Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text Alternative Text
Survivor of US Drone Attack:
Obama Belongs on List of World's Tyrants

Poisoning Black Cities: Corporate Campaign to Ethnically Cleanse US Cities Massive Marches in Poland
Against Authoritarian Threat of Far-Right
Ethiopia’s Invisible Crisis: Land Rights Activists Kidnapped and Tortured

Global Perspectives Now Global Perspectives Now
Showing posts with label industrial pollution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label industrial pollution. Show all posts

Flint's Genocide By Water: State Employees Given Bottled Water For Months While Flint Residents Were Told Water Was Safe

"While residents were being told to relax and not worry about the water, the Snyder administration was taking steps to limit exposure in its own building." —Lonnie Scott, Progress Michigan




Following release of new document and emails, Gov. Snyder told he must 'explain to the people of Flint why his administration trucked water into a state building while allowing residents to drink unsafe water'

By Jon Queally
A newly obtained document and related emails released on Thursday show that while the residents of Flint, Michigan were slowly being poisoned by lead-contaminated water last year, the offices of state officials in the city were "quietly" outfitted with water coolers by Gov. Rick Snyder's administration.

The emails—obtained by Progress Michigan and posted online here (pdf)—reveal an exchange between employees of the Michigan Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB) and other state officials regarding in-house "concern about Flint's WQ [water quality]" that occurred at a time in 2015 when many residents still had no idea there was a problem with the city's public water and more than ten months before Gov. Rick Snyder ultimately declared a state of emergency over the crisis. The document at issue—dated January 7, 2015—is an administrative order showing the state had decided to provide bottled-water coolers "positioned near water fountains" in state offices so that workers could "choose which water to drink."

Lonnie Scott, executive director of Progress Michigan, said the emails and document offer new evidence of the Snyder administration's indifference towards the people of Flint.

"It appears the state wasn’t as slow as we first thought in responding the Flint Water Crisis," said Scott in a statement. "Sadly, the only response was to protect the Snyder administration from future liability and not to protect the children of Flint from lead poisoning. While residents were being told to relax and not worry about the water, the Snyder administration was taking steps to limit exposure in its own building."

The governor, continued Scott, should immediately "explain to the people of Flint why his administration trucked water into a state building while allowing residents to drink unsafe water."

In addition to adding to the enormous available evidence revealing the Snyder's administration lackluster (if not criminal) response to the water crisis in Flint, Scott said the documents also make it plain just "ineffective" and "unequal" the state's handling of the situation has been.



Reprinted with permission from Common Dreams.

Stephen Hawking Warns of Mankind Wiping Itself Out

Stephen Hawking spoke of a multitude of manmade threats encircling the planet in a recent BBC lecture. But how real are the risks, and what hope is there of mitigation?


Stephen Hawking (Photo by Intel Free Press)
Stephen Hawking
(Photo by Intel Free Press)

By Jason Thomson
Physicist Stephen Hawking has said the chances of cataclysmic events which could affect the survival of humanity are soaring, and we have only ourselves to blame.

In comments while recording the annual BBC Reith lectures, the renowned physicist asserted that disaster befalling planet Earth in the next 1,000 to 10,000 years is a “near certainty”, and that increasingly the threats facing humankind are of our own making.

Yet he also insisted that humanity will likely survive, because by the time catastrophe strikes, we shall have colonized other worlds.

"However, we will not establish self-sustaining colonies in space for at least the next hundred years,” said Prof. Hawking, “so we have to be very careful in this period".

The threats Hawking specified included nuclear war, global warming, and genetically engineered viruses, proposing that progress in science and technology is in some ways a gamble, improving the lives of billions, but also introducing the means to end humanity.

Yet this is no new debate. The idea that man’s advancement could be his very undoing has been with us for decades, centuries.

Read More

The Anthropocene Epoch — It Has Begun: Human-Made Epoch of Nightmares Is Here: Beyond Global Warming

"The changes are as big as those that happened at the end of the last ice age," says a study author. "This is a big deal." (Photo: Ligorano Reese/flickr/cc)
"The changes are as big as those that happened at the end of the last ice age," says a study author. "This is a big deal." (Photo: Ligorano Reese/flickr/cc)

By Deirdre Fulton
There's no question about it. A new epoch—the Anthropocene—has begun.

So says an international group of geoscientists, in a paper published Friday in the journal Science. They point to waste disposal, fossil fuel combustion, increased fertilizer use, the testing and dropping of nuclear weapons, deforestation, and more as evidence that human activity has pushed the Earth into the new age that takes its name from the Greek anthropos, or human being.

Some argue the new era began in the 1950s, the decade that marks the beginning of the so-called "Great Acceleration," when human population and its consumption patterns suddenly speeded up, and nuclear weapons tests dispersed radioactive elements across the globe.

Formalizing the Anthropocene era—a designation that must come officially from a separate body known as the International Commission on Stratigraphy—they write, "expresses the extent to which humanity is driving rapid and widespread changes to the Earth system that will variously persist and potentially intensify into the future." The scientists are likely to present their findings to the Commission later this year.

"What this paper does is to say the changes are as big as those that happened at the end of the last ice age," Colin Waters, principal geologist at the British Geological Survey and an author of the study, told the Guardian. "This is a big deal."

As Smithsonian magazine notes, "The new study is not the first to propose a formal establishment of an Anthropocene epoch—Simon Lewis and Mark Maslin of the University of College London made a similar recommendation last year—but it is one of the most comprehensive to date."

Among the tell-tale signs that the Anthropocene has started, according to reporting on the study:

  • Über-industrialization. "More than half the earth's surface has been transformed into settlements and cities, agricultural land, mines, waste dumps, baseball diamonds, and beyond," writes journalist Eric Roston at Bloomberg. What's more, he adds, "Mineral mining moves three times more sediment every year than all the world's rivers."

  • Plastics everywhere. "Even most mud samples taken from remote ocean beds now contain plastic fragments," academics Mark Williams and Jan A. Zalasiewicz write for The Conversation. "Buried in sediment, these materials may be preserved over geological timescales, forming new rocks and rapidly-evolving 'technofossils' for our descendants to marvel at."

  • Biologic changes. "We've pushed extinction rates of flora and fauna far above the long-term average," the Guardian reports. "The Earth is now on course for a sixth mass extinction which would see 75% of species extinct in the next few centuries if current trends continue."

  • Nuclear fallout. "Our war efforts have left their mark on geology," notes New Scientist. "When the first nuclear weapon was detonated on 16 July 1945 in New Mexico, it deposited radionuclides—atoms with excess nuclear energy—across a wide area. Since 1952, more explosive thermonuclear weapons have been tested, leaving a global signature of isotopes such as carbon-14 and plutonium-239."

  • Greenhouse gas levels. As Common Dreams has reported extensively, and the geoscientists point out, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane are higher than they've ever been. "Depending on the trajectory of future anthropogenic forcing, these trends may reach or exceed the envelope of Quaternary interglacial conditions," the study authors write—in other words, conditions could become more extreme than in previous ice ages.

Still, as damning as this evidence is, observers have cautioned against a simplistic view of geologic shifts. "Anthropocene is...suspect because—to the extent that 'we' wish to name the new epoch after a force, it generically identifies that force as humanity as a whole, rather than the identifiable power structures most responsible for the geological Anthropocene traces," wrote Kieran Suckling, founding director of the Center for Biological Diversity, in 2015.

