We got a few quick letters this week to make up for my absence last week. First, brownfemipower brings us an email writing campaign from the United Farm Workers about the animal abuse at Threemile Canyon Farm. To make things interesting, supervisors at the dairy “farm” (i use that term lightly here) have been passing around a petition that denies that any animal abuse has taken place. Well, they have the right to petition, but what they don’t have the right to do is to threaten to fire any worker that doesn’t sign the petition. If you want some testimony from workers about the animal abuse and some of the legal background, you can check out the Humane Farming Association’s report [pdf].

Also on the worker front, but this time from Earthjustice, we have another email writing campaign. The EPA has proposed the phase-out of Azinphos Methyl and Phosmet over the next four years. Here’s what Earthjustice has to say about these two pesticides:

Five years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency found that two pesticides — azinphos methyl and phosmet — pose “unacceptable” poisoning risks to workers exposed to them when they work in orchards. These two pesticides are highly toxic neurotoxins, derived from nerve agents used during World War II, and attack the human nervous system. Exposure can cause nausea, dizziness, vomiting, seizures, paralysis, loss of mental function, and even death. Farmworker families and communities are exposed to organophosphates through “take-home” exposures on clothing, cars, and skin.

The EPA is now holding a comment period to hear from the public. They have already waited five years to even think about taking action to protect workers, don’t let them wait any longer.

And last but certainly not least, another campaign from the UFW. As we all know, its been a hot summer. A really hot summer. But most of us don’t have to spend the day bent over in the middle of a field without so much as a tree within walking distance. That’s the fate of many California farmworkers. And that’s why on June 15, the state issued the first permanent heat stress regulation in the country. The regulation states that companies must provide workers with shade, water, training for working safely in the heat, and the right to take paid breaks when feeling the effects of such high temperatures. This was a huge victory for farmworkers, but of course its not an easy one.

Carl Borden, a lawyer for the California Farm Bureau, told a newspaper, “That could pose compliance issues for employers in certain situations where you may have dozens [and] dozens of employees out there working (and asking for shade) and essentially it requires the erection of a number of shade canopies, for example…That can be somewhat daunting if we’re talking about a field situation.” Cry me a river, Mr. Borden. Is it really asking that much for agribusiness companies to take some of the billions of taxpayer subsidies they’ve received to buy a few tents? Its in their interest, too. At least six California farmworkers have died this summer because of the heat. And it doesn’t take a genius to know that a living farmworker can harvest more produce than a dead one. But the California Farm Bureau is not Mensa, its a bunch of lawyers and, well, bureaucrats, so they need you to send them an email to inform them that you are paying them to treat their workers fairly, not so they can buy themselves a second Hummer.

The proposal for a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain is back in the news, as the Department of Energy moves forward with plans, people turn their attention to nuclear power as an alternative to increasingly expensive oil, and a proposal to make Nevada the second contest of the 2008 Democratic presidential primary gains steam. I don’t have a strong view about the substantive merits of centralized versus dispersed storage of nuclear waste, or the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site on engineering grounds. What I do have an opinion on is whether the current approach to establishing a centralized repository at that site is a good one.

To some degree, the dispute over Yucca Mountain is a technical dispute over what the real level of risk is. But it also goes deeper, so that purely technical debate about milirems and geological stability will not resolve the issue. The deeper dispute arises from the fact that there are two ways of looking at what makes a risk acceptable, which I’ll call the “economic paradigm” and the “social paradigm.” Each paradigm can be treated as a descriptive theory (how actual people actually do think about risks) or as a normative theory (how people should think about risks).

Read the rest of this entry »

I’m a pretty sorry excuse for a blogger, since I’m only just now getting around to commenting on a much-blogged article by Daniel Gilbert about climate change. Gilbert argues that people aren’t concerned about climate change, because people all have certain evolved cognitive biases.

The problem is that it’s not “people” who are unconcerned about climate change, because many people are concerned. Any psychologically worthwhile theory of risk perception must be able to recognize the diversity of views and account for both the skeptics and the alarmists.

