Why we can't "grow" our way out of the unemployment dilemma, at least under existing economic systems and industrial regimes. Sally >Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:41:07 +0100 =======================Electronic Edition======================== >>. . >>. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #613 . >>. ---August 27, 1998--- . >>. HEADLINES: . >>. ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS . >>. ========== . >>. Environmental Research Foundation . >>. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 . >>. Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >>. ========== . >>. Back issues available by E-mail; to get instructions, send . >>. E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the single word HELP . >>. in the message; back issues also available via ftp from . >>. ftp.std.com/periodicals/rachel and from gopher.std.com . >>. and from http://www.monitor.net/rachel/ . >>. Subscriptions are free. To subscribe, E-mail the words . >>. SUBSCRIBE RACHEL-WEEKLY YOUR NAME to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] . >>================================================================= >> >>ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS >> >>Starting in the 1950s, awareness of environmental destruction >>developed slowly in the U.S.[1,2] Various events slowly shook >>the public awake: Atomic fallout from weapons-testing in the >>years 1956-1963; a nation-wide pesticide scare in 1959; birth >>defects from the drug thalidomide in 1961; Rachel Carson's book >>SILENT SPRING in 1962; the discovery of cancer-causing food >>additives (such as the artificial sweeteners, cyclamates, in >>1969); and other byproducts of corporate technology, contributed >>to a growing awareness of environmental degradation.[3] >> >>By 1965, the dangers of a deteriorating environment were >>acknowledged at the highest levels of government; the President's >>Science Advisory Committee in 1965 published RESTORING THE >>QUALITY OF OUR ENVIRONMENT, a catalog of pollution problems and >>their effects on human and environmental health.[4] In 1969, >>Congress passed the Environmental Policy Act and in 1970 >>President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) >>by executive order. >> >>Starting in the late 1960s, the modern "environmental movement" >>took shape as activist lawyers and scientists came to the aid of >>citizens who were trying to ban the pesticide DDT, prevent air >>pollution by stopping new highways, discourage nuclear >>technologies and curb obvious water pollutants such as foaming >>detergents. During the 1970s, Congress passed a dozen major >>environmental laws. Environmental groups hired professional >>staffs who were knowledgeable about technologies, pollutants, >>regulatory strategies, and politics. >> >>In other industrialized countries, governments and citizens began >>similar efforts. The governments of Denmark, the Netherlands, >>Britain, Sweden, West Germany, Japan, France, and Canada passed a >>series of laws aimed at reversing the trends of environmental >>destruction. Here and abroad, universities organized seminars and >>conferences and eventually created whole departments devoted to >>"environmental studies." A new industry developed, called >>"environmental consulting," in which highly-paid specialists >>helped governments and private corporations respond to >>environmental concerns. The mass media began to devote >>significant space to environmental problems. In the U.S. >>environmental reporting became a journalistic specialty and a >>"Society of Environmental Journalists" was launched. Corporations >>with tarnished reputations devoted billions of dollars to >>environmentally-preferable technologies, and created a new public >>relations industry that specializes in "greenwashing." >> >>Now, after 20 years of intense efforts to reverse the trends of >>environmental destruction, the question is, are we succeeding? >> >>So far as we know, only one study has tried to answer this >>question in a rigorous way. The study, called INDEX OF >>ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS, was published in April 1995 by the National >>Center for Economic and Security Alternatives in Washington, >>D.C.[5] In it, the authors measured trends in a wide range of >>serious environmental problems facing industrial societies. The >>study relied on the best available data, most of it gathered and >>maintained by national governments. >> >>The study examined 21 indicators of environmental quality, >>summarizing the data into a single numerical "environmental >>index." The index shows that, despite 20 years of substantial >>effort, each of the nine countries has failed to reverse the >>trends of environmental destruction. See Table 1. >> >>================================================================= >> >>Table 1 >> >>RANKING FROM LEAST TO MOST ENVIRONMENTAL DETERIORATION, 1970-1995 >> >>Denmark: -10.6% >>Netherlands: -11.4% >>Britain: -14.3% >>Sweden: -15.5% >>West Germany: -16.5% >>Japan: -19.4% >>United States: -22.1% >>Canada: -38.1% >>France: -41.2% >> >>Data from: Gar Alparovitz and others, INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL >>TRENDS (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Economic and Security >>Alternatives, 1995), pg. 2. >> >>================================================================== >> >>Here is a brief discussion of the 21 categories of data from >>which the summary index was calculated: >> >>Air Quality >> >>The study used six measures of air quality: sulphur oxides, >>nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, >>particulate matter (essentially, soot), and carbon dioxide. The >>first five are called "criteria pollutants" in the U.S. The >>sixth, carbon dioxide, is a greenhouse gas, now thought to be >>contributing to global warming. >> >>The study found successful reductions of sulfur oxides in all >>nine countries, but also found that acid rain --caused by sulfur >>oxides --continues to damage forests in Denmark, Britain and >>Germany. The same is true in the U.S. and Canada, so additional >>reductions will be needed. >> >>The study did not include "the vast range of hazardous air >>pollutants, called 'air toxics' in the United States," because >>"regulatory bodies in the nine countries have failed to >>comprehensively monitor or regulate most hazardous air >>pollutants." The study says, "There are roughly 48,000 >>industrial chemicals in the air in the United States, only a >>quarter of which are documented with toxicity data."