OMG!!! HAVE WE TOTALLY LOST OUT MINDS???

By a vote of 74 to 25, at noon today, the U.S. Senate voted for cloture on S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act, which means it must now be voted on in the full Senate within 60 days. All amendments to the controversial food control bill must be completed by that time.

One of S 510's supporters, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, opposed cloture because modifications to the bill do not reflect its original intent, he said on C-SPAN. Chambliss fully supports giving the FDA more power over the US food supply, but is unhappy with the Manager's Amendment submitted in August.

He objects to the small farm exclusion on the grounds that the $500,000 annual gross revenue limit is an arbitrary number that is too quickly reached by small farms. He called for numerous amendments to the bill as it appears today.

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio supports S 510, and called out the statistics by the Centers for Disease Control that report there are 76 million foodborne illnesses a year, with 5,000 resulting in death. What Brown did not say was that the FDA — the very agency further empowered by S 510 — is responsible for the approval of pharmaceutical drugs that result in 100,000 deaths a year.

None of the supporters of S 510 will acknowledge the corrupt nature of the Food and Drug Administration. Monsanto executives now work at the FDA or on President’s Obama’s Food Safety Task Force.

What legislators continue to ignore from the public is that we do not support giving federal agencies even more power — especially over something as inherently private as food choices.

None of the legislators will discuss the FDA raids on natural food operations which sickened no one, while it allowed Wright County Egg to sicken people for decades before finally taking action.

Yesterday, Senator Bob Casey informed his Pennsylvania constituents that the $1.6 billion price tag for S 510 will stop food smuggling in the United States. I kid you not:

"These provisions add personnel to detect, track and remove smuggled food and call for the development and implementation of strategies to stop food from being smuggled into the United States."

Is food smuggling a problem in the United States? Well, the “biggest food smuggling case in the history of the U.S.” busted wide open in September. Eleven Chinese and German executives were indicted for bringing in $40 million worth of commercial grade honey over a five year period, reportedly to avoid paying $80 million in import fees. (No wonder they tried smuggling.)

That amounts to 3 percent of the 1.35 billion-dollar honey market over a five-year period.

Since that was the biggest food smuggling bust, food smuggling is not the problem. Clearly. It hardly seems worth it for the US taxpayer to cough up $1.6 billion so the FDA can stop such illegal activities, especially in our current economic recession.

Blogger Steve Green interprets the S 510 smuggling language to mean:

“It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.”

§309 defines it as:

“In this subsection, the term ‘smuggled food’ means any food that a person introduces into the United States through fraudulent means or with the intent to defraud or mislead.”

Although only 150 new hires will be responsible for food smuggling under S 510, the total number of new hires sought is at least 18,000 employees.

This is absurd. Food smuggling is not the problem with food safety. Tainted food comes from monopoly operations in a highly centralized food system. Break up the monopolies and revert to localized food systems to ensure food safety. Let local authorities control local food safety.

Ocean 'Dead Zones' Increasing in US
The nation's waterways are fast becoming a wasteland.

Released Friday, a joint report by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science finds that the number of so-called "dead zones" in U.S. waters is 30 times more expansive today than it was in 1960.

The rise of hypoxia -- a lethal drop in oxygen levels in water to the point at which fish and plant life can no longer survive -- is largely attributable to man-made activity such as pollution and fertilizer runoff into the nation's waterways, but it is also found to be occurring because of climate change, the report concludes.



Oregon State University / AP
Francis Chan of Oregon State University drops a device to measure how much oxygen is in the water of the Pacific Ocean off Newport, Ore., on July 27, 2006.Perhaps most alarming, hypoxia is now a serious problem along all of the nation's coasts as well as in the Great Lakes, the report said, impacting biodiversity and resulting in huge economic losses for the country's fishing industry.

"The nation's coastal waters are vital to our quality of life, our culture, and the economy," said Nancy H. Sutley, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, one of the agencies that contributed to the report. "Therefore, it is imperative that we move forward to better understand and prevent hypoxic events, which threaten all our coasts."

Hypoxia occurs when oxygen levels dip below 2 to 3 milligrams per liter of water. At such levels, only bacteria can survive for prolonged periods of time. Fish species such as striped bass, American shad and yellow perch, however, all require at least 5 milligrams per liter of water in order to live.

Where the 'Dead Zones' Are the Worst

In the United States, the northern Gulf of Mexico remains the worst area for hypoxia. In large part, that's because of the massive agricultural runoff that is carried into the gulf by the Mississippi River. Nitrogen and phosphorous, used to help boost crop yields in fertilizer, have long been responsible for declining gulf oxygen levels. Globally speaking, only the Baltic Sea has a larger "dead zone" than the area off the coast of Louisiana and Texas.




A small dead crab lies in hypoxic sediments off the coast of Louisiana in this photo provided by NOAA's Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, National Undersea Research Program and the Louisiana University Marine Consortium.In the mid-1980s, the northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxic area was measured at an area of approximately 2,500 square miles. In 2008, the report found, its size had grown to 12,719 miles. Moreover, the report measured oxygen levels before the BP oil spill, which did nothing to improve conditions for the area's sea life.

But the report finds that the fastest growing "dead zones" in the U.S. are not located in the gulf.

"The area off the Oregon and Washington coast is now the second largest seasonal hypoxic zone in the United States and third largest in the world," according to a press release accompanying the report, "with serious repercussions for natural ecosystems and protected resources, including commercial fisheries. The report also finds that the Pacific and North Atlantic coasts have experienced the largest increase in hypoxic sites since the 1980s."

