Bird Flu: The End of the Nature vs. Social Dichotomies, and More, in "Risk Society"
Post by Sunday at midnight.
Where was everybody at class Friday? Many were absent on an important day: the start of our discussions of Beck/ecological modernization. Read Bronner and Goldblatt articles (and the short one entitled 'Ecological Modernization' after them; read Mythen; read bits from Beck himself) to prepare for next session.
At this point in the course, as we move from the second theory discussed into the third theory discussed, below is an appropriate news article bridging eco-Marxist ideas ('second contradition of capital' comes to mind) and growing political and economic awareness of the massive levels of environmental damage. This damage is increasingly causing both the economic unrest mentioned by the eco-Marxists (the 'second contradiction of capital') and the environmental-political unrest heralded by Ulrich Beck's ideas of the world's states moving into a 'risk society' situation.
There was an attempt in China in the 1990s to do some ecological modernization--to introduce a kind of environmental costs as listed as deductions from profits of the Chinese economic expansion. However, because it showed that the Chinese economy was growing backwards and destroying itself instead of really developing when the costs were tallied, the idea was left unimplemented. This 'ecological economics' accounting was politically rejected for continuing blindly more 'treadmill' expansion types of alliances....and the endless short term developmentalism goals that lead to further environmental destruction.
------------------------------------
Nature loss 'dwarfs bank crisis'
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website, Barcelona
* The global economy is losing more money from the disappearance of forests
than through the current banking crisis, according to an EU-commissioned
study. *
It puts the annual cost of forest loss at between $2 trillion and $5
trillion. [That's annual lost--the U.S. has bailed out banks 'only' around 1.2 trillion dollars so far.]
The figure comes from adding the value of the various services that forests
perform, such as providing clean water and absorbing carbon dioxide.
The study, headed by a Deutsche Bank economist, parallels the Stern Review
into the economics of climate change.
It has been discussed during many sessions here at the World Conservation
Congress.
Some conservationists see it as a new way of persuading policymakers to fund
nature protection rather than allowing the decline in ecosystems and
species, highlighted in the release on Monday of the Red List of Threatened
Species, to continue.
* Capital losses *
Speaking to BBC News on the fringes of the congress, study leader Pavan
Sukhdev emphasized that the cost of natural decline dwarfs losses on the
financial markets.
"It's not only greater but it's also continuous, it's been happening every
year, year after year," he told BBC News.
* Teeb will... show the risks we run by not valuing [nature] adequately." *
Andrew Mitchell
Global Canopy Programme
"So whereas Wall Street by various calculations has to date lost, within the
financial sector, $1-$1.5 trillion, the reality is that at today's rate we
are losing natural capital at least between $2-$5 trillion every year."
The review that Mr Sukhdev leads, The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity (Teeb [that's an abbreviation]), was initiated by Germany under its recent EU
presidency, with the European Commission providing funding.
The first phase concluded in May when the team released its finding that
forest decline could be costing about 7% of global GDP. The second phase
will expand the scope to other natural systems.
* Stern message *
Key to understanding his conclusions is that as forests decline, nature
stops providing services which it used to provide essentially for free.
So the human economy either has to provide them instead, perhaps through
building reservoirs, building facilities to sequester carbon dioxide, or
farming foods that were once naturally available.
Or we have to do without them; either way, there is a financial cost.
The Teeb calculations show that the cost falls disproportionately on the
poor, because a greater part of their livelihood depends directly on the
forest, especially in tropical regions.
The greatest cost to western nations would initially come through losing a
natural absorber of the most important greenhouse gas.
Just as the Stern Review brought the economics of climate change into the
political arena and helped politicians see the consequences of their policy
choices, many in the conservation community believe the Teeb review will lay
open the economic consequences of halting or not halting the slide in
biodiversity.
"The numbers in the Stern Review enabled politicians to wake up to reality,"
said Andrew Mitchell, director of the Global Canopy Programme, an
organisation concerned with directing financial resources into forest
preservation.
"Teeb will do the same for the value of nature, and show the risks we run by
not valuing it adequately."
A number of nations, businesses and global organisations are beginning to
direct funds into forest conservation, and there are signs of a trade in
natural ecosystems developing, analogous to the carbon trade, although it is
clearly very early days.
