To Fear or Not to Fear
by Clark Brittain

A generation ago a much respected American President said, " we have nothing to fear but fear itself'. This was on the heels of what remains the most devastating attack on Americans, December 7, 1941. On November 16, 2002, the H-T headline read: "FBI warns of 'spectacular terrorist acts'. In the article it reads "Our message is be afraid, be very afraid," said a normally dispassionate senior Bush administration official who reviewed recent CIA terrorism warnings. Whom would you rather believe?

We spend over $300 billion per year on 'national defense (offense)', and countless tens of billions more on information gathering through the FBI, CIA, NSC, etc. That we were supposedly caught unawares by the trade towers assault proves these agencies were either grossly incompetent or worse-complicit. Further information gathering proposed by the Pentagon through Total Information Awareness is an assault on Americans and our constitution, not the al Queda, Taliban, or other terrorist groups. Many individual liberties have been further shredded through the Patriot Act and now homeland security.

I am concerned about future terrorist attacks. I am fearful of our own government intrusion into my life and the possible loss of additional freedoms. It seems President Bush continues to bang the drums of war and terrorism to keep the citizens focused on the fears from outside while robbing us of the only real security we have, our beloved constitution. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, ' a citizenry who will give up liberty for security, with lose both and deserve neither'.

Is the purpose of this McCarthyesque frenzy to deflect our thoughts away from corporate fraud, a tanked economy, the administration's greed for oil, the ongoing illegal military activities in South America, a bankrupt social and environmental agenda, or a mid east policy George Will calls bewildering? Saddam Hussein is not a nice man. Baghdad is thousands of miles from any American community. Iraq has no air force, no navy, and an army severely decimated by the Gulf War. Yet we are to believe he poses a clear and present danger to us. Just how is this to happen? The world knows, even if the Bush administration does not, that if Iraq instigated any type of attack outside its borders, it would be incinerated. Our embargo of Iraq has been responsible for the deaths of over 500,000 children. When asked about this, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, responded, " it is worth the risk". C.S. Lewis said: "Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

"Yet to question our government and its vigorous policies against innocent civilians abroad, we are told we must watch what we say, and we must give the president the authority to act swiftly in an emergency, in spite of what the constitution outlines as a congressional duty to declare war, and issue letters of Marques and Reprisal. Patriots will always question authority, if only to be certain the government acts in our best interest. To not question this authority will certainly allow further erosion of civil liberties and encourage fascism. Huey Long said, "When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag". Mark Twain wrote, "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels". Frederick Douglass said it well: "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want rain without thunder and lightning".

Yes, I am fearful. Fearful we are turning into a tyrannical and fascist rogue state. There were over 500,000 protesters in Florence, Italy recently to protest our impending invasion of Iraq. All around the world, our friends, allies and even enemies know: Bush is determined to invade Iraq. There will be some type of provocation and he will order in our troops, bombers and assault weapons. It will happen unless thoughtful Americans who value their liberty speak out against it. As nasty as Hussein may be, our invasion would be worse. There is simply no valid reason for this war, which will certainly bring the wrath of a new generation of terrorist to maturity. Then what? Further restrictions of American liberty and freedoms? Recall that the Taliban offered up bin Laden for proof of complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Bush's response: "this is not negotiable". Well, bin Laden is still alive and planning. Thousands of civilian Afghanis are dead, countless villages destroyed, and the country is in chaos- $40 billion later.

Contact your elected representatives to let them know you oppose invading Iraq.

Clark Brittain, Bloomington Dec, 2002

Water Privatization Overview

A worldwide crisis over water is brewing. According to the United Nations, 31 countries are now facing water scarcity and 1 billion people lack access clean drinking water. Water consumption is doubling every 20 years and yet at the same time, water sources are rapidly being polluted, depleted, diverted and exploited by corporate interests ranging from industrial agriculture and manufacturing to electricity production and mining. The World Bank predicts that by 2025, two-thirds of the world's population will suffer from lack of clean and safe drinking water.

We believe: Water is a human right and a right for all living beings

• Water is a common good
  
  Water must be controlled by those people, whose lives are depending on it
• Water should not be used for profit and speculation
  Water is not a commodity

Some 24,000 participants from 182 countries, more than triple the number of participants expected, attended the sessions. The key issues that they addressed revolved around balancing increasing human requirements for adequate water supplies and improved health and sanitation with food production, transportation, energy and environmental needs, while most countries will require more effective governance, improved capacity and adequate financing.