Long Island Sound Success Story

Not all of the news in the report was bad, however. In 1985, following sharp declines in water quality and a growing problem with hypoxia, The Long Island Sound Study issued new guidelines that called for stricter nitrogen controls. Twenty years later, after nitrogen loads had been cut by 20 percent, hypoxia began to be reversed.

"If properly planned and executed, adaptive management of nutrient inputs will lead to significant reductions in hypoxia," the report concluded. "However, if current practices are continued, the expansion of hypoxia in coastal waters will continue and increase in severity, leading to further impacts on marine habitats, living resources, economies, and coastal communities."

Massive Mississippi River Fish Kill Not BP's Fault...















AOL News Surge Desk (Sept. 16) --
BP is behind the worst accidental oil spill in history, and is thus responsible for the deaths of much affected animal life in the Gulf of Mexico. But the latest gruesome fish kill? Don't count on it.

Louisiana's Department of Wildlife and Fisheries determined that rising temperatures and low tide caused the low oxygen levels that led to the mass suffocation of more than 100,000 fish in the Bayou Chaland in Plaquemines Parish, La., last week. According to The Associated Press, department spokeswoman Olivia Watkins outlined the scientific explanation for the fish kill and explained that the incident was unrelated to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.



P. J. Hahn, Plaquemines Parish Coastal Zone Management"When the tide is low, it becomes a pool," Watkins said. "We had a low tide and all the fish got trapped."

The massive fish kill of pogie, redfish, shrimp, crabs, freshwater eel and even a dolphin was first spotted by residents Friday evening. Because there were so many silvery carcasses lined up one after another, many described the resulting scene as reminiscent of a gravel road.

Louisiana's Department of Wildlife and Fisheries says rising temperatures and low tide caused the low oxygen levels that led to the suffocation of more than 100,000 fish in the Bayou Chaland in Plaquemines Parish, La., shown here Friday.
Predictably, because of the bayou's proximity to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, BP was initially blamed for the carnage. But reports also acknowledged the region's precedent of similar fish kills that typically occur during the late summer and early fall, although scarcely so dramatic and with such high body counts.

However, the northern Gulf of Mexico is considered the largest "dead zone" for fish kills caused by low oxygen levels in the water, a phenomenon technically known as hypoxia. So while pointing the finger at BP seemed like a natural reflex considering the location of the fish kill, the hypoxia explanation was also a legitimate theory from the start. Read next Blog for full report on hypoxia

Obama, let's INVEST again in more OIL!!!

GlobalPost tracks the 10 animals most in danger from the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This story was written by Julia Kumari Drapkin(Credit: Gerald Herbert)

Oil is spreading across the Gulf of Mexico -- the result of the sinking of an oil rig last week. A spill of this magnitude so close to the wetlands, estuaries and national fisheries of south Louisiana is unprecedented.


Though it's unclear how badly wildlife along the Gulf Coast will suffer, the timing of the spill couldn't be worse. This is peak spawning and nesting season for many species of fish, birds, turtles and marine mammals. Many species remain in set breeding areas during this time and there's less instinct to move away from danger.

Disturbances to nests, fish spawning grounds or key links in the food chain might have lasting effects on species already at risk, commercial fish stocks and the people who make a living harvesting them. Minor oil spills are relatively common on the Gulf Coast, but this one has biologists, wildlife agencies, conservation groups and fishermen particularly concerned.
Here's a selection of animals at risk in the open water, along the coasts and in the wetlands.



1. North Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: The Great Bluefin Tuna, prized for sushi and sashimi, is one of the species most in danger of slipping into extinction. Traveling down across the Atlantic seaboard, bluefin tuna spawn in the Gulf of Mexico between mid-April and mid-June.



2. Sea Turtles: Five of the world's seven sea turtle species live, migrate and breed in the Gulf region. Kemp's ridley is the world's most endangered species of sea turtle, and one of its two primary migration routes runs south of Mississippi. Loggerhead turtles, also endangered, feed in the warm waters in the Gulf between May and October.

3. Sharks: Shark species worldwide are in decline. The grassbeds south of the Chandeleur Islands are very close to the oil spill. These grasses are a known nursing area for a number of shark species, which are now beginning their spawning season in the Gulf. Whale sharks, the world's largest fish, feed on plankton at the surface of the water and could also be affected.
4. Marine mammals (whales, porpoises, dolphins): Oil spills pose an immediate threat to marine mammals, which need to surface and breathe. Not only does the oil pose a threat, but also the nasty toxins that the oil kicks off into the air. A resident pod of sperm whales in the spill area could be at risk along with piggy sperm whales, porpoises and dolphins.

5. Brown Pelicans: The state bird of Louisiana, the pelican nests on barrier islands and feeds near shore. Brown pelicans only came off the endangered species list last year, but they've had a rough time in past seasons with storms. Their reproductive rates are low. Breeding season just started, and with eggs incubating the oil could pose a significant threat


6. Oysters

The coastal waters around the very tip of Louisiana’s boot-shaped coast are home to some of the most productive oyster farms in the country. Oils and hydrocarbons are toxic to oysters. Unfortunately, hydrocarbons can persist in coastal sediments for months or even years. Louisiana oyster farmers, many of whom barely scrape by with high fuel costs and global competition, could have trouble weathering the oil spill if their harvests are affected.

7. Shrimp and blue crab

Coastal marshes are key to the life cycle and development of Louisiana shrimp and blue crab — both staples of the local seafood industry. Inshore shrimp season will open in mid-May, while brown shrimp are in their post-larval and juvenile development stages.