Some have ethical concerns over the valuing of nature purely in terms of the
services it provides humanity; but the counter-argument is that decades of
trying to halt biodiversity decline by arguing for the intrinsic worth of
nature have not worked, so something different must be tried.
Whether Mr Sukhdev's arguments will find political traction in an era of
financial constraint is an open question, even though many of the
governments that would presumably be called on to fund forest protection are
the ones directly or indirectly paying for the review. [if you just removed subsidies, it would cost nothing...]
But, he said, governments and businesses are getting the point.
"Times have changed. Almost three years ago, even two years ago, their eyes
would glaze over.
"Today, when I say this, they listen. In fact I get questions asked - so how
do you calculate this, how can we monetize it, what can we do about it, why
don't you speak with so and so politician or such and such business." [that the 'ecological modernization' turn we are talking about]
The aim is to complete the Teeb review by the middle of 2010, the date by
which governments are committed under the Convention of Biological Diversity
to have begun slowing the rate of biodiversity loss.
* Richard.Black-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk *
Published: 2008/10/10 00:23:07 GMT
---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7662565.stm
8 comments:
1. Mark Whitaker
2. Revenge of Ulrich Beck: How do you Manage Risk Given the Porousness of Borders?
3. This international spread of diseases in strange vectors across borders by infected birds is another nice example of the type of issues that Beck considers as unable to be addressed given the frameworks of risk management we deal with presently.
Korea last year killed EVERY POULTRY BIRD IN SEOUL over the risk like this, in addition to millions of chickens throughout Korea.
The durability of unmanageable catastrophic risk--"when nature bites back"--is pondered in the work of Beck, like:
What type of politics is generated? What can we expect? How does it reform the sciences, state legitimacy, forms of political protest, and forms of conflict in societies?
--------
Fujian H5N1 in Germany?
Recombinomics Commentary 19:46
October 9, 2008
Authorities say a duck at a farm in eastern Germany has tested positive for the H5N1 strain of the bird flu virus.
The social affairs ministry in the eastern state of Saxony says the farm near Goerlitz on the Polish border has been sealed off.
The ministry said Thursday that the farm has more than 1,000 birds, including turkeys and geese.
The above comments on confirmed H5N1 in Germany (see satellite map) are curious. In the past, outbreaks in Germany have predated subsequent infections in Europe. H5N1 first migrated into the area in the fall of 2005, but most outbreaks in Europe, including Germany were not reported until early 2006. H5N1 was widespread in Germany and represented at least 3 distinct clade 2.2 (Qinghai strain) sub-clades.
Although there was little activity in the 2006/2007 season, Germany reported multiple outbreaks in the summer of 2007, which was unexpected. Additional outbreaks were also reported in the Czech Republic and France. The isolates in Germany, including Saxony, were analyzed by FLI, who noted that the 2007 isolates were distinct from 2006 and presented a clade 2.2.3 sub-clade that had been reported previously in the Uvs Lake region in Mongolia and Russia. This Uvs lake strain subsequently spread throughout Europe in the 2007/2008 season and was recently reported in Nigeria (and is likely also involved in the recent outbreaks in Benin and Togo).
The latest outbreak may be signaling early arrivals from Siberia and Mongolia, which may include a new sub-clade for Europe, clade 2.3 (Fujian strain). Last spring clade 2.3.2 was responsible for outbreaks in South Korea, Japan, and southeastern Russia. In northern Japan there were multiple outbreaks in whooper swans, which would be expected to create opportunities for migration of H5N1 to the same areas that gave rise to clade 2.2.3. Thus, the sequences of the H5N1 would be of interest. Previously, all H5N1 west of China has been clade 2.2. If the H5N1 in Germany is clade 2.3, it would signal a major global expansion of this sub-clade, which ahs been responsible for all reported human cases in China, as well as recent cases in Vietnam.
Media Links
---
http://www.recombinomics.com/News/10090801/H5N1_Ger
Addendum to the above. Think about the effect on politics and science when the offered solutions actually make everything worse:
2008-05-13
Bird Flu Medicine Toxic for Teens
Students are startled as pigeons flap their wings to fly upward at a park in eastern Seoul, Tuesday. / Yonhap
By Bae Ji-sook
Staff Reporter
Concerns are rising over side effect of bird flu drug Tamiflu on teenagers.
