^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Featured stories in this issue...
A Tale of Two Toxicities
This short story by Kate Davies is not intended to alarm anyone. It
describes a day in the life of two fictional characters, Polly
Klorinate and her partner Al Kyle.
Biohackers Attempt To Unstitch the Fabric of Life
As we enter the new year, an astonishing new social phenomenon has
emerged: amateur genetic engineers are working at home to "improve"
various forms of life via genetic engineering. They call themselves
"biohackers" and they acknowledge the danger of unleashing a
genetically altered Frankenstein's monster on the public, but they
argue that it was DIYers [do it yourselfers] who brought about
America's other great technological revolution: that of the personal
computer.
Coal Hard Truths
"Coal comes from injustice," says Mattie Reitman.... We're in a
crisis, and I'm excited that my generation has the opportunity to take
that on." Reitman is helping organize the big "Powershift '09"
protest gathering in Washington, D.C. Feb. 27-Mar 2.
Growing Costs of Global Warming Are Hurting the Insurance Industry
The re-insurance company Munich Re reports that weather-related
catastrophes helped push losses to $200 billion in 2008, compared with
$82 billion in 2007.
Did Contractor Expose Troops To Toxin?
The giant military contractor, KBR, stands accused of causing lung
cancer in American troops in Iraq by knowingly exposing them to
cancer-causing hexavalent chromium.
Right Zip Code Promises Health
A yearlong study shows that your zip code is one of the best
predictors of health conditions. Here we can see environmental
injustice and white privilege embedded in land-use patterns.
Is Sustainable Capitalism An Oxymoron?
Perpetual growth of the human economy on a finite planet is
impossible. We need to develop a steady-state economy -- one in which
the use of energy and materials is constant (or declining), not
continually growing. One such proposal has been described by David
Schweickart of Loyola University in Chicago.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #992, Jan. 1, 2009
[Printer-friendly version]
A TALE OF TWO TOXICITIES
A Day in the Life of Polly Klorinate and Al Kyle
By Kate Davies
Foreword
This tale describes a day in the lives of two fictional characters -
Polly Klorinate and her partner Al Kyle.[1] It tells the story of
their exposure to toxic chemicals in personal care products, food
items, cleaning supplies, pesticides, children's toys and art
materials, as well as their concerns about other types of exposure.
Although Polly and Al are not real people, exposures and concerns like
theirs are common. Virtually all North Americans have toxic chemical
residues in their bodies.[2] Exposure is ubiquitous and involves many
different substances.
Exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment can cause many
different health problems, including acute effects such as burns to
the skin, eyes and respiratory tract, nausea, vomiting and chronic
effects such as cancer, neurobehavioral problems and reproductive and
developmental disorders. Or there may be no health consequences at
all. The type and severity of any effects depends on many different
factors, including the type of chemical and its toxicity, the exposure
pathway, the duration and timing of exposure, the dose received and
any genetic predisposition. The World Health Organization estimates
that nearly one-quarter of the global burden of disease is caused by
environmental risk factors,[3] including toxic chemicals.
This story is not intended to alarm anyone. Rather, I hope it will
make readers more aware of their exposure to toxic chemicals.
The Story
Polly woke from sleep feeling restless. She was always tired and
anxious these days. Her life was so busy and hectic, she never seemed
to have enough time to slow down. With a sigh, she realized it was
Saturday and she could relax. She didn't have to go to work today.
Standing on her feet six days a week, selling glitzy fashion jewelry
at the mall was the only work she could get after her factory job had
been outsourced to China. Still, she'd read an article about high
levels of lead in cheap jewelry,[4] and she worried about how that
might affect the children and teenagers who are most of the store's
customers. She didn't want to sell anything that wasn't safe.
Polly got up quietly, leaving Al snoring gently in bed. She went into
the bathroom and peered into the shower. Last week, she'd bought a new
automatic shower cleaner which promised to "eliminate the build up of
tough soap scum and mold and mildew stains" but the fumes made Al's
asthma worse and she wanted to know what was in it. I'll just look at
the label, she thought, I'm sure it will tell me the contents. But the
label didn't tell her what was in the cleaner at all. In fact, it only
increased her concern. In very small print, the label said: "WARNING:
Eye irritant. Avoid breathing spray mist. Do not get in eyes, on skin
or clothes. Keep out of reach of children." Now she was really
worried. Why would the manufacturer not want to give consumers as much
information as possible about what was in it? Besides, the government
should make them disclose the contents. She was puzzled.
With a sigh, she turned on the shower, stepped into the warm water and
lathered herself all over with antibacterial soap.[5] She hoped it
would kill germs and bacteria and help her stay healthy. A quick
shampoo[6] followed.
After drying off, she brushed her teeth with toothpaste,[7] swished
with mouthwash[8] and put on her antiperspirant.[9] She got dressed
and turned her attention to her hair and makeup. Looking in the
mirror, Polly noticed that she was beginning to go a little grey. Then
she asked the question most women ask themselves at some time in their
lives: Should I color my hair? But she remembered a friend had told
her hair dye[10] contained chemicals, so she decided not to -- at
least for now. After brushing her hair and using a little hair
spray,[11] she put on some makeup. She didn't need much today -- just
a little lipstick and mascara.[12] She hoped they didn't contain
anything toxic.
Ready to face the day, Polly went downstairs for breakfast. First, she
made coffee, adding a little artificial sweetener.[13] Polly was
watching her weight, so she didn't want to use real sugar. After
making some toast, she spread it with margarine -- the one that says
it tastes "just like butter." She was so glad it didn't contain any of
those awful trans fats[14] anymore. That meant it had fewer calories,
right?
Hearing footsteps, she turned and saw Al coming downstairs. With a
grunt, he joined her in the kitchen to make his favorite Saturday
morning breakfast of frozen waffles, corn syrup and fake bacon
strips.[15] Real bacon contained a lot of fat. Like Polly, Al was
watching his weight. But never mind about the corn syrup -- everyone
needs a little treat!
After breakfast, it was Al's turn to do the grocery shopping, so he
hopped in the car and drove to the nearby supermarket. After buying
enough frozen dinners to last the week, he stocked up on soda and
chips. He and Polly often enjoyed a snack before going to bed.
Realizing fruit might be healthier, Al headed over to the fresh
produce aisle. Everything looked so perfect -- big red apples,
luscious-looking grapes and pink fuzzy peaches. Then he remembered a
recent news story about how fruits and vegetables are sprayed with
pesticides.[16] He was worried pesticide residues might make Polly or
him sick. He glanced at the organic produce section. Organic produce
probably contained lower levels of pesticides,[17] but it was all so
expensive. Reluctantly, he chose non-organic apples, bananas and
pears.
Meanwhile at home, Polly decided to clean the house. First, she
vacuumed the carpets and washed the linoleum floors. Then she dusted
the furniture using a lemon-scented spray. Curious if the manufacturer
said what was in it, she glanced at the label on the spray can. No,
there was no information about the ingredients, but one sentence read:
"DOES NOT CONTAIN CFCS." Well, that's a relief, thought Polly, at
least it doesn't destroy the ozone layer.[18]
Turning her attention to the kitchen, Polly wiped down the countertop
with an all-purpose cleaner. She liked the ones with bleach[19]
because they promised to kill germs. Then she opened the oven door and
peered inside. It was filthy. She decided to clean it. The oven
cleaner[20] was so convenient to use. All you had to do was spray it
on, heat up the oven for awhile, then wipe off the foam -- so much
easier than hours of scrubbing. Polly followed the instructions on the
aerosol can but as soon as began to use the spray, she started to
cough and sputter. The fumes were so strong, she could hardly breathe.
