Hello Rad Have you read any more of Peter Montague's writings? There's a lot of it in the list archives if you don't feel like browsing Rachel's site.
http://snipurl.com/khaj Search results for 'Rachel's' I think it addresses a lot of your (very good!) points. Actually there's a lot of other stuff there that does that too. Lots about risk management and precaution, eg, and even more about corporate predation. Best Keith Addison Journey to Forever KYOTO Pref., Japan http://journeytoforever.org/ >Keith: > >The environmental problem is exactly as you describe, however it is >a subset of the profit Vs health picture and is compounded by >globalization. > >There are significant geographic alternatives for most >manufacturers/ polluters. Cumulative pollution levels are not >constrained by Geopolitical boundaries. > >Perversely manufacturers/ polluters could significantly increase >their harmful contributions to global pollution by moving to a >country with a more favorable regulatory environment and/or cheaper >labour (growth Vs health/ human life). Reductions in either of >these two input costs could result in increased productive output >(with more pollution), under a competitive advantage justification >(numbers). > >We see by numerous examples typified by todays coal miners, that a >workforce educated to the health risks of a hazardous environment, >can always be found. Rather than risk localized regional or >super-regional economic decay, they will stay close to home and >die early. > >Keeping polluters in this country allows a weak measure of control >until the issue is raised again tomorrow. It ultimately results in >more (Vs yesterday) toxins released on a daily basis, but less than >an offshore move to a place where people cut the grass with hand >shears and death is a great reward for having lived. > >Our lawmakers believe they are judges, knowing nothing until they >are told. It allows them to claim impartiality. The profit side >has successfully painted the green groups as environmental saboteurs >(General Subutai: 1248). The environmentalists have ham-handled the >overall reponse with ridiculous complexity that removes the common >man (support) from the equation. It has allowed corporations to >fight the fight in labs using bad science and it has confused and >deafened the voting public. > >It is too late for idealistic solutions. If we dont show the >lawmakers (old age vote buyers) how the Profit side can make money >while they pass laws to protect the environment, (before they die of >butter and scotch poisoning), well get nothing but formaldehyde in >our bread. > >Rad > > > >---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- >From: Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:06:19 +0900 > > >http://rachel.org/ > > > >From: Rachel's Democracy & Health News #831, Dec. 1, 2005 > > > >The Emperor Of Risk Assessment Isn't Wearing Any Clothes > > > >By Peter Montague > > <snip> _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
