality of life contributing to unrest in developing countries. The global economy will continue to become more interdependent. Economic alliances, as well as the growth and influence of multi-national corporations, will blur security agreements. The gap between `have´ and `have-not´ nations will widen creating regional unrest. One of the long acknowledged and commonly understood advantagesof space-based platforms is no restriction or country clearances to overfly a nation from space."
The U.S. Space Command seeks to become "the enforcement arm for the global economy," as Bill Sulzman, director of Citizens for Peace In Space put it at the international conference last year of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power In Space. U.S. citizens are not aware of the broad military plans of the U.S. for space because of the PR spin of the new Star Wars pitch (it's about protecting against a "Space Pearl Harbor," as the Rumsfeld Commission puts it, "just" about "missile defense") and due to communications media that are lazy and worse.
But other nations of the world do understand. That's why, at the United Nations last November 20, a resolution was introduced on which 163 nations voted yes for "Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space." It reaffirmed the basic international law on space, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, and specifically its provision that space be set aside for "peaceful purposes." The United States abstained.
A country leading in the international effort to stop the U.S. plans by strengthening the Outer Space Treaty and barring all weapons from space is Canada no potential rival. As Marc Vidricaire, representing Canada, said at the UN last year: "It has been suggested that our proposal is not relevant because the assessment on which it rests is either premature or alarmist. In our view, it is neither. One need only look at what is happening right now."
Moreover, stressed the Canadian statement, "There is no question that the technology can be developed to place weapons in outer space. There is also no question that no state can expect to maintain a monopoly on such knowledge – or such capabilities -- for all time. If one state actively pursues the weaponization of space, we can be sure others will follow."
But the rogue state called the United States is blocking the Canadian initiative. For the U.S. thinks it can be as the motto of the Air Force Space Command terms it" Master of Space." "Master of Space." It appears as a Space Command uniform patch and is in three-foot high letters over the entrance of the Air Force's 50th Space Wing. It pretty well sums up the attitude toward space of the U.S. power structure.
Working closely with the U.S. military in achieving this goal are major aerospace corporations. Indeed, the "Long Range Plan starts out by explaining how it has been U.S. Space Command's "#1 priority.investing nearly 20 man-years to make it a reality" and: "The development and production process, by design, involved hundreds of people including about 75 corporations."
The "Long Range Plan" goes on to list those 75 corporations beginning with Aerojet and going through Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Sparta Corp. to TRW and Vista Technologies.
President Dwight Eisenhower warned in his "farewell address" in 1959 of the influence of a "military-industrial complex." Now, the U.S. military boasts about how giant corporations are helping set U.S. military doctrine. Star Wars, with its powerful backers, never, in fact, went away. Funding at $6 billion-a-year plus monies in the "black" or secret for U.S. space military activities continued through the Clinton administration. Last December, Clinton's Department of Defense cleared the way for development of the "Space Based Laser Readiness Demonstrator"a project of Lockheed Martin, Boeing and TRW with a "lifecycle budget" of $20 to $30 billion. A second space-based laser weapon on which development continued through the Clinton years is the "Alpha High-Energy Laser," now test-fired more than 20 times. It was Clinton's Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Air Force for Space Keith Hall who said: "With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it, and we're going to keep it."
And things are far worse now with Bush and Cheney, their administration intimately linked to the aerospace companies Cheney himself a former member of the TRW board, his wife Lynn a member of the Lockheed Martin board and tied to the ultra right-wing "think tanks" that, with the U.S. military, have been promoting Star Wars.
The new administration is pushing hard and fast to make space a new arena of war. Last month's report by the Rumsfeld "Space Commission" calls for U.S. "power projection in, from and through space." It seeks U.S. "superior space capabilities." It says the U.S. president should "have the option to deploy weapons in space." It emphasizes that it is "possible to project power through and from space in response to events anywhere in the world. Unlike weapons from aircraft, land forces or ships, space missions initiated from earth or space could be carried out with little transit, information or weather delay. Having this capability would give the U.S. a much stronger deterrent and, in a conflict, an extraordinary military advantage." It proposes the U.S. Space Command become the nucleus of a U.S. Space Corps, to be like the Marine Corps and possibly "transition" to a fully separate Space Force or "Space Department" on par with the Army, Navy and Air Force several years hence. As the man whose legislation got the Rumsfeld "Space Commission" established, Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire, said in an interview just taped with him to be part of my forthcoming "Star Wars Returns" video documentary, involved is the new "manifest destiny" of the U.S. "It is our manifest destiny," said Senator Smith. "You know we went from the East Coast to the West Coast of the United States of America settling the continent and they call that manifest destiny and the next continent if you will, the next frontier, is space and it goes on forever." Now it's U.S. cosmic "manifest destiny."
The book, "The Future of War: Power, Technology and American World Dominance in the 2lst Century," by think-tankers George and Meredith Friedman, concludes: "Just as by the year 1500 it was apparent that the European experience of power would be its domination of the global seas, it does not take much to see that the American experience of power will rest on the domination of space...Just as Europe expanded war and its power to the global oceans, the United States is expanding war and its power into space. Just as Europe shaped the world for half a millennium, so too the United States will shape the world for at least that length of time. For better or worse, America has seized hold of the future of war, and with it for a time the future of humanity."
The rest of the world will not sit back and accept U.S. "world dominance" from space. If the U.S. moves ahead on its program of astro-imperialism, deploys weapons in space, other nations China and Russia right off will meet the U.S. in kind. There will be an arms race and inevitably war in space. As First Secretary of China's UN delegation, Wang Xiaoyu, has declared: "Outer space is the common heritage of human beings. It should be used entirely for peaceful purposes and for the economic, scientific, and cultural development of all countries as well as the well-being of mankind. It must not be weaponized and become another arena of the arms race." "Space domination," he stated, "is a hegemonic concept. Its essence is monopoly of space and denial of others access to it." If the U.S. pushes ahead, "other countries would in response launch their own" space military programs, China vowed. However, China is, for now, holding off and, paralleling Canada's initiative, also seeking an international ban on weapons in space. But the U.S. has rebuffed the Chinese initiative, too. Incidentally, the weapons the U.S. military wants to deploy in space especially lasers will need large amounts of power. And nuclear energy is seen by the U.S. military as the "natural" power source for them. As "New World Vistas: Air And Space Power For The 2lst Century," a U.S. Air Force board report, states: "In the next two decades, new technologies will allow the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver energy and mass as force projection in tactical and strategic conflict. These advances will enable lasers with reasonable mass and cost to effect very many kills." But "power limitations impose restrictions" on such-based weapo