The kitchen fan didn't seem to help much, either. Then her skin began
to itch and her eyes started to water. Forced to leave the kitchen,
Polly retreated to clean the bathroom, remembering to turn the oven on
just before she closed the kitchen door behind her.
After wiping the bathroom sink and countertop with the same all-
purpose bleach cleaner she used in the kitchen, Polly remembered the
drain was running very slowly. It must be clogged with hair, she
thought. They kept the drain cleaner[21] under the sink, so Polly
reached down and poured a generous amount into the sink. But as she
poured the thick liquid down the drain, she splashed some on her skin.
It stung, so she quickly rinsed her hand under running water, probably
washing all the cleaner down the drain before it could do its job.
Then she looked at the toilet. It was almost spotless. She hardly ever
cleaned it now because she used one of those toilet cleaner
tablets[22] with bleach that you just left in the tank.
Finally, Polly cleaned the bathroom faucets and the mirror with a
glass cleaner[23] that contained extra ammonia. To wipe the blue
liquid off the chrome and glass, she picked up the nearest cloth, not
realizing it was the same one she'd used to clean the sink and
countertops. Within a few seconds, Polly was coughing again. Little
did she know the ammonia in the glass cleaner had reacted with the
bleach in the all-purpose one to form chloramine and chlorine gas.[24]
After two hours of hard work, Polly was done -- in more ways than one.
Yes, the cleaning was finished, but so was she. Polly's body ached
from coughing, her skin itched, her eyes stung and were all red and
teary. Using chemical products to clean the house just isn't worth it,
she thought. Perhaps she'd buy some nontoxic cleaners or even make her
own.
After loading the plastic shopping bags into the car, Al called Polly
on his cell phone. They arranged to meet for lunch at the local
McDonald's -- it would save time and the effort of making lunch at
home. But as he put the cell phone back in his pocket, Al wondered if
it was really safe to use. He used his cell phone a lot and he'd heard
that cell phones may cause brain cancer. And then there was the recent
news story about the head of a cancer research institute warning the
staff not to use their cell phones too much.[25] What should he do? Al
felt confused and uncertain.
After meeting Polly and sharing a lunch of Big Macs, French Fries and
Coke, they drove home. As they approached the house, Polly and Al
noticed the garden needed some attention. With the shopping unpacked
and put away, Al decided it was time to get outside to do some
yardwork.
It was a hot day, so he decided to take a drink of water with him. Al
went to the kitchen cupboard and pulled out a large plastic water
bottle. He'd heard some environmentalist say polycarbonate plastic
contained something called bisphenol A[26] that could leach out and
cause cancer and reproductive problems but it was probably safe -
right? He filled the bottle and headed outside.
Al tackled the lawn first. As he cut the lawn with his gas-powered
mower, he noticed a new crop of weeds had sprouted in the green, well
watered grass. Wherever did they come from so fast? It was only a few
weeks since he'd sprayed the entire lawn with weed killer and the
weeds were back already.
Not wanting to be defeated by Mother Nature, Al got out the jug of
weed killer with an automatic sprayer attached and doused the whole
lawn -- twice for good measure. That should do it! Just as he was
putting the weed killer back in the garage, their neighbor, Dave, came
outside and Al stopped to chat. Dave told him about his family's pet
terrier, who had recently died of bladder cancer. Dave's two children
were heartbroken. The vet had said something about a link between
pesticides and cancer in dogs.[27] Al was horrified. His weed killer
couldn't possibly have caused Max's cancer, could it?
While Al was outside, Polly put in a load of laundry. She was careful
to use a phosphorus-free detergent because she'd heard that too much
phosphorus wasn't good for the environment. After the washing machine
stopped, she put the wet clothes in the dryer and added plenty of
fabric softener.[28] She liked the smell and the product names were so
enticing -- Downy, Comfort and Snuggle, for instance. Polly wondered
what was in the fabric softener that made the clothes smell so good,
but the label on the bottle didn't tell her anything. Once again, she
was frustrated by the lack of information about a product's contents.
Once the clothes were in the dryer, Polly decided to go to the mall to
buy some toys for her friend Betty's two year old. As a single mom,
Betty couldn't afford to buy many playthings for the little girl, so
Polly thought it would be fun to surprise her with a few small gifts.
At the mall, Polly went straight to the toy store. Perhaps she'd get a
doll or some bath toys. But before she bought anything, Polly wanted
to know if the toys contained phthalates.[29] She didn't really know
what phthalates were, but she knew they weren't good for children. A
local TV channel had done a consumer feature about toxic chemicals in
children's toys and reported phthalates could leach out of children's
plastic toys and cause health problems. So Polly asked the assistant
behind the counter. She told Polly there was nothing to worry about
because Congress had just passed a law making children's toys
safer.[30] Polly felt relieved, then began to wonder if the toys
already on the store shelves were safe. Deciding not to take a chance,
she went over to look at the children's art supplies. There were
brightly colored paints and markers, glues[31] with sparkles and lots
of different sorts of paper. She started to question all the chemicals
the art supplies might contain. Better safe than sorry, Polly thought,
and left the store empty-handed. Perhaps she'd buy a nice handmade
wooden toy instead.
On her way out of the mall, Polly stopped to get a quick manicure. A
small personal indulgence, she liked having perfectly shaped, polished
nails. At the nail salon, Polly's favorite manicurist, Tien, put her
fingers to soak in warm soapy water. As she did this, Polly noticed
Tien had a red, unpleasant looking rash on her arms and face. She said
it was from all the toxic chemicals in the nail products.[32] Polly
was horrified. Didn't the salon owner know what the chemicals were
doing to Tien's health? The shy, rather petite Vietnamese woman looked
embarrassed and asked Polly not to say anything. Tien didn't want to
be a focus of attention because she was worried that she might lose
her job.
After she got home from the mall, Polly cooked dinner. She made a
large tuna casserole and slid the dish into the clean oven. It still
smelled of that awful oven cleaner a bit. Then, just as she closed the
oven door, Polly remembered tuna could contain high levels of
mercury.[33] I'll go to the government's website, she thought, they'll
tell me if it's safe to eat tuna. The Food and Drug Administration's
website[34] said she could eat "up to six ounces (one average meal) of
albacore tuna a week" and more of canned light tuna, so she went ahead
and cooked the casserole. After all, it was one of Al's favorite
dishes. To go with the casserole, Polly decided to fry some tomatoes
and mushrooms. They'd complement the tuna nicely, she thought. So she
got out the new Teflon-coated fry pan[35] and cooked them, trying not
to breathe in the chemical fumes that wafted toward her nostrils from
the hot pan.
Relaxing after dinner, Polly and Al watched TV together. The movie
Erin Brockovich was on. They both liked the actress Julia Roberts and
settled in to watch the real-life story about a single mom who almost
single-handedly brought down a California power company accused of
polluting a city's water supply with chromium.
