Envi-cartoon-alism

During out recent test, we experienced the new AP writer’s like of cartoons. In light of this I would like to use this issue to analyze further cartoons. Because of my policy I looked for recent and relevant environmental cartoons. A note on sources: Grist.org did not provide cartoon material for this week so other sources are used.

In this cartoon, provided by cartoonstock.com, energy policy is depicted as somewhat of a dead weight for congress. The energy policy itself is a sloth, of course meant to signify the extremely slow movement of such policies along the different branches in the tree of congress. The sloth begins to think about carbon credits and nuclear power, but is more interested in sleep, and just as the sloth’s determination to focus is hopeless, so to are the attempts at addressing issues like carbon credit and nuclear power in congress.

The above cartoon by Steve Greenberg is insinuating that politicians, although they attempt to appear eco-friendly, actually care very little about the environment. This cartoon seemed appropriate for tomorrow’s Earth Day. The politician, whose office is next to a toxic spewing plant (one which most likely supports the candidate financially and is returned with favors) realizes that it is Earth Day and walks to a tree (past toxic waste barrels and a river polluting pipe which he pays no attention to) and hugs the tree for a media photo opportunity. The last frame is the same as the first; he is back in his office with his back conveniently turned to the pollution in the back ground. The cartoon suggests that while politicians have every intention of allowing environmental damage, they are willing to hug a tree if it will get them positive publicity.

This cartoon, also by Steve Greenberg, makes several points about the recent matter of the Endangered Species Act. In previous posts, I discuss the act in more detail, but simply from the cartoon, on can see several of Greenberg’s arguments. The first that is most obvious is the overwhelming majority that is in favor of extending the Act. One realizes however, that of this majority, none are actually able to vote in man’s political system. Another notable depiction is Greenberg’s use of sleeves for the two voters opposed to the Act. One is a plaid pattern and the other a business suit. The plaid is a more common one and reminds the audience of a logger (of course the chainsaw is also a hint) The arm bearing the suit is also holding a saw, but brings to mind the bureaucratic and politician’s side of view. It is interesting that both individuals opposed are wielding chainsaws. This suggests that is not the animals themselves we want (yes, some animals are poached) but rather it is the land they inhabit that we seek to take as our own. Both the loggers and government workers are against the act where as those actually affected by the act have no say. Obviously we cannot give animals the right to vote, but we are a species that has used as part of an argument to form a country, “no taxation without representation”, or in other words, no law without a say in making it.

Senators won’t “pay-go” and the House won’t omnibus… It’s up to a Finance Committee