Indeed, Ian Angus, editor of the ecosocialist journal Climate and Capitalism, argued last year: "An ecosocialist analysis of the Great Acceleration will build on the decisive issues of class and power that are shaping the Anthropocene and will ultimately determine humanity’s future."



Reprinted with permission from Common Dreams.

40 Percent of Deaths Worldwide Caused by Water, Air and Soil Pollution

Photo by Ian Barbour.
Photo by Ian Barbour.
By Susan S. Lang
About 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution, concludes a Cornell researcher. Such environmental degradation, coupled with the growth in world population, are major causes behind the rapid increase in human diseases, which the World Health Organization has recently reported. Both factors contribute to the malnourishment and disease susceptibility of 3.7 billion people, he says.

David Pimentel, Cornell professor of ecology and agricultural sciences, and a team of Cornell graduate students examined data from more than 120 published papers on the effects of population growth, malnutrition and various kinds of environmental degradation on human diseases. Their report is published in the online version of the journal Human Ecology (available at http://www.springerlink.com/content/101592/, to be published in the December print issue).

"We have serious environmental resource problems of water, land and energy, and these are now coming to bear on food production, malnutrition and the incidence of diseases," said Pimentel.

Of the world population of about 6.5 billion, 57 percent is malnourished, compared with 20 percent of a world population of 2.5 billion in 1950, said Pimentel. Malnutrition is not only the direct cause of 6 million children's deaths each year but also makes millions of people much more susceptible to such killers as acute respiratory infections, malaria and a host of other life-threatening diseases, according to the research.

Among the study's other main points:
  • Nearly half the world's people are crowded into urban areas, often without adequate sanitation, and are exposed to epidemics of such diseases as measles and flu.
  • With 1.2 billion people lacking clean water, waterborne infections account for 80 percent of all infectious diseases. Increased water pollution creates breeding grounds for malaria-carrying mosquitoes, killing 1.2 million to 2.7 million people a year, and air pollution kills about 3 million people a year. Unsanitary living conditions account for more than 5 million deaths each year, of which more than half are children.
  • Air pollution from smoke and various chemicals kills 3 million people a year. In the United States alone about 3 million tons of toxic chemicals are released into the environment -- contributing to cancer, birth defects, immune system defects and many other serious health problems.
  • Soil is contaminated by many chemicals and pathogens, which are passed on to humans through direct contact or via food and water. Increased soil erosion worldwide not only results in more soil being blown but spreading of disease microbes and various toxins.

Read More


Babies Are Dying in this Utah Town — When A Midwife Pointed At Fracking She Was Threatened With Death

Photo by danibabii08.
By Paul Solotaroff
Every night, Donna Young goes to bed with her pistol, a .45 Taurus Judge with laser attachment. Last fall, she says, someone stole onto her ranch to poison her livestock, or tried to; happily, her son found the d-CON wrapper and dumped all the feed from the troughs. Strangers phoned the house to wish her dead or run out of town on a rail. Local nurses and doctors went them one better, she says, warning pregnant women that Young's incompetence had killed babies and would surely kill theirs too, if given the chance.

"Before they started spreading their cheer about me, I usually had 18 to 25 clients a year, and a spotless reputation in the state," says Young, the primary midwife to service Vernal, Utah, a boom-and-bust town of 10,000 people in the heart of the fracked-gas gold rush of the Uintah Basin. A hundred and fifty miles of sparse blacktop east of Salt Lake City, Vernal has the feel of a slapdash suburb dropped randomly from outer space. Half of it is new and garishly built, the paint barely dry after a decade-long run of fresh-drilled wells and full employment. "Now, I'm down to four or five ladies, and don't know how I'll be able to feed my animals if things don't turn around quick."


Young, a fiftysomething, heart-faced woman with a story-time lilt of a voice, cuts a curious figure for a pariah. She's the mother of six, a grandmother of 14 and an object of reverence among the women she's helped, many of whom she's guided through three and four home births with blissfully short labors and zero pain meds. And the sin for which she's been punished with death threats and attacks on her reputation? Two years ago, she stumbled onto the truth that an alarming number of babies were dying in Vernal — at least 10 in 2013 alone, what seemed to her a shockingly high infant mortality rate for such a small town. That summer, she raised her hand and put the obvious question to Joe Shaffer, director of the TriCounty Health Department: Why are so many of our babies dying?

In most places, detecting a grave risk to children would inspire people to name a street for you. But in Vernal, a town literally built by oil, raising questions about the safety of fracking will brand you a traitor and a target. "Me and my kids are still cautious: If someone kicked in my front door tonight, it'd take an hour for the sheriff to get here," says Young, whose house on 60 acres is well out of town and a quarter-mile clear of her closest neighbor. "The first person they'd meet is me on the staircase, pointing that .45 dead at 'em. And I know how to use these things — I can nail a coyote in the pasture from 100 yards."

Prodded by Young and the concerns she pushed along, which made their way through channels to state officials, TriCounty Health announced a study in 2014 to assess Young's concerns over the infant mortality rate. But Young, backed up by experts in Salt Lake City, believed the study was designed to fail. She says that any serious inquiry would have started with Suspect One: the extraordinary levels of wintertime pollution plaguing the Basin since the vast new undertaking to frack the region's shale filled the air with toxins. The county merely counted up infant deaths and brushed aside the facts about Vernal air pollution: ozone readings that rivaled the worst days of summer in New York, Los Angeles or Salt Lake City; particulate matter as bad as Mexico City; and ground air fraught with carcinogenic gases like benzene, rogue emissions from oil and gas drilling. Indeed, pollution was so bad in this rural bowl that it broke new ground in climate science. For decades, experts believed that life-threatening smog occurred only in or near big cities. But the Basin, which is bound on all four sides by mountains, is a perfectly formed bowl for winter inversions, in which 20-below weather clamps down on the valley and is sealed there by warmer air above it. During those spells, when the haze is visible and the air in one's lungs is a cold chisel, the sun's rays reflect off the snow on the ground and cook the volatile gases into ozone. The worst such period in the Basin's recent history was the winter of 2012-13, when nearly all the Uintah mothers whose babies died were pregnant.

Other key information was available to TriCounty, including multiple recent studies that link mothers' exposure to toxic air with fetal disasters of all kinds, including stillbirths, birth defects and developmental syndromes. But four months after he announced the study, Shaffer retired as TriCounty's chief; six months later, the department's findings were released. The deaths were deemed "not statistically insignificant," Sam LeFevre, an epidemiologist with the Utah State Health Department who conducted the study for TriCounty, told an assembly of concerned Vernal citizens. When pressed on possible causes for the deaths, he suggested the health problems of mothers, citing smoking, diabetes and prenatal neglect among the Basin's residents. LeFevre made it clear he was sympathetic to the crowd's concerns. "I know what it's like to lose a pregnancy," he announced. "My wife's had eight, and only four live births."

Which raises a question you might ask in a state whose legislature is so rabid for oil and gas money that it set aside millions to sue the federal government for the right to drill near Moab and Desolation Canyon, some of the state's most sacrosanct places: How many dead infants does it take before you'll accept that there's a problem?