After the movie, they went to bed. Polly took her contraceptive
pill,[36] and used the toilet at the same time. As she swallowed the
pill, she wondered what happened to all the chemical hormones in it?
Did her body break them down or did they end up in her urine? If they
stayed in her urine and got into the sewage system, did they pollute
the river downstream from the treatment plant? She flushed the toilet
and tried not to think about it.
In bed at last, Polly turned to Al and sighed.
"That movie was scary. What if our water contained chromium and made
us sick? What would we do?"
"We're exposed to chemicals in lots of other ways, too," said Al.
"Maybe we should go on the Internet and find out what we can do to
reduce our risks."
"Good idea," said Polly. "I'm really worried. Let's try not to buy or
use products with toxics in them anymore."
"It's worth it, even if it costs a bit more," said Al, turning off the
bedside light. "I don't want us to get sick from a bunch of
chemicals."
"But even if we don't buy things that contain toxics, they're still
all around us," said Polly, "and most people don't know about the
risks. The government should do a better job protecting us."
"Maybe we should do our bit to lobby the government to do more," said
Al. "We can write to the newspaper, at least, and to our Congressman.
We could join an environmental group."
As she fell asleep, Polly grunted her approval.
Epilogue
Some twenty years later, Polly vomited into a bucket beside the bed.
After she was done, she lowered her bald head back on to the pillow
and relaxed. Polly was just finishing her third round of chemo. She'd
been diagnosed with breast cancer[37] several years earlier and had
already had a mastectomy and two rounds of chemo. But after three
years' remission, the cancer was back with a vengeance. She couldn't
understand it. Why had she gotten breast cancer in the first place?
No-one in her family had had the disease before. It all seemed so
unfair. So many of her friends had cancer too.[38]
Meanwhile, Al lay beside her, gasping for air. He reached for his
asthma inhalers -- again. In the past few years, he'd had to go to the
Emergency Room on several occasions because he couldn't breathe. Now,
his asthma[39] seemed to be getting worse.
As they lay on the bed together, Polly reached for Al's hand. Even
though they had done what they could to safeguard their health, they
still got sick. But on the bright side, in the years since they had
decided to stop using toxic chemicals and become politically active, a
lot had changed. Consumer boycotts had reduced the demand for products
containing toxics to almost zero, and people who still wanted to buy
them could easily find out the contents. Moreover, the government has
passed stringent new legislation requiring manufacturers to show that
chemicals were safe before they could be sold to the public or put
into products. Polly sighed. It was probably too late for her and Al,
but at least they still had each other.
========================================================
Notes
[1] These names are derived from two real life groups of chemicals -
polychlorinated substances, like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
alkylated substances, like alkyl lead.
[2] The U.S. Centers for Disease Control monitors levels of
environmental chemicals in human tissues.
[3] In 2006, the World Health Organization published a report on
"Preventing Disease Through Healthy Environments: Towards an Estimate
of the Environmental Burden of Disease"
[4] There are no federally enforceable limits on the amount of lead in
jewelry intended for children or teenagers. In 2007, California
enacted the Lead-Containing Jewelry Law to limit the amount of lead in
jewelry, including children's jewelry and body piercing jewelry.
[5] A scientific study published in the journal Clinical Infectious
Diseases in 2007 found that washing with antimicrobial soap is no more
effective at reducing levels of bacteria or preventing illness than
washing with ordinary soap. Moreover, the soaps, most of which contain
the antimicrobial triclosan, produced antibiotic cross-resistance
among different species of bacteria. Triclosan is a chlorinated
aromatic substance, with a chemical structure similar to dioxins and
PCBs.
[6] Many shampoos contain methylisothiazoline (MIT), a toxic chemical
that causes nervous system damage in laboratory animals.
[7] Some toothpastes contain fluoride and triclosan. High doses of
fluoride can cause dental fluorosis or tooth mottling. Fluoride has
also been associated with an increase in hip fractures and there is
equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity.
[8] Mouthwash can contain alcohol, hydrogen peroxide, fluoride,
cetylpyridinium chloride, sodium saccharin, and parabens. These
chemicals can cause a variety of adverse effects. For instance,
parabens can disrupt the endocrine hormone system.
[9] Antiperspirants and other cosmetic products contain parabens.
[10] Hair dyes contain toxic chemicals such as p-phenlyendamine,
phenlymethylpyrazolene, m-aminophenol, N,N-bis, 4-Amino-2-
hydroxytoluene, and toluene-2.5-diamine. All of these chemicals are
skin sensitizers and irritants. Some have been associated with cancer.
[11] Hairspray contains chemical polymers such as
polyvinylpyrrolidine, polydimethylsiloxane and vinyl acetate.
[12] Lipsticks can contain lead and mascara can contain mercury.
[13] There are five high intensity artificial sweeteners or sugar
substitutes approved for use in the U.S: Saccaharin, aspartame,
sucralose, neotame and acesulfame potassium. There is evidence that
they may cause health effects, such as headache, depression, cancer,
dizziness, vomiting and nausea.
[14] Trans fats increase levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL), or
"bad cholesterol," which increases the risk of coronary heart disease.
[15] Heavily processed foods like these contain many chemical
additives, including preservatives, colorants, "flavor enhancers,"
stabilizers and artificial sweeteners. More than 6,000 synthetic
chemicals have been approved for use in the processed food industry.
[16] Many fruits and vegetables contain residues of pesticides. Fruits
tend to be more contaminated than vegetables.
[17] Organically grown food contains about one-third as many pesticide
residues as conventionally grown foods.
[18] Some of the replacements for CFCs, such as HCFCs
(hydrochlorofluorocarbons) are ozone depleters, although to a much
less extent than CFCs.
[19] Bleach, or sodium hypochlorite, is corrosive, causes skin and eye
burns and is a skin irritant. It is also harmful by ingestion and
inhalation. According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Accidents (RoSPA), there are almost 3,500 accidents a year in the UK
involving bleach where the victims need hospital treatment. The number
of accidents involving bleach in the U.S. is unknown.
[20] Oven cleaners contain ethers, ethylene glycol, sodium and
potassium hydroxide (lye), methylene chloride, petroleum distillates
and pine oil. The most toxic of these is probably lye. Lye can
irritate skin and cause skin burns and eye damage, including
blindness. When inhaled, it can irritate and burn the respiratory
tract.
[21] Drain cleaners contain chemicals such as sodium hypochlorite
(bleach), sodium and potassium hydroxide (lye) in concentrations up to
40%.
[22] Toilet bowl cleaners contain sodium hypochlorite (bleach).
[23] The basic chemical components of window cleaner are ammonia and
isopropanol.
[24] These gases cause respiratory tract irritation and burns, tearing
and nausea.
[25] There is some evidence of an association between cell phone use
and brain cancer, although more research is needed. In July 2008, the
head of a cancer research institute in Pittsburgh warned the faculty
and staff to limit their use of cell phones because of the possible
risk of cancer.
[26] Studies have shown that bisphenol A may cause developmental
toxicity, cancer and neurotoxic effects. In April 2008, Canada became
the first country to conclude that bisphenol A is a toxic substance.
