|
from Anonymous Source July 28, 2001
BEWARE THE DIGITAL LANDLORDS!
An Open Letter to Internet Users
The Internet's
Openness and Diversity Are at Risk!
Jeff Chester closely follows the AOL-Time
Warner merger, and
other issues, as Executive
Director of the Center for Media Education.
Features
Dear Internet
User:
The Internet has become a medium on which many
of us now
depend, for communications,
information, and even for
entertainment. It
has become essential in so many ways -- from
sending messages to loved ones to finding
information useful
for our personal lives. The
Net has become important to the
economy as
well, as the rise of the dot-com world illustrates.
Finally, the Internet is a vital outlet for
the range of news
and perspectives beyond what
is covered by the established,
mega-merged media
marketplace.
For all these reasons the ability of all of us
to surf the
Internet at will -- to roam and
discover a diversity of voices
and alternative
viewpoints, and to innovate on what we find --
is too important to limit. Yet this is what's
at stake right
now in Washington as the future
shape of the 'net is
determined.
That's because the very nature of the Internet
-- and the fair
and commonsense rules that
govern its existence and use --are
being
deliberately changed by a handful of media giants.
Companies such as AT&T, Time Warner (and
its proposed merger
partner America Online)
seek to become gatekeepers over the
Internet,
just as they are now the gatekeepers of cable
television. These self-proclaimed "Lords of
the Net" want to be
able to decide who has
access to the Internet, under what
terms, and
the manner in which users will be able to retrieve
such content.
Can any single entity control the Internet?
With its thousands of service
providers, millions of Web sites,
and billions
of pages, how is it possible for any single entity
to control the Internet? That's because the
Internet itself is
changing, moving toward a
new high-speed, cable-based
"broadband" system.
The Internet as we've known it is being
replaced by new
consumer services that combine
data delivery with TV and other
video
programming (and eventually local and long-distance
telephony, too). Such bundled, broadband
service, combining the
power of the computer
with the simplicity of television, will
eventually become the standard way the
Internet will be
delivered to our homes. Cable
conglomerates are exploiting this
new
environment in order to transform the public and open
nature of the Internet into a closed,
proprietary system.
Today's "dial-up" net
access, meanwhile, which uses a plain
phone line, will
become a second-class service.
Although telephone companies (with DSL
connections) and soon
wireless services also
compete for broadband subscribers, cable
operators dominate that market. Cable's "big,
fat, pipe, " as
the Washington Post called it,
is perfect for delivering faster
Internet
access. Unfortunately, just as the cable industry has
a near-monopoly in every community, with one
company
controlling access to such channels as
ESPN and CNN, it wants
similar control over
high-speed Internet access as well.
Cable sees huge profits, naturally, in
controlling these new
broadband pipelines.
AT&T has spent $90 billion in the last
three years to become the nation's largest
cable company. AOL
is swallowing Time Warner
in a merger worth $350 billion. And
former
Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen has anted up more than
$7 billion to buy cable systems in an effort
to cash in on the
new cable-controlled
Internet marketplace. Even Allen's former
partner, Bill Gates, has made cable a
significant investment
for Microsoft. These
media giants know that under current law,
those companies that own the cable wire can
also control how we
all use the Internet.
Trading "open access" for manipulated access.
Today's telephone-based Internet is required
by law to be an
"open" system. Telephone
companies are prohibited from
dictating how,
or by whom, Internet service is delivered. As a
result, there are more than 7,000 different
companies in the
U.S., known as ISPs (Internet
Service Providers), that offer
Net access. The
"open access" of the current Internet has
allowed anyone to publish and create content,
spawning the rich
tapestry of commercial
(".com"), educational (".edu"), and
nonprofit
(".org") offerings. This "open-access" requirement
for the Internet has been called the "golden
goose" by leading
financial analysts, who
recognize it as the main driver of
economic
growth online. With no one in control, everyone has
had a chance to create content, to offer new
services or
information, and
perhaps to prosper.
But the cable industry isn't required to
adhere to the same
"open access" requirements
that govern the local telephone
companies. The
cable company that owns the wire can thus decide
what news and information sources it wants to
offer. Not having
to open up its wires to
competitive ISPs, cable providers
effectively
control how its customers get Net access. By
placing its own and its affiliates' content in
favored
on-screen positions, and by dictating
which start pages, search
engines, and email
services customers may use, the cable
company
is positioned to reap huge financial rewards at the
user's expense.
In a chilling blueprint of this bleak future,
the Cisco
Corporation, which is helping build
the high-speed Net for
cable, has described
ways that network operators can manipulate
Internet to their own advantage, impeding
access to
unaffiliated Web sites, for example,
while expediting delivery
of proprietary
material. In other words, cable companies will
be able to make its own Internet services fast
and reliable,
while competing sites-or those
that the company finds
disagreeable for any
reason-could get second-class service. In
the
process, many of these services will effectively be
banished from the
mainstream byways of electronic life.
It is this manipulation of access which so
unnerved European
Commission regulators, who
recently included their concerns in
a publicly
released preliminary opinion on the AOL-Time Warner
merger. The merged AOL, the Europeans said,
could trap its
customers in a "cul de sac"
that could limit their ready access
to the
rest of the Internet. [Editor's note: Click here to see
TomPaine.com's related
story.]
Time Warner unwittingly offered a televised
preview of such
monopolistic behavior last
May, when it abruptly dropped ABC
network
programming from several of its cable systems across
the country, in a dispute with ABC's owner,
the Walt Disney
Company. If the country's
second largest cable company can pull
the plug
on the nation's most successful TV network, imagine
what it will do to Internet content coming
from much smaller
competitors.
In fact, the cable industry has openly
described its plans to
build "walled gardens"
of online programming. or think of them
as
"gated communities" that reduce the Internet to a narrow
menu of choices. This garden would be more
like a digital
prison, a place where the
cable-company ISP uses its control
over the
technology to keep you and your families watching the
websites, content, and ads all owned by or
affiliated with them
and their partners. The
Internet as we know it, in the words of
one
AT&T executive, will be available only through a "back
door" in the system, beyond the reach of all
but the most
technologically
sophisticated users.
The nation's leading consumer and civil
liberties groups are
opposing cable's
plans.
Consumer's Union, the Consumer Federation of
America, the ACLU,
and others have asked the
government to require open cable
access. They
want the high-speed Net to be as nondiscriminatory
and open as the 'net we use today. But the
cable lobby, with
such political powerhouses
as AOL, AT&T and Time Warner, have
lobbied
against this proposal. Ironically, until AOL announced
its plans to merge with Time Warner last
January, it was in the
forefront of those
fighting for a cable open-access
requirement.
But as soon as it became a cable landlord itself,
AOL quickly renounced its support for an
open-access policy,
promising that the
"market" itself would provide a solution.
But the principles of open access and
nondiscriminatory
transport are too important
to leave to the play of market
forces alone.
We need a fair and open Internet -- to ensure
that there's a real diversity of voices; that
all kinds of
viewpoints are treated fairly;
and that anyone who has a web
site or wants to
start an e-business won't be held hostage by
the self-proclaimed
digital landlords.
Fortunately, we have an opportunity now --
with the proposed
merger of AOL and Time
Warner -- to ensure that these kinds of
commonsense and fair
Internet safeguards will become law.
Both the Federal Trade Commission and the
Federal
Communications Commission have to
approve this merger. Consumer
groups have
opposed the merger, because it will concentrate
more control over the media, including the
Internet in fewer
hands. These groups have
asked both the FTC and FCC to require
AOL and
Time Warner to accept an open-access requirement as a
condition of the merger. This is the same
policy that AOL --
before its announced merger
with Time Warner -- once asked
policymakers to
impose on AT&T. It's a fair and simple rule
that would still allow these companies to make
a great deal of
money. But it would not allow
them to become the Internet's
gatekeepers.
The consumer and public interest groups also
want to make sure
that we don't develop a
super media monopoly over the Net by
requiring
AT&T and AOL-TW to sever the financial ties they have
with each other. Unless this happens, two
tightly aligned
companies will control more
than 80 percent of the high-speed
Internet marketplace.
The FTC and FCC need to hear from you, and the
ACLU web site
can help you register you
opinion. Tell them you want to make
sure the Net stays free and open -- that we
cannot afford to
allow the cable monopolists
to become the Internet's
gatekeepers, too.