Read More

Increased Infant Mortality in Pennsylvania Linked to Fracking in Alarming New Study

Pennsylvania has issued more than 10,000 drilling permits over the past decade. Infants and children may be paying a heavy price.

The placement of fracking exhaust pipes right next to homes demonstrates how the fracking industry has a demonic approach to public health. (Illustration adapted from Salvatore Gerace and Earthworks)
(Click Here to See Full Size)
The placement of fracking exhaust pipes right next to homes demonstrates how the fracking industry has a demonic approach to public health. (Illustration adapted from Salvatore Gerace and Earthworks)

By Reynard Loki
A new study has linked fracking to a higher incidence in infant mortality, perinatal mortality, low-weight births, premature births and cancer in infants and children.

Funded by the Pittsburgh Foundation and written by Joe Mangano, co-founder and president of the Radiation and Public Health Project, a nonprofit educational and scientific organization that studies the relationship between low-level, nuclear radiation and public health, the study used data from state agencies to examine eight heavily fracked counties in Pennsylvania — four in the northeast and four in the southwest region of the state, counties that account for the majority of the state's natural gas drill wells and gas production. In all categories but child cancer, increases were greater in the northeast counties than they were in the four southwest counties.

"The information presented in this report supports the hypothesis of a link between exposure to toxic chemicals released in fracking and increased risk of disease and death," writes Mangano, who also manages the citizen-based radiation monitoring programs near the nuclear plants at Indian Point, New York, and Oyster Creek, New Jersey. "While it is virtually impossible to estimate a 'dose' to a community from chemicals generated by fracking, it is clear that residents of the eight most-fracked counties received far greater exposures than those in the rest of Pennsylvania."


Analyzing publicly available data from the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Mangano found that, since the early 2000s and compared to the rest of the state, the heavily-fracked counties have seen a rise in infant mortality (13.9 percent), perinatal mortality (23.6 percent), low-weight births (3.4 percent), premature births/gestation less than 32 weeks (12.4 percent) and cancer incidence in age 0-4 (35.1 percent).

Mangano asserts that the advent of large-scale fracking "has added considerable amounts of toxic chemicals into the environment, including various greenhouse gases and radiation. While potential health consequences of fracking has been become a national issue, very little research on health trends among affected populations has been conducted."

Read More

Fracking Chemicals Detected in Pennsylvania Drinking Water

Photo by Daniel Lobo.
Photo by Daniel Lobo.
By Nicholas St. Fleur
An analysis of drinking water sampled from three homes in Bradford County, Pa., revealed traces of a compound commonly found in Marcellus Shale drilling fluids, according to a study published on Monday.

The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, addresses a longstanding question about potential risks to underground drinking water from the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The authors suggested a chain of events by which the drilling chemical ended up in a homeowner’s water supply.

“This is the first case published with a complete story showing organic compounds attributed to shale gas development found in a homeowner’s well,” said Susan Brantley, one of the study’s authors and a geoscientist from Pennsylvania State University.

The industry has long maintained that because fracking occurs thousands of feet below drinking-water aquifers, the drilling chemicals that are injected to break up rocks and release the gas trapped there pose no risk. In this study, the researchers note that the contamination may have stemmed from a lack of integrity in the drill wells and not from the actual fracking process far below. The industry criticized the new study, saying that it provided no proof that the chemical came from a nearby well.

Read More

What Are We Doing to Our Children's Brains?

Tehmina Shekh photographed at the Chingari Clinic in Bhopal, India — the location of one of the world's worst chemical disasters. Photo by Flickr user Bhopal Medical Appeal. CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0
Tehmina Shekh photographed at the Chingari Clinic in Bhopal, India — the location of one of the world's worst chemical disasters. Photo by Flickr user Bhopal Medical Appeal. CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0

By Elizabeth Grossman
February 16, 2015 — The numbers are startling. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 1.8 million more children in the U.S. were diagnosed with developmental disabilities between 2006 and 2008 than a decade earlier. During this time, the prevalence of autism climbed nearly 300 percent, while that of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder increased 33 percent. CDC figures also show that 10 to 15 percent of all babies born in the U.S. have some type of neurobehavorial development disorder. Still more are affected by neurological disorders that don’t rise to the level of clinical diagnosis.

And it’s not just the U.S. Such impairments affect millions of children worldwide. The numbers are so large that Philippe Grandjean of the University of Southern Denmark and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York — both physicians and preeminent researchers in this field — describe the situation as a “pandemic.”

While earlier and more assiduous diagnosis accounts for some of the documented increase, it doesn’t explain all of it, says Irva Hertz-Piccioto, professor of environmental and occupational health and chief of the University of California, Davis, MIND Institute. Grandjean and Landrigan credit genetic factors for 30 to 40 percent of the cases. But a significant and growing body of research suggests that exposure to environmental pollutants is implicated in the disturbing rise in children’s neurological disorders.

What, exactly is going on? And what can we do about it?

Chemicals and the Brain

Some chemicals — lead, mercury and organophosphate pesticides, for example — have long been recognized as toxic substances that can have lasting effects on children’s neurological health, says Bruce Lanphear, health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University. While leaded paint is now banned in the U.S., it is still present in many homes and remains in use elsewhere around the world. Children can also be exposed to lead from paints, colorings and metals used in toys, even though these uses are prohibited by U.S. law (remember Thomas the Tank Engine), and through contaminated soil or other environmental exposure as well as from plastics in which lead is used as a softener. Mercury exposure sources include some fish, air pollution and old mercury-containing thermometers and thermostats. While a great many efforts have gone into reducing and eliminating these exposures, concerns continue, particularly because we now recognize that adverse effects can occur at exceptionally low levels.

At early stages of development — prenatally and during infancy — brain cells are
easily damaged by industrial chemicals and other neurotoxicants. Photo by Flickr
user Jason Corey. CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0
But scientists are also now discovering that chemical compounds common in outdoor air — including components of vehicle exhaust and fine particulate matter — as well as in indoor air and consumer products can also adversely affect brain development, including prenatally.

Chemicals in flame retardants, plastics, and personal care and other household products are among those Lanphear lists as targets of concern for their neurodevelopment effects.

Chemicals that prompt hormonal changes are increasingly suspected to have neurological effects, says Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program. Among the chemicals now being examined for neurological impacts that occur early in life are flame retardants known as PBDEs that have been used extensively in upholstery foams, electronics and other products; phthalates, widely used as plasticizers and in synthetic fragrances; the polycarbonate plastic ingredient bisphenol A, known commonly as BPA; perfluorinated compounds, whose applications include stain-, water- and grease-resistant coatings; and various pesticides.

Precise Choreography

As Grandjean and Landrigan explain, the fetus is not well protected against environmental chemicals that can easily pass through the placenta. There’s evidence from in vitro studies, they say, that neural stem cells are very sensitive to neurotoxic substances.
In the past 30 to 40 years, scientists have begun to recognize that children and infants are far more vulnerable to chemical exposures than are adults.
An infant’s brain is also vulnerable to such contaminants. At early stages of development — prenatally and during infancy — brain cells are easily damaged by industrial chemicals and other neurotoxicants. Such interference can affect how the brain develops structurally and functionally — effects that lead to lasting adverse outcomes.