The Senate recently passed short-term extensions for clean energy tax incentives that will be set in provisions for the new housing bill. After adding the extensions, the Senate then went on to pass the housing bill with a convincing majority that has environmentalists hopeful that this piece of legislation might actually make it to the president’s desk before being killed in either the House or the Conference committee. The extensions provide for a continuance of production tax credit for wind power, investment tax credit for solar energy, and several other incentives for energy efficiency.
The passing of the bill and its added incentives proves to be a positive environmental move that demonstrates bipartisan support and urgency for such matters. It is the first time that the Senate has approved any kind of extension for the clean energy incentives and although the eventual effect may be mitigated in conference committee and in negotiation with the president, it shows that Congress is beginning to develop a priority around dealing with environmental policies. One concern about the bill’s success comes from the necessity for the House and Senate to agree on their differences (something that has traditionally not been accomplished).
In the past, the House has passed several year or longer extensions, but they have not gotten through the Senate. Now the Senate has passed its own set of extensions, but the House is skeptical about passing the Senate’s version. When the House created extension legislation, they used the Democrat’s “pay-go” policy that requires spending to be met with equal cuts in other areas. The proposed cuts of 13 billion would have come from the .5 trillion dollar Oil Profits, but Republican senators felt that asking the Oil industries to give up this profit was “just too much to ask”. As a result, this House version was filibustered and killed in the Senate. The Senate’s reply to the Democratic pay-go idea came in an attempt to sidestep the pay-go policy. Republican Senators attempted to attach their version of the extensions (which were almost exactly the same as the House extensions) onto the economic stimulus package in order to avoid using oil profits, but this method also failed when the votes came in.
Currently, the housing and incentive extensions legislation that has made it through the Senate and is now in the House is being supported by speaker Nancy Pelosi. Having recently passed the 17 billion dollar clean energy package that was stopped in the Senate because of the legislation’s impact on oil profits, Pelosi feels that the House will be ready to accept similar legislation from the Senate, if the Senate can provide an alternative means for funding. The problem now lies not in deciding what extensions to provide (both the House and Senate had proposed similar legislation), but how to fund the proposals. The Senate does not wish to accept pay-go policies that will take funds from other areas, and the House does not wish to accept the Senate’s attempts to create omnibus legislation.
The recent attaching of the extensions onto the housing bill also creates a problem for the Senate and House because of their different policy priorities on housing. While the House wants to establish policy around the needs of homeowners, the Senate is focusing predominantly on the housing industry as a whole. This difference of loyalty will have to be smoothed out in a conference committee and could potentially lead to another delay or even another termination of the legislation.
One potential solution could come from the Senate Finance Committee whose democratic chairman is planning a proposed 50 billion plan that would extend expired and about-to-expire programs. The benefit of his proposal would be complete prior funding, which would give Republican Senators little to complain about. Even if this legislation does not pass, several lobbyist groups, including the Sierra Club, NRDC, Wal-Mart, and the National Association of Home Builders have promised to continue pressuring legislators until some form of policy change is sent to the president.

Keep immigrants out of the U.S with a wall….Keep species off our planet with a wall

There was a recent court case sent to the Supreme Court pertaining to the proposed construction of a wall to mitigate immigration into the U.S. Grist columnists reported on the event and used an additional article as a source of further information.