"The 3rd World Water Forum has become a truly 'action-oriented' conference," said Kenzo Hiroki, Vice Secretary General of the 3rd World Water Forum."

"I have talked with hundreds of participants in sessions and in the corridors," said William J. Cosgrove, Vice President of the World Water Council, one of the main conveners of the World Water Forums, held every three years in a different host country. "Without exception, they reported that they consider that the Forum exceeded their expectations. It was a unique opportunity to form partnerships, join networks and learn from the experience of others."

They agreed that the "community level public participation is fundamental to achieving these goals," and that the "common basic requirement for water is an opportunity for cooperation and peace." The Organizing Committee issued a preliminary 8-page Forum Statement, in which the Committee agreed that they will be "solemnly committed to facing the global water challenges and to meeting the goals set forth at the Millennium Summit of the United Nations in New York (2000)" ﾐ cutting in half the proportion of poor people without secure access to water and sanitation by 2015.

"This statement is only preliminary," said Mr. Cosgrove, Vice President of the World Water Council. "It has been posted on the Forum's website (http://www.world.water-forum3.com). If any group feels its statement has not been included, or have changes to suggest, they may send comments to the Secretariat until April 30th, to be reflected in the final statement.

Of the more than 100 commitments reached during the Forum, the climate theme accounted for more than 20 commitments, and gender issues produced 13 commitments.

Some of the global agreements included: The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Japan has supported the establishment of the International Flood Network (IFNet), launched during the Third World Water Forum for flood mitigation at the global stages. IFNET is committed to launching the "Global Flood Warning System" project, with the capacity to create the precipitation maps all over the world every 3 hours. As a result, flood warnings in the world will be vastly improved, benefiting up to 4.8 billion people.

The World Water Council committed to developing and implementing with a consortium of International financial institutions, UN agencies, international non-governmental organizations, and research institutions a program aiming to precisely identify and highlight the benefits brought by sound water management and provide governments with appropriate tools and analysis so that they may be considered in priority setting, planning, development, management, and budgeting for the water sector. Continued on Page 12

Water Privatization - An Overview - Continued from Page 11UN-HABITAT signed a memorandum of understanding with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to create a program to build the capacity of Asian cities to secure and manage pro-poor investments and to help the region meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) of halving, by 2015, the proportion of people without safe drinking water and basic sanitation. The program will cover a pipeline of US$10 million in grants from ADB and UN-HABITAT for the first two phases and US$500 million in ADB loans for water and sanitation projects in cities across Asia over the next five years. Additional funding for Water for Asian Cities has also been made available to UN-HABITAT by the Government of Netherlands.

UNESCO and the World Water Council committed to promote, develop and support the establishment and operation of an independent, easily accessible facility that can help solving problems related to trans-boundary waters by providing on request access to experienced technical advisers, tools, training sessions and mediators.

The partner international organizations and research institutes (WWC, UNESCO-IHE, FAO, KIP, IFPRI, IWMI and SOAS) committed to continue their efforts and to lobby for financial support to develop a better understanding of the concept of Virtual Water, its application and its impact and to provide governments with information and tools to consciously utilize virtual water trade as an effective way to promote water saving and make it an integral part of government's national and regional water, food and environmental policies.

A broad consortium of organizations (GWP, NRC, FAO, WWC, IWA, WMO, UNEP, IUCN, UNESCO, UNDP, WB, ISDR) which supported the International Dialogue on Water and Climate, are committed to continue building bridges between the climate and water sector, and develop activities to better cope with climate impacts. These organizations will form an "International Water and Climate Alliance".

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) commits to a Community Water Initiative, aimed at building on the power of the local community to solve water and sanitation challenges. Its aim is to provide innovative communities with small grants to expand and improve their solutions to the water and sanitation crisis. The Community Water Initiative has an estimated target budget of $50 million for 2003-2008.

Through the Indigenous Peoples Kyoto Water Declaration, the indigenous participants of the 3rd World Water Forum commit themselves to forming a network on water issues that will strengthen the voice of indigenous people generally, and help empower local communities struggling to protect their water rights.

The Water and Sanitation Program (World Bank) committed itself to funding national capacity building projects for MDG monitoring. Candidate countries are welcomed to apply.

PricewaterhouseCoopers, UN Water and Care International commit to a Global Water Initiative, to bring a substantial contribution to the MDG. It will start soon with a pilot project in Africa supported by the French Government, with results by the end of the year 2003.

