Re: [CTRL] ENVIRONMENT-TRADE: US Drops Move to Fight Ruling on Trade Panels
6/7/00 Don't fall for this. This is a ploy to de-fang environmentalists and labor. By throwing them a few crumbs, they hope to shut them up about globalization. The problem is the effects of Big Business going global. NOT whether Greens and unions have representation. This is an attempt to buy off the opposition with crumbs. Joshua2 IGC News Desk wrote: Copyright 2000 InterPress Service, all rights reserved. Worldwide distribution via the APC networks. *** 06-Jun-0* *** Title: ENVIRONMENT-TRADE: US Drops Move to Fight Ruling on Trade Panels By Danielle Knight WASHINGTON, Jun 6 (IPS) - The US government, to the cheers of environmentalists, has dropped its appeal of a Federal court ruling that forced it to include representatives of environmental groups on two of its industry-dominated trade advisory panels. The US Trade Representative (USTR) and Department of Commerce dismissed the appeal on Jul. 2, a move seen by environmental groups as the first step in democratising how trade policy is made in this country. Together the two government agencies have almost two dozen advisory committees on trade policy - that are comprised only of corporate and industry representatives. Now, two representatives from environmental groups have been formally appointed to two trade advisory panels that discuss trade in lumber and paper products. A spokeswoman at the USTR told IPS that the removal of the appeal was not a sudden turn around in policy. "The Administration (of US President Bill Clinton) has had a long standing commitment toward greater inclusiveness of environmental and consumer organisations," she said. Environmental groups praised the move as the beginning of opening up trade policy to citizens' views. ''In a democracy, industry should not be the only interest represented in setting our trade policies," says Patti Goldman, an attorney with Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, who filed the lawsuit leading to the appointments. Environmental groups, many of the same who protested against the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in the streets of Seattle, Washington last year, argued that the make-up of these panels violated US law which requires trade advisory panels to be balanced and not comprised only of business and industry leaders. Information shared between industry and the USTR is not publicly released, except for brief summaries of subjects discussed. Meanwhile, the environmental consequences of trade agreements can be enormous, according to environmental organisations. They say that the make-up of these advisory panels reflect how trade agreements - including policy made through the WTO - have often been worked out in an undemocratic manner, behind closed doors and with no public participation. Groups made some headway last year when a Federal Court took their side. Last November Federal District Court Judge Barbara Rothstein ruled that the Trade Representative and Commerce Secretary had violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act by limiting membership on the paper and wood products committees to industry officials. "The composition of the forest product Industry Sector Advisory Committees (ISACs) ... violates (the law's) requirement to be fairly balanced in terms of viewpoints represented," wrote Rothstein in her ruling. Following the judge's ruling, the USTR's paper products trade committees met without any environmental representatives. So, environmentalists went back to court to obtain a further ruling in December directing the Administration to have an environmental representative at the next committee meeting. Then in January, in a joint announcement by the USTR and Department of Commerce, the agencies said they would appeal the court's ruling. Just before the appeal was dropped two representatives of environmental organisations received invitations from the federal agencies to serve on two ISACs. Yet, environmental advocacy organisations say these two appointments hardly equal balanced representation on panels containing up to 15 industry representatives. "One could say that the composition of the forest products ISACs looks more like a lynch mob than a committee since they have one lone environmentalist and about eight timber industry bosses," says Doug Norlen, a policy analyst with the Pacific Environment and Resources Center, the environmental appointee to the paper and paper products advisory panel. Industry members of the paper and products trade advisory committee include such corporate heavy-weights as the senior vice president of the International Paper Company, the vice president of Westvaco Worldwide, and the vice president of Georgia-Pacific Corporation. Norlen was one of the environmentalists in Seattle last year protesting against the WTO policies and the USTR's push to eliminate barriers to trade in paper and wood products.