Blue crab. (Jorge Silva/Reuters)

8. Menhaden and marsh-dwelling fish.

The young offspring of species such as mullet, menhaden and marsh-dwelling forage fishes are especially vulnerable at this time of year. Menhaden is a little fish you've probably never heard of, but people all over the world use it everyday. Menhaden fish oil and meat are used in everything from cosmetics to animal feed. Louisiana is one of the world’s biggest suppliers and the oil spill comes smack in the middle of menhaden spawning season.


Mullet fish. (Toshiyuki Aizawa/Reuters)

9. Beach-nesting and migratory shorebirds

Overdeveloped beachfronts all along the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida have made life difficult for several species of plovers, sandpipers, terns and oystercatchers. Those that build their nests on the ground and feed on invertebrates are susceptible to oil on the beaches. Some migratory shore birds fly nearly the length of the Western Hemisphere and use barrier islands in the Gulf for key resting and refueling spots on their journey.


Plover. (Bill Stripling/National Audubon Society)


10. Migratory songbirds — warblers, orioles, buntings, flycatchers, swallows and others

About 96 species of neotropical songbirds make a 500-mile journey without a pit stop across the Gulf of Mexico. The next two weeks mark the height of their migration as they travel north from Central and South America to breed in North America. The smoke from controlled burns to mitigate the oil spill could affect the migration, but the impacts will be difficult to monitor.


Warbler. (Vasily Fedosenko/Reuters)

On a positive note, the sweet crude oil found in the Gulf is lighter and less toxic than other oils. It can be burned without refining it first and some ecosystems might be able to break it down over time.

Sources: Gulf Restoration Network; Tulane Institute on Water Resources Law and Policy; Louisiana Sea Grant Program; National Audubon Society's Louisiana Coastal Initiative; Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries.

Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters

Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters

This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths—a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.

The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)—so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email.

He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8 litters, totally 140 animals.

Surov told The Voice of Russia,

"Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly."
He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.

Surov said "The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile."

The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples.

Hair Growing in the Mouth

Earlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper in Doklady Biological Sciences showing that in rare instances, hair grows inside recessed pouches in the mouths of hamsters.

"Some of these pouches contained single hairs; others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth. Sometimes, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew vertically and had sharp ends, often covered with lumps of a mucous."

(The photos of these hair bundles are truly disgusting. Trust me, or look for yourself.)

At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmise that such an astounding defect may be due to the diet of hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, "This pathology may be exacerbated by elements of the food that are absent in natural food, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (GM soybean or maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.)." Indeed, the number of hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher among the third generation of GM soy fed animals than anywhere Surov had seen before.

Preliminary, but Ominous

Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, "It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself." Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how.

In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they're called "Roundup Ready." Bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side effects of genetic engineering.

Years of Reproductive Disorders from GMO-Feed

Surov's hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce.

In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.

When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.

An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were.

Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry's problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior." Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females "at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens." One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.

In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.

Denial, Attack and Canceled Follow-up

Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova's simple, inexpensive studies.

In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem!

Surov reports that so far, he has not been under any pressure.

Opting Out of the Massive GMO Feeding Experiment

Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice, and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned citizens don't think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry's massive uncontrolled experiment.

Alexey Surov says, "We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them."

La Via Campesina Participates In The Inauguration Of The Peoples' Climate Conference In Bolivia

La Via Campesina Participates In The Inauguration Of The Peoples' Climate Conference In Bolivia

This morning Itelvina Masioli, a Brazilian leader of the international peasant movement La Via Campesina, spoke at the inauguration of the People's World Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth. Bolivian President Evo Morales was the keynote speaker to the crowd of several thousand.

The conference, organized by the Bolivian government after countries failed to agree on a plan to stop climate change in Copenhagen last December, is being held from April 19 thru 22. Its goal is to amplify the voices of those who were not heard in Copenhagen.

"We are here together with President Evo Morales to play an active role in this grand global mobilization in Defense of Mother Earth," said Masioli. "Our planet is in danger, and if our planet is in danger, then life is in danger."

"We are talking about two grand projects in dispute. On the one side is the project of capital and imperialism, which signifies looting, which signifies death, and which signifies all of the false solutions to climate change that we reject entirely."

"We assert that we need to change the system and not the climate," continued Masioli. "We assume the construction of another project: the project of life. A project based on principles that defend life, the Mother Earth, and that is based on another model of social, economic, political and cultural development. That is why we are here. "

The invitation to La Via Campesina from the Bolivian government to speak at the inauguration symbolizes the importance that the movement has gained since its founding in 1993 as a global voice for peasants and small farmers. Masioli is one of 300 delegates from La Via Campesina who are attending the conference to send the message to the world that diversified, sustainable peasant agriculture can cool down the planet.

"As peasants of the world, we want to reaffirm our promise and commitment to defend Mother Earth," said Masioli. "We believe that the real solutions to all of the crises in this historic moment in which we live are solutions that need to be based in integral agrarian reform and food sovereignty as a principle and as a right of the peoples."

At the end of her speech, Masioli presented as a gift to Morales the flags of La Via Campesina and the Latin American Coordination of Peasant Organizations (CLOC). "We are going to give our flags of La Via Campesina and CLOC---our most powerful symbols---because President Morales was one of the founders of these two important peasant articulations in Latin America and the World, and because no one else has the credibility to convene this conference."

Obama, let's invest more in OIL

ARE YOU FED UP WITH POLITCS??

Just watch the video
http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/19269379#video=19271424

Most countries depend on oil. States will go to great lengths to acquire an oil production capability or to be assured access to the free flow of oil. History has provided several examples in which states were willing to go to war to obtain oil resources or in defense of an oil producing region. States have even become involved in conflicts over areas which may only possibly contain oil resources. This trend is likely to continue in the future until a more economical resource is discovered or until the world's oil wells run dry. One problem associated with this dependence on oil is the extremely damaging effects that production, distribution, and use have on the environment. Furthermore, accidents and conflict can disrupt production or the actual oil resource, which can also result in environmental devastation. One potential solution to this problem is to devise a more environmentally-safe resource to fuel the economies of the world.