Some of the regional commitments include: The international organizations active in the American region (IADB, OAS, ECLAC, IUCN, SICA, IWRN, CAN, LANBO and GWP) commit themselves to find and negotiate solutions for the following issues: (a) policy development, including rules for efficient and equitable water allocation; (b) meeting financial needs for water resources management; (c) effect of international trade agreements on national water public interest; (d) capacity building for effective decentralization, water governance, management and regulation of services; (e) participatory and efficient risk management; and (f) impact of first world agricultural subsidies on sustainable water management. Australia commits overAUD $80 million in the current financial year for water activities, primarily in countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Caribbean and Pacific organizations (CEHI and SOPAC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding to implement the Joint Programme for Action (37 member states), providing for co-operation on matters including the freshwater environment, capacity-building, data and information management, applied research, sharing of expertise.

The Netherlands will concentrate its support to Africa and assist 10 countries in the development of their national plans. Further, it is committed to support the African Water Facility.

The European Commission is committed through EUREAU to include benchmarking into the EU Water Initiative.

The Mekong River Commission (MRC) with the governments of Cambodia, Laos PDR, Thailand and Vietnam, in collaboration with partners will prepare a navigation strategy and program by the end of 2003. The long-term goals of the strategy are to develop sustainable, effective and safe navigation on the Mekong, and to increase the international trade opportunities for the mutual benefit of the member countries of the MRC.

The final statement said that though increasing water use efficiency through developments in science and technology and improved demand management are essential, these alone may not be sufficient to meet the growing demand for water in most developing regions and particularly in cities.

"All options to augment the available water supply, including increased storage through the use of groundwater recharge and dams, need to be considered, ensuring that all those who will be affected will also benefit," the final statement said. "The recommendations from the World Commission on Dams (2002) can be used as a reference. A wider adoption of good practice is required in order to avoid the environmental and social costs and risks of the past."

Other key issues:

Governance: Many countries face a governance crisis, rather than a water crisis, the final statement said. "Good water governance requires effective and accountable socio-political and administrative systems adopting an integrated water resources management (IWRM) approach with transparent and participatory processes that address ecological and human needs."

Capacity Building: The need for capacity building, education and access to information for enhanced effectiveness in water management is unquestioned. These critical elements of the water development process are often treated as an add-on to programs, with scant regard to local capacity-building institutions, gender mainstreaming, cultural diversity and traditional knowledge or to long-term commitment.

Financing: Financing infrastructure for the water sector comes mainly from the public sector of developing countries and is "topped-up" with contributions from foreign aid, international financial institutions, commercial loans and private equity. Despite the link between water security, development and poverty alleviation, overall investment in water resources management has been seriously neglected. According to the Vision and other estimates, developing and transitional countries will require $180 billion annually in order to produce global water security over the next 25 years. This will require greater efficiency and better financial management. Several models for combining public, donor and/or private funding have been attempted, and the results have been mixed. The debate concerning public-private partnerships has not been resolved.

Participation: In many regions, countries and local communities have come to realize that water is a multi-stakeholder issue, and that partnerships of all interested and affected parties are a viable mechanism to translate IWRM into practice. Major groups including CEOs, unions, indigenous people, water journalists, parliamentarians, youth and children all have a point of view and deserve the right to be heard. Yet large segments of society, especially women and the poor, are not given a voice. There is a need for a closer examination of participation based on race, ethnicity, economic status, age, and religion to ensure inclusiveness.
Regional Issues: Although most of the issues outlined above are global, some are of particular concern in certain regions. Asia and the Pacific face a main water challenge due to the growth in both water demand and population. Pervasive poverty has confined Africa to a vicious cycle of underdevelopment, conflict, and suffering. In the Americas, large investments in water-related projects and macroeconomic reforms have failed to stimulate sustainable economic growth. Dwindling water resources are threatening people's livelihood, the environment, and economic growth in the Middle East-Mediterranean. And Europe's water resources are subject to considerable pressure due to the relatively high population density, significant industrial activity and intensive agricultural production.

 

"The choice is not between violence and nonviolence, but between nonviolence and nonexistence." Martin Luther King

"Don't Be Fooled" Exposes Top 10 Misleading Environmental Claims - Kraft Named for its use of Genetically Engineered Ingredients

BOSTON - April 1 - On April Fool's Day, Earthday Resources for Living Green released the tenth annual "Don't Be Fooled" report. The "Don't Be Fooled" report documents misleading advertising by companies polluting the planet.