[CTRL] Environment News Service: Indoor Plants May Not Cure Sick Building Syndrome
http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2000/2000L-01-13-01.html Title: Environment News Service: Indoor Plants May Not Cure Sick Building Syndrome Search for: Lycos HomeNewsEnvironment Top News Headlines Environment News Message Board Personal News Page Environment Websites News Web Guide Current Events Chat Science News E-WireInstant Updates Environment News Index Environment Events Calendar ENS Features EcoTravel EDF Scorecard Shopping Green SustainableBusiness Cartoons Environment Indoor Plants May Not Cure Sick Building Syndrome PERTH, Australia, January 13, 2000 (ENS) - They may look beautiful but forget about buying a few indoor plants to improve the quality of the air in your home or office, says environmental scientist Peter Dingle of Murdoch University in Western Australia. A variety of organic molecules known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) have been found in office air and linked to sick building syndrome, a range of symptoms that leaves people feeling tired, irritable and unwell but with no specific illness. Corn plant imparts a touch of green to a New York City office. (Photo courtesy Earthborn Indoor Gardeners) Furniture, carpeting, and cleaning products can contain dangerous chemicals like formaldehyde, polyethylene, and benzene, that can emit gases into the air. For example, formaldehyde is found in particleboard, some plywood, adhesives, fabrics, and some furniture. Formaldehyde is a toxic chemical that can irritate the eyes, skin and throat. It is thought to cause nausea, dizziness and lethargy at levels as low as 50 parts per billion (ppb). It may also aggravate asthma and hay fever and is a potential carcinogen. Aside from obvious moves such as improving ventilation and removing sources of VOCs, potted plants have been suggested as a potential solution to the problem - although evidence that they remove pollutants is sparse. "Everybody believes plants are the answer to sick buildings and indoor air pollution," says Dingle. "It's one of the great urban myths." To test whether this particular myth has any basis in fact, Dingle and his colleagues examined the effects of plants on levels of formaldehyde. Dingle and his colleagues measured formaldehyde levels in offices where the occupants had complained of poor air quality. They studyied 18 office buildings in Perth and 20 temporary buildings on the Murdoch University campus. These structures are typically built using major sources of formaldehyde - pressed wood products such as plywood and some types of foam insulation. Average levels of formaldehyde ranged from 10 ppb to 78 ppb in the office buildings. But concentrations in the temporary university buildings ranged from 420 ppb to 2,110 ppb - far in excess of the World Health Organization's safety standard of 82 ppb. Dingle then set up five experimental cabins each with a floor space of eight square metres (86 square feet). Into each cabin, he placed five plants every two days until there were 20 plants in each cabin. With up to 10 plants in a cabin, formaldehyde concentrations remained unchanged. With 20 plants, average levels of formaldehyde were only reduced from 856 ppb to 761 ppb. If potted plants do help treat sick building syndrome, Dingle concludes, the effect is psychological. "They really make a place more comfortable and beautiful, but they do not clean the air of pollutants to any significant degree." Spider plants in the middle row blend into an indoor landscape. (Photo courtesy Michigan State University) Jeff Llewellyn, an expert on indoor air quality with Britain's Building Research Establishment in Watford, says that the importance of such psychological factors shouldn't be underestimated. He also points out that the ability of plants to remove other pollutants has not been adequately studied, "Formaldehyde is but one pollutant," Llewellyn said. Indoor plants are apparently useful in removing some pollutants. Research in the United States at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's National Space Technology Laboratories in Mississippi has demonstrated the ability of common houseplants such as spider plants (Chlorophytum elatum var.vittatum) and golden pothos (Scindapeus aureus) to remove such indoor air pollutants. B.C. Wolverton, Ph.D., a NASA researcher, presented a report in 1985 that found formaldehyde and carbon monoxide were removed by spider plants and golden pothos from closed chambers. Pollutant source removal or modification is an effective approach to resolving an indoor air quality problem when sources are known and control is possible. Routine maintenance of heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems such as periodic cleaning or
[CTRL] Environment News Service
-Caveat Lector- To: Editor, Environment News Service regarding: http://ens.lycos.com/ens/oct99/1999L-10-20-02.html Which is entitled: "Answer to World Hunger: Youth Interest in Eco-Farming" The inclusion of this segment: Dr. M.S. Swaminathan (Photo courtesy M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation) He supports the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to ensure an adequate food supply, but only with a combination of government regulations and voluntary codes of conduct to prevent ecological and social harm. During a seminar on genetically modified plants in January at his research institute in India, Dr. Swaminathan said, "GMOs can confer real benefits in agriculture, food quality, nutrition and health. However, consumer confidence based on an appreciation of the scientific evidence and the regulatory checks and balances will ultimately decide whether or not GMOs make a significant contribution to feeding the eight billion people who are likely to inhabit our planet in 2020." = Is, in my humble opinion- TOTALLY irresponsible and COMPLETELY AT ODDS with ANY CONCEPTION of your publication as a useful or ethical source of NEWS useful to persons concerned with ECOLOGY/Environment. PLEASE DO NOT speak in support of INSUPPORTABLE use of UNTESTED and DANGEROUS genetically modified organisms. This SO-CALLED "science" is so unbelievably ill-conceived - and "deployment" of such "science" in it's INFANCY, where NO ONE KNOWS what damage may be done- is perhaps the MOST DANGEROUS and irresponsible move on the part of the "technocratic elite" since the NUCLEAR BOMB. If this is just a terrible mistake on your part, I will accept your apology, printed in your online paper. If NOT- you have exposed yourselves as a greenwashing effort and as duplicitous corporate mouthpieces ! Dave Hartley http://www.Asheville-Computer.com http://www.ioa.com/~davehart DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Environment
