Your Email:
Your Name:
To:
Subject:
Message: Gore: Crisis of Citizenship Impedes Addressing Environmental Crises By Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse (at http://www.dailykos.com — borrowed without permission but with good intentions) Last month Al Gore discussed how our democracy crisis is impeding our efforts to address the climate crisis. As Gandhi said, "We must become the change we want to see" in the world. Gore stated that we can not solve the climate crisis until we solve the crisis of citizenship and democracy. The outcome we desire for global warming or any environmental issue is not going to be achieved by our beliefs unless it is accompanied by new behavior of citizen involvement at both the personal and political levels. Behavioral changes are good, like conservation, but Gore stated that it is more important to change the laws. Changing laws requires acknowledging an urgency of the environmental crises we face. Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse's diary :: :: We have not yet acknowledged that urgency with global warming. 68% of Americans agree that global warming is caused by human activity and 69% believe the earth is heating up in a significant way. However, we are missing that sense of urgency, which is reflected in the fact that global warming and environmental issues are ranked at the bottom of issues of importance. What we can do to move toward establishing that sense of urgency needed to trigger active citizenship which then triggers solving environmental issues is to understand the facts and analyze the issues. Once we agree upon the facts and analysis, then we must take action to change our political culture. This happened in Australia, which faced such a devastating drought that the people unified in a campaign to "lift the sense of urgency for the people about global warming and drought." The campaign included participation by newspaper, TV, radio and the internet, and it created the sense of urgency that led to a changed government with a new prime minister whose first action was to change position on global warming by ratifying Kyoto. Gore warned that we can not wait until we face water shortages like the drought in Australia. Gore's road map to resolve an environmental crisis makes sense. We must be informed, understand and agree on the facts of the particular environmental crisis. Acknowledging the environmental crisis has been sufficient to trigger some personal involvement in conservation, but not sufficient to trigger substantial conservation efforts and not sufficient to trigger sufficient political citizen action to change the political culture in DC so that laws are changed. So, we need agreement on the facts of the environmental crisis + some extreme in-your-face event (like a severe drought) to trigger the sense of urgency that leads to campaigns or movements to change the political culture. The extreme event apparently must be either an event with national impact or a regional crisis for which people nationwide can identify. I say this because Katrina did not trigger any campaign or movement to change laws to remedy the natural or man-made disasters in NOLA. Years of massive environmental disasters in Appalachia have similarly been met with silence. Gore is right that we can not wait for a drought like Australia. However, something is preventing public recognition of a sense of urgency with environmental issues. One obstacle is that many environmental issues are usually implicitly (if not also expressly) mocked as simply a liberal "tree hugger" issue that really is not important, but simply a case of tree hugger activists who have too much spare time on their hands. We can see this to some extent with the global warming deniers who have been effective in delaying action by decreasing political will to take effective action. We can also see this at DK. We often express our frustration that the Dems don't listen to our voices to take effective measures on global warming and other environmental issues. But how can we expect DC to listen to our voices when we don't listen to our voices here at DK? Environmental diarists at DK have been writing about every facet of every environmental issue, yet there is very little discussion. If we can not generate discussion here in the best of forums with a liberal and progressive audience, how can we reach the public or DC? We need to change the bad press that attaches to environmental issues. This requires widespread dissemination of the reasons why environmental issues are not tree hugger status but issues of life and death, human rights, healthcare, economy and justice. As A Siegel noted, the impacts from failure to address global warming may include derailing our progressive agenda: Every Progressive should recognize and incorporate, deep in their soul, the plain fact: Peak and Global Warming are the most serious threats to Progressive ideals, concepts, policies, and aspirations through the 21st century ... AND today. These are not just let’s wait until tomorrow issues, that should be put in the back of the line to deal with after other issues, we must address them with urgency today if we hope for a progressive world. Without better energy policies starting now, the future could be bleak economically for decades to come with the impending strike of Peak Oil. Amid recessions and depressions, what happens to mental health programs? What happens to music in the classrooms? Training programs for economically disadvantaged among us? Will there be funding for these and other progressive causes? I doubt it. Don’t you? With ever-increasing environmental stresses, global refugee and food crises, multiple-Katrina-like challenges and choices over whether to protect or abandon America’s coastal infrastructure, will Head Start funding be secure? Will Americans focus on expanding GLBT rights? Will there these and other progressive concerns be the top of the agenda? I doubt it. Don’t you? It is clear that many rank some environmental issues lower on the scale of priorities than war, health care, telecom immunity etc. We need to keep informing the public that environmental issues affect how and if we live and the quality of our life which is a national issue of urgency. Many Americans are already "dead men walking" with disease and death time bombs in our bodies from all the pollutants in our air, soil, water and food. American corporations are permitted by our government to plant the ticking time bombs of pollutants