This year's report names 10 companies, ranging from oil to food companies, which are attempting to create the image of environmental friendliness while diverting attention from their poor environmental track records. "Don't Be Fooled" also contains a brief explanation and history of greenwashing, a look at how organizations like the Federal Trade Commission are combating misleading claims, and easy-to-follow tips for consumers to use when making everyday purchases.

"These companies are trying to make fools out of the public," stated Rachel Heller, Coordinator for Earthday Resources. "Ad campaigns like the ones named in the 'Don't Be Fooled' report take advantage of the concern consumers have for the environment by attempting to trick them into thinking polluting companies are protecting the planet."

"Greenwash" is defined in the 10th edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as the "disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image." Its inclusion in the dictionary indicates the significance and permanence of a growing trend among corporations to take advantage of the many consumers who look for products with no environmental impact. Increasingly, Americans are basing their purchasing decisions on the environmental and social impacts of products and manufacturers. According to the Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability (LOHAS) Journal, in 2000, this growing market represented $546 billion globally and $226.8 billion in the U.S.

Kraft, named for the second year in a row, is one of the companies featured in this report. Last year, Kraft was exposed for labeling genetically engineered foods as 'natural'. This year, the company is hiding its irresponsible use of genetically engineered ingredients behind its new parent company, Altria Group, Inc. Altria attempts to cover for Kraft and its other company Philip Morris, by declaring its commitment to the environment. Kraft Foods contains genetically engineered ingredients despite demonstrated risks, including unforeseen allergic reactions, increased antibiotic resistance, increased herbicide use, and harm to insects and wildlife. "If Kraft and its parent company want to convince the public that they are truly responsible, they must stop using genetically engineered ingredients. Kraft can't hide their environmental impact behind glossy nature ads. As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding," stated Kate Madigan, state PIRGs Safe Foods Advocate.

The "Don't Be Fooled" Report has been released annually since 1992 on April Fool's Day by Earthday Resources for Living Green, an organization whose mission is to help consumers keep the spirit of Earth Day alive by providing tips and tools to lead environmentally conscious lifestyles. The web based organization produces a variety of reports, publications, a quarterly newsletter (Earth Tips) and promotes environmentally responsible businesses through Shop for the Earth (an online store located at www.earthdayresources.org). The state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) are an alliance of state-based, citizen funded organizations that advocate for the public interest. The PIRGs are founding members of Genetically Engineered Food Alert, a national coalition calling for a moratorium on genetically engineered foods unless they are found safe, labeled, and liability standards are in place. To obtain a copy of "Don't Be Fooled," call Earthday Resources for Living Green at 1-877-EARTH-46 or check it out online at www.earthdayresources.org.

GOLD IN THE SHADOW
by Paul Hawken

It costs more to destroy the Earth and less to maintain it.
Interview by Satish Kumar
from Resurgence issue 201