II. Issue Background

Although much of the world depends on the production or the trade of oil to fuel its economies, these activities can cause severe damage to the environment, either knowingly or unintentionally. Oil production, and/or transportation, can disrupt the human population, and the animal and fish life of the region. Oil waste dumping, production pollution, and spills wreak havoc on the surrounding wildlife and habitat. It threatens the extinction of several plants, and has already harmed many land, air, and sea animal and plant species.

The effects of oil on marine life are cause by either the physical nature of the oil (physical contamination and smothering) or by its chemical components (toxic effects and accumulation leading to tainting). Marine life may also be affected by clean-up operations or indirectly through physical damage to the habitats in which plants and animals live. The animals and plants most at risk are those that could come into contact with a contaminated sea surface: marine animals and reptiles; birds that feed by diving or form flocks on the sea; marine life on shorelines; and animals and plants in mariculture facilities.

Runoffs from petroleum processing and petrochemical plants have dumped tons of toxic wastes into nearby waters. Gas and oil pipelines have stanched many creeks and rivers, swamping prime pastures and cropland. Furthermore, entire bays and lagoons along coasts have been fouled by oil spills and runoff of toxic chemicals.

The environmental damage that is a result of oil retraction and production can also directly effect human life in the region. Damage can include pollution of water resources and contamination of the soil. Humans are effected by environmental devastation because it is damaging to vegetation, livestock, and to the health of the human body itself. Oil spills can interfere with the normal working of power stations and desalination plants that require a continuous supply of clean seawater and with the safe operation of coastal industries and ports.

Environmental damage can also be a result of conflict over oil-producing regions. Environmental harm associated with oil resources can either be attributed to a side effect of conflict, or, in some cases, it is associated with military aggression that is intended to damage the natural resources of the region.


III. Relevant TED Cases

The eight following case studies were selected to demonstrate the damage that oil production and/or conflict over oil resources can have on the environment. Ecuador, Nigeria, Columbia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan are only a few examples of countries where oil production has had, or most likely will have, damaging effects on the environment. These regions have also been chosen to be examined because they are situations in which production and social unrest have, or could, result in environmental devastation or environmental terrorism. Furthermore, some instances in which oil has been a factor in conflict over a region include: the Falkland Islands Dispute, the Spratly Islands Dispute, and the Persian Gulf War.


CASE LISTINGS AND BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS

Ecuador

Fifty percent of Ecuador's national budget is funded by oil earnings and continued oil exploration and production is thought to be necessary to ensure the countries' well being. The country plans to increase production and holds auctions to increase foreign investment. Dependence on oil revenue has hindered Ecuador's environmental enforcement, which in turn has caused damaging consequences to indigenous tribes living in the Amazon region and to the environment in the eastern (Oriente) part of the country. The Indians of Ecuador, located in the Amazon region of Oriente, have joined forces for the past 20 years to resist oil exploration and demand rights to their ancestral lands.

Many of the indigenous tribes in the Amazon region that once numbered in the thousands have been reduced to the hundreds as a result of the pollution generated by oil exploration and other assaults. Water contamination has led to increased risks of cancer, abortion, dermatitis, fungal infection, headaches, and nausea. Their drinking, bathing, and fishing water contain toxins much higher than the safety limits set by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

The oil companies that drilled in the rain forest were responsible for "felling thousands of acres of trees, dynamiting the earth, spilling vast amounts of oil, destroying habitats, and fouling rivers." Fish have died from water pollution and the game the tribes once hunted have retreated deeper into the jungle as a result of the deforestation. The Rainforest Action Network found that Texaco alone spilled 17 million gallons of crude oil, abandoned hundreds of unlined toxic waste ponds, and constructed oil roads that opened more than 2.5 million acres of the forest to colonization. As a result, Ecuador's rain forests are being cut down by oil companies and settlers at a rate of approximately 340,000 hectares a year. The wood is used for construction, roads, fuel, and furniture.

The exploration for oil has created numerous environmental problems of all types in the Amazon region. The Amazon basin in Ecuador has the greatest number of plant species of any South American country. The Sierra highlands have been almost completely deforested. Also, the Oriente is a species rich jungle with numerous mammals in danger of extinction. Oil that was placed on roads to cut dust has flowed into rivers. Oil waste in the past was placed in holes in the ground that contaminated the forests and the rivers. Ecuadorian officials estimate that ruptures to the major pipeline alone have discharged more than 16.8 million gallons of oil into the Amazon over the past eighteen years (compared to the 10.8 million-gallon Exxon Valdez spill).


Nigeria

Oil has been an important part of the Nigerian economy since vast reserves of petroleum were discovered in Nigeria in the 1950s. For example, revenues from oil have increased from 219 million Naira in 1970 to 10.6 billion Naira in 1979. Shell Oil operates many of its oil facilities in the oil-rich Delta region of Nigeria. The Ogonis, an ethnic group that predominate in the Delta region, have protested that Shell's oil production has not only devastated the local environment, but has destroyed the economic viability of the region for local farmers and producers. The Nigerian Federal Government, on the other hand, has been charged with failing to enact and enforce environmental protections against oil damage by Shell and other oil companies. Furthermore, many Ogonis have been harassed and even killed by the Federal government for organizing protests and threatening sabotage of oil facilities.