Tamiflu is Swiss-based Hoffman-La Roche's antiviral for general influenza A and B but is also used to combat bird flu.
However, worries have surfaced about the possibility of the medicine causing mental disorders among teenagers.
With fear of the H5N1 virus sweeping the nation, the government has doubled the quantity of the drug in storage, as it is the most effective treatment against avian influenza.
Whether to prescribe the pills with risks of side-effects such delusions or other disorders is being widely discussed among medical experts.
Although the drug has been the only medicine accredited to be effective against the H5N1 virus strain by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Japanese and Korean governments restricted its being prescribed to teenagers last year.
The Korea Food and Drug Administration announced that the drug should not be prescribed to those between 10 to 19 years old except for emergencies.
According to Roche, there has not been a reported case of side effects here, but the Seoul Shinmun, a local daily, reported that a woman in her 30s said she had nightmares after taking the drug in 2005.
The government's decision came after Japanese health authorities banned its prescription for teenagers in March 2007.
Japan has imported the drug since 2001, long before its effect on bird flu was acknowledged.
However, since then, there have been 1,268 cases of extraordinary behavior reported, of which 85 percent were from teenagers.
They reportedly committed suicide by jumping out of buildings or into cars.
Health experts admit to the dilemma and said when necessary, it should be prescribed with extra prudence.
``We will have no option but to give out the pill once someone contracts the disease. But for teenagers we need to be extra careful and make sure it is prescribed at the most appropriate time,'' Korean Pharmacists for a Democratic Society spokesman Shin Hyeong-geun said. ``Let's hope we will never have to worry about that.''
bjs@koreatimes.co.kr
---
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/05/117_24103.html
1. Haerang Park
2. U.N. says credit crisis could enable "green growth"
3. A small portion of loss in the US subprime mortgages started this ongoing credit crunch spreading out default risk through a long and complicated chain of its related derivatives sold to all over the world. This connection then brings other countries into crisis and further bankruptcy affecting them more heavily than the US. To elaborate this process, many developing countries like Vietnam are expriencing a massive outflow of foreign funds in an effort to mitigate credit crisis in the investors' countries. As an effort to mitigate credit crunch, the US government tries to put public money into the market and major central banks in the world signed to expand the currency swap arrangement. In this article, De Boer, the UN climate chief, tells that he sees an opportunity to step forward to a "global green economic growth." This is if and only if the public funds are well allocated to stimulate clean industries and help developing countries to engange in the environmental agenda rather than to be wasted entirely for the financial world which will creates "the poorest of the poor."
4. U.N. says credit crisis could enable "green growth"
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Instead of sidelining the fight against climate change, the global credit crisis could hasten countries' efforts to create "green growth" industries by revamping the financial system behind them, the U.N. climate chief said on Friday.
But that would depend on governments helping poor countries -- who are key to saving the planet's ecology -- tackle their problems, instead of spending most available money on rescuing the financial world, Yvo de Boer told reporters.
De Boer said the financial "earthquake" that has seen markets plunge worldwide in recent weeks could damage U.N.-led climate change talks, but only "if the opportunities that the crisis brings for climate change abatement are ignored."
"The credit crisis can be used to make progress in a new direction, an opportunity for global green economic growth," de Boer, who heads the Bonn-based U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, told a news conference.
"The credit crunch I believe is an opportunity to rebuild the financial system that would underpin sustainable growth ... Governments now have an opportunity to create and enforce policy which stimulates private competition to fund clean industry."
De Boer said a successful outcome to climate change negotiations in Copenhagen in December 2009 would create new markets, investment opportunities and job creation.
But he warned that "if available global capital is used primarily to refloat the financial world, we literally will sink the futures of the poorest of the poor.
"And I hope that the credit crunch will not mean that people in the South will have to wait for those in the North to have repaid their credit card debts and mortgages before attention is again turned to the South."
Without reaching out a hand to developing countries, it would be very difficult to make advances on the rest of the environmental agenda, De Boer said.
Environment ministers will meet in two months' time in Poznan, Poland, to prepare for the Copenhagen summit, which is due to agree on a new global-warming accord to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.
Ministers in Poznan must make clear they were "willing to put financial resources, the architecture, the institutions in place that will allow developing countries to engage in a global approach on both mitigation and adaptation," he said.