Copyright 1999-2001 The Florence Fund
<A HREF="http://www.cme.org/access/index_acc.html">
http://www.cme.org/access/index_acc.html>
|
from Steve Krulick August 24, 2001
Anti-spin activist
John Stauber penetrates
America's lie machine.
By
Michael Manekin
Corporations, governments, and special interest groups
spend at
least 30 billion dollars annually
--exclusively, to fuck with you.
Whether you hear the news on NPR or your local morning
shock
jock, read the New York Times or USA Today,
watch C-Span or the
nightly news, an enormous
percentage of the news you take in
will be the
direct result of somebody's spin.
And it's all because of a subdivision of the
advertising world
called the public relations
industry.
With 2200 public
relations flacks in over 30 countries,
Burson-Marsteler is the world's largest public
relations firm.
They represent big-name
corporations (Philip Morris, AT & T,
NBC),
foreign nations (the governments of Indonesia, El
Salvador, Kenya) and heavy-duty non-governmental
organizations
(the World Bank, the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association, the
American
Petroleum Institute).
Burson-Marsteler's promotional materials boast that
"the role of
communications is to manage
perceptions which motivate behaviors
that create
business results."
In
other words, Burson-Marsteler "manages" information to earn
money. Like all the best public relations firms, who
"communicate" to "create business results," they
practice spin
control. With so many of the world's
most powerful institutions
as their clients,
Burson-Marsteler just happens to do spin very
effectively.
Their mission is to help clients "manage issues by
influencing
-- in the right combination -- public
attitude, public
perceptions, public behavior and
public policy."
That
mission goes for the entire PR industry. According to the
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 118,280 PR
workers in
the U.S alone. To account for the
historical inaccuracy of U.S.
census data, both
critics and proponents of the PR industry have
estimated that upwards of 200,000 people work in the
field.
The PR industry
is so huge because of corporations. Most every
issue in the news today -- global warming,
globalization,
genetically modified foods,
tobacco legislation -- affects
corporations who
stand to gain or lose heaps of money, depending
on public reaction. Therefore, the "management" of
public
reaction is crucial.
If, for instance, the public
does not display outrage over
global warming, the
auto industry can stave off costly renewable
energy alternatives. If not enough people seem
frightened by the
existing and potential dangers
of genetically modified
"Frankenfoods,"
multinational corporations such as Monsanto will
continue to rake in bundles by genetically modifying
food. And
if the public believes that
anti-globalization protestors are
simple-minded
rebels without a cause, Phillip Morris, Proctor &
Gamble, Starbucks and others can safely multiply
their revenues
overseas.
With so much cash riding on
public opinion, industry has always
viewed public
relations as a valuable, even necessary
investment.
Why else would corporations throw billions of dollars
a year at
the PR industry?
"In societies like ours,"
said investigative journalist Derrick
Jensen,
"corporate propaganda is delivered through advertising
and public relations. Most people recognize that
advertising is
propaganda... [but] public
relations is much more insidious.
Because it's
disguised as information, we don't often realize we
are being influenced by public relations."
And, whatever the issue may
be, the public relations industry is
usually
behind the scenes --wagging the dog.
When popular opinion threatens the interests of
power, the PR
industry is frequently consulted to
placate the public in the
interest of their
clients.
It's the kind of pattern John Stauber came to learn
inside out.
Throughout the '70s and '80s, Stauber
was a typical grassroots
activist. He organized
for the environment, consumers, family
farms,
public health, neighborhood concerns, social justice,
peace -- you name it.
Frequently, Stauber battled corporations.
Repeatedly, he got his ass
kicked.
As an activist
promoting social change, Stauber's job was to
build a groundswell of grassroots support around a
particular
issue. Whatever the issue, Stauber
inevitably found himself
battling against
corporate interest. And corporations, in order
to
protect their profit margins, fought to sabotage Stauber's
grassroots support. By hiring public relations firms,
corporations waged big-money campaigns to win
over public
opinion with deceptions and
half-truths.
Eventually, Stauber got the idea. Activist campaigns
were doomed
as long as the public relations
industry used their vast
resources to serve
corporate interests -- and deceive the
public.
Stauber got his PR
education first-hand. In the late '80s he
worked
to organize farmers and consumers who were opposed to
genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH).
Several corporations,
including Monsanto, were preparing to
market rBGH
to dairy farmers, and they funded a massive PR
campaign to combat the mounting grassroots
opposition.
Over time,
Stauber grew suspicious that Monsanto and the other
rBGH manufacturers were colluding with the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and
Drug
Administration (FDA). When Stauber filed a
successful Freedom of
Information Act
investigation with the USDA and the FDA, the
government regulatory bodies were forced to release
thousands of
pages of internal documents.
"And what those documents
revealed was just mind-blowing,"
Stauber said. "I
mean, in my most paranoid fantasies, I wouldn't
have guessed the extent to which the FDA and USDA
were working
with Monsanto... to help this
company promote this drug."
When Stauber organized a meeting of family farm,
consumer and
animal welfare groups who were
opposed to rBGH, he received a
phone call from
the Maryland Citizens' Consumer Council.
"They said they were a group of housewives -- very
concerned
about this issue -- and asked if they
could send someone to the
meeting," Stauber said.
"A while later, I got a
call from a reporter in Vermont... who
said,
'Monsanto is bragging that they had a spy at your
meeting.' And it turned out to be this woman from the
Maryland
Citizens' Consumer Council, which in
fact did not exist."
The
spy was an employee of Burson-Monsteler, the world's largest
PR firm, and she had been gathering information at
the request
of their client Eli Lilly. Along with
Monsanto, Lilly was one of
the major
manufacturers of rBGH.
"It really angered me," said Stauber. "I'd been lied
to, misled,
spied upon -- I was becoming aware of
the extent to which this
whole [rBGH] campaign
was funded and coordinated."
Corporations like Eli Lilly
and Monsanto had essentially waged
an information
war against Stauber and a broader coalition of
grassroots anti- rBGH activists. In doing so, the
corporations
had turned to the PR industry for
spin control.
"Once I
found out that this was typical of what the PR industry
does," said Stauber, "I decided that my next project
as an
activist would be to expose the ways in
which the PR industry,
especially, misleads the
public and the press and works to
defeat public
interest activists."
Ten years later, even though rBGH has still not been
proven
safe, the drug is injected into 30% of
U.S. dairy cows. And John
Stauber is a full-time
public relations watchdog.
For eight years Stauber has been operating the Center
for Media
and Democracy, a nonprofit devoted to
investigative reporting on
the public relations
industry. With partner Sheldon Rampton,
Stauber
publishes PR Watch, the center's quarterly newsletter.
In addition to PR Watch,
Stauber and Rampton have published
three
acclaimed books: Toxic Sludge is Good for You, Mad Cow
U.S.A, and Trust Us, We're Experts.
Internationally recognized
for his pioneering work, Stauber
recently
traveled to Northampton to shoot a documentary video
with Northampton's Media Education Foundation (MEF),
which has
also produced videos starring
activist-intellectuals like Noam
Chomsky, bell
hooks and Edward Said.
While Stauber was in town, the Advocate got the
low-down on the
industry that pulls the world's
strings.
Advocate: John, you've written three books about the
public
relations industry, and you've been
publishing PR Watch for
eight years, so I'm sure
you're chockfull of horrifying PR
stories. Can
you give a particularly egregious example of PR at
its worst?
Stauber: When Sheldon [Rampton] and I wrote our first
book,
Toxic Sludge is Good For You, our publisher
challenged us to
come up with a title that didn't
even use the word PR in it. He
said, "Look, no
one wants to read a book about PR. Everyone
thinks they're too intelligent, too cynical, too
sophisticated,
too educated to be fooled about
PR."
So we came up with
this title, Toxic Sludge is Good for You,
which
we didn't realize had actually been inspired by a Tom
Tomorrow cartoon that we had in the first issue of PR
Watch,
where, you know, toxic sludge is getting
into the water supply
and PR experts are brought
in, and by the fourth panel of the
cartoon the
citizenry is saying, "Well, how foolish we were to
be concerned about toxic sludge, and yes, it's good
for you."
Then I
realized, after understanding the inspiration for the
title, that people are going to think that this
really is a book
about toxic sludge, and we have
to research whether there is
such a thing as
toxic sludge and whether there's a PR campaign
trying to tell us it's that it's good for us. But
that was put
on the backburner.
And then one day while we
were finishing up our book, I got a
call from [a
woman] at the Water Environment Foundation. And in
my business, when you hear something like "Water
Environment
Foundation," you turn the needle 180
degrees [and ask
suspiciously], "What's the Water
Environment Foundation?"