in our bodies while our government neglects the tens of thousands of Americans who become ill or die each year. But, if we were shocked and angered by a few thousand killed on 9/11, how can we not be shocked and angered sufficient to take action to stop the sickening and dying of thousands of Americans each year. The scary part is that our government standards of safe levels of exposure create a false sense of security. We do not need massive doses of pollutants or a toxic bomb to harm us – chronic exposure at low levels is our "World Trade Center in slow motion." If we can convey the facts that environmental pollution is not a matter of liberal "tree-hugging," but a matter of survival and quality of life as well as implementation of a progressive agenda, then maybe we can create the sense of urgency needed to move from silent acceptance to action. Here are a few reasons why we need to move toward changing laws: 1. US pollutants killing the Inuit in Arctic. The US has released pollutants and toxins into our environment and these poisons were carried north by sea currents and weather patterns, contaminating sea animals eaten by the Inuit and the water they drink. Researchers have documented for the first time that "unacceptable levels" of environmental toxins are in the bodies of some of the Inuit. The level of contamination in the animals and in mothers' breast milk is exponentially higher than that level deemed to be hazardous waste when found in soil. 2. Our bodies are contaminated by chemicals and pesticides that pollute our air, water, food and land. Please meet Patricia, Denis and Deb. They were part of a group from Washington state who volunteered blood, urine and hair samples to be tested for eight classes of chemicals. They are not "walking toxic waste dumps" yet, but the level of pesticides and chemicals in their bodies "were high enough to make both scientists and subjects sit up and take notice." "Dr. Patricia Dawson, 56, a Seattle surgeon, had the dubious honor of having 38 chemicals detected in her chemical profile. Her PBDE levels were near those found to cause reproductive problems in laboratory animals. Her levels of DDT (banned since 1972) were greater than 90 percent of the U.S. population. Denis Hayes, president of the Bullitt Foundation and a founder of Earth Day, was found to have mercury above a level deemed safe by the Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury has the potential for causing learning deficits. Deb Abrahamson, 51, a Native American living on the Spokane Indian Reservation, and the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, 54, of Seattle, were found to have very high levels of pesticides." 3. In 2005, the World Bank issued a report that linked cancers to environmental conditions. "For almost all forms of cancer, the risk of contracting this disease can be reduced if physical environments are safe for human habitation and food items are safe for consumption." Certain illnesses have increased over the past few decades: Autism has increased tenfold, one type of leukemia increased by 62%, male birth defects doubled and childhood brain cancer increased by 40%. And, another study claims to have linked chemical pollutants used to manufacture products as a contributing factor to "soaring rates of breast cancer." 4. Our government does not know what constitutes a "safe" level of pollutant. How many times how we heard our government or a corporation say, "hey, don't worry about this particular pollutant that you are drinking, eating or breathing because it's usage is at a safe level?" Our government operates under the assumption that any pollutant has a safe level which may be discharged into our environment for ultimate consumption by us. In fact, only 25% of the chemicals used in the US have ever been tested for toxicity. That means 75% of the chemicals are released into our environment and homes without any testing for toxicity. We are the guinea pigs who ultimately determine what constitutes a safe level of exposure. 5. There are few studies which address what damage is caused by "chronic low-level exposure to the pollutants." Our government permits a specified quantity of a particular chemical to be released into our environment under the assumption that the particular chemical is not harmful unless we are exposed to a higher dosage. This ignores the fact that chronic exposure to low levels of pollutants can be just as harmful as a one-time exposure to the same pollutant at a higher dosage. One study suggested that "day-to-day exposure to relatively low levels of pollution can cause permanent damage." 6. What are the side-effects of mixing chemicals, pesticides and pollutants in our bodies? Even if we tested pollutants before releasing into our air, water, food and land, what about testing for the harmful side effects of mixing the pollutants together? Doctors often warn us to not mix certain prescriptions together because one drug may be safe, but when combined with another drug a harmful result may occur. What about the different permutations of all the chemicals, pesticides and pollutants in our bodies? The impact of mixing pollutants was an issue with the pet food recall when the chemical melamine was found to be the contaminant that killed cats and dogs. Melamine was also found in the human food chain, but we were told not to worry because melamine is not supposed to be a "highly toxic" chemical. Interesting, but melamine's interaction with other chemicals inside the food can make it a killer agent. One explanation for the deaths may be the toxic effect of mixing presumably not-so-toxic chemicals together: Now, however, scientists studying the pet food deaths say the combination of the two chemicals, mixed together with perhaps some other related compounds, may have created a toxic punch that formed crystals in the kidneys of pets and led to kidney failure." Few studies have been done to determine the negative interactions of chemicals that have been mixed together. For example, the California Dept. of Health Services warns workers that if they are exposed to more than one chemical, then they should be aware of the possible reactions and interactions between the chemicals which can make "safe" levels of chemicals more harmful. However, "unfortunately, few chemicals have been tested to determine if interactions with other chemicals occur." The failure to conduct studies on the mixing of chemicals is made worse by the fact that a chemical may have a latency period of years, even 4 decades, before the toxic effect, such as cancer, occurs. The latency period may be so many years that it will be difficult for us to prove that a company or our government is responsible for our illness or death. This is just backwards. Companies should have to prove that their pollutants are safe before they are released into our air, water, homes and offices. 