“The brain is so extremely sensitive to external stimulation,” says Grandjean.

Historically, chemical neurotoxicity was examined in adults — often through cases of high levels of occupational exposure. In the past 30 to 40 years, however, scientists have begun to recognize that children and infants are far more vulnerable to chemical exposures than are adults. It has also been discovered that very low levels of exposure early in life can have profound and lasting effects. Another important discovery is that understanding how an infant or child is affected by a chemical exposure involves far more than simply calculating potential effects on a physically smaller person. Stage of development — and timing of exposure — must also be considered. Early stages of brain development involve “a very precise choreography,” explains Frederica Perera, professor of Environmental Health Sciences at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health. “Any chemical that can disrupt [brain] chemistry at this stage can be very damaging,” she says.

For example, explains Deborah Kurrasch, an assistant professor at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine who specializes in neurological research, during the early stages of brain development — when cells are becoming neurons — “timing determines destination.”

Results of Kurrasch’s latest study investigating neurodevelopmental effects of BPA illustrate what she means. In a study published in January 2015, Kurrasch and colleagues examined the effects on neurodevelopment of BPA and a common BPA substitute, bisphenol S. Specifically, they investigated how exposure to BPA and BPS — at levels comparable to those present in her community’s local drinking water supply — might affect neuron development in zebrafish at a stage comparable to the second trimester of human pregnancy, when neurons are forming and moving to the correct location in the brain.
Many of the chemicals under scrutiny for their effects on brain development appear to act by interfering with the function of hormones essential for healthy brain development.
“It’s as if they’re getting on a bus to where they need to be,” Kurrasch says. After exposure to BPA and BPS it was as if, explains Kurrasch, “twice as many neurons got on an early bus and half as many got on a late bus.” The researchers found that these exposures appeared to alter nerve development — neurogenesis — in a way that caused the fish to become hyperactive. Such an alteration, produced in this case by a “very little bit of BPA,” can cause permanent effects, Kurrasch says.

Many of the chemicals under scrutiny for their effects on brain development — BPA, phthalates, perfluorinated compounds, brominated flame retardants and various pesticides among them — appear to act by interfering with the function of hormones essential for healthy brain development. Among these are thyroid hormones, which regulate the part of the brain involved in a variety of vital functions, including reproduction, sleep, thirst, eating and puberty.

During the first trimester of pregnancy, the fetus is not making its own thyroid hormone, says Thomas Zoeller, director of the Laboratory of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Endocrinology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. If an environmental exposure to a substance such as a polychlorinated biphenyl or perchlorate interferes with the mother’s thyroid hormones in this period — as could happen through water pollution, for example — that could in turn affect her child at a critical stage of brain development.

Another thing to consider in the context of endocrine-disrupting chemical exposures, says Zoeller, is that a substantial portion of women of childbearing age in the U.S. have some iodine deficiency that may be suppressing their thyroid hormones. While these deficiencies may not be prompting clinically adverse effects, they may be sufficient to impair fetal neurodevelopment. “Impacts can happen at levels far below safety standards,” says Zoeller. And there are a great many chemicals to which such women may be exposed environmentally with the potential to affect thyroid hormones, among them PBDEs, PCBs, BPA, various pesticides, perfluorinated compounds and certain phthalates.

Something in the Air

One particularly concerning source of exposure to chemicals that are suspected to harm children’s brain development is air pollution, which is a complex mixture of various chemicals and particulate matter.
Research increasingly suggests that airborne contaminants can have subtle but significant effects on early neurological development and behavior.
Perera and colleagues recently investigated the links between exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, a fossil fuel–related component of air pollution, and incidence of ADHD in 9-year-olds. Their study found that mothers who were exposed to high levels of PAH during pregnancy were five times more likely to have children with ADHD and to have children with more severe ADHD symptoms than those who did not have such exposure. While this study is the first to make such a connection, it joins a growing body of research pointing to links between outdoor air pollutants, including PAHs, and adverse impacts on children’s brain health and development.

Looking at air pollution’s effects on brain health is relatively new, explains Kimberly Gray, health science administrator at the National Institutes of Health. Research increasingly suggests that airborne contaminants can have subtle but significant effects on early neurological development and behavior, she says. In addition to links between prenatal PAH exposure and impaired brain function, researchers are also now investigating potential connections between black carbon, volatile organic compounds and fine particulate matter — among other components of air pollution — and impairments such as autism and lowered IQ.

In a study published in December 2014, Marc Weisskopf, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health associate professor of environmental and occupational epidemiology, and colleagues looked at children whose mothers were exposed to high levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5, particles 2.5 microns in diameter or smaller), particularly during the third trimester of pregnancy. The study, which involved more than 1,000 participants living all across the U.S., found that these children appeared to be twice as likely to be diagnosed with autism as children whose mothers had only low levels of such exposures. Exposure to larger particles — between 2.5 and 10 microns (what’s known as PM10) — did not appear to be associated with increasing risk for autism.

“This is very important from an epidemiological point of view” because it “places a spotlight on the mother’s exposure,” says Weisskopf. It also highlights the importance of timing and neurodevelopmental effects. Although many other factors may contribute to autism, Weisskopf explains, this study strengthens the suggestion that environmental exposures can play a role. That it appears it is the very small particles that are associated with these effects adds to what other research is finding: What might seem quantitatively small can “be quite important” when it comes to affecting brain development, Weisskopf explains.

Columbia University researchers recently published an additional study linking common air pollutants to cognitive and behavioral impairment in children.

Widespread Exposure

As Grandjean and Landrigan point out, one of the disturbing recent realizations concerning environmental exposure to developmental neurotoxicants is how widespread exposure appears to be and the ubiquity of such compounds. “More neurotoxic chemicals are getting into products,” says Landrigan.

Phthalates, which are used as plasticizers — including in polyvinyl chloride plastics — and in synthetic fragrances and numerous personal care products, comprise one category of widely used chemicals that appear to have adverse impacts on brain development. Researchers at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health recently found that children exposed prenatally to elevated levels of certain phthalates had IQ scores that were, on average, between 6 and 8 points lower than children with lower prenatal exposures. Children with reduced IQ scores also appeared to have trouble with working memory, perceptional reasoning and information processing speeds.
“Pretty much everybody in the U.S. is exposed.”
— Robin Whyatt
The phthalates examined in this study, known as DnBP and DiBP, are used in numerous household products, including toiletries and cosmetics, among them shampoo, nail polish, lipstick, hair styling products and soap, as well as vinyl fabrics and dryer sheets. Exposure levels associated with reduced IQ in the study are within the range that the CDC reports finding in its National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a nationwide ongoing biomonitoring assessment of chemical exposures. “Pretty much everybody in the U.S. is exposed,” says study co-author Robin Whyatt, professor of environmental health sciences at Columbia University Medical Center.

While such a drop in IQ may sound small, Pam Factor-Litvak, the study’s lead author and associate professor of epidemiology at the Mailman School, notes that at the population — or classroom — level, this means fewer children at the high end of the intelligence scale and more at the less capable end. “The whole curve shifts downward,” she explains.

“Five or six IQ points may not sound like much, but it means more children requiring special education programs and fewer that are gifted,” says Maureen Swanson, Learning Disabilities Association of America’s Healthy Children Project director. “The potential economic impact is huge,” says NIEHS’s Birnbaum.