Oil production in Nigeria has had severe environmental and human consequences for the indigenous peoples who inhabit the areas surrounding oil extraction. Nigeria's export of 12 million barrels of oil a day comes from 12% of the country's land, and indigenous minority communities in these areas receive no economic benefits. Indigenous groups are actually further impoverished due to environmental degradation from oil production and the lack of adequate regulations on multinational companies, as they become more vulnerable to food shortages, health hazards, loss of land, pollution, forced migration and unemployment.

The social and environmental costs of oil production have been extensive. They include destruction of wildlife and biodiversity, loss of fertile soil, pollution of air and drinking water, degradation of farmland and damage to aquatic ecosystems, all of which have caused serious health problems for the inhabitants of areas surrounding oil production. Pollution is caused by gas flaring, above ground pipeline leakage, oil waste dumping and oil spills. Approximately 75% of gas produced is flared annually causing considerable ecological and physical damage to other resources such as land/soil, water and vegetation. Gas flares, which are often times situated close to villages, produce soot which is deposited on building roofs of neighboring villages. Whenever it rains, the soot is washed off and the black ink-like water running from the roofs is believed to contain chemicals which adversely effect the fertility of the soil. Gas pipelines have also caused irreparable damage to lands once used for agricultural purposes. These pipes should be buried to reduce risk of fracture and spillage. However, they are often laid above ground and run directly through villages, where oil leaks have rendered the land economically useless.

Oil spills and the dumping oil into waterways has been extensive, often poisoning drinking water and destroying vegetation. According to an independent record of Shell's spills from 1982 to 1992, 1,626,000 gallons were spilt from the company's Nigerian operations in 27 separate incidences. Of the number of spills recorded from Shell - a company which operates in more than 100 countries - 40% were in Nigeria.

Shell is also being accused of engaging in "widespread ecological disturbances, including explosions from seismic surveys, pollution from pipe-line leaks, blowouts, drilling fluids and refinery effluents, and land alienation and disruption of the natural terrain from construction of industry infrastructure and installations". For example, oil spill contamination of the top soil has rendered the soil in the surrounding areas "unsuitable for plant growth by reducing the availability of nutrients or by increasing toxic contents in the soil" . Gas flaring, on the other hand, "has been associated with reduced crop yield and plant growth on nearby farms, and disruption of wildlife in the immediate vicinity". Shell and other oil companies have developed an easy and inexpensive way to deal with by-products from oil drilling: "indiscriminate dumping".

The crisis over environmental pollution and economic marginalization from the oil industry reached a peak in January 1993 when 300,000 Ogoni protested against Shell Oil. This organized protest was followed by repeated harassment, arrests, and killing of Ogonis by Federal government troops.


Colombia

The Andes mountains in Colombia have become the newest oil hot spot with several international companies drilling in the region. Oil drilling is a profitable business for the exploring corporation as well as the Colombian government which receives a large sum of money for each barrel of oil recovered. However, the process is not without violence nor criticism from environmental groups. The Marxist guerrillas repeatedly interrupt production through the use of terrorist tactics including bombings and kidnappings. Environmental groups challenge Colombian laws regarding environmental degradation due to the methods of oil exploration and extraction primarily caused by foreign corporations.

In 1993, British Petroleum and its partners located oil beneath the eastern plains in the Andes Mountains. The company predicted "it could be worth $3 billion a year in exports -- the government hopes for $5 billion -- by 1997." The Colombian government also "commissioned British Petroleum to continue exploring for oil in its frontier areas" in 1995.

Not everyone in Colombia is pleased that the oil companies are drilling more and more in their country. The drug cartels, peasant groups and paramilitary groups have wrecked havoc on the oil-pumping stations. Many of the oil wells are located in the "stomping ground" of the Medellin drug cartel as well as its competitors. The area is also the home to "the less publicized `emerald wars' (Colombia produces 60 percent of the world emerald supply), to three separate groups of Marxist guerrillas and to an increasingly terroristic national police force seeking to quell the turmoil."

One reporter described a British Petroleum drilling site in the eastern foothills of the Andes as "an armed camp, swarming with khaki-clad, rifle-toting guards and surrounded by machine gun emplacements and two rows of flood-lit razor wire." The fortress is necessary in order to quell some of the violence caused by the Marxist guerrillas in the region who are protesting the eradication of coca crops. As it is difficult to halt the coca eradication process, the guerrillas attack the oil sites and pipelines as a demonstration of their dissatisfaction with the government's actions. During the last nine years, "leftist guerrilla squads have dynamited Colombia's main oil pipeline 346 times, spilling slightly more than 1.2 million barrels of crude oil. The guerrillas seek publicity, rural development, and nationalization of the oil industry." The guerrillas also demand increased spending "for social programs in areas where the oil is produced."

Colombia's Environment Minister said that "no one has ever calculated how much the FARC owes" due to fears that the calculation would encourage the guerrillas to increase their destructive actions. During the past ten years, pipeline attacks by the guerrillas are estimated to have cost Colombia "about $1 billion in lost oil sales." Ministry studies examining the years 1989 through 1991 "found that guerrilla pipeline bombings polluted 375 miles of creeks and rivers and fouled 12,500 acres, ranging from tropical wetlands to Andean watersheds."


Azerbaijan

On 20 November 1994 a consortium of oil companies signed a contract with the government of Azerbaijan. The consortium, led by British Petroleum, is to invest $8 billion for oil production over a period of 30 years. The consortium believes it can extract up to 4 billion barrels of oil from three wells in the Caspian Sea. However, a problem has developed dealing with the route the oil will take to the world market. In addition, there are many environmental aspects to the issue. They all basically deal with the possibility of damage or destruction of the pipelines. This is due to the fact that this is a politically volatile region of the world.