Funding did not have to all come from governments and he foresaw "an approach where we very much use the market".
De Boer said the financial crisis had not so far affected the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, which allows rich countries to offset their carbon footprints by investing in clean energy projects in developing countries.
"I don't see a slowdown in the CDM pipeline at the moment," he said.
5. http://www.enn.com/business/article/38389/print
1. Sally Paik
2. U.S. focus on climate could ease financial crisis
3. According to environmental policy experts, the United States could help the world ease financial crisis if it focused on controlling climate change as soon as a new president took office. There is got to be something done to solve the skyrocketing energy prices and one is to reorient the investments toward a clean energy economy.
4. ----------------------------------
5. Published October 9, 2008 04:36 PM
U.S. focus on climate could ease financial crisis
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - If the United States focused on curbing climate change as soon as a new president took office -- or sooner -- it could help pull the world from the financial brink, environmental policy experts told Reuters.
"Skyrocketing energy prices and the financial crisis have been a wake-up call that something's got to change," said Cathy Zoi, chief executive officer of the Alliance for Climate Protection, which is chaired by former Vice President Al Gore.
"My very strong belief is that we need to reorient our investments toward this transition to a clean energy economy, and it will be the engine of growth for getting us out of the doldrums that we've gotten in right now," Zoi told the Reuters Global Environment Summit this week.
The reorientation must include U.S. limits on emissions of climate-warming carbon in the United States, she said: "Unless we take action at home, we're not going to be able to have much influence in the international arena about what gets done."
The Bush administration accepts that human-spurred climate change is a reality but rejects mandatory across-the-board caps on carbon as a disadvantage when competing with fast-growing, big-emitting countries like China and India.
The United States is alone among the major developed countries in staying out of the carbon-capping Kyoto Protocol, but is part of international discussions on new targets to fight climate change by the end of 2009 at a meeting in Copenhagen.
Both major U.S. presidential candidates -- Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain -- favor requiring reductions in greenhouse emissions, and environmental activists have said whoever won the White House in the November 4 elections would be an improvement over President George W. Bush.
"EARLY SIGNAL" NEEDED FROM NEXT U.S. PRESIDENT
"There is an urgent need for whichever party wins the U.S. election to give an early signal (of an intent to do more to combat global warming) or there cannot be a credible reason for 190 nations to come together in Copenhagen," said Achim Steiner, head of the U.N. Development Program.
Rajendra Pachauri, who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Price with Gore and who chairs the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said an Obama presidency would probably be more favorable to the fight against climate change.
But he added: "Even if McCain wins, he has been very committed."
There is little chance of passing a U.S. law to mandate a program to cap and trade carbon emissions before Bush leaves office in January.
However, the first draft of a cap-and-trade bill was released this week by U.S. Democratic Representatives John Dingell of Michigan -- home of the Big Three automakers -- and Rick Boucher of Virginia -- coal-mining country -- that is likely to frame debate next year.
The draft legislation drew measured applause from environmental activists, who noted it contains options that could substantially weaken controls on greenhouse emissions from some sectors.
But the fact that these two lawmakers are crafting legislation aimed at curbing climate change indicates a possible change in tone in Washington.
Despite comments from Sarah Palin, the Alaska governor who is McCain's running-mate, questioning the human causes of global warming, most officials in U.S. government -- including Bush -- acknowledge that people contribute to the problem.
The anthropogenic roots of global warming are clear to Prince Albert of Monaco, who told the Reuters summit he didn't "adhere" to Palin's skeptical view.
"There are obviously cycles, but how can you not consider the graphs that have been shown to us?," Prince Albert said. "Those who can't see the correlation between man-made activities and greenhouse gas emissions, it's going to be hard to convince them; but somehow we will have to do so."
6. ---
7. http://www.enn.com/climate/article/38380
1. Moctar Aboubacar
2. 'Green' cars and the European example
3. State- sponsored or state directed production takes the focus of this article on the recent pledges by the French government to invest money in the production of 'greener', ecologically friendly cars. These include the electric car. The large amount of money (of which, curiously, all these heavily indebted nations seems to have a lot of these days) is to be invested in the research and development of the cars in question. This is done in partnership with several big car companies in France. The government of France has previously instituted a bonus/malus system on car, in which there is a greater financial incentive to buy ecologically friendlier cars.