Recently, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club have asked the Supreme Court to hear a case not entirely associated with the environment, but certainly including it. The two groups are protesting the REAL ID Act that gives “unprecedented and sweeping authority to waive any and all laws to expedite the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border”. Rather than bring the issue of environmental impact, something that is certainly a concern in the matter, the group has asked the Supreme Court to rule based upon the ideal of separation of power. Both groups believe that the implementation of the REAL ID Act gives the Homeland Security Secretary essentially the veto power over some bills. This veto ability combines a presidential role with a congressional one and therefore can not be part of our separated power structure. The president of Defenders of Wildlife described the case saying, “The issue here is not security vs. wildlife, but whether wildlife, sensitive environmental values and communities along the border will be given fair consideration in the decisions the government makes”. Even with a large number of amicus briefs, a case simply based upon an environmental argument is unlikely to be heard in the Supreme Court. If the court ruled on an environmental issue, precedent would be set either for or against the environmental ideal. Because of this, most justices would refrain from a case unless it met specific requirements that could be used to set a broad and empowering precedent such as the example set in Brown v. Board.
The executive director of the Sierra Club made an interesting comment that could be used as an argument for using precedent set in an earlier case: “Laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act are part of America's enduring legal framework, and no agency or public official should be allowed to ignore them”. The laws and acts that the director refers to are ones that he would need to ignore or get rid of in order to build the wall. In U.S. v. Nixon, the decision set the precedent that government agencies, even the executive branch, are not above the law. When the Secretary of Homeland Security uses his veto power, he is acting above the law. If the precedent from the Nixon case can be applied, it would be even easier for environmentalists to win their argument. If pointing out the harm to the environment doesn’t work, they can point out the need to maintain a separation of power, and if that still does not convince the judges as an argument, they can show that the secretaries abilities allow him to act in a way that is above the law (something that is illegal based upon the precedent set in the Nixon case).
The Secretary of Homeland Security has utilized the REAL ID Act for three different situations in order to waive certain legislation. The first waiving of conflicting legislation came from the creation of a wall near San Diego the second came from removing barriers and replacing them with a wall in Arizona, and the final time came from constructing a wall within a national conservation area. The first two times the waiver was used, it seemed harmless, but if more and more of these waivers take place, the impact will be noticed and many are likely to begin protesting the secretary’s powers. It is interesting that when given power within government there is a potential to abuse it, but there is also the realization that too much abuse will result in retaliation and because of this those who have power often treat it with a fragile respect. In this case, the secretary might reach his limit with proposed legislation in Texas that would “bypass extensive opposition from local residents, elected leaders, business owners, and conservationists”. This sidestepping of the system reduces to zero the voice of those who are affected, and when individuals have no say in a decision they tend to retaliate. Let’s not forget our anger about not having the ability to influence British politics as a colony. Knowing that an argument for the support of their beliefs will not be attained simply through environmental sympathy, environmental activist groups must now develop different and “more relevant” arguments that may not even include the environment in order to have their issues addressed. Even when an individual is completely committed to a case because of its potential environmental impact, their ability to create a broader topic of persuasion and or class action suites insures the success of their goals.