[27] Exposure to lawns and gardens treated with weed killer increases
the risk of lymphoma in dogs. A study published in the Journal of the
American Veterinary Medicine Association in 2004 found that weed
killer can increase the risk of bladder cancer in Scottish Terriers by
four to seven times.
[28] Fabric softeners contain chemicals including benzyl acetate,
benzyl alcohol, ethanol, limonene, A-terpineol, ethyl acetate,
camphor, chloroform, linalool and pentane.
[29] Phthalates disrupt the endocrine hormone system and can cause
developmental effects. There is some evidence they are carcinogenic.
[30] In August 2008, Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act, which limits levels of some phthalates in children's
toys. It also limits levels of lead and cadmium.
[31] Children's paints can contain methyl alcohol, toluene and
turpentine; markers can contain xylene, toluene, ketone and alcohol;
and glues can contain hexane, heptane, toluene and trichloroethane.
[32] Nail products contain a variety of toxic chemicals including
toluene, formaldehyde, dibutyl phthalate and methylacrylates. Health
hazards associated with these substances include skin rashes and
irritation, headaches, respiratory problems, asthma, central nervous
system disorders and kidney and liver damage.
[33] Mercury is a common contaminant in tuna, shark, swordfish, king
mackerel, tilefish and some shellfish. Mercury can cause neurological
and developmental effects.
[34] In March 2004, the Food and Drug Administration issued an
advisory on mercury in fish and shellfish, including tuna. See:
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.html
[35] One of the constituents of Teflon is perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA). PFOA can cause cancer, liver damage and birth defects and it
is present in the blood of most Americans as well as in wildlife. PFOA
is one of the most persistent synthetic chemicals known.
[36] Hormones from birth control pills are often found in rivers and
streams, having been excreted in urine that enters municipal sewer
systems. These contaminants disrupt the ratio of male to female fish,
resulting in lower fertility rates.
[37] Breast cancer now strikes more women in the world than any other
type of cancer except skin cancer. Today, a woman's lifetime risk of
the disease is one in eight in the U.S. Genetic factors account for 10
percent, at most, of all breast cancer. Other risk factors have been
identified, including toxic chemicals. Over 200 chemicals have been
identified as mammary carcinogens.
[38] According to the World Health Organization, about 19 percent of
all cancers globally are due to environmental exposures, resulting in
1.3 million deaths a year.
[39] About 44 percent of all asthma is due to poor air quality,
according to the World Health Organization.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: The Times (London, U.K.), Dec. 27, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
BIOHACKERS ATTEMPT TO UNSTITCH THE FABRIC OF LIFE
By Chris Ayres in New York
At a loss for things to do this woozy post-Christmas weekend? Well, if
you have access to a garage or basement -- or even just some extra
room on your dining table -- you could always take up a hobby that is
exploding in popularity across the Atlantic: genetic engineering. Or,
to use the more fashionable term, "biohacking".
Anecdotal evidence suggests that thousands of Americans now spend
their free time consulting the internet, jerry-rigging laboratory
equipment, and tinkering with the very foundations of life on Earth as
we know it.
Meredith Patterson is trying to rewire the DNA of yoghurt bacteria
in her living room so that they will glow green to signal the presence
of melamine
"People can really work on projects for the good of humanity while
learning about something they want to learn about in the process,"
says Meredith Patterson, 31, a computer programmer by day turned
biohacker by night.
In her San Francisco dining room Ms Patterson is currently attempting
to rewire the DNA of yoghurt bacteria so that they will glow green to
signal the presence of melamine, the chemical that infamously turned
Chinese-made baby milk formula into poison.
Ms Patterson says that she picked up the basics of genetic engineering
from scientific papers and Google.
All she needed for her project was a jar of yoghurt, some jellyfish
DNA -- purchased online for less than $100 (65 pounds sterling) from a
biological supply company -- and a few pieces of lab equipment
(including a DNA analyser), which she constructed herself for less
than $25. Eventually, say experts, such equipment could be sold in
kits: a kind of My Little Genetically-Altered Lifeform playset for
adults.
While acknowledging the potential risk of unleashing a genetically
altered Frankenstein's monster on the public, biohackers argue that it
was DIYers [do it yourselfers] who brought about America's other great
technological revolution: that of the personal computer.
Indeed, Apple and Google were created in hobbyists' garages, and have
since gone on to change millions of lives for the better while
contributing billions of dollars to the global economy.
Regardless, the growth in popularity of biohacking seems unstoppable.
In Cambridge, Massachusetts, an organisation named DIYbio is busy
setting up a community lab where people can use specialist equipment
such as a freezer capable of storing bacteria at minus 62C.
The group's co-founder, Mackenzie Cowell, 24, who studied biology at
university, predicts that some biohackers are likely to make
breakthroughs in everything from vaccines to super-efficient fuels.
Others will simply fool around, he says: for example, using squid
genes to make tattoos glow in the dark.
All of which he believes will ultimately benefit humanity. "We should
try to make science more sexy and more fun and more like a game," he
says.
Alas, not everyone agrees. Jim Thomas, of ETC Group, a biotechnology
watchdog group, says that synthetic organisms could ultimately escape
and cause outbreaks of incurable diseases or unpredictable
environmental damage. "Once you move to people working in their garage
or other informal locations, there's no safety processes in place," he
says, adding that terrorists could be inspired by amateur genetic
tinkering to launch a devastating bioattack on America.
Mrs Patterson shrugs at such arguments, however. "A terrorist doesn't
need to go to the DIYbio community," she says. "They can just enrol in
their local college."
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: NewsReview.com (Sacramento, Calif.), Dec. 20, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
COAL HARD TRUTHS
Sacramento-born activist seeks justice in the mountains
By Sena Christian se...@newsreview.com
Mattie Reitman moved to Ohio to be at the epicenter of the coal
resistance movement. He is helping organize the big "Powershift '09"
protest gathering in Washington, D.C. Feb. 27-Mar 2.
[For more information on Mountain Justice, check out www.mountain
justicesummer.org and www.mjsb.org]
Mattie Reitman went to the coal fields of West Virginia two years ago
to listen to the experiences and concerns of residents living in the
heart of coal country. There, in Appalachia, with the help of an
approach called "deep listening," Reitman dug into the issue of coal
mining and mountaintop removal, and what he found was a source of
human exploitation and ecological devastation.
"Coal comes from injustice," he explained. "It's stripped from
indigenous lands and burned there and then shipped away."
Born in Sacramento, Reitman, 25, moved when he was only 4 years old,
living in Colorado, Florida, then New York, where he majored in
women's studies and sociology at Syracuse University. He returns to
Sacramento every so often to visit family, most recently this past
November, but he now calls Columbus, Ohio, home. That's where he moved
to be at the epicenter of the coal industry -- the state has one of
the highest concentrations of proposed coal-fired power plants in the
country. Reitman felt there, in particular, he could make a difference
as a community organizer.
People have lost their way, Reitman said. "We're off track and we've
lost our ability to work together for common solutions. To me, that's
what community organizers do."
He started the statewide Ohio Student Environmental Coalition and
volunteers with Mountain Justice, a group of grassroots activists who
combat destructive coal-mining practices in the United States.
Appalachia, an area rich in biodiversity, boasts the second oldest
mountain range in the world and stretches from New England to Alabama.