Also, there seems to be little resistance on the part of the car makers, who have made contracts with the government's electric company and are even looking at international production.
4. Thursday, October 9, 2008 - Added 2d 24h ago
EmailE-mail PrintablePrintable Comments(0) Comments LargerSmallerText size ShareShare Rate(0) Rate
PARIS - French President Nicolas Sarkozy on Thursday pledged 400 million euros ($549 million) in state support for the development of electric and hybrid cars.
He said during a visit to the Paris Auto Show that the money will be destined "exclusively for the research and development of nonpolluting vehicles" over fours years — and will come from funds already earmarked for environmental projects.
Sarkozy also said he will call upon other European countries to encourage auto makers to take loans from the European Investment Bank to develop lower emission vehicles. His comments came as French carmakers Renault SA and PSA Peugeot Citroen said they made separate agreements with energy company Electrite de France to develop and market electric and hybrid vehicles.
Renault’s agreement is to jointly develop the infrastructure needed to recharge electric vehicles, allowing a vehicle launch in 2011. It is open to other "interested parties" and will start in France, the two companies said in a joint statement Thursday. The French government owns 85 percent of EdF and 15 percent of Renault.
Peugeot Citroen’s partnership is aimed at supporting the development and future marketing of electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids, the car maker said in a joint statement with EdF.
Although the demand for green cars is growing, uncertainties linger over the batteries needed to power them. Technological advances are needed to meet cost and weight requirements, and the infrastructure to recharge them is lacking.
Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Renault and its Japanese sister carmaker Nissan, says the investments required to commercialize electric cars are "colossal."
State-controlled EdF, the owner of the world’s biggest fleet of electric vehicles, is developing a "smart" charging terminal, currently being tested on Toyota Motor Corp.’s Prius cars in Britain. The technology is designed to recognize the car, allowing drivers to be invoiced directly no matter where they charge their vehicles.
The Renault Nissan Alliance says it has partnership agreements in France, Israel, Denmark, Portugal, the U.S. state of Tennessee and the Kanagawa Prefecture in Japan, allowing it to commercialize electric cars from 2011.
© Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
5. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/international/europe/view/2008_10_09_France_earmarks__549_million_for_green_cars/
Also:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/French-Cars-Go-Green-For-549-Million-95417.shtml
1. Bjoern Schmidt
2. India is allowed to import nuclear technology from the United States.
3. Right next to the financial crisis, there is a public event which passes press rather unmentioned.
George W. Bush signed a treaty with the Indian government to allow India to import nuclear technology in the future. Politically this is justified with the fact that India has long been threatened by Pakistanian nuclear efforts.
Seen from the view of Beck and his construct of a risk society, this casts a dire future on worlds environmental fate; not to mention the possibility of future hostilities unforessen by todays politicians. Having one vital nuclear power more in the world will not make it a safer place.
A side comment makes clear that India plans to build 14 nuclear reactors; I will also post the side comment which contains a lot of facts which are probably less trustworthy (or mor than) than the main text.
The main text makes clear that India onlz has to allow observers for their "civil" nuclear structures and not the "military" structures which makes observation futile by any means when it comes to the threat of military usage.
-------------
U.S. - India Nuclear Deal Passes as America Focuses on Bailout Plan
Written by Heidi Suydam
Published on October 11th, 20081 CommentPosted in Conservative, Energy, International, Leader, Legislation
National and international news sources are reporting about a nuclear deal between the US and India. The US Congress and Senate have both approved a nuclear deal between the US and India. The LA Times reports the debate ensued for three years. The deal passed the Senate on September 28th, Congress October 1st and ends a 30-year ban on sales to India of nuclear technology and fuel. The ban was the result of India developing and testing a nuclear device in 1974. The deal was signed yesterday, October 10th, and does not require India to sign the Non-proliferation treaty.
Advocates of the bill say it will “will form a lasting strategic alliance between the United States and the world’s largest democracy.” Supporters of the bill also contend that this partnership will help offset China’s current dominance in Asia. In a BBC News article, Condolezza Rice, is quoted saying the bill is a “landmark deal” and received “strong bi-partisan support.” President Bush applauded the deal in an official statement on October 1st saying “This legislation will strengthen our global nuclear nonproliferation efforts, protect the environment, create jobs, and assist India in meeting its growing energy needs in a responsible manner.”