Living With Uncle Sam’s Rules. Organizations and their Impacts

The Wall Street Journal recently held an ECO:nomics conference during which GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt argued against conservative ideologues about his support for a legislated cap-and-trade system. The Competitive Enterprise Institute as well as the Grist columnist took interest because of Immelt’s excellent arguments against ideologue beliefs.
Many of the ideological conservatives have been angered by the CEO from the second largest company in the world due to his partnership with the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (a lobby group that focuses on implementing a cap-and-trade system) as well as Immelt’s pressure to “embrace clean energy and sustainability”. He responded to several criticisms, saying that it would be better to “get out in front of what’s coming than wait on the sidelines”. So often in the past, the government has waited until it is almost too late to take action on important matters. This can be partially attributed to the lack of public attention to certain subjects which translates to similar behavior in politicians who are attempting to appeal to their constituencies, but in the case of the environment, politicians can not afford to wait until the majority takes note.
One critic asked what entrepreneurs should do if they cannot afford the time or money to lobby for special treatment in Washington when the carbon cap begins to weaken the economy. To this, Immelt replied simply, “We compete our asses off…we’re No. 1 at what we do!”. When asked how many wind turbines he would have sold in the past year if he had not received helpful government subsidies, Immelt pointed out that he would have sold just as many, but they would have gone outside the country. This remark reminds us that there are many ways to achieve something whether it’s through Congress, bureaucracy, or international trade, and if government legislators do not seem to be going your way, there is always an alternative that will allow for competition and a healthy economy.
Immelt reaffirmed several points throughout his time at the conference. One argument he gives points out the ideologue’s false sense of a free market. In a world where housing is controlled by mortgage tax credits; healthcare is aided and regulated by Medicare and Medicaid; and even his company, General Electric, entered into the field of aviation as a result of defense funding, it is unreasonable to believe that the “only regulation [for energy] will be the price of a barrel of oil”. Each branch of our government serves to regulate a corresponding branch in our lives, and attempting to prevent this relationship from developing in the energy industry is an unreasonable request in a future that holds no guarantees. Immelt also pointed out that although “businesses always forecast doom, regulations can often work to spur competition”. The banning of monopolies created competition in specific markets, and other regulations can also increase the incentive to bring a better product to consumers at a lower price. Immelt gave several examples of helpful regulations, citing the SOX trading program, OSHA 1910, and the CAFÉ standards. He admits, “US CAP may not be perfect, but it replaced a vacuum”.
Immelt’s most potent justification was posed as a question: “What’s your favorite part of our current energy policy?...Silence…Make a list!...More Silence. Then scattered laughter. Then waves of laughter. And finally, applause.” In other words, there’s nothing currently enjoyable or beneficial about our limited policy, and any change is positive.