IN THE PAST twenty-five years, on the one hand there has been a huge increase in ecological awareness in the Western world, and, on the other hand, there has been a tremendous stride towards globalization, consumerism and world trade. In your view, is the environmental movement getting anywhere or are we fighting a losing battle?
There are so many vantage points from which to answer this question, but perhaps the least helpful vantage point is one that looks at environmentalism as a battle. In those terms, we will certainly lose, because the forces are greater for consumption and destruction than they are for frugality and restoration.
The question interests me because for years, I have been asked, am I optimistic or pessimistic? I always say I am pessimistic when I look at the data, but optimistic when I look at people. I am terrified of what I see. And yet, I act and take enormous encouragement in the fact that others act too. Many, like you, have acted long before myself.
When my children were growing up, we read Tolkien and the Ring trilogy - a classic tale of darkness overwhelming the world. It fascinated me that Tolkien was writing this during World War Two and was posting chapters to his son at the front. It is a tale of how something can prevail when everything is arrayed against it. I feel that what we are beginning to experience in our life is rather mythic, like the Baghavad Gita. When seen this way, then the word "battle" comes back to life in a new way.
What we do know is that we are descending into a century that will be marked by incalculable and cascading losses, losses that are already grievous and inconsolably tragic. To see the momentum of loss is to want to close one's eyes. But to close one's eyes is to do the one thing that will not help us at all. I believe in rain, in odd miracles, in the intelligence that allows arctic birds to find their way across the Earth. In other words, I don't believe I know or understand the means whereby this Earth and its people will transform. I don't know how human culture will long endure. I am comforted by this ignorance, this vast possibility of what I don't know.
There are a number of environmental activists, such as yourself, who are working with businesses. Is there not a danger that business people will exploit your good names, carry out a greenwash, bring out some superficial changes, but, fundamentally, they will carry on their business as usual?
Not only is there a danger, there is the outright reality. It is nothing to fear because it is already happening. It is essential to observe and prevent. Since I have invoked mythic imagery, I think it is important to offer the idea that large multinational corporations are like cults. Some laugh, some cringe, when presented with this description, but I find it helpful. Cults are distinguished by charismatic leaders, either dead or living, borrowed language, sleep deprivation, costumes or identifying clothing, impressive buildings or temples, and deep superstitious beliefs in omniscient sayings and writings, i.e. free-market capitalist tracts. So it is unrealistic to think that this culture will change because new information is offered. Some companies are more cultish than others, but all have some traces of it if they are large and successful.
The real question is whether to be outside of them, or to try to work with them whilst trying to work on everything else as well. Two schools of thought are here. One is that by working on changing business, you are co-opted and business doesn't really change. The other side is that business is the dominant institution, so you are foolish to ignore them. Along with this school of thought comes the idea that businesses are merely a reflection of who we are. I am reminded of the famous exchange oft quoted by green architect William McDonough: when Emerson asked a jailed Thoreau what he was doing "in" there, Thoreau asked Emerson back what he was doing "out" there? My question is whether there is an in or out.
Working with large companies is spiritually and emotionally difficult. It is like doing exquisite flower arrangements for a soccer match. And it remains to be seen whether they can truly change or not. There are some outstanding people and companies in the world who do get it, are truly committed to ecological restoration and social equity. Either they are exceptions that prove the rule, or they represent a radical new possibility. If we believe that they do not represent a new possibility, it will be self-fulfilling.
There seems to be a feeling that by making efficient use of energy and technology businesses can save the environment and make profit at the same time. Can social justice, environmental sustainability and spiritual renewal be compatible with any kind of economic growth and profit?
There is widespread misunderstanding of the nature of the problem, and thus there is an almost Pollyannaish view of the solutions. A telling example of this is the newly drafted Global Reporting Initiatives (gri). Over one hundred transnational corporations, from Shell to Coke to General Motors, have worked with environmental ngos to come up with draft guidelines to report on environmental issues within their companies. Such reporting and the willingness to report are commendable. Yet, there is not a definition nor even a clue as to what sustainability means. Thus the draft guidelines won't even come close to achieving sustainability and are essentially a dressed-up package of business as usual. Mathis Wackernagel, of Redefining Progress, and I recently wrote a critique of these draft guidelines, a critique which was greeted with indifference. Companies feel, if you define issues, show that equity and justice and resource flow are kith and kin, that they are being "judged". We say that if you understand the principles and concepts, you can judge for yourself.
The resistance to understanding the depth of the problems that have brought sustainability to the foreground creates a situation where you have companies "highly committed" to thin gruel, solutions which are palliative or perhaps remediative. Even though many know they should go upstream, they see the way blocked by costs because companies are still thinking of the environment as an externality, and ecological problems as distinct from their core businesses.