Before the consortium could finally have the agreement signed, there was a problem that required immediate attention. Their plan is to sell the oil on the world market. As such, the oil must be transported from Baku, the Azerbaijani port of origin to potential world clients by way of the Turkish port of Ceyhan. There were 3 possible routes to be taken. The first involves constructing a pipeline from Baku to the west in neighboring Georgia. From there it would be shipped to Ceyhan. A second would involve constructing a pipeline that would travel south through Armenia into Turkey to Ceyhan. Finally, an existing pipeline could be used by sending the oil north to the Russian port of Novorossiysk, from there it would be shipped to Ceyhan.

The choices to be made are thus influenced by a myriad of details. However, there is one rather important issue which has not been discussed, the environment. The environment serves to be severely damaged if any number of very likely events occur. Firstly, the threat of terrorism on every possible pipeline route is very high. The first route is through Georgia, which has not yet rid itself of the horrors of civil war. Thus there is the possibility of the pipeline being targeted by the combatants. The second route, through Armenia, is the sight of an almost 7 year clash with Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region. The final route through Russia directly traverses the Chechen war zone. In addition, the Russian oil pipelines are in a horrendous state of upkeep, with over 700 spills per year. There is also the likely possibility that the Caspian Sea itself will be polluted by any number of possible mishaps. Finally, if one of the first two oil routes were chosen, oil would have to be shipped to Turkey through the already overcrowded Bosporus Sea channel. Thus animal or fish life, and the very ecosystem itself, could be adversely affected by pipeline or shipping spills.

These options leave much to be desired environmentally. The outcome of an accident such as an oil spill in the area of the Caspian or Black Sea, or in the pipeline system on land would undoubtedly have a high impact on and effect both the composition and scale of the wildlife and its habitat.


Kazakhstan

According to petroleum scientists, the Caspian Sea region contains the third largest reserve of oil and natural gas in the world, behind the Gulf region and Siberia. Western firms for decades had longed to be given the opportunity to exploit the former Soviet empire's massive oil reserves, and the end of the Cold Was has allowed this possibility. There are environmental concerns associated with drilling for oil in the Caspian region, in addition to the already well articulated effects from drilling itself. The major issue regarding oil exploration in the region is a question of how best to deliver the oil to world markets. The Caspian Sea area is landlocked, thus the only way to efficiently transport the oil to world markets is via pipeline. The exact route of such a pipeline is as of yet undecided, and may prove to be the single most important factor in determining the ultimate success of oil exploration in the region.

The region, however, is not without its own political turmoil. Developing oil fields in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan present unique difficulties and extricating the oil from the region will be even more tenuous. According to Chevron and oil analysts, a pipeline is imperative to justify an increase in production. But an increase in output would be economically irrational unless there is a more efficient method of transport. The route that the proposed pipeline would traverse is probably the most difficult aspect of the whole issue because there are several political "hot spots" in the region that make a pipeline a difficult proposition.

Heavy tanker traffic thorough the Mediterranean, Red Sea and Persian Gulf have already alerted states to the polluting effects of such activities. Increased production in the Caspian region will increase the above effects, no matter which pipeline route is eventually chosen. Unique to the Caspian region however, is the fact that the Caspian Sea is rising. It could rise possibly three meters in the next twenty-five years. Resultant environmental damage would be immense. More damaging to the environment is the potential flooding of refineries on the coastal plains of the region. These regions are some of the most polluted areas in the former Soviet Union, according to US Embassy reports.

Existing oil drilling in the sea is a major cause of pollution. The US Embassy in Baku reports that one can see an oily film on the sea's surface. Another problem is the flaring of natural gas; about 4.5 million cubic meter a day. Natural gas flares, however, can be contained with the appropriate western technology. While the sea is less polluted than the Black Sea, much needs to be done to lessen the harmful environmental effects of oil drilling, and the potential disastrous effects of the rising Caspian Sea.



Falkland Island Dispute

The Falkland/Malvinas Island War of 1982 seemed to be a war over islands with an economy based on a couple of thousand sheepfarmers. Since Britain has re-established itself as the controlling power of the Falkland Islands, discoveries of large oil reserves and tremendous fish stocks in the surrounding waters of the islands have made them a valuable commodity. Argentinean claims of sovereignty over the islands continues unabated, although recent dialogue over the future of the potential oil fields in the Southern Atlantic have begun. Not only will the economic impact be immense on the inhabitants of the small islands, but also on the delicate ecological system in place on the still somewhat pristine environment.

These seemingly insignificant islands in actuality are quite a prize. The fishing and oil industries of the islands have enabled the islands to become self sustaining (with the exception of military assistance from the United Kingdom). Although the fishing industry is now the principle source of revenue in the Falkland islands, this may eventually change in favor of oil. ( see SQUID case)

The Falkland Islanders are concerned about the impact of oil exploration on their unique environment. Although they profess a hatred of the Argentines since the April 1982 invasion, the Falklanders said their overriding concern is to maintain the special ecological habitat of the South Atlantic archipelago. There are no longer any land mammals indigenous to the Falkland Islands. The indigenous wild fox became extinct about 100 years ago. There are some 65 different species of birds that occupy the islands at various times throughout the year. These include the black-browed albatross, Falkland pipit, peregrine falcon, and striated caracara breed. The islands are also breeding grounds for several million penguins. These include the Rockhopper, Magellanic, Gentoo, King and Macaroni penguins.