The region also contains plentiful coal deposits. The Mountain Justice
movement began four years ago in response to a boy in Virginia crushed
by a boulder dislodged by mountaintop removal, a practice that
involves clear-cutting forests, then blasting hundreds of feet off
mountaintops with explosives. Leftover soil fills adjacent valleys and
pollutes nearby streams.
Grassroots activists conduct listening projects by going door to door
in Appalachian communities to understand the concerns of residents
directly impacted by the coal industry.
"Deep listening is not something we practice in our society," Reitman
said. "People want to have good lives and control over their own
lives. They want access to good air and water and health care."
Although the majority of Appalachians hadn't heard of clean energy, he
said, they all agreed that if given an opportunity for a good-paying
job in that industry, they'd take it. Mountain Justice's holistic
approach connects poverty alleviation with the development of a green-
collar workforce.
"The thing that makes [Mountain Justice] different is it's very
people-oriented," Reitman said. "It's not just an environmental
project, but more of a social-justice project."
Mountain Justice takes on the corporations and governments largely
responsible for global warming. This past summer, activists held a
vigil at a surface coal-mining site on Zeb Mountain in Tennessee and
trespassed over property lines. Last year, activists occupied the
governor's office of West Virginia to protest plans to build a coal
silo adjacent to an elementary school, which resulted in 14 arrests.
Reitman thinks it was unfortunate timing that he'd had to stay behind
in the basement of a friend's house, sick with the flu. He's currently
preparing for Mountain Justice Spring Break, which will take place in
eastern Tennessee in March of next year.
The action follows another big event: Power Shift 2009, during which
10,000 young people are expected to fight the climate crisis, 1,000 of
whom will hold politicians accountable by demonstrating at the coal-
fired power plant that supplies the U.S. capital building in
Washington, D.C.
"So many people, especially young people, are dying to work on real
solutions," Reitman said. "We are desperate for something new. If you
look at the history of social movements... we help to expand the scope
of what's possible. And we are fearless about it."
Former Vice President Al Gore and famed NASA climate scientist James
Hansen both explicitly called for America's youth to engage in acts of
civil disobedience and direct action to stop coal-fired power plants.
Young people, Reitman said, have been rising to the call again and
again.
"We're in a crisis," he said. "And I'm excited that my generation has
the opportunity to take that on."
Copyright 2008 Chico Community Publishing, Inc.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Financial Times (London, U.K.), Dec. 30, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
MUNICH RE HIGHLIGHTS CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT
By James Wilson in Frankfurt and Andrea Felsted in London
Financial damage and loss of life caused by natural disasters made
2008 one of the most devastating years on record and showed the impact
of climate change, one of the world's biggest reinsurers said
yesterday.
Munich Re said weather-related catastrophes helped push losses to
$200bn compared with $82bn in 2007.
Insured losses of $45bn were 50 per cent more than in the previous
year.
This made 2008 the third most expensive year to the industry for
catastrophe damage, continuing a long-term trend, the group said.
"Climate change has already started and is very probably contributing
to increasingly frequent weather extremes and ensuing natural
catastrophes," said Torsten Jeworrek, a member of Munich Re's
executive board.
Insurance companies are concerned by the impact of climate change on
risk modelling and hence on financial performance.
Munich Re said the next UN climate summit, scheduled for late next
year in Copenhagen, needed to "quite clearly fix the route" to halve
output of greenhouse gases by 2050.
More than 220,000 people are estimated to have been killed by natural
catastrophes during the year, including 135,000 in Burma during
cyclone Nargis, where deforestation allowed a storm surge to reach
further inland, said Munich Re.
Hurricane Ike was the year's most expensive event for insurers, with
$15bn of insured losses.
The year was the fourth-worst hurricane season since reliable data
have been compiled, while the US tornado season was "unusually
severe", Munich Re said. It was also the planet's 10th-warmest
recorded year. All have occurred in the past 12 years.
"The loss statistics for 2008 fit the pattern that the calculations of
climate models lead us to expect," said Peter Hoppe, the reinsurer's
head of geo-risks research.
Atmospheric warming meant "the weather machine runs in top gear".
But the number of "loss-producing events" fell compared with 2007,
Munich Re said.
The year's death toll included 70,000 in the earthquake that hit
China's Sichuan province in May.
Munich's figures echo those of Swiss Re, which put insured losses from
natural catastrophes at $43bn, of which Ike accounted for $20bn.
But Swiss Re estimates that there was another $7bn of insured losses
from man-made disasters, taking total insured losses to over $50bn.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: CBS News, Dec. 22, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
DID CONTRACTOR EXPOSE TROOPS TO TOXIN?
By Armen Keteyian
The controversial military contractor firm KBR is being accused of
putting U.S. soldiers at risk from inhaling a chemical at their
facilities in Iraq. Watch video clip.
The military contractor Kellogg Brown and Root, known as KBR, has won
more than $28 billion in U.S. military contracts since the beginning
of the Iraq war. KBR may be facing a new scandal. First, accusations
its then-parent company Halliburton was given the lucrative contract.
And later, allegations of shoddy construction oversight that resulted
in Americans getting electrocuted. Now, some other American soldiers
say the company knowingly put their lives at risk, CBS News chief
investigative correspondent Armen Keteyian and investigative producer
Laura Strickler exclusively report.
In April of 2003, James Gentry of the Indiana National Guard arrived
in Southern Iraq to take command of more than 600 other guardsmen.
Their job: protect KBR contractors working at a local water plant.
"We didn't question what we were doing, we just knew we had to provide
a security service for the KBR," said Battalion Cmdr. Gentry.
Today James Gentry is dying from rare form of lung cancer. The result,
he believes, of months of inhaling hexavalent chromium -- an orange
dust that's part of a toxic chemical found all over the plant.
At least one other Indiana guardsman has already died from lung
cancer, and others are said to be suffering from tumors and rashes
consistent with exposure to the deadly toxin.
"I'm a nonsmoker. I believe that I received this cancer from the
southern oil fields in Iraq," he said.
Now CBS News has obtained information that indicates KBR knew about
the danger months before the soldiers were ever informed.
Depositions from KBR employees detailed concerns about the toxin in
one part of the plant as early as May of 2003. And KBR minutes, from a
later meeting state "that 60 percent of the people... exhibit symptoms
of exposure," including bloody noses and rashes.
Gentry says it wasn't until the last day of August in 2003 -- after
four long months at the facility -- that he was told the plant was
contaminated.
"We would never have been there if we would have known," Gentry said.
A new internal Army investigation obtained exclusively by CBS News
says the Army's medical response was "prompt and effective."
Read the report on the internal Army investigation.
Read an Indiana court complaint against KBR, including evidence and
images.
But even after a briefing Monday, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh says that KBR
has a lot to answer for.
"Look, I think the burden of proof at this point is on the company,"
Bayh said. "To come forward and very forthrightly explain what
happened, why we should trust them, and why the health and well-being
of our soldiers should continue to be in their hands."
In a statement, the company told CBS News: "We deny the assertion that
KBR harmed troops and was responsible for an unsafe condition."
The company says it notified the Army as soon as it identified the
toxin.
Still, some Indiana guardsmen say they only just learned of the risk.
"I didn't know I was exposed to a deadly carcinogen until five years
later when I received a letter," said Indiana National Guardsman Jody
Aistrop.