As James Hillman said, "the gold is in the shadow." If companies would actually delve deeply into the world problematique of the loss of living and cultural systems, they would find truly radical ideas and solutions; solutions that in most cases would cost them and the world less. I do not mean to imply by this that there is a free lunch waiting out there. What I am referring to is the fact that the industrial system is getting more and more inefficient and unfair and the overwhelming rate of metabolic impact (and loss) means that there are real breakthrough ideas out there waiting for those who dig deep. But as it stands now, you have companies like Coca-Cola defining sustainability for their peers. This is foolish.
If business is to respond to the ecological crisis of our time in a serious and sincere way, then what kinds of economic idea will they have to adopt?
The issue is not economic, but legal: What are corporations' obligations to society? This is an issue that few want to touch. In corporate circles, it is treated as heretical. But outside that circle, the concept of recasting the legal responsibilities and liabilities of corporate entities is gaining momentum. Led by people like David Korten, Jerry Mander and Richard Grossman, we are beginning to remember here in the us that our country was created in resistance to corporate abuse. Now we have become what we hated and feared, a plutocratic society run by a corporate oligarchy. The problem is becoming worse, in no small part due to the globalization of finance which instantly rewards and punishes leaders or laggards in growth and earnings.
As the feedback loops have closed tighter, the margin for error and corporate experimentation has shrunk. We need a far more responsible corporate body than we have today. We need to reverse the underlying assumptions that inform gatt, wto, nafta, and other trade agreements and organizations which essentially destroy sovereignty. For the world to move towards long-term sustainability and restoration, there needs to be the restoration and respect for cultural diversity, a reinstitution of local and regional sovereignty, something we are unwilling to do. Transnational trade agreements have bred an unholy alliance of crony corporate capitalism that is pathological and erosive to all that we hold sacred.
Corporations need to have the opposite sorts of guidelines than they presently seek. They need to be locally responsive, not globally unrestricted. In this way, the companies that thrive will be diverse themselves. The idea that we need to build financial autobahns to smooth the invasion of corporations into developing nations in order for economic development to occur is, at its heart, a corrupt argument. We s hould do the opposite: corporate charters must be made revocable.
Does this politicize the corporation?
Absolutely. It is essential to make corporations responsible to the body politic. This is the long-term interest of the corporations, society, and the ecosystem. Quelling feedback does not make a system more intelligent.
Then we need to realize that we are talking about political rights. We have created a world where we have granted rights to money, rights which supersede human dignity, even human life. We have forsaken our democratic rights in favour of aristocratic ideas of monetary supremacy. A lot of words about democracy, but we only have democracies in concept. You can destroy forests and the atmosphere and become wealthy, but if you destroy money, you can be prosecuted and jailed. This is just another way of pointing out how capital became divine, replacing the divine right of kings.
And, of course, we also need an accounting system that has a minus sign, one that actually gives us a true sum of our losses and gains. As long as we run our economy without a balance sheet and the illusion of endless supplies of natural capital, we can be profligate and think we are being rational and constructive. Without true understanding of our national and regional accounts, we are acting in a vacuum. And this accounting must be extended to prices on an everyday level, something that can be accomplished by ecological tax reform or tax shifts.
With ecological tax shifts, people will get better information with respect to the prices of goods. This is a profound reaffirmation of core economic principles. If someone sees that double-glazing the atmosphere with their oil furnace is a lot more expensive than double-glazing their windows, installing insulation, and using renewable energy, they will change behaviour. This is true with forest products, fibres, food, transportation, materials, reactive vs. enzymatic chemicals, and so on. It costs more to destroy the Earth in clock time and less to maintain it in perpetuity. Yet every signal we get from our pricing system and stock-markets tells us the opposite.
In this sense, our pricing system is toxic to the nervous system of society. An analogy is that of herbicides. Most kill weeds by overstimulating their rate of growth, not by suppressing growth. And then the weed outstrips its capacity to take up nutrients and dies. Similarly, our pricing system is overstimulating our "growth" and thus outstripping our capacity to take up natural capital and ecosystem services. Should we continue on this path, we will suffer accordingly. In the act of marrying costs more closely with price, in a fair, non-regressive fashion to protect the poor, we would do more for the champions of corporate sustainability than in any other single act.
And then there are issues of scale, which Leopold Kohr and E. F. Schumacher addressed many years ago. In the argument over genetically modified food, we should also bear in mind, even if gmos were benign and safe as milk, which I do not believe, whose idea was it to have companies like Monsanto, Du Pont and Novartis, whose origins go back to cancer-causing saccharine, gunpowder and toxic aniline dyes respectively, strive to control the seed plasm that provides the world with 90 per cent of its caloric intake? I don't remember anyone making such an utterly daft proposition. There was no commission, no referendum, no plebiscite. It is the
very opposite of the biological diversity which is at the heart of the ecosystem's resilience and sustainability.

Paul Hawken is co-author with Hunter and Amory Lovins of Natural Capitalism published by Earthscan (London) and Little Brown (New York). His previous books include The Ecology of Commerce (Harper).

Confronting Global Environmental Racism - Continued

policy, practice or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (whether intentionally or unintentionally) individuals, groups or communities based on race or colour.

For example, lead poisoning is a (preventable) disease that disproportionately affects African-American children. Over 28.4% of all low-income African-American children suffer from lead poisoning, compared to 9.8% of low-income white children.

The impact of globalisation

Increased globalisation of the world's economy has placed special strains on the ecosystems of many poor communities and poor nations inhabited largely by people of colour and indigenous peoples. There are abundant examples of how this is happening.

Globalistion makes it easier for transnational corporations and capital to flee to areas with the weakest environmental regulations, best tax incentives, highest profit opportunities and cheapest labour. Resource extraction industries, such as oil, timber and minerals, are particularly relevant in this context.