-Caveat Lector- Imagine if we decided to run ourselves into the ground because we didn't like the fact that someone was going to profit from our purchases of solar panels, etc. Would that be principle or natural selection? If we decide to be that stupid then I am all for making more room for cockroaches. __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Environment
-Caveat Lector- From The New australian www.newaus.com.au Return to The New Australian Have we got a climate catastrophe just for you! By *John L. Daly No. 134, 20-26 September 1999 No matter where you live in the world, the Greenhouse Industry modellers have tailored the impacts of the global warming theory to provide everyone with their own custom-made climate catastrophe. For Australians, warming alone would be enough to get us worried as we are warm enough already. Some extra rain would be nice, and the warming scenario does suggest increased rainfall globally but, you guessed it not for Australia. The modellers have decreed that we will have more frequent and severe El Ninos, the harbinger of droughts. So while the rest of the world might get more rainfall, Australia will miss out. How convenient. How about Canadians, northern Europeans, and Russians? The Industry have a very special deal for you too. Your primary fear is not warming (you are too cold for that), but that of cooling. The prospect of climatic cooling freezes the heart of any Siberian peasant or Canadian farmer. But, sure enough, these very lands are now tipped to suffer an ice age! It took a bit of jigging of the models to do it, but using the prospect of a failure of thermohaline ocean circulation in the North Atlantic, they claim that warmer waters in the Gulf Stream will cease to sink at the poles, causing the Gulf Stream to veer south and leave the whole North Atlantic in the grip of a frigid cold. A convoluted theory, but one which gets the desired result a climate catastrophe designer-built just for those places which fear cooling much more than warming. That should very neatly remove any vested interest such people may have toward having a warmer world. For coastal communities who may be indifferent to warming or cooling, the Industry has them targeted too sea levels rising to swamp them. Little matter that there is no convincing evidence of any general sea level rise this century, the modellers have built this into their models anyway, and threaten coastal low lying countries with Noah's flood if they don't toe the green Kyoto line. Then we have those ancient cradles of civilisations the vast river basin communities, like the Ganges basin in India, the Yangtze basin in China, the Indus basin of Pakistan etc., home to hundreds of millions of people dependent on sustained river flows for irrigation and occasional (and preferably modest) floods to fertilize the land. Also home to countries who have expressed little or no interest in Kyoto. As special punishment, the Industry mandarins have recently devised a special double feature, just for them. The glaciers in the Himalayas will melt, they say, and this melting will cause catastrophic floods to descend upon those hapless millions. But that's not all. Once the floods have subsided with the glaciers gone, these people are still not off the hook. Floods will be followed by droughts as the rivers suffer reduced flows, turning these fertile basins into arid land. Nobody ever said the modellers were not creative. And the U.S.A.? If you are American, ask yourself what climate catastrophe you dread the most, and sure enough, that is exactly the one which the Industry has in store for you. Bigger and deadlier tornadoes for you mid-westerners, bigger and deadlier hurricanes for you coastal dwellers, bigger floods for you farmers in the Mississippi/Missouri basins, even (God forbid) grey skies for the genteel folk of Los Angeles. And what of the British, whose climate gurus are more responsible than anyone for this hysteria? The British climate is so miserable, that any change must be for the better. But even here, the British psyche works against them as they are forever talking about the weather. And the modellers have now given them plenty to talk about and thus plenty to fret about. The customised disaster scenarios do not just stop with changes to local climates. There are also those dreaded `impacts', so beloved of the fringe elements of the Greenhouse Industry. For example, tropical diseases like Malaria have scourged millions of people since the dawn of time. With warming, will these diseases spread beyond the tropics? Yes, say the doomsayers. What of deserts? They will expand of course. Of course. Quite how diseases from the wet tropics can be expected to spread into the drying climates of expanding deserts is not explained. But then, consistency was never one of the Industry's strong points. There is however one shining bright spot with carbon dioxide (CO2), the trace gas at the centre of the whole scare. CO2 is a natural fertilizer to all plants, and its enhancement in the atmosphere will inevitably lead to greater biological productivity throughout the biological world. That's a hard one for the Industry spin doctors to contradict, but be assured they are working on it. The last