Opponents of the bill are concerned that the current deal does not require India to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Other nations pursuing nuclear technology are required to sign this treaty. India has agreed that it’s civilian nuclear facilities will be open for inspection. However, their military facilities will not be open for inspection. Bi-partisan opponents are also concerned that “rewarding a country that ignored international nonproliferation efforts, the deal will make it harder for world powers to contain the spread of nuclear weapons to countries such as Iran, and may even accelerate nuclear arms races.”
An October 3rd Seattle Times article reported and explained strong opposition to the deal. Those in favor of it seem to have their approval centered around India’s geographical location and hopes that India will be “key to battling Islamic extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Strongly opposed to the deal chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, retired Army Lt. Gen. Robert Gard is concerned that “This deal significantly weakens U.S. and international security.”
Of course, the U.S. - India deal is touted mostly a move for energy and economy, however there is cause for concern when a country will not sign a non-proliferation treaty, will only allow civilian reactors to be inspected and reserves the right to determine which reactors are considered civilian at any given time. As with most complicated situations we face there are several ways to view this deal. In the arena of expanding nuclear energy this may be called a victory, in the arena of national and international security this is a grave concern. Time will tell.
----------
Added comment:
Dr. Amit K. Maitra said on October 11th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
The last two lines in the above article say: “As with most complicated situations we face there are several ways to view this deal. ,,, , in the arena of national and international security this is a grave concern.” This conclusion is arbitrary, capricious, and definitely not based on any rational, pragmatic or logical analysis.
As of today, the NPT signatories include all nations except Israel, India, and Pakistan. North Korea signed the treaty only to withdraw from it later to conduct a nuclear test. Negotiations are on to bring Pyongyang back into the treaty. Of the three non-signatories, Israel is not interested in civil nuclear commerce. That leaves only India and Pakistan. Pakistan, through A.Q. Khan’s notorious activities, stole nuclear technology and has engaged in terrible WMD proliferation. India has built a large nuclear infrastructure based on its indigenous expertise. It has designed its own reactors, including a fast breeder reactor, and is conducting research on conversion of thorium into uranium 233. While the United States orchestrated the restrictions on international commerce since 1974, it has come to terms with the reality that those restrictions are progressively losing relevance and impact as far as India is concerned. Thus, the current U.S. government has decided to treat India as an exceptional case. In doing so, the U.S. government points out that India has maintained an impeccable record on non-proliferation since it conducted its first nuclear test. Whenever foreign states such as Libya and Iran approached New Delhi for nuclear capability barters, Indian leaders from Indira Gandhi to everyone else who followed her have unequivocally, categorically, and resolutely refused to engage in such trades. That history and political culture and tradition encouraged the founders of the NSG to believe that there is a rock-solid and business-wise case to bring India into the non-proliferation regime. They cannot simply incorporate India into the NPT because the treaty would unravel if any attempt is made to amend it.
India shares its borders with two nuclear weapon powers (Pakistan and China) that have been engaging in nuclear proliferation. The non-proliferation community was impotent and failed to take action when that proliferation occurred in the 80s and 90s. Pakistan officially claims that its arsenal is deterrence against India. Under these circumstances, India has very little choice. For its own national security and national interest concerns, it cannot join the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. Given such constraints, the founders of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) devised a very practical and sophisticated policy approach by making India a stakeholder in the non-proliferation regime; in this way, they are giving India its due recognition for its advanced nuclear technology and its non-proliferation record and paving the way for further promotion of non-proliferation. India will institutionalize rigorous export controls, place fourteen nuclear power reactors under international safeguards, and actively participate with the U.S. and other NSG countries in reducing WMD proliferations worldwide. Many U.S. foreign policy experts, including several ambassadors, agree that bringing India into the nuclear non-proliferation regime is entirely consistent with the U.S. and other NGS countries’ devotion to the NPT.
In March 2006, President George Bush said: “Pakistan is a different country, with different needs and a different history. All other countries are members of the NPT and if any of them were to breach the treaty, it would not amount to following the Indian example but that of North Korea.” Understanding and appreciation of India’s particular set of circumstances have moved the founders of the NSG to approve the waiver and frame a new creative approach to nuclear technology sharing and managing a more proliferation-proof fuel cycle that, in turn, would multiply the benefits of a cooler climate.