The transboundary trade in hazardous waste can be cited as another example of environmental racism. This is because such trade flows tend to go from the industrialised, rich North to the developing South. Yet the last decade has seen numerous developing nations challenge the 'unwritten policy' of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries to export their hazardous wastes to countries poorly equipped to deal with them.

In response to the growing transboundary waste trade, the Organisation of African Unity and the G-77 have passed the Bamako Convention and amended the Basel Convention. Nevertheless, loopholes still allow some transboundary shipment, export and trading of banned pesticides, hazardous wastes, questionable recyclables, toxic products and 'risky' technologies.

More than 2,000 maquiladoras (assembly plants) operated by American, Japanese and other foreign-based firms are located along the lower Rio Grande River Valley on the border between Mexico and the United States. These factories use cheap Mexican labour to assemble imported components and process raw materials, then ship finished products back to the United States. They dump their toxic wastes into the Rio Grande, from which 95% of the region's residents get their drinking water. The factories' disregard for the environment and public safety has placed border residents' health and the physical environment at risk.

Workers of colour are especially vulnerable to economic blackmail because of the threat of unemployment and their concentration in low-paying, unskilled, hazardous, non-unionised occupations. In the United States, over 80% of migrant farmworkers are Latinos - three to five million of whom toil in the fields for low wages and in conditions that are unsafe, unsanitary and unjust. Farmworkers suffer from the highest rate of chemical injuries of any workers in the United States, and the most vulnerable migrants are children.

Over half of all migrant children have worked in fields still wet with pesticides, and more than a third have been sprayed directly. An estimated 250,000 children of farmworkers in the United States migrate each year, and 90,000 migrate across an international border. Nearly 73% of migrant children are completely without health insurance.

Subsidising corporate polluters in the United States

By default, the southern United States became a 'sacrifice zone', a sump for the nation's toxic waste. And the Deep South is stuck with a unique legacy of slavery, racial segregation and white resistance to equal justice for all. One lasting effect of this is that it is the most environmentally befouled region of the United States.

Dozens of African-American communities (many founded by former slaves) along Louisiana's Mississippi River chemical corridor suffer the brunt of industrial pollution. The chemical corridor has over 125 companies that manufacture a range of products including fertilisers, gasoline, paints and plastics. Environmentalists and local residents have dubbed this corridor 'Cancer Alley'.

Corporations routinely pollute the air, ground and drinking water while being subsidised by tax breaks from states. Louisiana citizens subsidise corporate welfare with their health and the environment. Yet tax breaks given to polluting industries have created few jobs at high cost. In the 1990s, Louisiana wiped off the books $3.1 billion in property taxes to polluting companies. The state's five worst polluters received $111 million over the past decade.

Radioactive colonialism and military toxins

Radioactive colonialism operates in energy production (mining of uranium) and disposal of wastes on the lands of native and indigenous peoples. The US military has left a trail of nuclear weapons garbage on such lands from Nevada to the Pacific Islands. For example, the 1,000 atomic bombs exploded on Western Shoshone lands in Nevada makes it the 'most bombed nation on earth'. The US government has proposed building a nuclear dump in Yucca Mountain, sacred to the Shoshone.

Native Alaskan villages and their traditional hunting and fishing grounds are also placed in jeopardy by pollution from military bases. Residents in Vieques, Puerto Rico - the tiny US commonwealth island inhabited by 9,000 people - are engaged in a heated battle to remove the US Navy, which has used the island as a bombing range since 1941. And Marshall Islands residents live with the sad legacy of radioactive contamination from the testing of weapons by the US military.

The global grassroots movement

As a result of the environmental dangers that they face, people of colour in the industrialised countries have much in common with populations in the developing countries of the South. Global climate change typifies this environmental dilemma. Rising seas may force Marshall Islands residents to flee their home. Thawing glaciers, changing wildlife populations and thinning ice are destabilising traditional ways of life for people who inhabit the Arctic.

Global alliances are forming between the victims of this type of environmental racism, and they are demanding 'climate justice'. Similarly, grassroots groups from Louisiana, the Niger Delta, Ecuador and Columbia have identified big oil companies as a common environmental threat.

These groups have organised, educated and empowered themselves to challenge governmental and industrial polluters who would turn their communities into toxic wastelands. They have also elevated their message and struggles to the international arena, including the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations World Conference against Racism.