The Stress Factor

What prompts neurological disorders in children is “very complex,” notes Frederica Perera. Adding to the challenge of disentangling the various contributing factors is that while research on — and regulation of — chemicals typically looks at one substance at a time, people are exposed to multiple chemicals concurrently. Further adding to this complexity when it comes to brain development are social stresses that “act on the same part of the brain region,” explains University of Rochester professor of environmental medicine Deborah Cory-Slechta. She and others are finding increasing evidence that nonchemical stressors such as maternal, domestic and community distress can prompt adverse effects on early brain development, either on their own or in combination with neurotoxic chemicals.

Birnbaum says this apparent interaction between chemicals and nonchemical stressors is “very concerning and very important.”

Epidemiological studies, Cory-Slechta explains, typically correct for what are called confounding factors — other conditions that might influence the condition being measured. Many studies, she says, “are clearly not modeling what is going on in the human environment.” What she and her colleagues hope to do is “reproduce in animal studies what goes on in human communities,” particularly in communities that are most vulnerable to adverse social stressors and most exposed to chemical contaminants, including lead, pesticides and air pollution.

Lead and stress affect the same part of the brain, she says, and so can act synergistically very early in life to produce permanent changes in brain structure. These changes can result in lowered IQ, learning and behavioral problems.

Cory-Slechta’s lab is now working on replicating conditions of stress and chronic deprivation in animal models that would mirror those experienced by communities of poverty. The aim is to better understand how these effects cross the placenta and become the fetal basis of lifelong disorders. She and her colleagues are investigating, not only associations between exposures and neurodevelopment, but also the mechanisms by which effects occur.

What to Do?

Assuming we want to stop harming our children’s brains, how do we proceed?

An important step is to improve our ability to determine which chemicals have neurodevelopmental effects. A rapid screening system would be ideal, says Birnbaum, because there are so many chemicals — including newly invented ones — to which people are exposed. While such a program to test large numbers of chemicals quickly using robotics has been launched by NIH, EPA and other federal agencies, there are tens of thousands that may be in use, most of which have not been fully tested for these effects.

When it comes to reducing existing exposures, some chemicals can be avoided through consumer choice. But it’s often difficult, given that many of these substances are used — like BPA on receipts — in products that don’t carry ingredient labels. Others, including air pollutants, are much harder given their ubiquity or lack of available alternatives. And, as Maureen Swanson notes, such choices are not necessarily feasible for people at all economic levels, which raises environmental justice issues.

Grandjean and Landrigan point out that the U.S. system of chemical regulation, which lacks requirements for full premarket toxicity testing, does not do a very good job when it comes to proactive chemical safety. “Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity,” they wrote in an article published in The Lancet.

While some sources of neurotoxicity might appear to have been adequately addressed, they have not. For example, considerable progress has been made in curtailing lead exposure through policy and public health education in the U.S. and elsewhere. However, current understanding is that virtually any amount of lead exposure can cause damage, and harmful exposures continue — especially in countries where leaded paints and gasoline are still used . And in the U.S., CDC funding for lead prevention programs was dramatically reduced in 2012.
When it comes to protecting the exquisitely sensitive developing brain, the measures currently used to assess chemical risk and set safety standards fall short, says Cory-Slechta.
Meanwhile, children around the world — especially in less well-off countries — continue to be exposed to dangerous neurotoxicants released in industrial emissions, from waste sites and through child labor. Examples abound, and include exposures to chemicals released in electronics recycling in various locations in Asia and Africa, to lead and mercury from mining activity, to agricultural pesticides, to products contaminated with heavy metals, including food and candy.

When it comes to protecting the exquisitely sensitive developing brain, the measures currently used to assess chemical risk and set safety standards fall short, says Cory-Slechta. “It should be about primary prevention, but it’s not,” she says.

In the absence of what many environmental health advocates feel is adequate U.S. federal regulation of chemicals, many individual U.S. states have recently passed their own laws to protect children from harmful chemical exposures. Many address chemicals with neurotoxic effects, particularly those of heavy metals such as cadmium, lead and mercury. And even though some states are beginning to include language in their legislation to protect pregnant women from chemical hazards, this timing of exposure is left largely unaddressed.

While we now know a great deal about developmental neurotoxicants, more such exposures appear to be occurring than ever before. And there appears to be wide agreement among researchers that these exposures are taking a toll on the world’s children.

“To me it is very clear we have to set up a different system to better protect the brains of the future,” says Grandjean.

___________________
Elizabeth Grossman is an independent journalist and writer specializing in environmental and science issues. She is the author of Chasing Molecules, High Tech Trash, Watershed and other books. Her work has also appeared in a variety of publications, including Ensia, Scientific American, Yale e360, the Washington Post, TheAtlantic.com, Salon, The Nation, and Mother Jones. She tweets from @lizzieg1.


Reprinted with permission from Global Voices.


Wild Bee Decline A Sign of Europe's 'Ecological Disaster' — Study

(Photo: Umberto Salvagnin/flickr/cc)
(Photo: Umberto Salvagnin/flickr/cc)
By Deirdre Fulton
Nearly one in 10 European wild bee species is facing the threat of extinction, according to the first assessment of the continent's bee populations, published Thursday.

As environmentalists have long noted, bees and other pollinators are essential to the world's food supply, farming system, and environment. However, both in Europe and the U.S., they have been threatened by industrial agriculture practices, insecticides, and climate change, which causes more heavy rainfalls, droughts, and heat waves that can harm bees and their access to food.

Reuters reports:

Bees are vital to food production but are in decline in many parts of the world. There are 1,965 wild bee species in Europe and 9.2 percent of them are at risk of extinction while another 5.2 percent are likely to be threatened in the near future, according to the international study, funded by the European Commission.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) also said its study showed that 57 percent of all European bee species, which include types of bumblebees, honey bees and solitary bees, were so little known that it was impossible to judge whether they were at risk or not.

The implications of the study are quite troubling, said Karmenu Vella, head of the EU's Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Commission.

"Our quality of life—and our future—depends on the many services that nature provides for free," Vella said. "Pollination is one of these services, so it is very worrying to learn that some of our top pollinators are at risk. If we don’t address the reasons behind this decline in wild bees, and act urgently to stop it, we could pay a very heavy price indeed."

Environmental watchdogs such as Ariel Brunner, the head of EU policy at BirdLifeEurope, say the report should serve as "a wake up call to the ecological disaster that is unfolding in Europe's countryside."

Brunner told the Guardian, "It's very clear that something is going horribly wrong with our agricultural practices which are the main driver of these declines, whether it is increased pesticide use, the destruction and conversion of grasslands, or the loss of natural vegetation and intensified farming methods."

Echoing those remarks, Mark Brown of the School of Biological Sciences at Royal Holloway, University of London, told the BBC: "Bees need to be incorporated into how we think about and develop sustainable agriculture."

To that end, earlier this week, a coalition of U.S.-based conservation and food-safety groups submitted a formal notice of intent to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to consider the highly toxic impacts of a new systemic insecticide, flupyradifurone, on native pollinators such as butterflies and bees. The new insecticide would be especially harmful to imperiled, solitary bees like the blue orchard bee, the groups noted.