The issue that the NSG had to critically review was whether the benefits of bringing India as a stakeholder in the non-proliferation regime through the waiver would outweigh any perceived damage to the NPT. The NSG is on target - it is about to achieve its cherished goal of making the non-proliferation regime totally international by bringing India into it. Failure to see this unfolding drama is short-sighted and unfortunate. As President George W. Bush took office eight years ago, he was very conscious of the fact that, for 34 years, the biggest impediment to a close U.S. – India relationship was the continuing disagreement about India’s nuclear capability and its status in the international non-proliferation order. In fact, even before he entered the White House oval office, President Bush made up his mind to put in place the building blocks for a new relationship with India. He decided that India and the United States should have a new and strong relationship, akin to an alliance. His success brings to mind Allison Graham’s seminal article on the Cuban Missile Crisis (Graham Allison, Essence of Decision: The Cuban Missile Crisis (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971)), which espoused the notion that statesmanship requires visionary leaders to make tough choices and demonstrate political will. Henry Kissinger put it in more practical terms: “The task of the leader is to get his people from where they are to where they have not been.” President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh demonstrated that visionary leadership.
-----------------------------------
5.
http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/10/11/us-india-nuclear-deal-passed-in-senate-and-congress-as-america-focuses-on-bailout-plan/
1. Mark Whitaker
2. Nice example of science activists in the risk society
3. Beck argues that the increasing politicization of science processes as covering up 'organized irresponsibility' means the subpolitics of the world will increasingly pressure previously non-political institutions into politicized stances. Here's some subpolitics of risk regarding testing bottled water.
-----------------------------
Published on Wednesday, October 15, 2008 by The San Francisco Chronicle
Some Bottled Water Toxicity Shown To Exceed Law
by Jane Kay
Bottled water brands do not always maintain the consistency of quality touted in ads featuring alpine peaks and crystalline lakes and, in some cases, contain toxic byproducts that exceed state safety standards, tests show.
[Sam's Choice's chemical levels were found to exceed legal limits in California and voluntary standards adopted by the industry. (Kurt Rogers / The Chronicle)]Sam's Choice's chemical levels were found to exceed legal limits in California and voluntary standards adopted by the industry. (Kurt Rogers / The Chronicle)
The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization with offices in Oakland, tested 10 brands of bottled water and found that Wal-Mart's Sam's Choice contained chemical levels that exceeded legal limits in California and the voluntary standards adopted by the industry.
The tests discovered an average of eight contaminants in each brand. Four brands besides Wal-Mart's also were contaminated with bacteria.
The environmental group filed a notice of intent to sue Wal-Mart Tuesday, alleging that the mega-chain failed to warn the public of illegal concentrations of trihalomethanes, which are cancer-causing chemicals.
"The investigation has uncovered that consumers cannot be assured of the quality of their bottled water," said Olga Naidenko, a toxicologist at the Environmental Working Group and lead author of the bottled-water study.
"Our study was a snapshot of the marketplace. We found some brands that provided good quality and other brands that contained various chemical pollutants. What this shows is that consumers cannot have confidence. They don't know what they're getting," she said.
The group also singled out Giant Supermarket's brand Acadia for excessive levels of disinfection byproducts, but it didn't sue because the Mid-Atlantic chain's water isn't sold in California.
Some of the Sam's Choice bottled water purchased from Wal-Marts in Mountain View and Oakland came from Las Vegas Valley Water District's sometimes-chlorinated public water supply, the group found.
Wal-Mart responds
Shannon Frederick, senior communications manager at Wal-Mart's corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., said the corporation stands by its product. Wal-Mart owns 4,200 stores in the United States.
"Both our suppliers' tests and tests from an additional external laboratory are not showing any reportable amounts of chlorine or chlorine byproducts. We're disappointed that the EWG has not shared more details with us as we continue to investigate this matter," Frederick said.
"We're puzzled by the EWG's findings."