7. According to a study, mercury contaminates every link of our food chain. For years, the EPA has issued advisories not to eat contaminated fish. The EPA's 2004 advisory covered more than 1/3 of our lakes and nearly ¼ of our rivers. The EPA assured us that mercury pollution levels were dropping, citing a 45% decrease during the papa Bush and Clinton years. The EPA did not provide more recent figures – for good reason. The number of miles of river and acres of lakes that have been subject to mercury advisories has increased substantially during the Bush term. Consequently, in 2000, there were 155 safe-eating advisories when Bush assumed office in Jan. 2001, but that number increased to 1,213 in 2004. Our food chain is now contaminated with a toxic cycle that follows the path of companies, like coal-burning power plants, discharging mercury into an ecosystem (ocean, forest, waters, wetlands) where species become contaminated. Then, we eat the contaminated turkeys or chickens which ate the contaminated little insects. And, then our contaminated bodies become sick from a range of likely illnesses, such as kidney or neurological damage. 8. Our water supplies are contaminated by a variety of chemicals and pollutants. One particularly disturbing case involves massive underground plumes of TCE, an industrial chemical that the public is exposed to when they drink water, shower or breathe air in their homes from TCE vapors intruding from the soil. After 4 years of study, senior EPA scientists issued a risk assessment in 2001 that TCE was 40 times more likely to cause cancer than previously believed. The data show that detectable levels of TCE exist in 9-34% of the nation's drinking water sources and 1 in 10 Americans may have detectable levels of TCE in their blood. Instead of imposing tough standards to limit public exposure to TCE, Bush used his corporate bean-counter mentality to delay for years. For 2 years, the EPA battled the Pentagon, Energy Dept. and NASA which appealed directly to the White House for protection because each agency had contaminated sites. So, the White House had its anti-EPA "working group" -- comprised of officials from Pentagon, Energy Dept. and NASA -- review the issue and decide that another study was needed. The Pentagon demanded more proof that TCE causes cancer even though 6 state, federal and international agencies classified TCE as a "probable carcinogen" and California classified as a "known carcinogen." In the summer of 2006, the new study concluded that the EPA was correct and that "evidence on cancer and other health risks from TCE exposure has strengthened since 2001," when the EPA issued its assessment. So, during the 5 year delay alone, more Americans were further exposed to a carcinogen simply because limiting public exposure would require treatment facilities costing billions of dollars. The Pentagon alone has 1,400 sites contaminated with TCE. One such contaminated site is at Camp Lejeune in California: "Tens of thousands of Marine families were exposed to TCE in the base's drinking water supply. A preliminary study has found elevated rates of leukemia among children conceived at the base. The TCE was discovered in 1980 but not disclosed until 1985." In 2006, a U.S. Geological Survey study concluded that most of our rivers and streams – and the fish – are "contaminated with pesticides linked to cancer, birth defects and neurological disorders, but not at levels that can harm humans." 9. Air pollution is causing the premature deaths of 60,000 Americans each year or around 20 times the number of Americans killed by terrorists on 9/11. Even the EPA admits that air pollution causes cancer, warning that the air pollution in NY is so bad that its residents face higher cancer risks than any other state: 68 of every 1 million New Yorkers faces the "risk of contracting cancer from breathing the air during his or her lifetime." California holds 2nd place with 66 residents per million and the national average is 41.5 per million. States dangerously high on air pollution include Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Washington, Louisiana, New Jersey, Maryland, Arizona, Texas, Wisconsin, Ohio, and parts of Florida. However, these figures are based on 177 chemical emissions from 1999, and, given that Bush has relaxed air pollution standards, the cancer risk may be more widespread now. 10. Scientists warn that a global "silent pandemic" of chemical pollutants may have "harmed the brains of millions of children" by increasing medical conditions, such as Parkinson's disease. Moreover, we may be damaging the "brain development of future generations" by not regulating exposure to "at least 202 chemicals ... known to have the capacity to damage the brain and their effects at low levels of exposure are unknown." 11. By our silence, we are letting mining companies use our limited supply of streams and lakes as dumping grounds for toxic waste. This is happening in Appalachia, the Western US and in foreign countries. We have a limited supply of streams and lakes while many states face water shortages, yet we let our government authorize companies to transform our waterways into dump sites. Our government says, don't worry, because the mining companies must create a stream to replace those streams which they have killed. However, these man-made streams don't have the ecological functions served by natural streams, which means less species will live in these waters, which means less food down the road. Despite these water shortages, we allow oil and gas companies to discharge waste water produced during exploration and production into injection wells, which removes this water from our hydrologic cycle. As TXsharon stated: "Each year approximately 3,066,000,000,000 gallons of water is permanently removed from our hydrologic cycle causing a deficit in our available water budget." If sickness and death to thousands of people each year, contamination of our food chain, pollution of our air and water, and depletion of our water supplies is not cause for a sense of urgency, then what is? www.corporateknightsforum.com