Well, it turned out to be the sewage sludge industry,
and she
was calling because she said, "I heard
that you have this book
coming out, Toxic Sludge
is Good for You, and I'm really quite
concerned
because, frankly, it's not toxic anymore and we don't
call it sludge. It's now bio-solids, and it's a
natural organic
fertilizer. And we're very
concerned that your book title is
going to
interfere with our education campaign to get farmers
across the country to use bio-solids as a fertilizer
on their
farm fields."
So, that became a chapter in
our book called, "The Sludge Hits
the Fan," and
we actually broke nationally this whole story
about how this toxic sludge -- mountains of it
building up at
sewage plants all across the
country that the Environmental
Protection Agency
had deemed too toxic to landfill or incinerate
or
dump in the ocean -- has basically been renamed "bio-solids
-- a natural organic fertilizer." And now half of it
is being
spread all across the country on
farmlands, despite the fact
that it's still as
toxic as ever.
So, I
mean, what that showed to Sheldon [Rampton] and me is
that, no matter how cynical you are, you can't be
cynical enough
to anticipate the extent to which
public relations is being used
to manage issues.
And essentially every single controversy that
exists or that might occur already has an invisible
PR crisis
management campaign.
Advocate: Can you go into
more depth about this invisibility?
Stauber: Well, the 20th century has been marked by
three great
developments: the rise of democracy,
the rise of corporate power
and the rise of
corporate propaganda to protect corporate power
from democracy. Corporations wage war on democracy
through
advertising and public relations, but
especially public
relations.
And the main difference
between advertising and public
relations, in
terms of persuasion, is that advertising is
usually in your face. You know, if you see a logo on
a T-shirt,
or advertising on the side of a bus,
or hear an ad on the radio,
hopefully you think,
"Well, somebody has spent an incredible
amount of
money to craft this message, to deliver it, to
persuade me... I should be skeptical."
In any society, the best
propaganda has to be invisible. What
public
relations is really about is creating reality, and you
have to do that through invisible means. Any public
relations
that isn't hidden just isn't very good.
Advocate: In Trust Us,
you apply a name to a very popular PR
method that
really epitomizes this invisibility. Tell us about
the "third party technique."
Stauber: Well, the third
party technique is as old as the hills.
The idea
is that you find some supposedly independent, trusted
source that you can use to send your message out to
the public.
Let's say I'm the coal industry and I
launch a campaign to tell
the American public
that coal emissions (which are exacerbating
global warming) are really good because global
warming means
more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere; more carbon dioxide means
plants are
going to grow more, and isn't that the epitome of a
good environment -- more green, growing plants?
It sounds ludicrous. It
sounds absurd. It's ridiculous. I'm the
coal
industry, for God's sake, and who's going to believe that?
You know, probably only someone holding a lot of
stock in the
coal industry! So what the coal
industry does is fund a group
called the Greening
Earth Society with people who have
environmental
and scientific credentials. And somehow, with a
straight face, [these people] are able to say, "Yes,
indeed,
global warming appears to be occurring,
and that's good. We
should embrace global
warming."
And that makes
people stop and think, "It's something called the
Greening Earth Society; it's got to be an
environmental group.
This guy has a Ph.D., he's a
scientist, and I'm listening to him
on, you know,
on my National Public Radio affiliate. And he's
doing this great job assuring me that global warming
really is
good for me." That's the third party
technique, and, yes, it's
effective, because it
usually works through the media.
Advocate: Now, can you use a real-life example to
explain how
the third-party technique is used?
Stauber: Well, the
Greening Earth Society is one example.
Advocate: [Laughing] You're kidding!
Stauber: [Laughing] No,
that's true! I don't make this stuff up.
The
Greening Earth Society really exists, and their message is
exactly as I presented it. They're the creation of
the coal
industry.
Advocate: That's terrifying.
Stauber: It is terrifying,
but there it is: Global warming is
good for you.
Advocate: Do you see a
link between U.S. domestic and foreign
policies
and the sophisticated PR machinery in this country?
Stauber: Yeah. They're
really one and the same, because the push
for
corporate globalization -- the push to lower and destroy
regulatory standards in other countries that do care
about
protecting human health and safety -- is
based here in the
United States. And the biggest
PR firms that work for these
corporations are
very much active in trying to impose the U.S.
definition of globalization on the rest of the world,
including
definitions that say, "Well, yeah,
there's no real need for
countries to provide
universal health care; there's no need to
safety-test genetically engineered food."
All of these major issues
that U.S. PR firms are working on --
because of
the corruption of our political process and the way
it favors corporate decision-making -- these issues
have been
won, for the most part, in the U.S.:
We're having genetically
engineered food imposed
upon us; we believe that we don't have a
fundamental right to universal health care.... The
citizenry is
cowed and losing on these issues.
Advocate: OK, so what's
been the most damaging PR work you've
ever seen?
What's just the most atrocious campaign?
Stauber: I think the most insidious public relations
campaign --
and the most dangerous -- has been
the extent to which
corporations have been able
to convince public interest groups
--
environmental organizations, media literacy organizations,
community organizations of all sorts -- that in order
to be
effective, these public interest groups
should be formally
partnering with corporations,
and sitting down and negotiating
win-win
solutions.
Advocate: In
other words, the absorption of grassroots
organizations.
Stauber: The co-optation of activism! [At PR Watch],
we write
about that a lot, and it's really
something that motivated me to
start PR Watch,
because I was seeing how activists were being
duped and played for suckers by corporate PR
strategies of
"greenwashing" and co-optation and
partnering. And my biggest
personal frustration
has been that despite the fact that we've
been
warning about this and exposing it in all of our books and
in PR Watch and in our talks, it's actually worse
than ever.
Corporations
have learned how to thwart activism by putting on a
smiley face and holding out the hand of friendship
and pulling
out their wallets and offering
contributions, and sitting down
and agreeing to
what might be some concessions, but what in the
long run, invariably, turn out to be methods of
successfully
co-opting and thwarting social
change.
Advocate: Can
you give an example of an activist campaign where
that was the case?
Stauber: Well, I think you can look at a lot of
activist
campaigns where it is happening. I mean,
I ask the question,
where the hell is the
environmental movement when it comes to
generating political power at the grassroots? If you
look at the
environmental movement in the United
States, it's now really
over 30 years old. There
are literally hundreds of millions of
dollars
raised and spent every year by nonprofit environmental
organizations in the United States. What have we got
to show for
that?
We've got about 15 big green organizations -- like
the Audubon
Society, the National Wildlife
Federation, the Wilderness
Society, Environmental
Defense -- and they suck up almost all
that
money. But in terms of a powerful environmental movement
that can actually force government, for instance, to
make the
big three auto-makers develop highly
fuel-efficient automobiles
within the next few
years -- it isn't there. The environmental
movement is getting its ass kicked repeatedly on
every critical
issue. Well, why is that?
Businesses have learned how
to partner with environmental
organizations. And
for every dollar that goes to these big
national
environmental groups in Washington, that's a dollar
that doesn't go to building up an environmental group
that's
responsive to the grassroots. And that's
the big difference
between the environmental
movement in the U.S. and the
environmental
movement in Europe. In Europe, there's a lot less
money spent on environmental organization, but,
ironically, the
environmental movement is a lot
more powerful.
Advocate:
Is it possible that some of the corporations who
partner with public interest groups actually want to
do good?
Stauber:
Corporations exist for one purpose only, and that is to
make money. So anything that doesn't expand their
bottom-line
profits is secondary. Corporations,
on the other hand, want to
be seen as responsible
corporate citizens, and a very important
part of
doing business is having a good image and evoking a
warm, fuzzy feeling for customers and stakeholders.
So
corporations spend a lot of money on public
relations,
advertising and charitable donations.
Advocate: When activists
talk about corporations in such a
general way,
there's a tendency to demonize "corporations" as
though they were all conspiring together. But
corporations are
run by executives -- scores of
individual people --and they're
too busy meeting
their profit margins to engage in global
conspiracy! Is it fair or even accurate to refer to
corporations
as though they were
indistinguishable?
Stauber: In fact, generally, it is [fair], because
there's a
difference between corporations and the
people who work within
corporations. People are
people, and whether they work for Ben &
Jerry's or whether they work for Monsanto, they can
be committed
personally to all sorts of important
values that they would like
to see their
corporation embody and promote. But corporations
are like the military. People inside corporations do
what
they're told to serve the interest of the
corporation, and if
they don't, they're removed
from their position.