Read the rest of this entry »

David Barash thinks that creating human-ape hybrids would be a great way to strike a blow for truth and reason. His main motivation is to disprove creationism — though how designing a new creature will prove evolution escapes me. More interesting to me was his secondary claim that such hybrids would also promote a stronger environmental ethic:

Read the rest of this entry »

I guess you have to give John Howard credit for being honest. The Aussie PM is excited about the prospect of Australia becoming an “energy superpower” by expanding its share of the fossil fuel market. Howard rejects not only the Kyoto Protocol but also any alternative (such as a carbon tax) other than end-of-the-pipe carbon cleanup technology. Burning fossil fuels comes first, because that’s what will make Australia rich. Protecting the environment can’t be allowed to interfere.

Australia is well placed to be an innovator in clean energy, with its cloudless skies and wide-open spaces ready for solar and wind power. But those kind of innovations won’t make money right away for established mining companies, and Howard is clear on whose back he’s watching.

Howard repeatedly cites “pragmatism” as a reason to focus on older forms of energy. It’s a common rhetorical trick, portraying older energy technologies as known quantities while renewable energy is speculative and risky. The problem is, if we demand that our energy source be clean — which Howard gives lip service to — the plausibility of that claim goes out the window. Is it really “pragmatic” to aim for a massive engineering fix that will turn dirty energy technologies into clean ones, but not “pragmatic” to expand the use of already-existing technologies that are intrinsically clean?

Cross-posted at debitage

I used to live in the Southern Appalachian mountains. While there, i became aware of the struggles going on in coal country. It was while involved in these struggles that i learned of the true hystory of the term Redneck. Before, i had believed that the word was a derogatory term for farmworkers. Now, i know that it was the name of the coal miners who took over Blair Mountain in the Fall of 1921. One of the largest armed uprising in US hystory, some 10,000 coal miners confronted state and federal troops in an attempt to unionize the coal mines of West Virginia. The month-long battle was deemed the Red Neck Wars because of the red bandanas that the miners wore around their necks. One of the most notable of the battle’s union organizers was Mother Jones.

Although the miners lost the battle and more than 900 were indicted, they never lost their spirit for struggle and justice. To this day, the coal fields remain a tense ground for struggle between miners, the corporate executives, and coal company thugs (yup, they still got their own thugs).

One things that has changed, however, is the battle. While safety standards remain high on the list of priorities, a new era in coal mining has brought together union and environmental activist. The new foe, mountaintop removal (referred to as strip mining by the industry), threatens the region’s biosphere on a very large scale by cutting off the tops of mountains to access coal and filling nearby valleys with the rocks and soil removed. To see one of these projects up close is heart-wrenching.

As you can imagine, the soil is completely destroyed leaving the land unable to regenerate. So what do you put in nature’s place? Coal companies have a quick response to that one: the new flat ground is perfect for a Walmart or a new prison facility. And that is exactly how the industry is marketing these newely destroyed lands to local and state officials.

Unfortunately, that is also the future for the coal miners, as well. With mountaintop removal, a job that used to take over a hundred people can now be done with just three low-skilled workers. This has reeked havoc on union membership and the ability of the union to increase health and safety standards. Coal companies are also finding it easier to undermine unions by exploiting the undocumented immigrant workforce. Considering the fact that mountaintop removal has destroyed not only land but also homes, schools, roads and entire towns, the many former coal miners that are unable to find work as Walmart greeters or prison guards are sure to find themselves filling one of the privately-owned prison cells.

This week’s letter will not be written to the coal companies. As powerful as they are, we will be writing to a far more powerful influence in our nation: Oprah. This month’s issue of O Magazine featured a story, entitled “You fight for what you got, even if its only worth a dime,” of some of the incredible wimmin in Appalachia who are standing up against the devastation of mountaintop removal. I’ve had the privilege of meeting and working with several of these wimmin and that’s why i want to continue to support them even if i no longer live in the area.

The letter-writing campaign is being organized by EarthJustice. It is a positive campaign in that it is meant to thank the people at the magazine for including the report, but also to encourage Oprah to have some of these wimmin on her show so that millions of others can hear their stories of loss and struggle (one family’s three-year-old son was crushed to death in his sleep by a boulder that was knocked loose by a coal truck that was working illegally one night - the company was given a small fine for working illegally but was not implicated in the child’s death).