Kuwait War

During the Persian Gulf War, from the fall of 1990 to early 1991, Iraq embarked on a systematic destruction of Kuwait's oil industry, and Iraqi forces set fire to 789 individual Kuwaiti oil wells. The attendant results were catastrophic both from an economic and ecological standpoint. Kuwait's economy suffered a precipitous drop in export revenues immediately after the Gulf War, due to the inability to make up the production differences from the damaged oil wells. The ecological landscape of Kuwait and the Persian Gulf was irrevocably damaged due to the destruction unleashed by the burning oil wells, and it may be generations before this environment is restored to its pre-war balance.

At the beginning of the crisis, little attention was devoted to the potential impact of a sustained, combined arms form of warfare on the regional environment. However, many environmentalists and concerned scientists soon began to discuss the potential ramifications of such activity, given the scale of the oil holdings in the Kuwaiti theater of operations (KTO). By December 1990, experts began to postulate as to the exact magnitude a deliberate plan of eco-terrorism by Iraq, and analyses varied that this action would cause the release of anywhere from three million to almost ten million barrels of oil per day.

By February 1991, reports indicated that up to 190 oil wells had been set ablaze by Iraqi occupation forces in Kuwait, and after the coalition forces ejected Iraqi troops from the KTO in mid March 1991, almost 800 oil wells had been given similar treatment. It was soon estimated that six million barrels of oil were burning per day circa March 1991 in Kuwait, and the initial assessment of the environmental impact was staggering. Concerns ranged from across a wide variety of environmental disasters. The amount of soot generated was one such cause of concern, as one gram of soot can block out two-thirds of the light falling over an area of eight to ten square meters. Accordingly, scientists calculated that the release of two million barrels of oil per day could generate a plume of smoke and soot which would cover an area of half of the United States. Weather patterns and climactic conditions could have carried such a plume great distances so as to severely hamper agricultural production in remote areas of the world.(See Montreal case)

As a result of the Iraqi scorched earth policy, it was estimated that 250 million gallons of oil - more than 20 times the amount spilled in the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska - flowed into the Gulf, causing irreparable harm to the biological diversity and physical integrity of the Gulf. Oil soaked over 440 miles of Saudi Arabia's coastline. Due to the Gulf's sluggish circulation system, it will take years before the oil is swept away by the natural forces of the water.(See Exxon case)

By November 1991, the last of the burning oil wells had been capped, but the scale of damage to the Kuwaiti economy and ecological environment was just beginning to be assessed. Hundreds of miles of the Kuwaiti desert were left uninhabitable, due to the accumulation of oil lakes and of soot from the burning wells. The impact of the oil spillage on the biodiversity of the Gulf has yet to be fully assessed, yet based on the biologics that inhabited the region prior to the Gulf War, it can be adduced that they are now at serious risk. One to two million of migratory birds visit the Gulf each year on their way to northern breeding grounds, and it has been documented that thousands of comorants, migratory birds indigenous to the Gulf region, died as a result of exposure to oil or from polluted air.

The fishing industry in the Gulf was deleteriously affected by the oil spillage into the Gulf, which was important due to the fact that it is one of the most vibrant productive activities in the region after the production of oil. As an example of the vibrancy of this industry, prior to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the Gulf had yielded harvests of marine life of up to 120,000 tons of fish a year; after the oil spillage, these numbers significantly dropped. In addition to this degradation to an economic activity, many people living on the Gulf coast depend on fishing as purely a subsistence activity, and the oil spillage has disrupted the spawning of shrimp and fish. Other species effected by the oil spillage included green and hawksbill turtles (already classified as endangered species), leatherback and loggerhead turtles, dugongs, whales, dolphins, migratory birds like comorants and flamingoes, and sea snakes.( See Green Bill Turtles case)


Spratly Islands Dispute

The Philippines made their first claim in the area--which they refer to as the Kalayaan islands--in 1975 and has been developing oil in the region between the Spratlys and the island of Palawan since 1976. There are currently about 1,000 Marines stationed on the islands. In 1979, the Philippines stated that it only wanted control of the seven islands under its control and administration and not the rest of the archipelago.

Malaysia has been involved in the dispute since 1979. It currently has control over three of the islands but claims the whole chain. Malaysiaws case is based on the fact that the islands are part of its continental shelf. This gives it right to the islands under the Law of the Sea Convention. Brunei's claims to the island also rest on the Law of the Sea. It states that the southern part of the Spratly chain is actually a part of its continental shelf and therefore its territory and resources.

Taiwan has maintained a garrison on the biggest of the islands since 1956. Its claims to the island are based on its assertion that Taiwan and its Kuomintang government are the true China. Both Taiwan and the People's Republic of China say that the islands were discovered by Chinese navigators, used by Chinese fishermen for centuries, and under the administration of China since the 15th century. Further, the Kuomintang sent a naval expedition to the islands and took formal possession in 1946. It left a garrison on the largest island of Itu Aba. However, since Taiwan claims to be the true China, it believes the islands belong to it and not to the PRC. Its main concern is that China alone or China and Vietnam will gain control and thus, have a monopoly on the South China Sea.

China and Vietnam are the main protagonists in the dispute. Vietnam claims to the islands--which they call the Truong Sa islands--are part of the empire of Annam, Vietnam's ancestor, in the l9th century. In 1815, an expedition sent by King Gia Long to chart sea lanes occupied and settled the islands. The French, who were Vietnam's colonial rulers, annexed the Spratlys in 1933, so Vietnam says the islands are theirs as the inheritors of the French possessions. In September 1973, Vietnam declared that the Spratlys were part of the Phuoc Tuy province. It has since stated that the Philippines are occupying part of its territory. Vietnam currently holds three islands.