This is far from the first time the multi-billion dollar contractor
has been accused of questionable conduct at Iraq. In addition to
convictions for bribery, it's alleged KBR provided contaminated water
to troops. The company denies all charges.
"It's going to cost American lives, I'm afraid," Gentry said. "I love
them. I love my men so much."
So much so Gentry says he will urge each and every one of them get
tested for the cancer that he fears is taking his life.
If any Indiana National Guardsmen want more information on whether or
not they were exposed in Southern Iraq to sodium dichromate, they
should call this Indiana National Guard hotline: 1-800-237-2850, ext.
3128.
Copyright MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Daily Breeze (Los Angeles, Calif.), Dec. 11, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
RIGHT ZIP CODE PROMISES HEALTH
An address doesn't guarantee wellness, but some places add to risks.
By Melissa Evans, Staff Writer
The results of a yearlong study [2.3 Mbytes PDF] released Dec. 10,
2008 found exhaustive evidence that one of the biggest predictors of
good health is your ZIP code.
Health advocates say that if you live on the west side of Los Angeles
County, chances are you have access to bike paths, grocery stores,
good schools, hospitals and health clinics.
If you live on the south side, including Hawthorne and Inglewood,
chances are you are surrounded by fast-food restaurants, liquor stores
and concrete; crime is likely high, and your rates of diabetes, liver
disease, obesity and other health problems are well above average.
"I'm not surprised there are disparities, (I'm surprised by) the
starkness of the level of scarcity of resources," said Gwen Flynn, a
health advocate for Community Health Councils, one of the groups
that conducted the study. "It's stunning to me. This confirms what we
believe, that health status is not just a matter of personal
behavior."
The results, condensed in a 100-page "South LA Health Equity
Scorecard," compares the west and the south regions of Los Angeles on
50 different environmental factors that impact health.
The study also shows, in raw numbers, that the southern region does
not share equally in overall resources, said Lark Galloway-Gilliam,
executive director of the health council, a nonprofit that represents
public health clinics.
Some of the findings show:
** In the south, there are 11 pediatricians for every 100,000
children; in the west (which includes Beverly Hills, Culver City,
Santa Monica, Malibu and parts of Los Angeles) there are 193
pediatricians per 100,000.
** In the south, 30 percent of residents are uninsured, compared with
12 percent in the west.
** South Los Angeles has 8.5 liquor stores per square mile compared
with 1.97 in the west.
** In the south, 64 percent of schools are classified as
insufficiently staffed and funded, while 8 percent of schools on the
west side fall below state standards.
Those factors contribute to extremely poor health: 28 percent of south
side residents suffer from high blood pressure compared with 16.8
percent in the west; the rate of sexually transmitted disease is 20
percent in the south and 7 percent in the west; and about twice as
many people are obese in the south as they are in the west.
Jim Mangia of St. John's Well Child and Family Center, which has
clinics in south Los Angeles, said more than half of children who come
from the south have lead poisoning, which can cause brain damage.
The report, he said, for the first time attaches numbers to a problem
that most health workers already knew existed.
"I am both outraged and hopeful," he said during a panel discussion
about the results. "We can now begin to fight back against these
conditions."
County administrators and politicians, including newly-elected county
Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas and Inglewood City Councilman Daniel
Tabor, also weighed in with promises to find solutions.
Public-private health partnerships and mandates for cities to include
health assessments when making zoning decisions were some of the ideas
floated.
Ridley-Thomas said the fact that the country is in a recession is not
an excuse for delay.
"Now is the time to step up and make a difference," he said.
meliss...@dailybreeze.com
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
From: Synthesis/Regeneration (Fall 2008), Nov. 9, 2008
[Printer-friendly version]
IS SUSTAINABLE CAPITALISM AN OXYMORON?
"Marx says that revolutions are the locomotives of world history. But
the situation may be quite different. Perhaps revolutions are not the
train ride, but the human race grabbing for the emergency brake." --
Walter Benjamin
By David Schweickart
[Rachel's introduction: Growth of the human enterprise is wrecking the
planet, so we must develop a steady-state economy -- one in which the
use of energy and materials remains constant (or declines) instead of
always growing. Unfortunately, we have very few concrete proposals for
such an economy. David Schweickart of Loyola University in Chicago has
proposed an economy that could grow, but does not have to grow,
based on competitive markets plus public ownership of productive
facilities (factories, farms), renting them to producer co-ops, with
investment capital raised by a flat tax on productive assets and
distributed each year to all regions of the nation on a per-capita
basis. It is time to give these ideas a proper hearing. Schweickart's
short book After Capitlism is must reading.--P.M.]
The subtitle of Joel Kovel's The Enemy of Nature (Zed Books, 2007)
states his thesis bluntly: The End of Capitalism or the End of the
World? Kovel thinks we need a revolution -- although he is fully
cognizant as to how remote that prospect seems.
Growing numbers of people are beginning to realize that capitalism is
the uncontrollable force driving our ecological crisis, only to become
frozen in their tracks by the awesome implications of this insight.
(p. xi)
Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins also think we need a
revolution, but of a different sort than the one envisaged by Kovel.
Natural Capitalism (Little, Brown, 1999) is subtitled Creating the
Next Industrial Revolution. President Clinton is reported to have
called it one of the five most important books in the world today.
Hawken and the Lovinses agree with Kovel that the current model of
capitalism is problematic. "Capitalism, as practiced, is a financially
profitable, non-sustainable aberration in human development" (p. 5).
But they do not see the problem as residing in capitalism itself. They
distinguish among four kinds of capital, all necessary for production:
human capital, financial capital, manufactured capital and natural
capital. The problem with the current form of capitalism, they argue,
is its radical mispricing of these factors. Current market prices
woefully undervalue -- and often do not value at all -- the fourth
factor: the natural resources and ecological systems "that make life
possible and worth living on this planet."
All economists recognize that market transactions can involve
"externalities" -- costs (or benefits) that are not paid for by the
transacting parties. All agree that there is a role for governments to
play in rectifying these defects. The standard remedies tend to be
taxation (for negative externalities) and subsidies (for positive
externalities). More recently, "cap and trade" schemes for carbon
emissions have been added to the list.
Hawken and the Lovinses argue that these remedies -- properly applied
- can work. The first step, they say, is to eliminate the perverse
incentives now in place. They document the massive subsidies that
governments currently provide for ecologically destructive behavior,
e.g. highway construction and repair that encourages suburban sprawl
and the shift away from more efficient modes of transportation,
agricultural subsidies that encourage soil degradation and wasteful
use of water, etc.
Second step: impose resource and pollution taxes so as to reflect the
true costs of "natural capital." Sweeten the pie by phasing out all
taxes on labor: the payroll tax, which increases unemployment, and
income taxes as well. The point is to level the playing field so that
more sustainable energy technologies and more energy efficient
processes can compete fairly with the destructive practices of
"industrial capitalism." We might even want to go further and
subsidize, at least initially, the technologies that reduce the
negative environmental impact of our production and consumption
choices.
Natural Capitalism is chock full of examples of the shocking waste in
our current production and consumption and of the existing
technologies and procedures that can reduce our impact on the
environment to a fraction of what it is now. Many of these changes are
already underway. Many more will follow if appropriate government
policies are adopted. Hawken and the Lovinses envisage a bright
future. Such a future will come about if we harness the creative
energy of capitalism and let the markets work.