The Environmental Working Group has come out with a report stating a drastic increase in close proximity mining and urban areas. Due in part to an increase in the value of minerals, as well as a now “antiquated U.S. mining law, which is highly prospector friendly” there are more than 51,000 hard rock claims within five miles of a “population center”. One sense of relief comes from the fact that less than five percent of the claims will be made into full mining facilities, but in places like Las Vegas and Phoenix (where there are over five thousand claims within a five mile radius) environmentalists are counting on at least a few new mines and are not pleased about it. The main reason for the stress comes from knowing that mining creates more toxic “Superfund” sites than any other industry, and also requires large amounts of water that are unavailable in the aired climate currently being targeted.

According to the World Wildlife Fund, the tiger population has been decreasing of late, and has been approximately halved in the past twenty-five years from 7,500 down to about 3,500 currently still alive. The two main factors, destruction of habitat and poaching, have led to this decrease which is not expected to stop as China continues to demand more tiger parts. Apparently there is a very large market for tiger parts and, similar to the extensive poaching of elephants for their tusks, if nothing is done, the tiger will soon approach the endangered list. And, knowing how well that list is doing under the Bush administration, we cannot allow the tiger population to dip that low.

The Sierra Club’s recent removal of the Florida chapter leaders and the club’s subsequent suspension of the chapter for four years is the first excusing of it size in club history. The act came as a result of criticisms from Florida leaders aimed at the national board who recently allowed Clorox to us the Sierra name and logo as an endorsement for their new “Green Works” product. The decision has been very controversial across the country with the club’s more than one million members because of a report given by the Public Interest Research Group Education Fund stating Clorox as “one of the nation’s most chemically dangerous companies”.
Based upon a news report, the head of the Chemical Council of California was using the deal with the Sierra Club to mitigate the fact that the chemicals had been linked with $2.6 billion in medical expenses paying for sicknesses caused by his industry. In a filling with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Clorox admitted, “The Company is currently involved in or has potential liability with respect to the remediation of past contamination in the operation of some of its currently and formerly owned and leased facilities…The Company handles and/or transports hazardous substances, including but not limited to chlorine…A release of such chemicals, whether in transit or at our facilities, due to accident or an intentional act, could result in substantial liability”.
One of the main angering factors resulted because many club members have been working over the past fifteen years to get rid of the chlorine impact that companies such as Clorox have had. Not only has Clorox shown its incompetence with chlorine, but it also received a $95,000 fine for violating a pesticide law around the time that the deal was taking place with the Sierra Club (another event leading to the suspicion that the deal with Sierra Club was a cover-up).
In defense of the decision, the director of licensing and cause-related marketing said that the sierra club will receive an undisclosed (but “substantial”) sum from the deal that it will use for funding purposes. The executive director also gave his take saying, “The idea is that the Clorox logo will convince people the products will work, and the Sierra Club logo will convince people the products are environmentally preferable”. In response to the work of some members to get rid of chlorine use, officials have stated that the recent deal with Clorox will serve as a step toward accomplishing that goal, and advocates of chlorine reduction must be reasonable in their requests for change. In a post on the club’s website, there was also a justification that seemed to make the deal illegitimate with the following support:
1) The Club's Corporate Relations Committee examined the proposed deal with Clorox and rejected it, but it was overridden by the national board of directors
2) The Club's Toxics Committee was not consulted before the deal was signed
3) The Club's Corporate Financial Acceptance Policy says, in part, "The Club will not endorse products.The national board’s decision has left the group angered, and many members wish to take action against them. Having been a successful lobbying force and interest group in the past, it will be interesting to see the result of such a dividing event among such a large and spread out group. The most affective interest groups are organized and focus on a single goal. With this controversy, it could be difficult to maintain a level of organization, and a specific policy focus is almost completely out of the question.