So
some people would say, "Well, look, corporations aren't evil;
they're made up of people just like you and me.
Parents and
grandparents run corporations." I
would turn that one around,
and say,
"Corporations run parents and grandparents."
There are those happy moments when [corporations]
dispensing
money to community groups or making
the right environmental
decision and the
corporate bottom line are in synch -- and I'm
sure that's a great feeling, and there's this sense
that the
corporation is doing the right thing.
But again, doing the right
thing is not the
purpose of a corporation. Corporations really
are
all about money, and anything else really is public
relations and image building.
You know, I think that my
analysis of what corporations do is
not different
from the analysis of the executives who run
corporations when they're talking among themselves.
When they're
talking to the public, then they
have to try to put forward an
image that they
care about people, care about the environment,
care about their employees.
Advocate: Recently USA Today
published an article about Trust
Us, and for the
most part, the writer seemed to take your
arguments seriously. But the article concludes with a
quote from
a professor of business who says,
"Fortunately we live in a
society where we get
opposing viewpoints." Any comment?
Stauber: [Laughing] Well, we live in a society where
40% or more
of all the news we get on a given day
is the result of spin. So
the statement that we
live in a society where we get both sides
of the
issues does a great job of trying to deflect and spin the
reality, which is that the news media is doing a very
lousy job
of investigating and reporting on
critical issues. And when they
do investigate and
report on critical issues, the PR industry
controls the media and limits the damage.
You know, I speak to a lot
of journalism classes, and what I
find is that
most students aren't there to become journalists.
They're there to become public relations flacks or
corporate
communications specialists or go into
some sort of commercial
use of their journalism
skills.
Advocate: So
teaching public relations and teaching journalism
is becoming the same thing?
Stauber: Yeah,
unfortunately. But it's not the same thing:
People who think that teaching journalism and
teaching public
relations is just the same thing
might think that teaching
accounting and teaching
embezzling is the same thing. We need to
reclaim
journalism from corruption. There is a sacred and
fundamental purpose to journalism in a democratic
society, and
that's to get out there and ferret
out the information, let the
chips fall where
they may, and investigate and report on issues
that are critical to the society so that people can
be informed
and make the decisions that run the
society.
Advocate: In
Trust Us you argue that the PR worldview sees the
public as apathetic and uninformed. Why do you think
we're
apathetic?
Stauber: I think the American public is feeling
extremely angry,
disempowered, manipulated and
lied to. The apathy isn't so much
because people
don't care -- I think people do care -- I think
it's more a matter of, "What do you do?" The American
public may
be the most propagandized population
in world history, but at a
certain level they're
aware of it, which makes me quite hopeful
and
enthusiastic about the future and the ability of the
American people to incite political movements that
really do
seize power away from corporations.
Advocate: So, we're the most
propagandized population in world
history. Where
do we find the truth?
Stauber: [A prominent PR man] once said, "The truth
isn't a
solid; the truth is a liquid." Basically,
the truth is whatever
you can create and convince
people is the truth. So if someone
says that
black is white or that toxic sludge is actually a
beneficial organic fertilizer -- well, that's the
truth. It just
happens to be a certain truth.
So in terms of finding "the
truth," you have to believe that,
even if the
truth doesn't exist, something like the truth
exists, and it's important to try to figure that out.
And the
best way to do that is through an
investigative educational
process: You understand
that every public debate has all this
hidden
public relations propaganda.
Advocate: But most people looking for truth are
hustling to do a
million things in a day. How do
busy people -- and we're all
busy -- search for
truth?
Stauber: Well,
unfortunately, people want the instant truth, so
they turn on the news or maybe they think the best
way to get
the truth is listen to a lot of
sources. On the left, you listen
to Pacifica
[radio], your community station or your weekly
alternative papers. On the right, you listen to Rush
Limbaugh or
the editorial page of the Wall Street
Journal. And somewhere in
the middle, you read
the New York Times. I think that's not the
correct approach. We have to disabuse ourselves of
the notion
that we're going to find the truth
from the usual channels.
Maybe you just go, "Well, shit, it doesn't really
matter. This
is somewhat of a democratic society.
If anything really bad is
happening, I'm probably
going to hear about it eventually. I'm
just going
to concentrate on getting by, paying the bills and
doing the best I can."
I think the truth really becomes important to people
when they
realize the extent to which they're
suffering because of the
lack of the truth.
There's sort of a radicalization process that
occurs in people who are concerned about public
health, personal
health, family safety, community
democracy, clean government.
They're the ones
concerned with getting to the truth, and that
involves cutting through this propaganda smog. And
I'd say the
way to begin that is (not to sound
too self-serving) to read
Trust Us and Toxic
Sludge, to read other media critics and to
turn
to organizations recommended in these books.
Advocate: In a sense, your life is devoted to
uncovering these
scary truths about everyday
reality. I'm thinking that a lot of
people would
be driven to intense neurosis doing what you do.
Stauber: What makes you
think I'm not intensely neurotic?
Before we'd written the last chapter for Toxic
Sludge, our
publisher told us, "This book has a
real problem. You know,
people already think
things are really bad, and then you come
along
and convince them that it's even worse than they imagined.
So you've got to come up with a solution for this."
And the problem is that
there really is no solution.
Unfortunately, we're
facing an incredible number of crises. And
you
can't run and hide -- you can try to, but you have to live
your life at the personal and societal level. That's
why I think
that the most important issue is the
revitalization of
democracy, along with personal
and community political
empowerment, so that we
take control back from the powerful
interests --
the corporations that now dominate our news media,
dominate our government.
The biggest political problem we have is that
corporations have
usurped political power from
individual citizens. Corporations
have taken over
rights that should only be held by citizens.
What
we have in the U.S. is a corporate citizenry über alles
made up of the Fortune 500, and they have relegated
the rest of
us living, breathing citizens to a
second-class citizenry.
Advocate: A lot of people would consider what you
have to say a
paranoid vision.
Stauber: [Laughing.]
Advocate: They would say
that, more or less, we live in a
democratic
society, and that your opinions are just another
amorphous conspiracy theory. How would you defend
against that
charge?
Stauber: If somebody just heard me speaking, if they
were
unaware of the documentation, including
three books (extensively
footnoted and indexed),
I would forgive them for thinking that I
sound
like a raving conspiracy theorist. But indeed there is a
hidden, secret power dedicated to invisibly
manipulating public
opinion and public policy on
behalf of the powerful. And in
fact, we name it:
It's the public relations industry, and we
document precisely how it works and what it does.
So I wish that we were
simply paranoid, but unfortunately we're
not. In
fact, one thing that always amuses Sheldon and me is
when we talk to [members of the PR industry], they'll
compliment
us and tell us that we're hitting the
nail on the head. And
that, indeed, this is how
the world runs, and it's even worse
than we
imagine.
You know, I've
learned an awful lot from the public relations
industry: They know the most important thing they
have to do is
manage our outrage. In fact, they
have a formula for it. They
say, "Risk equals
hazard plus outrage," and what they mean is
that
the risk to the corporate bottom line exists to the degree
to which people are outraged when they find out the
truth on a
variety of issues.
I remember one conversation
with a PR lobbyist for Monsanto, and
I basically
asked him how he did it. And he said, "Well look,
it's a great job, it pays me lots of money, I love my
wife and
my kids, and when I go home I just turn
on the TV and pour a
stiff drink and leave it all
behind me."
At work here
is the Nuremberg principle: "If I don't do this,
then somebody else will." This view is the worst sort
of
cynicism because it allows one to rationalize
any sort of
behavior -- to the point of what was
done in Nazi Germany.
Advocate: Do you ever get hopeless?
Stauber: I don't think
hopelessness is something we can afford.
Even in
[these] extremely dire times, it's important for
individuals to take power back from corporations, to
reinvigorate our democracy, to empower people at
the grassroots,
to figure out how we're going to
create an economic system that
is just and
democratic and ecologically sustainable.
There isn't an overnight solution to any of these
problems, and
often hopelessness is the response
of people who have assumed
that change comes
easily. History shows that great changes
sometimes take generations to bring about, and you
never even
know what it is that you're doing or
writing or saying that
might be key to effecting
change in people not even born yet.
We're so propagandized from day one by commercial
advertising
and marketing and PR to think that
there should be an instant
solution to
everything: We want stuff fast, we want it quick, we
want it easy. We want to tune in an expert to find
out the
fastest way to accomplish health, wealth,
whatever it is. And we
think that way politically
too.