As brownfemipower stated months ago, Oprah can be a tool for radical change. She sees herself as such a tool. It is up to us to bring to her attention the struggles of working-class wimmin so that she may share their stories with the nation. Please take a moment and visit EarthJustice’s campaign page to see a sample letter. Then head over to Oprah’s website and submit your letter to the producers. It will take you five minutes for something that can change the lives of thousands and help protect the world’s oldest mountains. le

In the comments to a recent post, Jenn asks:

And I’m still curious to know how many animal rights activsts refuse medical treatment for themselves or someone they love based on its history in animal experimentation?

I have no idea what actual animal rights activists think about this question (speak up in the comments if you’re an animal rights activist reading this). I can only speak for myself — and as animal rights activists go, I’m a pretty sorry excuse for one, since I still occasionally eat meat when traveling or visiting. Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s necessarily hypocritical for someone committed to animal rights to accept the use of a medical treatment whose development required animal experimentation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Let’s go back to writing about something I actually know something about.

The headlines say climate change causes wildfires. And indeed, a new study (pdf) found a strong correlation between the increase during the 1980s in the number and length of wildfires in the western US and increased temperatures.

But before we rush off to base our wildfire policy on these findings, two grains of salt are in order: 1) explaining a phenomenon is not the same as explaining the problem associated with that phenomenon, and 2) the solution to a problem is not simply the cause applied in reverse. This post will deal only with the first issue, hopefully I’ll be able to post on the second tomorrow.

Read the rest of this entry »

John McGrath makes an offhand remark citing Hurricane Katrina as evidence that Bush’s climate change policies have led to disaster (analogous to the way his WMD policy led to the disaster in Iraq). I agree that Bush’s policies on climate change are deplorable, and that Bush’s deplorable policies bear a fair bit of responsibility for the Katrina disaster. But the share of the Bush-blame that can be attributed specifically to his action on climate change is very small. Climatologists remain divided on the question of how much climate change will alter the frequency of severe weather events, and how much of that alteration is already visible.

Blaming Katrina on Bush’s climate change policies may be politically convenient as a way of generating pressure to change those policies. But it’s politically inconvenient in a broader sense, because it reinforces the “natural disaster” frame for understanding what went wrong with Katrina (and what continues to go wrong in many other hazard events).

The “natural disaster” frame envisions society as moving along innocently, minding its own business, when wham! it gets hit by an extreme geophysical event that causes destruction and death. Causal responsibility, and hence blame, lie on the side of the geophysical event. So therefore interventions to prevent or mitigate disasters focus on controlling the event, a “hazard-side” strategy.

Over half a century ago Gilbert White — the father of natural hazards research, and hardly a political radical — pointed out that “natural disasters” are actually the result of the intersection of natural and social conditions. Whether there is a disaster, and what kind of damage it does, depends on how social practices and individual choices put human values at risk of being undercut by changes in the natural environment. Later more radical thinkers elaborated the idea of “vulnerability,” with the slogan “there’s no such thing as a [purely] natural disaster.” We have to focus on the reasons why humans become vulnerable to extreme geophysical events.

Framing Bush’s responsibility for Katrina as a matter of his climate change policy places our focus on the hazard event. The problem becomes the fact that there was a Category 5 hurricane, and the change we need is to control greenhouse gas emissions so as not to increase the frequency of Category 5 hurricanes. This focus ignores the central role in the disaster played by New Orleanians’ (and our whole economy’s) vulnerability to hurricanes. This vulnerability is the product of an economic system dependent on oil and the creation of economic inequalities, a system of racial oppression, and a hubristic attitude to the environment. Across a broad range of issues, Bush’s policies have served to maintain this system (though he is of course far from the sole creator or sustainer of it).

The “blame climate change” redirection of attention is especially unfortunate given that the sources of vulnerability in the case of Katrina are so fundamental to what’s wrong in so many other facets of modern America. Big events like natural disasters are powerful political-rhetorical resources. They need to be used wisely, to cut at the most fundamental problems.

Cross-posted at debitage