The Las Vegas water supply meets federal standards for toxic chemicals that form when disinfectants such as chlorine react with organic matter, sometimes in reservoirs. The federal standard is 80 parts per billion. But in California, the byproducts standard in bottled water is eight times as strict, possibly making Wal-Mart liable for action under Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. In 1995, after animal tests showed that the byproducts could cause cancer and reproductive damage in lab animals, California added the bottled water provisions to the health and safety code, setting a standard at 10 parts per billion.
The Food and Drug Administration requires bottled water to meet the same standards as tap water from public systems - which is 80 ppb. The FDA doesn't require bottled water companies to inform consumers of the source and presence of contaminants. Yet by law, public water companies must send customers annual information about sources and the presence of contaminants such as trihalomethanes, arsenic, nitrates and fluoride in the water supply.
Study findings
In the Environmental Working Group study, the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory screened for 170 possible contaminants. The lab found 38 pollutants in 24 samples from 10 major brands purchased by the group in California, Washington, D.C., and eight other states.
The environmental group won't release the names of eight other brands it tested, saying it would do so only after it conducts more-extensive testing.
Scott Huntley, a spokesman for the Las Vegas Valley Water District, said he had no knowledge that Wal-Mart was using Las Vegas's water supply for bottling.
After some checking, he said a local water-bottling company that sells to the Strip could be supplying Wal-Mart as well.
Some findings from the study:
-- Three samples of Sam's Choice bought in Oakland, Mountain View and Fayetteville, N.C., contained levels of total trihalomethanes between 14 ppb and 37 ppb, exceeding the state and industry standard of 10 ppb.
-- One of the byproducts, bromodichloromethane, also a carcinogen, is even more toxic to lab animals and is more strictly controlled. The state's cancer safety standard is 2.5 ppb. Three bottles of Sam's Choice purchased in Mountain View and Oakland contained the contaminant at levels from 7.7 ppb and 13 ppb.
-- Also present in bottled water were caffeine and the pharmaceutical Tylenol, as well as arsenic, radioactive isotopes, nitrates and ammonia from fertilizer residue. Industrial chemicals used as solvents, degreasing agents and propellants were also found in the tests.
-- Trace amounts of synthetic chemicals or degradation products from the manufacture of PET, or polyethylene terephthalate, plastic bottles were found, including acetaldehyde, isobutane and toluene. At those low levels, scientists can't ascertain the health effects.
Bottled vs. tap
Americans drank more than 9 billion gallons in 2007, and fewer than half of 228 brands of bottled water reveal their source. Typical cost is $3.79 per gallon, 1,900 times the cost of public tap water. Green campaigns have focused on steering away from bottled water because manufacturing, transporting and sending unrecycled bottles to the landfill use natural resources and create an environmental burden.
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom issued an executive order in June 2007 barring use of city funds to purchase bottled water.
"The primary reason is that it can cost a thousand times more, and you're not even getting better quality water," said Tony Winnicker, spokesman for the city Public Utilities Commission.
"There have been hundreds of millions of dollars spent to market the myth that bottled water is purer and safer than the tap water. The study is further evidence that the myth is often a lie."
Guide to safe drinking water
Filters: Drink filtered tap water instead of bottled water. Use carbon filters, pitcher or tap-mounted. They reduce lead and disinfection byproducts. Install a reverse osmosis filter if you can afford it.
Containers: Carry water in stainless steel containers.
Research: Learn what's in your tap water. Suppliers publish water-quality tests.
Find the full report on bottled water quality by the Environmental Working Group at www.ewg.org.
---
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2008/10/15-0
another one:
The meat industry wants USDA to let them use irradiation on whole beef carcasses (normally irradiation is done at the end of the line after meat is processed and packaged.) And to make matters worse, they want the agency to change how irradiation is regulated so they won't have to label meat products that undergo this treatment.
Irradiation is an expensive, impractical technology that lets meat companies try to cover up their sloppy practices rather than preventing contamination by slowing
down their lines and cleaning up their plants. It creates new chemical byproducts in food and the long term health impacts of eating irradiated food are still unknown.
Consumers need USDA to do more testing for contamination in meat plants, not let the meat industry try to push a quick fix that causes more problems than it solves. Tell
USDA you don't want more irradiation PARTICULARLY if you
live outside the USA. It's the Commerce Department that will hear about it and be aware of the trade dangers of letting unlabeled irradiated U.S. beef carcasses into the world market.
Post a Comment