We think we can
have fundamental political change against the
most powerful political interests in world history --
the
Fortune 500 -- by sending 50 dollars off to
some environmental
group or giving 25 bucks to
some canvasser at the door, so that
they'll go
away. All of this rather than personally becoming
active at the community level in the issues of our
lives.
So Sheldon and I
recommend that people become democracy
activists.
If you want to find the truth, if you want to get
involved, if you want to improve the world, you start
with
yourself and the community. And you disabuse
yourself of the
many false notions that are part
of the propaganda reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Westchester County
Weekly home page
Copyright ©2001 New Mass. Media,
Inc. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------
Steve Krulick
krulick@dem101.org
http://dem101.org
Democracy101:
Improve
Democracy with... MORE Democracy!
* 1 Person = 1 Vote
* 1
Vote, More Choice
* 1 Vote + 50% = Win
* 1 % Voters = 1 % Representation
* 1 Nation, 1 Electoral System
* 1 Voter, More Voice
-------------------------------------------------
|
|
Human
Population Growth Harming Environment
THE
GALLON ENVIRONMENT LETTER
506
Victoria Ave., Montreal, Quebec H3Y 2R5
Ph.
(514) 369-0230, Fax (514) 369-3282
Email cibe@web.net
Vol. 5, No. 29, August 2,
2001
****************************************************************************
6.2 BILLION
WORLD POPULATION PUT PRESSURE ON HUMAN LIFE-SUPPORT SYSTEMS
Humans are growing like cancer on earth. Combined
population growth and increased consumption of natural resources per
capita are merging to collapse the very life-support system on spaceship
earth. Right now, on World Population Day, the number of people on Earth
is estimated at 6,169,232,446 and climbing. In the three minutes it may
take a reader to finish this article, the world's population will have
increased by 438 people, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Speaking on
the occasion of World Population Day, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan
linked the growing population to ecological stress on the planet's
resources. Calling attention to deforestation, pollution and carbon
dioxide emissions, he said, "Our ecological footprints on the earth are
heavier than ever before," adding that "humanity must solve a complex
equation." Further stating that, "we must stabilize our numbers, but,
equally important, we must stabilize our use of resources and ensure
sustainable development for all. The United Nations Population Division
says world population is currently growing at an annual rate of 1.2 per
cent, or 77 million people per year. Six countries account for half of
this annual growth: India for 21 percent, China for 12 percent, Pakistan
for five percent, Nigeria for four percent, Bangladesh for four per cent,
and Indonesia for three percent. China's first exposition on new
technology and products in the family planning and reproductive health
fields opened in Beijing today, marking World Population Day with 300
exhibits. World population is expected to be around 9.3 billion by 2050,
the UN estimates, but it could be anywhere between 7.9 billion and 10.9
billion, depending on fertility, longevity and rates of death. To watch
the World Population grow, visit
http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop To access in depth analysis of World Population
Trends, visit the United Nations Development Programme:
http://www.undp.org/popin/ . The World Population Film and Video Festival is
online at: http://www.wpfvf.com/ . Source, "Growing Population Stamps Heavy
Ecological Footprint," Environment News Service (ENS), New York, July 11,
2001. Get the full story at http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2001/2001L-07-11-01.html .
*************************************************************************
QUICK FACTS ON
THE POPULATION GROWTH IN THE UNITED STATES
The
United States' population has increased 85 percent since 1950, growing
from 151 million to 283 million in just fifty years. If present trends
continue, our population will reach 400 million by the year 2050. The
United States has one of the highest natural growth rates (0.7%) of any
industrialized country in the world. The U.S. population is growing by
about 2.5 million people each year. Of that, immigration contributes over
one million people to the U.S. population annually. The U.S. average
fertility rate is currently 2.1 births per woman, an increase from 1.8 in
1988. (For comparison, the United Kingdom's natural increase is one
quarter the rate of the U.S. at 0.2%, while Germany's natural increase is
0.) Using the Census Bureau's medium projections, U.S. population is
expected to grow to 400 million by the year 2050. Eight states have
population growth rates over 2.0%, which means their population will
double in less than 35 years. Florida's population has grown from 1.9
million in 1940 to 15 million today. That is over a 600% increase in just
50 years. Along our ecologically fragile coasts, where nearly half the
population lives, the U.S. is among the most densely populated countries
in the world. The U.S. Northeast (including New York, New Jersey, Boston,
etc.) averages 767 people per square mile, while Haiti, for comparison,
has 580. By 2010, when California's population reaches 50 million,
population densities in coastal California will reach 1,050 people per
square mile. Since 1980, the U.S. has converted more than 10 million acres
of forest to suburb -- an area twice as large as Yellowstone, Everglades,
Shenandoah, and Yosemite National Parks combined. Source, Negative
Population Growth (NPG), ph. (202) 667-8950, email info@npg.org. Visit
their website at http://www.npg.org/popfacts.htm .
************************************************************************
OVER-CONSUMPTION OF RESOURCES BY A SMALL DEVELOPED
POPULATION ALSO A MAJOR PROBLEM
It not
just population growth, it is the growth of consumption per capita by hog
nations like the United States, Canada, and those in Europe. Like vacuums,
they suck up resources from around the world to satisfy their needs. For
example, coffee and pineapple plantations are grown on the best fertile
bottom lands of Africa for export to the North, while the local people are
forced onto the marginal farmlands in the hills and semi-arid deserts. The
United States with one-quarter billion people consumes more resources than
one and a half billion people of China. The wealthiest 20 percent of the
world's population for consuming 80 percent of the goods and services
produced from the earth's resources. The average rich-nation citizen used
7.4 kilowatts (kW) of energy in 1990-a continuous flow of energy
equivalent to that powering 74 100-watt lightbulbs. The average citizen of
a poor nation, by contrast, used only 1 kW. There were 1.2 billion people
in the rich nations, so their total environmental impact, as measured by
energy use, was 1.2 billion x 7.4 kW, or 8.9 terawatts (TW)-8.9 trillion
watts. Some 4.1 billion people lived in poor nations in 1990, hence their
total impact (at 1 kW a head) was 4.1 TW. The relatively small population
of rich people therefore accounts for roughly two-thirds of global
environmental destruction, as measured by energy use. From this
perspective, the most important population problem is overpopulation in
the industrialized nations. The United States poses the most serious
threat of all to human life support systems. It has a gigantic population,
the third largest on Earth, more than a quarter of a billion people.
Americans are superconsumers, and use inefficient technologies to feed
their appetites. Each, on average, uses 11 kW of energy, twice as much as
the average Japanese, more than three times as much as the average
Spaniard, and over 100 times as much as an average Bangladeshi. Clearly,
achieving an average family size of 1.5 children in the United States
(which would still be larger than the 1.3 child average in Spain) would
benefit the world much more than a similar success in Bangladesh.
http://www.dieoff.com/page43.htm . See the report entitled,
""Population Reports, Population and the Environment: The Global
Challenge," published by the Johns Hopkins Information Program, at the
website .
*********************************************************************
REDUCING OUR
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT
The
Ecological Footprint measures what each person consumes of nature's
resources. It shows how much productive land and water we occupy to
produce all the resources we consume and to take in all the waste we make.
(Redefining Progress, 2000). In other words, an ecological footprint
represents the average amount of bio-productive land and ocean required to
sustain an individual or a community. It has been calculated that "nature
provides an average of 5.5 acres of bio-productive space for every person
in the world. With a global population of 10 billion for the year 2050,
the available space will be reduced to 3 acres. This should also give room
for the 25 million other species. Already, humanity's footprint may be
over 30 percent larger than what the world has to offer as it consumes
more than what nature can provide. The average American uses 30 acres to
support his or her current lifestyle. This corresponds to the size of 30
football fields put together. In comparison, the average Canadian lives on
a footprint one third less, and the average Italian on 55 percent less.
Source, Redefining Progress website at http://www.rprogress.org/ .