What’s Uncle Sam Up To? Environmentally Involved Bureaucratic Agencies: Part 2

The National Marine Fisheries Service announced that they have given state officials permission to capture and or kill sea lions that have been feeding on salmon at the Bonneville Dam. The sea lions, protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972, are apparently an exception to the rule. In defense, opponents have pointed out not only the Protection Act, but also the impacts of local fishermen and dams that have also led to a decrease in salmon. It appears the scapegoat for problems that humans are largely responsible for is in this case a scape-sealion. Apparently we also do not learn form our mistakes that have been made numerous times in attempting to control animal populations. The wolves for example were hunted until there were none left in Colorado, and when we were finished with them, we realized that the main source of porcupine population control had just been eliminated. It wasn’t until recently that the wolves started to make their way back into Colorado, and even the hint of a wolf (ie. its tracks) is enough to get the entire Rocky Mountain National Park staff excited. And now the states are endorsing the killing of sea lions to “help control” animal populations. If you’ll excuse me I feel obligated to go and join Arapahoe’s animals deserve rights club.
Federal flood control managers (the guys with the remotes to the dams) were planning on releasing “a rush of water” into the Grand Canyon. They believe the rush will “restore sand banks and side pools”, but the National Park Service begs to differ. NPS officials believe the rush is an attempt to meet pressure from hydropower companies, and argue that the act will ultimately destroy habitat that the Federal flood control managers claim to want to restore. I could be wrong, but it seems that those who have lived and worked around the actual habitat (the NPS officials) would be more knowledgeable about the subject, but then again, that never stopped any legislator from making up his own mind did it. No word yet on whether the flood control managers have bothered to give tourists on the river a heads up about their plans.
The Environmental Protection Agency released an economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act and in doing so gave both sides arguments for and against the passage of climate legislation. The EPA found that the legislation, which includes a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions, “would not significantly harm the U.S. economy over the next twenty years.” The bill would also cut greenhouse gasses to eleven percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and even further (56 percent below) by 2050. It is interesting to note last year’s U.S. opposition of G8 proposals to mandate a return to 1990 greenhouse gas levels by 2050, as well as Japan’s proposal this year to implement such a mandate, knowing that the U.S. will once again strike it down even though legislation like the Climate Security Act could result in a significant reduction in greenhouse gases.
In the economic realm, the bill is projected to come only one percent short of standard GDP predicted levels that do not include the new bill. Critics have pointed out that such restrictions on carbon emissions “could increase electricity prices some 44 percent by 2030 and may increase gasoline prices by 53 cents a gallon by 2030”. If however current research on energy efficiency and new forms of energy production develop positive results, the arguments against this cap-and-trade system become irrelevant and we can accept the new legislation. Of course, the problem lies in ensuring the success of said research. Environmentalists see the EPA’s report as “confirmation that climate bills can coexist with economic growth, and also stress that the EPA analysis didn’t calculate the economic benefits of reducing the emissions.” Environmentalists were less prone to mention the increase in energy and fuel prices, although a majority of them are probably already living efficient lifestyles. Ultimately, it will come down to who is willing or who is actually capable of making the necessary sacrifices.
Through a series of legislative and judicial decisions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently reversed its plans to cut back on protected habitat for the marbled murrelet. I previously reported on difficulties that were currently being experienced in relation to endangered species and the Bush administration. The decision about the marbled murrelet, a small sea bird, and its habitat means much more for environmentalists than simply protecting another rare animal. The FWS had planned on eliminating more than ninety percent of the bird’s habitat in order to gain access to old-growth forests prime for logging. Due to the decisions however, 3.9 million acres of the old-growth forests will remain under protection. Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles summed up the result of these events, “This reversal, coupled with a recent court decision throwing out a timber industry attempt to de-list the murrelet, should end the timber industry's profit-driven and illegal attack on the coastal forests that murrelets need to survive”. For environmentalists, this victory although not monumental proves that difficulties experienced in protecting land and animals can be overcome.
In February, the state of California sued the U.S. Forest Service claiming, “it violated federal environmental laws and ignored state policies prohibiting road building in roadless areas of national forests”. There are currently more that 500,000 acres among four national forests in California that are going to be opened up to road building, and an additional 52,000 acres are scheduled for drilling. California is seeking an injunction to stop the planned roads. Even Schwarzenegger himself spoke about the issue saying, “Despite repeated attempts to ensure that the United States Forest Service honor its written assurances that California's roadless areas would be protected they have failed to do so”. Who knows, maybe the he’ll take refuge in the forests and chase away anyone who even thinks about roads in or near the forest. Probably not, but until then we can still hope that the injunction does its job to prevent the construction.
Additional bureaucratic agencies and organizations obviously do exist; however, they have done little as of late to attract the attention of Grist reporters. I believe it is safe to assume that they might be currently non-existent, A.K.A. under the governmental radar. One could also assume that the organizations with little to report are doing their jobs well and are providing the environment (and those of us who remind ourselves of its fragility) with an adequate level of well being.