Reprinted with permission from Common Dreams.

When 1.3 Billion Become Environmental Refugees

Smog in Beijing. Image from Wikimedia.org (CC: AT)
Smog in Beijing. Image from Wikimedia.org (CC: AT)

Editor's note: This article was written by Chu Hon Kueng, an experienced environmental activist from Hong Kong. The Chinese version was published at inmediahk.net on January 24, 2015. This English version, translated by Serena Tsang, is published at Global Voices under a content partnership agreement.
By inmediahk.net, Translated by Serenology

I put forward the idea that China should move its capital when Beijing was covered by toxic smog early last year. A year has passed, and apart from the “shock therapy” of “APEC blue”, the air quality in Beijing is still sickening. While some people are worried that Beijing residents could turn into environmental refugees and run away, let's face the reality—the majority of mainland China's 1.3 billion people are, in fact, already environmental refugees.

This may sound like an exaggeration. The idea, however, that the whole of China's population are “environmental refugees” was posited some time ago by Feng Yongfeng, a pioneer environmentalist in who recently received the 2014 China Top Ten Social Change Maker award. Feng stated, “Nowadays in China, there are hardly any measures to save, appraise and aid the environmental refugees. They have to bear [the consequence of environmental pollution] entirely by themselves.”

The word “bear” is loaded one in China, where people have had to bear so many other costs of the country's economic progress. Today, China's urban population outnumbers its rural population. The basic needs of urban dwellers are simple: clean air, clean water, safe food and good transportation. Yet, in which city in China can you breathe clean air, drink clean water and find food without additives? Not to mention that most of the cities are surrounded by miles of jammed highways and garbage-dumping sites.

The term “refugee” usually refers to the victims of disasters, wars, religious and racial persecution, etc. In a nutshell, people who are forced away from their homes into exile. “Environmental refugees” are those forced out of their homelands by the degradation of environment. Here are two examples: The first is the Chernobyl disaster in 1980s, when hundreds of thousands of people within a 30km radium of the nuclear power station were evacuated. The second is the sinking of the South Pacific island nation Tuvalu due to the rise of sea levels resulting from global warming. The small country has had to appeal to its neighbors Australia and New Zealand for help.

In China, the threats resulting from environmental pollution will not kill people instantly. But they will spread like cancer cells in cities, towns and counties, through rivers and over mountains, slowly ruining ordinary people's health and quality of life. But you cannot excise or medicate away the effects of pollution from rivers and mountains the way you can some forms of cancer. The wealthy may seek foreign citizenship as a form of political insurance, but the majority of people who remain in China might either be insufficiently aware of the problem to run away from it, or simply don't have the capital to do so. Although it is unlikely that Chinese refugees will seek refuge worldwide, as in the political fable Yellow Peril, the prescription for the illness of environmental degradation will be a huge challenge to the country.

Even if there won't be a flood of environmental refugees in the near future, there's still reason to be anxious. Every year, in autumn and winter, Hong Kong's Air Pollution Index flies off the charts, an indication that the impact of pollution cannot be fenced off by borderlines. The “world's factory” of Zhujiang Delta, China's economic hub, might as well be called “the world's kitchen”. People earn handsome sums of money, while leaving toxic substances in the air, soil and water.

In South China, vast swaths of farmland are polluted by heavy metals, and who knows how many of the area's produce ends up in Hong Kong? The pigs, cattle and goats that imported into Hong Kong, what kind of feed and growth hormones are they fed with? For water the risk is lower, as we are selfishly pumping water directly from the less polluted Dongjiang River to Hong Kong through sealed water pipes. But who knows what will happen in the future?

Over the past few weeks, residents in Guangzhou have protesting the pollution of of their drinking water resources. A villager watering plants with reddish wastewater told a Mainland media reporter: “This is poisonous water and shouldn't be used for irrigation”. My friend in Mainland who runs a civil society organization sighed: “I am 35 years old. I cannot drink clean water in my hometown. In Guangzhou we can only drink water from Zhaoqing. I don’t know where my daughter will be able to find clean water when she is my age.”

Recently, in Northern Zhongshan City, residents surrounded and blocked a garbage incinerator that was polluting the environment. Instead, however, of pressing the own to improve the operation, local government officials arrested the residents. Supporters started a phone calling campaign and gathered outside the police station, but no one answered their demands and there was no response from the police station. The police even demanded that people to delete their social media posts about the incident before they would consider releasing those arrested.

Mainland China's only strategy to solve the problem of cities being surrounded by garbage-dumping sites is the building of incinerators all across the country. It's a business that is sure to make huge profits. Whether the facilities include proper pollution prevention measures is another story, which explains the repeated protests concerning the construction of garbage incinerators. According to Feng Yongen, the ones affected are refugees who failed to escape, and hence are forced “to bear [the consequences of environmental pollution] all by themselves.” Yet it also means that there will be no end to the protests.

The citizens of Hong Kong cannotsolve the pollution problem in China: the country is too vast, and some of the problems are structural. Yet, if this massive country cannot control its pollution, the whole world will be affected. We cannot simple sit still and watch each other die. We should seek to understand the problem and show our support for people's environmental protection actions. We could also make use of the official channel between Hong Kong and Guangdong that addresses regional environmental issues. To them we should express our concerns and request better monitoring of pollution, in order to prevent this cancer from spreading further.



Reprinted with permission from Global Voices.

Monsanto’s Deep Legacy Of Corruption and Cover-Up: The History of a Chemical Company

Photo by Donna Cleveland.
Photo by Donna Cleveland.
By Barbara Minton, Natural Society
Monsanto is now instantly recognized as the company dominating the global food supply with its more than 7000 current worldwide patents. But today’s Monsanto is not a corporate newcomer. Although its literature heralds the company as having a clear and principled code of conduct and a pledge to demonstrate integrity, respect, ethical behavior, and honesty in everything they do, the truth is that this company has a legacy of contamination and cover-up that dates back more than a century.

The Rise of one of ‘The Worst Corporations in the World’

At the turn of the 19th century, John Queeny founded Monsanto Chemical Works to produce such nefarious products as saccharin, synthetic vanillin, and laxative and sedative drugs. The company was well positioned as a leading force in the dawning American chemical industry.

From the 1920’s until the late 1960’s, Queeny’s son, Edgar Monsanto Queeny, expanded the company into a global franchise, and changed its name to Monsanto Chemical Company in 1933. He added sulfuric acid, PCBs, DDT, synthetic fibers, and an array of plastics that included polystyrene to the product line.

During this time, Monsanto also created Agent Orange, one of the herbicides and defoliants used by the U.S. military as part of its herbicidal warfare program, Operation Ranch Hand, during the Vietnam War from 1961 to 1971.

Agent Orange was a combination of equal parts of two herbicides, 2,4,5-T and 2,4-D. The 2,4,5-T used to produce Agent Orange threw off dioxin as a byproduct, a compound the World Health Organization classes as highly toxic. Dioxin can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage to the immune system, hormone disruption, and the initiation of cancer. Dioxin persists in the environment and accumulates in the body, even at minimal exposure.