*************************************************************************
NOT ENOUGH FOOD
FOR GROWING HUMAN POPULATIONS
A report
prepared by Dr. David Pimentel, Cornell University et. al, entitled,
"Impact of Population Growth on Food Supplies and Environment," warns that
as the world population continues to grow geometrically, great pressure is
being placed on arable land, water, energy, and biological resources to
provide an adequate supply of food while maintaining the integrity of our
ecosystem. It states that according to the World Bank and the United
Nations, from 1 to 2 billion humans are now malnourished, indicating a
combination of insufficient food, low incomes, and inadequate distribution
of food. This is the largest number of hungry humans ever recorded in
history. In China about 80 million are now malnourished and hungry. Based
on current rates of increase, the world population is projected to double
from roughly 6 billion to more than 12 billion in less than 50 years
(Pimentel et al., 1994). As the world population expands, the food problem
will become increasingly severe, conceivably with the numbers of
malnourished reaching 3 billion. The per capita availability of world
grains, which make up 80 per cent of the world's food, has been declining
for the past 15 years (Kendall and Pimentel, 1994). More than 99 per cent
of the world's food supply comes from the land, while less than 1 per cent
is from oceans and other aquatic habitats. Nearly one-third of the world's
fertile cropland (1.5 billion hectares) has been abandoned during the past
40 years because erosion has made it unproductive (Pimentel et al., 1995).
Solving erosion losses is a long-term problem: it takes 500 years to form
25 mm of soil under agricultural conditions. Most replacement of eroded
agricultural land is now coming from marginal and forest land. The
pressure for agricultural land accounts for 60 to 80 percent of the
world's deforestation. Despite such land replacement strategies, world
cropland per capita has been declining and is now only 0.27 ha per capita;
in China only 0.08 ha now is available. This is only 15 per cent of the
0.5 ha per capita considered minimal for a diverse diet similar to that of
the U.S. and Europe. Water is critical for all crops which require and
transpire massive amounts of water during the growing season. For example,
a hectare of corn will transpire more than 5 million liters of water
during one growing season. This means that more than 8 million liters of
water per hectare must reach the crop. In total, agricultural production
consumes more fresh water than any other human activity. Specifically,
about 87 per cent of the world's fresh water is consumed or used up by
agriculture and, thus, is not recoverable. Source, "Impact of Population
Growth on Food Supplies and Environment," by David Pimentel, Xuewen Huang,
Ana Cordova, and Marcia Pimentel, Presented at AAAS Annual Meeting,
Baltimore, MD, 9 February 1996. See the full report at website http://www.dieoff.org/page57.htm . Contact Zero Population Growth, 1400 Sixteenth
Street, N.W., Suite 320, Washington, D.C. 20036, ph. 202-332-2200, fax
202-332-2302, email info@zpg.org . Visit their website at
http://www.zpg.org/
******************************************************************
"AMSTERDAM
DECLARATION", HUNDREDS OF THE WORLD'S LEADING SCIENTISTS URGE POLITICAL
GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
Almost
1,400 scientists from all over the world have signed their name to the
"Amsterdam Declaration" on the state of the planet and call for strong
actions in a number of areas such as population, fisheries management and
forest protection, etc. The scientists warn that the world faces
significant environmental problems that encompass and go way beyond global
warming, they say. "The accelerating human transformation of the Earth's
environment is not sustainable. Therefore the business-as-usual option of
dealing with the Earth is not an option," the declaration states. Because
the Earth behaves as a single integrated system, climate change cannot be
separated from changes in biodiversity, vegetation, land cover and ocean
circulation. The scientists say that climate change is a component of
global change. Even if we were to completely stop emitting greenhouse
gases tomorrow, there would still be many profound challenges facing us.
The declaration points out that humans are now such a dominant force on
the planet and are making such dramatic changes to all aspects of the
physical environment that the Earth system is beginning to respond. Though
it is tempting to think that the Earth will continue to respond in gradual
and predictable ways, there is now mounting evidence that some changes may
occur abruptly and without warning. "These issues are not simply
interrelated environmental issues but are development issues threatening
our ability to meet the human needs of adequate food, clean water, a
healthy environment and safe shelter," said Robert Watson, Chair of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and a participant at the
conference. The Declaration was signed at a conference held from July
10-13, 2001 in Amsterdam and was attended by 1,400 global change
scientists from over 100 countries and all continents of the world. For
more information contact Susannah Eliott (Susannah@igbp.kva.se) or Paola
Fastmark (Paola.Fastmark@igbp.kva.se) - Phone: 46-8-8739-556, Fax:
46-8-1664-05. Download a copy of the declaration at http://www.sciconf.igbp.kva.se . See the press release at the website http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-07/igp-ss071301.php
********************************************************************************
26% OF THE
UNITED STATES' LARGEST INDUSTRIAL AND MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN VIOLATION OF
THE CLEAN WATER ACT
26
percent of the United State's largest industrial, municipal and federal
facilities were in "significant" violation of the Clean Water Act at least
once during a 15 month period 1999 to 2000, a new report indicates. The
report by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) reports that both
state agencies and the U.S. EPA, have failed to properly pursue and punish
polluters. The annual report shows a drop in the number of significant
polluters since 1998, when U.S. PIRG documented that almost 30 percent of
major facilities were in serious violation of the Clean Water Act. The
report is entitled, "Polluters' Playground: How the Government Permits
Pollution." The report found that 40 percent of U.S. surface waters still
do not meet the fishable and swimmable standards. There have been over
36,000 beach closings and advisories since 1988, and in 1999, 48 states
issued fish consumption advisories because of high levels of dangerous
chemicals. The U.S. PIRG obtained the data under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA).
More than 26 percent of the 1,730 major facilities
examined were in Significant Non-Compliance with their Clean Water Act
permits for at least one quarter during the 15 month period. 159 major
facilities were in Significant Non-Compliance with their water pollution
permits during the entire 15 month period. Of the 42 industrial facilities
in Significant Non-Compliance for the entire 15 month period, EPA records
indicate only one received a fine over the past five years. The 10 states
with the greatest number of major facilities in Significant Non-Compliance
were Texas, Ohio, New York, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, Pennsylvania,
Florida, Missouri and Indiana. The 10 states with the highest percentage
of major facilities in Significant Non-Compliance were Utah, Tennessee,
Ohio, Vermont, Missouri, Oklahoma, Alabama, Rhode Island, Nebraska and
Indiana. Source, "Biggest U.S. Water Polluters Not Punished," Environment
News Service (ENS) Washington, D.C., May 28, 2001. The U.S. PIRG report is
available at: http://www.pirg.org/ . See the full story at http://ens-news.com/ens/may2001/2001L-05-28-06.html
********************************************************************
U.S.
CONSERVATION AND REINVESTMENT ACT REINTRODUCED IN CONGRESS
The Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) has been
reintroduced in the House as H.R. 701. The bill currently has
236 cosponsors, but faces opposition from appropriators and may not
receive the Bush administration's support. The bill was passed
July 25 by the House Resources Committee by a vote of 29-12. During the
106th Congress last year, the House passed a nearly identical measure,
315-102, the measure ultimately stalled in committee. The
Clinton administration and appropriators blamed what bill supporters
called "CARA-Lite," which provided $900 million for the Land and Water
Conservation Fund instead of the multibillion- dollar package in the bill.
The measure was disliked by appropriators because it would automatically
direct approximately $3 billion annually of offshore drilling receipts
toward conservation programs. Currently, all royalties from
Outer Continental Shelf Drilling activities - $5 billion during 1999, now
go to the federal treasury, and appropriators decide how to distribute the
money. Of the $3 billion, $900 million would go to land acquisition for
conservation and recreation projects. Half the money would go
directly to the states, and Congress would have to approve the spending of
the other half. CARA would also allocate money for 15 years for fish,
wildlife, and park restoration programs. The money would
include $1 billion annually for coastal states to acquire land for
conservation. Several changes have been made to the bill by Transportation
and Infrastructure Chairman Young (R-AK) who is attempting to mollify
members who were concerned about property
rights. One provision would authorize $320 million annually for
the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program that compensates communities that
lose property tax revenue because of federal ownership of large amounts of
land. H.R. 701 has yet to be placed on the House's floor calendar. For
more information contact Heather A. McTavish, Government Relations
Coordinator, American Public Works Association - Washington, DC, ph. (202)
408-9541, Ext. 3010. To view the bill text or inform your Congressional
members to take action, log onto APWA's Legislative Action Center at
http://capwiz.com/apwa/issues/bills/?bill=17457
************************************************************************
SINGER BONNIE
RAITT ARRESTED DURING SIT-IN IN FRONT OF BOISE CASCADE OFFICES
Police arrested 20 peaceful activists, including
singer Bonnie Raitt, who were demonstrating against logging practices
outside the headquarters of Boise Cascade Office Products in Itasca, a
suburb of Chicago, Illinois. The protesters, who also included
former Doors drummer John Densmore and activist and author Julia
``Butterfly'' Hill, staged a well-orchestrated sit-in outside They were
handcuffed and led away and later charged with disorderly conduct, a crime
punishable by a small fine, and released from the city jail.