Let us examine these two contrasting perspectives. In essence there
are two fundamental differences between the "ecosocialism" of Kovel
and the "natural capitalism" of Hawken-Lovins.
1. Kovel is deeply distrustful of the profit motive. He does not think
greed can serve the good. Hawken-Lovins think that the profit motive
can be harnessed so as to provide powerful incentives to develop
sustainable sources of energy and to eliminate the energy waste so
rampant today.
2. Kovel is convinced that "grow or die" is an imperative of
capitalism that renders "sustainable capitalism" impossible. Hawken
and the Lovinses do not confront this argument directly, but appear to
believe either (a) capitalism is compatible with a steady-state, non-
growing economy or (b) an economy can grow indefinitely without
consuming more energy and natural resources than it can sustainably
reproduce.
Let us examine this second issue first: Capitalism, Grow or Die? Anti-
capitalist ecologists always say this. But is this true? It would seem
not to be. Capitalism has survived prolonged depressions (the Great
One of 1929 lasted a decade). Periods of stagnation have been even
more common -- witness Japan throughout the 1990s. To be sure,
capitalism incentivizes growth, but it is not at all clear that
thwarted growth leads to death. We can point to many counterexamples.
It is not true either that the various ecological crises we are facing
will bring about "the end of the world." Consider the recently
released Stern Review. If nothing is done, we risk "major disruption
to economic and social activity, later in this century and the next,
on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and
economic depression of the first half of the 20th century."[1]
This is serious. Some 60 million people died in World War II. The
Stern Review estimates as many as 200 million people could be
permanently displaced by rising sea levels and drought. But this is
not "the end of the world." Even if the effects are far, far worse,
resulting in billions of deaths -- a highly unlikely scenario -- there
would still be lots of us left. If three-quarters of the present
population perished, that would still leave us with 1.6 billion people
-- the population of the planet in 1900. Not the end of the world.
I say this not to minimize the potentially horrific impact of
relentless environmental destruction, but to caution against
exaggeration. We are not talking about thermonuclear war -- which
could have extinguished us as a species. (It still might.)
We may not be facing the end of the world -- but still, Kovel has a
point. From an ecological point of view there is something crazy about
capitalism. An ecological worldview emphasizes harmony,
sustainability, moderation -- rather like that of the ancient Greeks,
for whom a constant striving for more was regarded as a mark of an
unbalanced, deranged soul. Yet every capitalist enterprise is
motivated to grow, and to grow without limit.
The root problem with capitalism is not that individual firms are
incentivized to grow, but that the economy as a whole must grow, not
to survive, but to remain healthy. Why should it be the case that a
capitalist economy must grow to be healthy? The answer to this
question is rather peculiar -- and very important. A capitalist
economy must grow to be healthy because capitalism relies on private
investors for its investment funds. These investors are free to invest
or not as they see fit. (It is, after all, their money.)
But this makes economic health dependent on "investor confidence," on,
as John Maynard Keynes put it, "the animal spirits" of the investors.
If investors do not foresee a healthy return on their investments,
commensurate with the risks they are taking, then they won't invest --
at least not domestically. But if they don't invest, their pessimism
becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. The lack of investment translates
into layoffs -- first in the construction industry and those
industries dependent on orders for capital goods, and then, since
layoffs lead to a decline in consumer-goods consumption, in other
sectors as well. Aggregate demand drops further; the economy slides
toward recession.
As we all know, a slumping economy is not just bad for capitalist
investors. It is bad for almost everyone. Unemployment rises.
Government revenues fall. Indeed, public funds for environmental
programs are jeopardized -- as mainstream economists are quick to
point out, impatient as they are with "anti-growth" ecologists.
So we see: a healthy capitalism requires a steady expansion of
consumption. If sales decline, investors lose confidence -- as well
they should. So, sales must be kept up. Which means that a healthy
capitalism requires what would doubtless strike a visitor from another
planet (or from a pre-capitalist society) as exceedingly strange -- a
massive, privately-financed effort to persuade people to consume what
they might otherwise find unnecessary.
Government also has a key role to play. Governments must be prepared
to go into debt to stimulate the economy when an economy slows down.
"Fiscal responsibility" goes out the window, no matter how
conservative the government, when people stop buying -- as well it
should. Those checks we are all getting in the mail, courtesy of
President Bush and a Democratic congress, should remind us all how
vitally a capitalist economy depends on what so many environmentalists
and other social critics deride as "consumerism."
The problem is not simply "growth." A healthy capitalism depends, not
simply on ever-increasing consumption, but on a steady rate of growth.
When the growth rate declines, investors pull back. But a steady rate
of growth, so essential to healthy capitalism, implies exponential
growth, and exponential growth, to anyone with mathematical
sensibilities, is deeply disturbing. If an economy grows 3%/year --
the US average growth rate during the 20th century -- consumption
doubles every 24 years -- which translates into a 16-fold increase in
consumption over the course of a century. Needless to say, exponential
growth tends to stress the environment. Even a much lower growth rate,
say the 1.2%/year that the Stern Report assumes, entails a doubling of
global consumption ever 60 years. As Kenneth Boulding (himself an
economist) has noted, "Only a madman or an economist thinks
exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world."[2]
We don't have to imagine "forever." Simply note that if our economy
were to continue to grow at 3%/year throughout the 21st century, we
will be consuming 16 times more in 2100 than we are now. Not sixteen
percent more. Sixteen times more. Are there rational beings who find
this plausible?
There is an important counter-argument we need to consider. Growth
need not add to resource depletion or pollution. GDP is a quantitative
figure that doesn't pretend to correlate with general well-being. (An
oil spill that puts lots of people to work cleaning it up enhances
GDP; when harried couples eat out more often, no longer having time to
cook at home, GDP goes up.) By the same logic, if unemployed people
are put to work planting trees, GDP will go up. So it is possible to
imagine a world in which GDP keeps going up while environmental
quality steadily improves. Isn't it?
How should we evaluate this rejoinder? You will recall that in
evaluating the Hawken-Lovins case for "natural capitalism, I pointed
out that they do not confront the "grow or die" argument directly, but
that they must believe that either (a) capitalism is compatible with a
steady-state, non-growing economy or (b) an economy can grow
indefinitely without consuming more energy and natural resources than
it can sustainably reproduce. My argument thus far has been directed
at (a). The rejoinder claims (b).
Now I can't prove to you that (b) is false. But it should be noted
that we are no longer talking economic science anymore. We're talking
about faith -- the economists' faith that exponential growth can go on
forever in a finite world.
Can exponential growth go on forever? We can be almost certain it
won't make us happier -- at least not those of us who are doing most
of the consuming and polluting right now. We know that increased
consumption, once we get beyond a certain point, does not translate
into increased happiness. Bill McKibben cites some of the evidence:
"Compared to 1950, the average American family now owns twice as many
cars, uses 21 times as much plastic, and travels 25 times farther by
air. Gross Domestic Product has tripled since 1950 in the US. We
obviously eat more calories. And yet -- the satisfaction meter seems
not to have budged. More Americans say their marriages are unhappy,
their jobs are hideous, and they don't like the place where they live.