What’s Uncle Sam Up To? Environmentally Involved Bureaucratic Agencies: Part 1

After finishing the Bureaucracy chapter, the effectiveness and overall competency of the bureaucratic agencies still seemed more of an abstract idea than a concrete system in relation to environmental policy. Some agencies are efficient and do their job well, while others are poorly managed and under funded. Both types of agencies, whether they were doing a good or poor job, gave feedback that had to be accounted for in the future by whomever they had oversight with. In light of this massive and confusing system of sub-governments, I utilized Grist.org to research the various agencies and their current issues that specifically deal in some way with the environment. I have broken my findings into two sections because of the vast amount of information.
Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers are working to decide the best course of action for planning and building the Mississippi flood basin protections. One of the main issues deals with the necessity of considering the environmental impact. For the Corps, focusing partially upon mitigating their effect upon the surrounding environment would mean more money; more time; and the organizational ability to implement, monitor and complete the task at hand. The later aspect, organization, has been a problem for the Corps in the past and this attribute could force decision makers to opt out of environmental consideration. Another issue facing the planners comes from the poor communication between the ten states that access the Mississippi River. The lack of communication has led to a neglect of water quality and a slow decline in basic operational needs (prevention of high toxin levels, river overflows, and other publicly hazardous problems). As the Corp continues to deal with the increasing number of problems, there will be a need for drastic and creative changes that balance transportation needs (needs that drove legislative permission for the Corps to be “let loose on the river” in the 1820’s) and environmental as well as public safety (needs which are currently the basis for, or at least included in the consideration of, decisions about the future of the Mississippi River).
Recently, the Rural Utilities Service, a section of the Department of Agriculture, cut 1.3 billion dollar loan to coal-fired power plants that was granted in 2001. The cuts were prompted by concerns about the changing climate, and will not be considered for re-granting until 2010. Because of this ruling, the government has set a precedent for all currently operating plants, and those planned for construction, that they can no longer turn to Uncle Sam for funds. Another issue being considered by the Department of Agriculture deals with converting Conservation Reserve Program land into land for farming biofuels. Environmental groups are strongly opposed to the idea, arguing that converting the land would undermine the CRP program’s entire purpose. In a previous Grist report, I reported on the benefits of the biofuels that could be created from this type of conversion, but as the government converts more and more land that was previously under the CRP program into farmable land, I am skeptical about the justifiability of these biofuels, especially when the rest of our legislators are still stuck on their obsession with corn.
Eight members on the board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have recently reneged on their commitment to lobby for a cap on carbon emissions. The members who originally pledged to help reduce carbon have not taken steps to pressure organizations to comply with the carbon cap. This lack of effort contradicts USCAP’s purpose, part of which includes using the board as a tool to gain support for a carbon reducing policy.
The Department of the Interior has had a suit filed against it under the claim that the Bush administration “deliberately stalled Endangered Species Act listing decisions to appease developers and other interests”. This effort from WildEarth Guardians (a sufficiently radical environmental group) filed the suit hoping to reestablish a need to keep up with listing species. One specific animal currently under consideration is Ursus Martimus, the polar bear, which environmental groups have been attempting to list with little success and miles of red tape to get past. Not only are groups like Greenpeace facing red tape, but also resistance from Eskimos who argue that the listing of the polar bear would threaten the livelihood of subsistence hunters that rely upon the polar bear for food. Currently, the Bush administration has listed 59 species where as Clinton listed about 62 each year, and Bush Senior listed about 58 each year. Also an issue for the endangered species is the inability of currently listed animals to receive protection. The Bush administration has “disregarded scientific advisers and barred the use of information from agency files to support new listings”. It could be argued that the Bush administration has priorities to consider in their war against terror; however, the lack of national knowledge and focus on the war seems to prove that the public and even some private sectors are willing to make time to complete other tasks that need to be addressed.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently approved a 700 million dollar floating liquefied-natural-gas terminal to be built on Long Island Sound. The terminal would provide about four million homes with energy each day, but opponents to the project believe the cons will out way the pros. Arguments included, the negative impact of industrializing a recreation area, giving an easy terrorist target, and the project being an “environmental atrocity”. Connecticut’s attorney general has promised to take the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s approval to court if it receives the needed approval from other New York agencies that have not yet given their word of confirmation on it.
In this new year, Japan has take over as the leading country for G8 and recently proposed a fifty percent cut in emission by 2050 from what they were in 1990. Although this is ambitious, Japan is simply trying to play the good guy, knowing that it reality, the U.S. will oppose such a restriction on emissions. Japan also proposed a climate conference that would come shortly before the G8 Summit in July. This pre-game meeting that would include China, India, Indonesia, and South Korea would promote a G8 summit agenda focused largely upon the climate. For the time being, however, the G8 seems to remain unable to accomplish any significant changes. The Government Accountability Office recently reprimanded the EPA for its closure of research libraries. The EPA’s failure to correctly organize and carryout the task resulted in a loss of much of the governmental information contained in the libraries. Due to copyright issues, only ten percent of the information that the EPA promised to make available online was able to be digitized. Because the information in the libraries is now inaccessible, several additional agencies will be hindered in their ability to complete their work. One million was approved in December for the reopening of the libraries, but the EPA has yet to solve the problem.