"Deforestation worldwide is a life and death issue. We want deforestation
halted, we want it now and we want it for future generations," said
Randall Hayes, the founder of Rainforest Action Network (RAN), the group
that organized the event. Cascade's parent, paper and manufacturing giant
Boise Cascade Corporation, has fought a public battle with RAN for more
than a year. "We believe that Boise Cascade Corporation, their old-growth
logging operation and their trading of old-growth around the world makes
them an American disgrace," RAN executive director Chris Hatch told
protesters before the demonstration. "Their operations are barbaric and
their anti-environment campaigns, their efforts to stifle free speech are
a disgrace to America," he said. Boise Cascade is continuing efforts to
reduce the amount of old-growth forests used in timber production and has
hired a third party auditor to review their logging practices, said
company spokesman, Michael Moser. Source, "Bonnie Raitt, Others, Arrested
in Illinois Protest", the Reuters News Service, Itasca, Illinois, July 26,
2001. See the full story at http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010726/re/people_raitt_dc_1.html
.
*************************************************************************
SMART URBAN
GROWTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT WORKSHOP IN NEW MEXICO, SEPTEMBER 2001
The American Bar Association Section of Environment,
Energy, and Resources and The Southwestern Legal Foundation and its
Municipal Legal Studies Center are hosting a workshop on controlling the
urban sprawling and its negative environmental impacts in America, July 23
to 25, 2001 in Santa Fe, New Mexico. They feel that understanding the
interaction of new "smart growth" regulations in the United States is
essential to formulating effective legal strategies to promote, shape or
restrict land development within urban and rural
communities. Local governments are increasingly enacting
sophisticated land use requirements to promote "smart growth," a term some
equate with unwarranted government interference with private property
rights. Conflicts among government regulators seeking to
control development, land developers trying to obtain profit from their
property, and environmental activists attempting to preserve open space
and minimize pollution are commonplace. Each of these groups
increasingly employs smart growth regulations, environmental laws and
constitutional protections as essential components of its strategies and
litigation arsenals. This three-day program will draw on the experience of
leading practitioners in land use and environmental law to examine the
procedural and substantive laws and complexities inherent in planning,
evaluating, or opposing development proposals. Attendees will learn how to
invoke land use and environmental requirements to promote or limit growth
and to shape the "smart growth" debate. For more information phone the
American Bar Association Section office at ph. 312-988-5724, or visit the
ABA Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources website at http://www.abanet.org/environ/smart.html . Source, Kenneth J.
Warren, Environmental Practice Group, Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen
LLP, 1650 Arch Street, 22nd Floor, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103, ph. (215) 977-2276, (215) 405-3876,
kwarren@wolfblock.com
***************************************************************************
THE US EPA MAY
SOON INCLUDE MOLD IN ITS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS
While mold is not usually addressed in environmental
due diligence , it is fast becoming a concern to building owners,
contractors, architects and insurers. In the past few years, hundreds of
lawsuits have been filed for mold damage to homes, apartment complexes,
commercial buildings, schools and courthouses. One reason for the
proliferation of the mold lawsuits is the use of cheaper building
materials such as plywood and plasterboard which are more prone to breed
molds when wet. However, homeowners are also becoming increasingly aware
of the health issues associated with molds and are now filing claims when
they discover mold under sinks, under floors and behind wallpaper. One
insurer estimates that over US $50 million in mold claims in 2000. The
Texas Insurance Council of Texas estimated that mold-related claims have
risen 135% to 2001 from 1999. As a result, insurers in Texas have asked
the Texas Insurance Commissioner to exclude coverage for mold damage from
standard homeowners policies. Texas is one the leading states for
mold-related lawsuits. For example, a jury in Austin, Texas recently
awarded $32 million to a couple who sued their insurer after the company
allegedly failed to repair a water leak in their 22-room home in Dripping
Springs, Texas. The jury awarded $6.2 million in actual
damages $12 million in punitive damages, $5 million for
emotional distress, and $8.9 million in attorneys' fees. In
December, another insurer settled a mold-related bad-faith lawsuit for
$1.5 million in Blum v. Chubb Custom Insurance Co. (No. 99-3563, Nueces
Co., Texas Dist. Ct.). California is another popular venue for mold
lawsuits. A California homeowners group recently settled a $1.3 million
mold lawsuit against builders and contractors in Club at Wood Ranch v.
Roberts Group (No. 21522, Ventura Co., Cal. Super. Ct.).
There are no federal
standards for mold though the EPA published a guideline for remediating
mold in schools and commercial buildings. New York City has established
guidelines for assessing and remediating mold. In addition, a number of
states in the south and west are considering enacting mold-related
legislation. For example, the California legislature is considering a
number of bills that would establish cleanup standards for mold and
mandate disclosure of mold problems when buildings are sold or leased. If
these laws are adopted, Phase I ESAs in these states will have to address
the possibility of mold infestation. Molds sometimes produce chemicals
called mycotoxins that can cause illness in sensitive people. The species
of greatest concern is Stachybotrys chartarum or Stachybotrys atra which
is commonly called black mold. It can grow on materials with a high
cellulose content such as drywall sheetrock, dropped ceiling tiles and
wood that become chronically moist or water-damaged due to excessive
humidity, water leaks, condensation, or flooding. In prior
issues, we have discussed the importance of performing comprehensive
historical investigations during environmental due diligence. Many
prospective purchasers and banks financing the acquisition or providing
refinancing believe that a thorough site history will be done when
ordering an environmental site assessment that strictly complies with the
ASTM E1527-00. However, the ASTM E1527-00 has a number of potential data
gaps that can cause a consultant to not identify a prior use that could
have resulted in environmental impacts to the property. Source, Schnapf
Environmental Report: A Newsletter Covering Recent Environmental
Developments and Casel Law," July 2001, Vol. 3, Issue 4. by Lawrence
Schnapf. The newsletter is published by Law Professor Lawrence P. Schnapf,
55 E.87th Street, #8B, New York, New York 10128, ph. (212) 996-5395. Fax
(503) 213-9314. E-Mail: LSchnapf@environmental-law.net. Subscription rate
for the Schnapf Environmental Report is US $95 for one year (six issues)
or $25 per issue.
****************************************************************************
THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL HEADQUARTERS IMPROVES ENERGY EFFICIENCY
The California Environmental Protection Agency has
made its 950,000 square foot "Joe Serna Jr. Headquarters" in Sacramento
energy efficient. It uses 25 percent less energy than the maximum level
mandated for energy efficiency by state regulations. The building's
ventilation system contributes to energy savings by using fresh outside
air. On each of the 25 stories, two corners have no windows; instead, air
is pulled in through vents on the building's north side, put into use and
then expelled on the east and west corners. "In California, many months,
you can use cool outside air for office cooling without using air
conditioning, if you do things right," says David Martin of AC Martin
Partners, the building's designers. While conventional towers have one or
two large chilling machines for the air-conditioning system, the EPA
building has three of varying sizes. That way, the smaller ones can be
used when demand is low. Despite the project's efficiency achievements,
Martin regrets that they didn't use motion sensors to control lighting.
"We pushed to get those sensors in, but the project couldn't afford it,"
says Martin, who puts the added cost at about $250,000. Among the
building's other green features are a photovoltaic system that generates
roughly 30 kilowatts of power each day, and 150 parking spaces for
bicycles, not cars. Source, The San Francisco Chronicle, June 25, 2001,
article by John King. For more information go to the website http://www.calepa.ca.gov/epabldg .
************************************************************************
TREX CO. MAKES
NEW "WOOD" OUT OF RECYCLED PLASTIC
Manufacturer of Non-Wood Decking Looks to Spain for
Recycled Materials Trex Company, Inc., in Winchester, Virginia, which
makes decking material from waste wood fiber and reclaimed plastics, has
announced it is participating in a joint venture to recycle
polyethylene at a new facility in El Ejido, Spain. The other joint venture
partners are a local Spanish company responsible for public
environmental programs in southern Spain, and an Italian
equipment manufacturer. The plant, which has begun limited
operations, is designed to recycle waste polyethylene generated primarily
from agricultural applications. This recycled material will then be used
in Trex Company's Wood-Polymer lumber manufacturing process.