The number who, all things considered, say they are 'very happy' with
their lives has slid steadily over that period.... In the United
Kingdom per capita gross domestic product grew 66% between 1973 and
2001, and yet people's satisfaction with their lives changed not a
whit. Nor did it budge in Japan, despite a fivefold increase in income
in the postwar years."[3]
There is a deep assumption built into the argument. If there is no
alternative to capitalism, then we might as well assume that growth
can go on forever in a finite world. A belief that allows for hope is
surely better than one that counsels despair.
Can we conceive of an economic alternative to capitalism that is (a)
economically viable, (b) not dependent on growth for its stability,
yet (c) conducive to the entrepreneurial innovation we will need to
get though the current crisis? The answer, I would argue, is clearly
yes. In my view theoretical analysis, well supported by empirical
evidence, strongly supports the thesis that a truly democratic economy
could satisfy the above criteria. Needless to say, I can't do justice
to this claim in the space of a short article, but let me at least
sketch the basic institutions of an alternative model.[4]
The term "market economy" is often used as a synonym for capitalism --
by both proponents and critics -- but this is wrong. Capitalism should
be thought of as an amalgam of three distinct kinds of markets:
markets for commodities, for labor and for capital. That is to say,
there are markets for goods and services, there are labor markets, and
there are those mysterious financial markets.
Suppose we keep our markets for goods and services, but democratize
the other two. Suppose we democratize labor -- have our businesses run
democratically. Suppose businesses are communities, not legal entities
that can be bought or sold. Management is appointed by a worker
council elected by the workforce, one-person, one-vote. These
enterprises compete with one another in the market.
Such enterprises can be expected to be efficient. Workers do not
receive wages but a specified share of the firm's profit. Hence
everyone has a direct, tangible financial stake in the company's
performing well. Everyone is motivated, not only to work efficiently,
but to monitor co-workers -- thus reducing the need for external
supervision. It is not surprising, then, that empirical studies that
compare democratic firms to comparable capitalist firms consistently
find the former performing at least as well as the latter, and often
better.
But here is something interesting. Although democratic and capitalist
firms are both motivated to produce efficiently and to satisfy
consumer desires, they are strikingly different in their orientation
toward growth. Under conditions of constant returns to scale,
capitalist firms expand; democratic firms do not. For capitalist firms
aim at maximizing total profits, whereas democratic firms aim at
maximizing profit per worker. That is to say, if the owners of a
capitalist firm can make $X under present conditions, they can make
$2X by doubling the size of their operation. But if a democratic firm
doubles its size, it doubles its workforce, leaving its per-capita
income unchanged.
This is an enormously important structural difference, with
implications that go well beyond environmental concerns. But let us
focus on those that do bear on the question at hand.
One implication: democratic competition is less cut-throat. Firms
compete for market share, but not for market dominance. This means
that democratic firms -- when competing with other democratic firms --
do not face the same "grow or die" imperative that capitalist firms
face.
Neither greed nor fear works the same way. However greedy workers may
be, they cannot increase their incomes by expanding unless economies
of scale are significant. At the same time, they don't have to worry
so much about being driven out of business by a more innovative or
efficient rival. They have more time to adjust, to copy whatever
successful innovations their rival has introduced. (Non-profit
institutions are similar to democratic firms in this regard.
Successful universities, for example, do not keep expanding. They
compete for students, but they do not drive their competitors out of
business so as to grab their market share. When educational
innovations occur, they tend to spread, administrators being under
pressure to adopt "best practices.")
A second implication: When innovation brings about a productivity
gain, workers are free to opt for leisure instead of higher
consumption. This option is virtually non-existent in a capitalist
firm. Owners do not increase their profits by allowing their employees
to work less. But if excess consumption (consumerism) is a serious
environmental threat, and if market competition is essential to an
efficiently functioning economy, then it is vital to have a system
that offers non-consumption incentives to its businesses.
The second key change involves democratizing investment. Space
limitations preclude a detailed treatment. Suffice it to say that it
no longer makes sense to depend on the "animal spirits" of private
investors -- and the incredibly opaque financial instruments they've
created to maintain economic stability. Alternatives are really not so
hard to imagine, although these possibilities are not discussed in
polite company. In a couple of words: generate our investment funds by
taxing enterprises (a flat-rate capital-assets tax is optimal), then
return the proceeds to regions on a per-capita basis to be reinvested
in the local economy.
Some consequences of this structural change: investors no longer need
to be kept happy for fear of recession; no need to worry about capital
flight. Regions do not compete for capital; regions get their fair
share every year. Investment funds can be channeled into projects
consistent with the wishes of the citizenry.
To summarize: I've argued that Hawken-Lovins are right that ecological
sustainability is possible in a market economy, but that Kovel is also
right: we need to get beyond capitalism. It is irrational to rely on
an economic system that must continually grow to remain healthy. This
truth is becoming ever more difficult to deny. Here's a quote from a
recent Nobel laureate in economics.
"The solutions to these problems -- inequality (especially that of
grinding poverty in a world of unprecedented prosperity) and of public
goods (that is, goods people share together, such as the environment)
will almost certainly call for institutions that take us beyond the
capitalist market economy."
That's Amartya Sen, from his 1999 book, Development as Freedom (Anchor
Books, p. 267).[5] I think we are in position now to see what those
institutions might be.
==============
Notes
1. Sir Nicolas Stern, The Economics of Climate Change (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. ii.
2. Quoted in Mancur Olsen and Hans-Martin Landsberg (eds), The No
Growth Society (Norton, 1973), p. 97.
3. Bill McKibben, "Happiness Is..." The Ecologist, (January 2, 2007),
p. 36.
4. For a detailed presentation, see my After Capitalism (Rowman and
Littlefield, 2002). For a more technical treatment, see my Against
Capitalism (Cambridge University Press, 1993).
5. For additional confirmation that the thesis defended here is
becoming more mainstream, see James Gustave Speth, The Bridge at the
Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment and Crossing from
Crisis to Sustainability (Yale University Press, 2008). Speth is
currently Dean of Yale University's School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies. He has served as President Jimmy Carter's White
House environmental advisor and as head of the UN's largest agency for
international development. He is, in the words of Time magazine , the
"ultimate insider." He doesn't spell out an alternative and he doesn't
want to call the future "socialist," but his book "is, however, anti-
capitalist in the sense that it argues that society and governments
should no longer cede special significance to the objectives or moral
claims of the owners of capital" (p. 190). He has become convinced,
reluctantly he says, that capitalism as we know it is unsustainable.
==========
This article is based on a talk David Schweickart gave June 29, 2008
at the Surviving Climate Change roundtable in St. Louis. He is author
of Against Capitalism and After Capitalism along with numerous
articles in social and political philosophy. He holds a Ph.D. in
mathematics and a Ph.D. in Philosophy and is Professor of Philosophy
at Loyola University.
Return to Table of Contents
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &
Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are
often considered separately or not at all.
The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining
because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who
bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human
health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the
rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among
workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,
intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and
therefore ruled by the few.
In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, "Who
gets to decide?" And, "How do the few control the many, and what
might be done about it?"
As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,
please Email them to us at d...@rachel.org.
Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as
necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the
subject.
Editor:
Peter Montague - pe...@rachel.org
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