In areas where Agent Orange was used, the concentration of dioxin was hundreds of times greater than the levels considered safe by the Environmental Protective Agency (EPA). This resulted in a host of terrible health consequences for anyone exposed. and led to decades of litigation during which Monsanto fought tooth and nail to avoid paying for the horrific damage military personnel suffered from. The class action case that followed was settled out of court in 1984 for $180 million, reportedly the latest settlement of its kind at the time.

Read: Sorry Monsanto – Organic Food Demand is Exploding
More than 60 years of Contamination and Cover Up
Dioxin Leak at Nitro – $93 Million Settlement

From 1929 until 1995, Monsanto operated a chemical plant in the small town of Nitro, West Virginia, where it manufactured Agent Orange. In 1949, a pressure valve blew on a tank of the herbicide, sending plumes of smoke and vapors containing dioxin throughout the town, coating residents and the homes they lived in with powdery residue.

In a short time, some people developed skin eruptions and were diagnosed with an enduring and disfiguring condition known as chloracne. Others had prolonged pain extending from their chest to their feet. According to a medical report following the explosion, “It caused a systemic intoxication in the workers involving most major organ systems.”

Monsanto’s reaction? The company down-played it, claiming the chemical was slow-acting and just a minor irritant.

To get rid of the dioxin, the company dumped it into storm drains, streams and sewers, and stored it in landfills. Dioxin persisted in waterways and in the fish that lived in them. When residents sued for damages, they were told by Monsanto that their allegations had no merit and that the company would defend itself vigorously.

The residents of Nitro or their descendants finally received $93 million from Monsanto in 2012.

PCBs Contaminate the Town of Anniston, Alabama

PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are used in many industries as hydraulic fluids, sealants, and lubricants. These chemicals have been demonstrated to cause cancer, as well as a variety of other adverse health effects on the immune, reproductive, nervous, and endocrine systems.

Monsanto’s plant in Anniston, Alabama produced PCBs from 1929 to 1971. Since then, tons of contaminated soil have been hauled away from the plant, but the site continues to be one of the most highly polluted areas in the country.

Why was it such a mess? During its production years, waste PCBs were dumped into a nearby open landfill, poured into a creek that ran alongside the plant, or just allowed to run off the property during storms. During those years, the townspeople drank from their wells, ate fish they caught, and swam in the creeks, oblivious of the PCBs. When public awareness began to mount, authorities found high levels of PCBs all over the place, and in the bodies of those people, where it will remain forever.

In 1966, a Monsanto biologist testing waterways near the Anniston plant found that when live fish were added to the water, “All 25 fish lost equilibrium and turned on their sides in 10 seconds and all were dead in 3 1/2 minutes.”

In 1970, the FDA found high levels of PCBs in fish near the Anniston plant, and Monsanto jumped into cover-up mode. A leaked internal memo from a company official outlined steps for the company to take to limit disclosure. The strategy called for engaging public officials to fight the battle for them. “Joe Crockett, Secretary of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission will try to handle the problem quietly without release of the information to the public at this time,” the memo promised.

A statement eventually released from Monsanto’s world headquarters in St. Louis stated, “Quoting both plant management and the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, the PCB problem was relatively new, was being solved by Monsanto and, at this point, was no cause for public alarm.”

The class action suit for Anniston was finally settled in 2003, when Monsanto was forced to pay $700 million.

More PCBs Dumped into the Environment

In 1977, Monsanto closed its PCB plant in Whales, but not before dumping thousands of tons of waste into the quarry of the town of Groesfaen. Authorities there say the site is still one of the most contaminated in Britain.

Internal papers indicate that Monsanto knew about the PCB dangers as early as 1953, when toxicity tests on the effects of PCBs killed more than 50% of the lab rats subjected to them. In 2011, Monsanto reluctantly agreed to help in the clean up after an environmental agency found 67 chemicals at the quarry site that were exclusively manufactured by Monsanto. Yet that effort remained underfunded and the quarry remains contaminated.

The Guardian reported that Monsanto wrote an abatement plan in 1969 which admitted “the problem involves the entire United States, Canada, and sections of Europe, especially the UK and Sweden.”

Navy Rejects Monsanto Product Because it was ‘Too Toxic’

Monsanto tried to sell its hydraulic fluid, known as Pydraul 150, to the navy in 1956, and supplied test results in their sales pitch. But the navy decided to do its own testing, and the company was informed that there would be no sale because the product proved to be too toxic. In an internal memo divulged during a court proceeding, Monsanto’s medical director stated that“no matter how we discussed the situation, it was impossible to change their thinking that Pydraul 150 is just too toxic for use in submarines.”

Monsanto Moves into Food, Biotechnology

Monsanto’s move into biotech began in the 1970’s, and in 1983 the first genetic modification of a plant cell had been achieved. Synthetic bovine growth hormone (rBST) was on the horizon. Monsanto’s public relations department portrayed GM seeds as a panacea for alleviating poverty and feeding the hungry. In 1985, the company bought NutraSweet artificial sweetener, a branded version of aspartame – the compound responsible for 75% of the complaints reported to the FDA’s adverse reaction monitoring system.

Monsanto Seeks Clean Image, Creates Solutia

In the late 1990’s, Monsanto created a new company known as Solutia, and off-loaded its chemical and fiber businesses. L. Bartlett and James B. Steele, chronicling the rise of Monsanto for Vanity Fair magazine, noted the reason for the spinoff was to channel the bulk of Monsanto’s mounting chemical lawsuits and liabilities into the spun-off company, thereby creating a clean image for Monsanto. Solutia became Monsanto’s solution!

As the company, now known simply as Monsanto, moves through the 21st century, it has a ‘new cleaned-up image,’ and a fine sounding mission statement. It refers to itself as a relatively new company that promotes sustainable agriculture and delivering products that support farmers around the world.

Except Monsanto is the 3rd most hated company in the world.

Monsanto’s legacy of contamination and cover-up should be a wake up call for you to run from the GMOs they have spawned. Remember the old adage that says leopards can’t change their spots?



Reprinted with permission from Center for Research in Globalization.

Climate Change – Point of No Return

"A Scorched and Burnt Future Earth" (Illustration by Kevin Gill)
"A Scorched and Burnt Future Earth" (Illustration by Kevin Gill)

The Russian Arctic belches deadly methane as global warming pushes the biosphere beyond the tipping point. We have a choice: revolution or extinction. “The profit motive must be eliminated in favor of managed economies that limit growth, fairly distribute resources, regulate the polluting industries and activities, and end the gross inequalities of this gilded age.


By Margaret Kimberley, BAR
“A temperature rise of only two degrees centigrade is enough to make permafrost thaw and begin a chain of terrible events.”
Time’s up, or so planet earth seems to be telling humanity. Extreme weather conditions around the globe, including rising temperatures, droughts, crop failures, melting sea ice, rising sea levels, disappearing glaciers and the loss of plant and animal species all point in only one direction. The tipping point towards the sixth great extinction is taking place right now.

It is clear that these problems are all human made. Rising carbon dioxide levels caused by fossil fuel emissions are creating a series of catastrophes in ecosystems around the world. The processes are clear to anyone who pays attention.