When fully operational, the plant will generate more than
20,000 tons of recycled plastic annually, to which Trex Company will have
exclusive rights. To make Trex Wood Polymer lumber, approximately equal
amounts of waste wood fiber and reclaimed plastic are combined. The wood
fiber comes primarily from woodworking operations, while the
plastic material is currently reclaimed mainly from stretch film and
grocery sacks. When the decking is manufactured, the plastic surrounds the
individual wood fibers, protecting the wood and giving the end product
many of its superior weather-resistant properties. The company notes that
its decking contains no virgin wood or virgin plastics; no preservatives
or treatments are added during its manufacture; and its product is
completely recyclable after use through the Trex Recycling Program. For
more information on Trex Company, the largest manufacturer of non-wood
decking in the US, see http://www.trex.com.
****************************************************************************
COLLINS
PARTICLE BOARD, OREGON, FIRST FCS-APPROVED WOOD SIDING
TruWood® Siding has become the first and only Forest
Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified engineered siding in the world. In
1993, The Collins Companies became the first privately-owned forest
products company in North America to be FSC-certified. Since then, every
Collins product line from particle board to softwood and hardwood lumber,
to softwood cut stock and veneer, to hardwood flooring and hardwood veneer
logs, and now TruWood Siding has gone through the rigorous, scientific,
and independent evaluation to become FSC-certified. The Forest Stewardship
Council is an independent, international, member-based organization that
provides consumers with an assurance that the wood they use comes from
forests managed in an environmentally and socially responsible manner. The
FSC is the only forest certifying organization in the world endorsed by
the World Wildlife Fund, the Wilderness Society, the Natural Resource
Defense Council, the Rainforest Alliance, and the World Resources
Institute. "Our corporate philosophy, which we have put into action, is to
sustain and protect the integrity of our total forest ecosystem," said
Eric Schooler, President and CEO of The Collins Companies.
"Bringing TruWood into our
family of FSC-certified products gives the marketplace an opportunity to
support real sustainable forest practices by choosing from a full range of
high quality FSC-certified building materials," remarked Schooler. TruWood
Siding replicates the look of Western Red Cedar from the random knots to
the meandering grain, to the rough and craggy feel. It was designed and
crafted by a German artisan in Rochester, New York, who took a piece of
Western Red Cedar and hand-chiseled and sculpted a precise 4' x 16'
mirror-image metal plate capturing the naturalistic irregularity that
nature created. For more information contact Jim Sargent, Manager
Distribution Accounts, Collins Products LLC, 6410 Highway, P.O. Box 16,
Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601, ph. (916) 974-7580, email
jsargent@collinsco.com . Visit their website at http://www.collinswood.com/# . Source, GreenClips, Issue #171, July 4, 2001, a
summary of news on sustainable building design and related government and
business issues. Visit their website at http://www.collinswood.com. . Browse GreenClips back issues at
http://www.greendesign.net/greenclips .
**************************************************************************
EXXON PUTTING
ITSELF IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL BAD BOOKS
If a
could ever harm its customer relations, EXXON can do it. In a desperate
bid to promote the sales of its oil products, EXXON has placed itself in a
storm of controversy that could eventually result in the reduction of its
customer base. EXXON, now joined with MOBIL, is against global warming. It
is moving into the last reaches of the world to extract the last of the
earth's finite convention oil supplies - and harming the ecology and
native peoples' environment. As a result a number of boycotts of EXXON's
oil products have been called for. For example, July 11, 2001,
was named International Action Against ExxonMobil Day. On that day, for
example, a report by Robert Jereski, Executive Director of the
International Forum for Aceh, was released which details the conflict in
the embattled oil and natural gas rich province of Aceh in Indonesia. The
report, available on the website of the Harvard University Humanitarian
Policy and Conflict Studies Program, describes how ExxonMobil's "security"
arrangements with the Indonesian armed forces have not only caused
grievous human rights violations, but have also violated U.S. law and
undermined foreign policy goals. The report calls for the U.S. Congress
and Justice Department to investigate alleged crimes by ExxonMobil -
crimes for which there is a growing body of evidence. Find the report at
the website http://preventconflict.org/portal/main/research/jereski.htm
********************************************************************
SUBMARINE OCEAN
ENVIRONMENTAL DATABASE WEBSITE
The
Submarine Operational And Research Environmental Database (SOARED) website
shows how a simple geographic information system (GIS) can be used to
retrieve scientific environmental data from a relational database and
display the data both on geographic and analytical displays. The website
contains some of the data collected from submarines during the Science Ice
Exercise (SCICEX) cruises, along with selected historical and modeled
datasets that can be used to compare and evaluate the SCICEX data. Paul
Bienhoff of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
demonstrated some of the features of this system for a new data and
display GIS called the SCICEX Database Project at the Arctic Forum 2001
held in Washington D.C. May 24-25, 2001. The SCICEX Database Project is
planned to include the rest of the SCICEX data, as well as other
historical datasets and added software analysis tools and data
import/export features that will add value to the extensive data collected
during the six SCICEX cruises (in 1993 and 1995-1999). For more
information contact Paul Bienhoff,
email Paul.Bienhoff@jhuapl.edu . You can visit the SOARED web
site at http://wood.jhuapl.edu/soared/. The Submarine Operational And Research Environmental
Database (SOARED) website is at http://wood.jhuapl.edu/soared/ .
***************************************************************************
GLOBAL
ENVIRONMENT FACILITY (GEF) SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME
The GEF Small Grants Programme (GEF-SGP) was launched
in 1992 by UNDP. The GEF-SGP provides grants of up to US$50,000 and other
support to community-based groups (CBOs) and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) for activities that address local problems related to
the GEF areas of concern. Since its inception, the GEF-SGP has funded over
1300 projects in Africa, North America and the Middle East, Asia and the
Pacific, Europe and Latin America and the Caribbean. Today, the programme
is operational in over 50 countries. The GEF-SGP recognizes the essential
role that households and communities, applying locally appropriate
solutions, can play in conserving biodiversity, reducing the likelihood of
adverse climate change, and protecting international waters. The programme
operates on the premise that people will be empowered to protect their
environment when they are organized to take action, have a measure of
control over access to the natural resource base, have the necessary
information and knowledge, and believe that their social and economic
wellbeing is dependent on sound long-term resource management. To be
eligible for GEF/SGP support, a project proposed for funding must fit the
GEF/SGP country programme strategy and country-specific eligibility
criteria approved by the NSC. It must also be consistent with the
Operational Strategy and relevant Operational Programs established by the
GEF: In the biodiversity focal area, activities must promote the
conservation and sustainable use of biological resources in arid and
semi-arid ecosystems; coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems; forest
ecosystems; or mountain ecosystems. In the area of climate change,
activities must either demonstrate the removal of local barriers to energy
conservation and energy efficiency, or promote the adoption of renewable
energy. In the international waters focal area, activities must address
environmental concerns in a specific waterbody shared by two or more
countries (such as freshwater drainage basin that is regionally
significant or a large marine ecosystem), or address land-based threats to
international waters.
***************************************************************************
U.S. EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION GRANTS
The EPA
Environmental Education Grant Program is sponsored by EPA's Office of
Environmental Education. This program is designed to support environmental
education and general public knowledge about our environment. Grants are
awarded every year in the EPA's ten regional offices and its Headquarters
office in Washington, DC. The program's website provides detailed
information on EPA grants and how to apply for them; educator training and
student opportunities; advisory groups and partners with many
environmental education organizations; information about the President's
environmental youth awards and environmental education resources. The
following are some of the agencies that receive the US EPA Environmental
Education grants. The Morris K. Udall Foundation (http://www.udall.gov/p_fellowships.htm) for giving Ph.D. dissertation fellowships to
students working on research in environmental public policy or
environmental conflict resolution; The Grey Owl Nature Trust (http://www.greyowltrust.org/ ), a public foundation in Canada, which raises new
funds for environment conservation projects across the country through the
creation of environmental endowments; and the Brainerd Foundation (
http://www.brainerd.org/ ), an organization in the Pacific Northwest that
works on protecting the environment. It was formed by Paul Brainerd, a
journalist and philanthropist, in 1995. Paul Brainerd donated the money
for this foundation and is the organization's current president. Visit the
US EPA Environmental Education Grant Program website
at http://www.epa.gov/enviroed/grants.html . Or visit http://www.epa.gov/natlibra/hqirc/inb.htm .
*************************************************************************
EARTH ISLAND
INSTITUTE WILL GIVE SIX YOUTH GRANTS
|