[5,pg.11] >> >>The study also did not include indoor air pollution which is >>"virtually unmonitored and... probably on the rise in many of the >>countries surveyed." >> >>The study notes that, "The necessary reductions in NOx [nitrogen >>oxides] and CO2 [carbon dioxide], it seems, may require far more >>change than seems politically possible --major reductions in the >>use of private automobiles, for example."[5,pg.11] >> >>Water quality >> >>Water quality in the index is represented by pollution trends of >>major rivers within countries. Specific measures include >>dissolved oxygen, nitrates, phosphorus, ammonium, and metals. >>Unfortunately, national trend data on water quality is generally >>poor, compared to data on air quality. For example, in the U.S., >>only 29% of the nation's river miles have been monitored. >> >>The study did not include trends in groundwater quality "because >>most countries do not produce national trend data on groundwater >>pollution. Yet groundwater in all index countries is >>contaminated, and by most measures, the problem has worsened >>since 1970," the study says.[5,pg.13] The study did measure >>groundwater withdrawals, compared to the natural rate of >>replenishment of groundwater. >> >>Chemicals >> >>The study measured production of fertilizers, pesticides, and >>industrial chemicals. >> >>The chemical industry continues to grow at a rate of 3.5% each >>year, thus doubling in size every 20 years (see REHW #197, #199). >>Of the 70,000 chemicals in commercial use in 1995, only 2% had >>been fully tested for human health effects, and 70% had not been >>tested for any health effects of any kind. At least 1000 new >>chemicals are introduced into commercial use each year, largely >>untested. If all the laboratory capacity currently available in >>the U.S. were devoted to testing new chemicals, only 500 could be >>tested each year, the study notes.[5,pg.14] Therefore, even if >>the necessary funding were made available, there would be no way >>of ever testing all the chemicals that are currently in use, or >>all of the new ones being introduced each year. >> >>Wastes >> >>The study examined trends in municipal wastes and nuclear wastes >>in the nine countries. Both kinds of waste are increasing >>steadily. Trend data for industrial wastes and hazardous wastes >>are not available. The study concludes that, "The United States >>is arguably the most wasteful --that is, waste-generating >>--society in human history."[5,pg.8] >> >>Land >> >>The study examined the area of wetlands, and the amount of land >>devoted to woods in each of the nine countries. >> >>Structural barometers of sustainability >> >>Two additional measures were used in developing the index of >>environmental trends: the amount of energy used by each country, >>and the total number of automobile miles traveled. >> >>Summary >> >>In sum, this study of environmental quality in nine nations >>reveals that environmental destruction is continuing, and in some >>cases accelerating, despite 20 years of substantial effort to >>reverse these trends. The study concludes, "The index data >>suggest that achieving across-the-board environmental protection >>and restoration will require deeper, more fundamental change than >>has yet been attempted in the countries surveyed."[5,pg.5] >> >>The questions raised by this study seem obvious, at least for the >>environmental movement: >> >>** Given that we are clearly not succeeding in reversing the >>trend of environmental destruction, how can we think that by >>merely redoubling our efforts we will begin to succeed? >> >>** Isn't it time we made some serious effort to evaluate what has >>worked in the past and what has not worked in the past? It seems >>clear that most of what has been tried in the past has not worked >>well enough to make a real difference. How, then, can we justify >>spending money and time on more of the same? >> >>** Shouldn't we be asking ourselves what path we want to take in >>the future? Don't we need to identify a path that might achieve >>"deeper, more fundamental change" than we have aimed for in the >>past? >> --Peter Montague >> (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO) >> >>=============== >>[1] Samuel P. Hays, BEAUTY, HEALTH AND PERMANENCE; ENVIRONMENTAL >>POLITICS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1955-1985 (New York: Cambridge >>University Press, 1987). >> >>[2] Roderick Frazier Nash, AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTALISM [Third >>Edition] (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990). >> >>[3] Edward W. Lawless, TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL SHOCK (New >>Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1977). >> >>[4] John W. Tukey and others, RESTORING THE QUALITY OF OUR >>ENVIRONMENT; REPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION PANEL [OF THE] >>PRESIDENT'S SCIENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Washington, D.C.: U.S. >>Government Printing Office, November, 1965). >> >>[5] Gar Alparovitz and others, INDEX OF ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS >>(Washington, D.C.: National Center for Economic and Security >>Alternatives, 1995). Available for $10 from: National Center for >>Economic and Security Alternatives, 2000 P Street, N.W., Suite >>330, Washington, D.C. 20036; telephone (202) 835-1150. >> >>Descriptor terms: environmental trends; studies; gar alparovitz; >>denmark; netherlands; britain; sweden; west germany; japan; u.s.; >>canada; france; >> >>################################################################ >> NOTICE >>Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic >>version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge >>even though it costs our organization considerable time and money >>to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service >>free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution >>(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send >>your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research >>Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do >>not send credit card information via E-mail. For further >>information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. >>by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at >>(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944. >> --Peter Montague, Editor >>################################################################ >> >