Hazardous wastes and 'dirty' industries have followed the path of least resistance. Poor people and poor communities have been presented with a false choice: 'no jobs and no development' versus 'risky, low-paying jobs and pollution'.

The environmental protection apparatus is clearly broken and needs to be fixed. The environmental justice movement has clear-cut goals to eliminate unequal enforcement of environmental, civil rights and public health laws. The movement has made a difference in the lives of people and the physical environment by assisting public decision-makers in the identification of 'at risk' populations, toxic 'hot spots' and gaps in the research, as well as in the development of action models that aim to correct existing imbalances and prevent future threats.

The 21st century offers both old and new challenges, all of which must be addressed if a just and sustainable global society is to be achieved for all.

About the writer: Robert D Bullard directs the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. He is the author of Confronting Environmental Racism: Voices from the Grassroots (South End Press, 1996).

The above article, which first appeared in UNRISD News (No. 25, Autumn/Winter 2002), is excerpted from a paper available at www.unrisd.org.
Source: Third World Network Features

Deploy Ruin
by Patricia C. Coleman

Deploy
the so-called peace
through fireworks that destroy
the very lives of those you free
to ruin

Where to buy Gas

Why didn't George W. think of this? Gas rationing in the 80's worked even though we grumbled about it. It might even be good for us!

The Saudis are boycotting American goods. We should return the favor. An interesting thought it to boycott their GAS. Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis.

Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to kill me, my family, and my friends. I thought it might be interesting for you to know which oil companies are the best to buy gas from and which major
companies import Middle Eastern oil (for the period 9/1/00 - 8/31/01):
Shell.........................205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco.........144,332,000 barrels
Exxon /Mobil..............130,082,000 barrels
Marathon/Speedway...117,740,000 barrels
Amoco......................62,231,000 barrels

If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION!

Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:
Citgo....................0 barrels
Sunoco............. ..0 barrels
Conoco............. ..0 barrels
Sinclair............... 0 barrels
BP/Phillips.......... 0 barrels
Hess...................0 barrels

All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and
each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are
importing.

They report on a monthly basis. Keep this list in your car; share it with friends. Stop paying for terrorism.............

But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of gas buyers. It's really simple to do. Now, don't wimp out at this point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach millions of people!!

I'm sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)... and those 300 send it to at least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE
MILLION consumers! If those three million get excited and pass this on
to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been contacted! If
it goes one level further, you guessed it..... THREE HUNDRED MILLION
PEOPLE!!!

EU Consumers Boycotting Starbucks, McDonalds, Coca-Cola and Others in War Protest

Reuters March 25, 2003
Boycott of American Goods Over Iraq War Gains
by Erik Kirschbaum

BERLIN - No more Coca-Cola or Budweiser, no Marlboro, no American whiskey or even American Express cards -- a growing number of restaurants in Germany are taking everything American off their menus to protest the war in Iraq.

Although the protests are mainly symbolic, waiters in dozens of bars and restaurants in Hamburg, Berlin, Munich, Bonn and other German cities are
telling patrons, "Sorry, Coca-Cola is not available any more due to the current political situation."

The boycotts appear to be part of a nascent worldwide movement. One Web site, www.consumers-against-war.de, calls for boycotts of 27 top American firms from Microsoft to Kodak while another, www.adbusters.org, urges the
"millions of people against the war" to "Boycott Brand America."

Consumer fury seems to be on the rise. Demonstrators in Paris smashed the windows of a McDonald's restaurant last week, forcing police in riot gear to move in to protect staff and customers of the American fast-food outlet. The attackers sprayed obscenities and "boycott" on the windows.

In Indonesia, Iraq war opponents have pasted signs on McDonald's and other American food outlets, trying to force them shut by "sealing them" and urging Indonesians to avoid them.

In the Swiss city of Basel, 50 students recently staged a sit-down strike in front of a McDonald's to block customers' entry, waved peace signs and urged people to eat pretzels instead of hamburgers.

Anti-American sentiment has even reached provinces in Russia, where some rural eateries put up signs telling Americans they were unwelcome, according to an Izvestia newspaper report.

A German bicycle manufacturer, Riese und Mueller GmbH, canceled all business deals with its American suppliers.

"Americans only pay attention when money is on the line," director Heiko Mueller told Reuters, whose firm buys $300,000 worth of supplies from half a dozen American firms each year.

"We wanted to make a statement against this war and told our American partners that unless they renounce what their government is doing we won't
do any business with them anymore."