Conflict Diamonds: Shiny with a hint of Blood and Hard Labor

In class this past week, we discussed the nature of Obama’s pastor’s sermon that included a reference to the U.S. involvement and eventual boycott of African diamond mining. On the Grist.org home page, one of the frequent ads promotes “conflict free diamonds”. I thought it would be pertinent to take this opportunity to explore further the diamond industry’s impact upon the environment as well as the individuals involved in it. Before further discussion I feel that I must, as usual with Grist.org, give somewhat of a disclaimer. The source I used to gather information about the diamonds is a legitimate one, but is also attempting to sell their own product; the “conflict free diamond”, and because of this it can be assumed the article will have some slight exaggeration or rhetoric that sheds a particularly negative light upon the diamond trade. The trade however is none the less terrible and for my purpose I will accept the source and its interpretations.
Approximately 20-25 percent of all non-fuel minerals worldwide, 2 billion dollars in gold and other gems, and 15 percent of the planet’s diamonds valued at 1.2 billion dollars come from Artisanal and small-scale miners, known as ASM. The extreme profits that come from a disproportionately small part of the globe are not passed on to those that perform the manual labor necessary to extract the riches. The organization that initially focused the world’s attention on conflict diamonds (and in part sparked the production of the film Blood Diamond which further opened the eyes of Americans) was Global Witness who estimates that there are one million Africans currently working for less than one U.S. dollar per day. This amount, well below the poverty line, has resulted in an increased morality rate as well as a significant decrease in literacy, water purification, and sanitation.
Due to the hidden practices of ASMs, the workers are not given the training to perform their task safely, and the practices that are used to extract the diamonds have little regard for the impact that they have upon the earth. This disregard creates useless areas where the earth is not suitable for later generations of agricultural societies. Because children are born into and spend much of their lives in the mines, they do not consider their impact upon the land, and if the mining were to stop, they would be left not only without work (the little they are paid for) but also with no way of creating a self reliant sustenance plan.
In Angola, ninety years of mining without regard for the environment has left the land “scarred with thousands of abandoned mining pits filled with mosquito infested water”. The mines not only destroy the land that they open and dig up, but also wipe out fertile land that is in the path of mine run off. Many indigenous tribes have been forced to move because of the mud and chemical stream coming from mines. Kono, located at the center of one mining region has been rendered completely useless due to mining debris. The natives are prevented from growing anything above ground, and underneath it, the water they would rely upon to nourish their crops and themselves becomes poisoned from the mining deposits.
The mining business can not be justified in their actions especially considering the successful mining of other areas with minimal environmental impact. The U.S. knew that if it terminated relations with Africa, the price of the diamond in the States would increase dramatically. Alternatives however, like those in Canada enabled the U.S. to gain some leverage over African companies. The Canadian Arctic contains diamond deposits, but the mining is strictly regulated in order to prevent severe environmental impact. The problem in Africa and other tropical regions comes from the unregulated mining of areas where ecosystems rely on shallow topsoil that is easily eroded and washed away by careless mining.
Another issue prevalent in Africa is the method of using open pit mines which are less expensive, but can also result in up to ten times the waste rubble as underground mines. In open pit mining, the rock must be completely removed where as the shaft mine requires less removal of rock and less surface impact. Open pit mining would be akin to cutting off an arm in order to get blood when a simple and much less intrusive needle would do the trick. Two thirds of new gold comes from these open pit mines despite their impact both above and below ground.
Once the material is extracted from the earth, the gold must be extracted from the “waste”. “Every ounce of gold produced results in 30 tons of mine waste”. The process of separating out the gold is known as heap leaching and involves spraying cyanide over heaps of extracted material. The gold and cyanide bond and drain to the bottom of the heap which is drained for months and continually added to. After the cyanide has bonded and leaked to the bottom of the heap, the material is pumped out and separated into gold and cyanide. The cyanide is then stored in artificial waterways. This extensive process that takes months to complete can be contaminating to the surrounding environment even when strict measures are followed. Especially in the backwater mines of Africa, the cyanide easily escapes the process and ends up in underground water systems or the surrounding soil. The left over heaps that have been laced with cyanide during the process are built up into structurally unsound dams. In 2000, one of these dams broke, spilling 100,000 gallons of cyanide contaminated mine waste into the Tisza River. Over a thousand tons of fish were killed and the water supply for two and a half million people was rendered undrinkable.
The conflict diamonds coming out of Africa and their ramifications were overlooked until recently, when the U.S. took part in going against the companies that unfairly employed Africans with unlivable wages. The environmental effects of the mining, especially the extraction of gold, have devastated the fertile land in many African nations, and if the U.S. is going to continue its longing for small shiny objects, it would behoove the consumers to promote healthy extraction methods. Of course one could always opt for a ring made from Lignum Vitae. Losing the ring wouldn’t be anything to fret about, and it could probably be used to start a fire in an emergency. See… that’s much more useful than a gold circle with a shiny rock in it. How’s gold going to help you in life? Are you supposed to suck on it for nourishment? Just a side note, Grist.org recently added another advertisement promoting a positive environmental policy by way of the election. Grist is endorsing a Climate Action PAC that is promoting essentially this slogan: The climate is changing. Is the political culture keeping up? Help elect a pro-environmental candidate.