Two large craters, one more than 200 feet in diameter, were recently discovered in the remote Yamal peninsula of northern Russia. In an extreme case of irony, Yamal is said to mean “end of the world” in the local Nenets language. Scientists have concluded that the holes were formed when a mixture of salt, water and natural methane gas exploded underground. They theorize that rising temperatures made the permafrost unstable and released methane, the key ingredient in the explosions. A temperature rise of only two degrees centigrade is enough to make permafrost thaw and begin a chain of terrible events.
“The tipping point towards the sixth great extinction is taking place right now.”
All of the bad news is relevant as the United Nations prepares to host a Climate Summit on September 23, 2014 in New York. Past climate conferences haven’t provided much in the way of relief, as the United States and other industrialized nations subverted the 2009 Copenhagen climate accords. The supposedly environmentalist president Barack Obama and his European cohorts forced an agreement that allowed a two degrees increase in temperature. This seemingly small amount will kill humans and other species and brought the giant holes to Siberia and now more dangerously, methane from the sea. Climatologist Jason Box recently made this pithy comment on Twitter. “If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we're f'd.”

As the situation is dire, so must the solutions be truly radical. The free for all of capitalism is deadly in so many ways as financial collapse, exploitation and wars bring misery to millions of people. Money is the problem and not individual decision making. We may feel useful when recycling trash or driving hybrid vehicles but these are bandages when the world needs major surgery. “Green capitalism” is doomed because capitalism can’t be green. The imperative to maximize profits is in direct conflict with environmental and human sustainability. The profit motive must be eliminated in favor of managed economies that limit growth, fairly distribute resources, regulate the polluting industries and activities, and end the gross inequalities of this gilded age.

Money is the elephant in the climate change room. Corporations are beholden to no one but themselves, only claiming to be like human beings when they really want to get their way with governments and citizens around the world. “Corporate personhood” is a one way street and everything from income inequality to planetary destruction is the proof.
“Green capitalism is doomed because capitalism can’t be green.”
Recently residents of Toledo, Ohio and southeast Michigan literally had no water to drink for three days. A combination of sewage, live stock manure, and fertilizer run-off create algae blooms which spread more rapidly because of rising temperatures. If the amount of algae grows enough it contaminates drinking water from lake Erie. The causes of this recurring problem are well known but the obvious solution of regulating the businesses responsible for the problems doesn’t happen and the inaction is a direct result of corporate power flexing political muscle. The Fertilizer Institute is the industry lobby which makes sure that neither federal nor local regulators restrict the use of fertilizers which deprived 500,000 people of drinkable water. Acquiescence to corporate interest makes life itself untenable.

Unfortunately, the elites will not suffer in the collapse as much as the rest of us will. Poor Detroit residents live with the threat of a privatization plan which begins with the loss of access to water, while golf courses and publicly financed stadiums owe the city $30 million in unpaid water bills without facing any loss of this resource. On the very same day that struggling people were forced to accept pension cuts, the wealthy owners of the Detroit Red Wings hockey team unveiled plans for a publicly financed stadium and said nothing about paying the overdue water bill at Joe Louis arena.

The 1% will make the rest of us suffer slowly before suffering at all themselves. They will still get plenty of water, or energy, or land or whatever the rest of us lack. The end will not come as Hollywood tells us, with a sudden cataclysm. It is moving surely but slowly enough to keep some people safe while others suffer.
“Maintaining the status quo means the end of life on the planet.”
The People’s Climate March scheduled to take place on September 21 in New York cannot be just a feel good precursor to the United Nations meeting. It must have as part of its agenda a critique of the world financial system. The criminals who must be exposed aren’t just in New York and London either. India and China poison the air and their citizens in a mad dash to catch up with the other industrial polluters of the world.

There are many villains in this story but there is only one important point. Maintaining the status quo means the end of life on the planet. The 1% will limit their exposure for a time but eventually the end will come for them too.

All of the bad news is relevant as the United Nations prepares to host a Climate Summit on September 23, 2014 in New York. Past climate conferences haven’t provided much in the way of relief, as the United States and other industrialized nations subverted the 2009 Copenhagen climate accords. The supposedly environmentalist president Barack Obama and his European cohorts forced an agreement that allowed a two degrees increase in temperature. This seemingly small amount will kill humans and other species and brought the giant holes to Siberia and now more dangerously, methane from the sea. Climatologist Jason Box recently made this pithy comment on Twitter. “If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we're f'd.”

As the situation is dire, so must the solutions be truly radical. The free for all of capitalism is deadly in so many ways as financial collapse, exploitation and wars bring misery to millions of people. Money is the problem and not individual decision making. We may feel useful when recycling trash or driving hybrid vehicles but these are bandages when the world needs major surgery. “Green capitalism” is doomed because capitalism can’t be green. The imperative to maximize profits is in direct conflict with environmental and human sustainability. The profit motive must be eliminated in favor of managed economies that limit growth, fairly distribute resources, regulate the polluting industries and activities, and end the gross inequalities of this gilded age.

Money is the elephant in the climate change room. Corporations are beholden to no one but themselves, only claiming to be like human beings when they really want to get their way with governments and citizens around the world. “Corporate personhood” is a one way street and everything from income inequality to planetary destruction is the proof.
“Green capitalism is doomed because capitalism can’t be green.”
Recently residents of Toledo, Ohio and southeast Michigan literally had no water to drink for three days. A combination of sewage, live stock manure, and fertilizer run-off create algae blooms which spread more rapidly because of rising temperatures. If the amount of algae grows enough it contaminates drinking water from lake Erie. The causes of this recurring problem are well known but the obvious solution of regulating the businesses responsible for the problems doesn’t happen and the inaction is a direct result of corporate power flexing political muscle. The Fertilizer Institute is the industry lobby which makes sure that neither federal nor local regulators restrict the use of fertilizers which deprived 500,000 people of drinkable water. Acquiescence to corporate interest makes life itself untenable.

Unfortunately, the elites will not suffer in the collapse as much as the rest of us will. Poor Detroit residents live with the threat of a privatization plan which begins with the loss of access to water, while golf courses and publicly financed stadiums owe the city $30 million in unpaid water bills without facing any loss of this resource. On the very same day that struggling people were forced to accept pension cuts, the wealthy owners of the Detroit Red Wings hockey team unveiled plans for a publicly financed stadium and said nothing about paying the overdue water bill at Joe Louis arena.

The 1% will make the rest of us suffer slowly before suffering at all themselves. They will still get plenty of water, or energy, or land or whatever the rest of us lack. The end will not come as Hollywood tells us, with a sudden cataclysm. It is moving surely but slowly enough to keep some people safe while others suffer.
“Maintaining the status quo means the end of life on the planet.”
The People’s Climate March scheduled to take place on September 21 in New York cannot be just a feel good precursor to the United Nations meeting. It must have as part of its agenda a critique of the world financial system. The criminals who must be exposed aren’t just in New York and London either. India and China poison the air and their citizens in a mad dash to catch up with the other industrial polluters of the world.

There are many villains in this story but there is only one important point. Maintaining the status quo means the end of life on the planet. The 1% will limit their exposure for a time but eventually the end will come for them too.

The only optimistic point is that past extinctions always left some life on earth. The human survivors of the future will dissect the reasons that most of their species died out. Hopefully they will conclude that restarting industrial society is a bad idea which shouldn’t be repeated.

______________

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com. Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

 Reprinted with permission from Black Agenda Report.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...