China's claims to the island are based on the same history as Taiwan's claim. The PRC government maintains that it is the legitimate Chinese government and that, therefore, the islands-- which they call the Nansha islands--are their territory. They have been the most belligerent in pursuing their claim. The dispute between China and Vietnam picked up in 1988. Chinese naval vessels sailed into the Spratlys in January 1988 and Chinese marines started building defenses on one of the largest islands--the first time China has settled soldiers on the islands. In March, fighting broke out between Vietnam and China and China sunk two Vietnamese ships. While they have moved to more political means of dealing with the dispute, tensions remain high in the area. Confrontation surfaced again when China contracted with a US firm to begin testing for oil sights, even though the territorial issue remains far from solved. Occasional harassment of fishermen by all sides continues as well. Each of the six countries maintain its claim to all the islands. The protagonists have been discussing the possibility of shelving the sovereignty issue to undertake joint development of its resources and have sent a joint scientific team to run tests on resource potential.

Although the dispute over the oil resources of these islands has yet to have a damaging effect on the environment, that possibility is likely in the future. Armed conflict could directly damage the oil production and extraction process which would result in environmental devestation, both on land and in the sea.

These eight case studies are all instances in which the desire for oil resources or an increase in oil production has had an adverse effect on the environment. Specifically, the impact on the environment is, or could be, the result of extraction, accidents, terrorism, or conflict. These cases give examples of situations in which there is both willful and unintentional damage caused to the environment.

The Ecuador, Nigeria, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Falkland Island cases are all illustrations of how oil extraction and production can directly damage the surrounding environment. There are examples of wildlife and habitat devastation through pollution, including oil waste dumping, and accidents, such as oil spills. Although the oil production is willingly performed by governments and private companies, the actual damage caused to the environment is not intentional. This is a situation in which the companies might be willing to pursue other forms of energy resources; however, their entire organizations depend on oil production as a means of business.

Likewise, the Ecuador and Nigeria cases clearly exemplify the direct negative impact that oil production can have on human beings living in the region. In Ecuador alone, hundreds of indigenous tribes have been eliminated due to the oil exploration. There should be great societal and environmental concern when an industry has contaminated the water and land resources that the population depends on. Although more attention needs to be placed on damage that is done to the wildlife, pollution that directly effects the health of human beings must be immediately dealt with.

The effects that oil pollution has had on human society has led to anti-government movements and uprisings in many areas. As a result of the damaging impact that oil production has had on the Indians in Ecuador for the past 20 years, the Indians have protested the government by resisting oil exploration and demanding rights to their ancestral lands. In addition, the situation in Nigeria has led several hundred of thousand Ogoni people to protest the government's actions.

There are also political uprisings steming from environmental concerns. In Columbia, Marxist guerrillas have interrupted oil production through terrorist acts, such as bombings and kidnappings. These attacks on oil sites and pipelines have reportedly spilled more than 1.2 million barrels of crude oil. In both Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan the concern over which oil routes to pursue stems from the fear that the political situation or terrorism will disrupt the pipelines.

International conflict over oil resources and lands with potential oil resources is also an issue of concern. Disputes over sovereignty of the Falkland and Spratly Islands could have grave environmental impacts in the future. The delicate environments in both of those areas could be severely disrupted due to oil spills or direct attacks on production as a result of future fighting.

In most cases of international conflict, direct assaults on resource production is not common. However, in the Kuwait case this was just the opposite. During Iraqi's control of Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi government deliberately set many of the Kuwaiti oil fields on fire. Although international cooperation eventually put an end to the crisis, more than 250 million gallons of oil flowed into the Persian Gulf and many species of animals died as a result of exposure to the oil or from the polluted air. This could be an example of conflict in the future; countries may damage the natural resources of others rather than attempting to defeat the country militarily.

Time, Water Running Out for America's Biggest Aquifer

Time, Water Running Out for America's Biggest Aquifer

AOL News (April 21) -- In 1823, a government surveyor named Stephen Long was working to map out the Great Plains, an expanse of land acquired along with the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. He was unimpressed by what he saw. As his geographer wrote in the report that accompanied the expedition:

I do not hesitate in giving the opinion that it is almost wholly unfit for cultivation, and of course, uninhabitable by a people depending upon agriculture for their subsistence.
Long would have been shocked to see what the region looks like today -- not merely fit for cultivation, but in fact one of the most fertile and productive areas of the world. Since World War II, dramatic leaps in technology have allowed farmers to pump groundwater for irrigation and extend America's breadbasket through the entire Great Plains, transforming what Long called "The Great American Desert" into an expanse of green circles defined by the reach of central pivot irrigation systems.

But that water is not infinite, and many are becoming concerned that Great Plains agriculture is a more precarious proposition than it appears -- meaning Long's report may have been not just a description, but a prediction.


Charlie Riedel, AP
A sprinkler sprays a field near Hoxie, Kan. Water for Great Plains irrigation comes from the Ogallala Aquifer, a vast underground lake that is being drained at an alarming rate.
That groundwater for irrigation comes from the Ogallala Aquifer, a massive underground lake that stretches from southern South Dakota through northern Texas, covering about 174,000 square miles. It is being drained at alarming rates, and some places have already seen what happens when local levels drop below the point where water can no longer be pumped.

"You go to areas where the aquifer has been depleted, [they] look pretty poor now," David Brauer, program manager for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service Ogallala Aquifer Program, told AOL News. "And it only takes a few years.

"The magnitude of this is incredible," he continued. "We're talking about, for the last 20 years, 20 percent of the irrigated acreage of this nation is over the Ogallala."

For an idea of what a severe drought could do to the communities of the Great Plains, consider the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, when gigantic "black blizzards" ravaged farms and forced thousands of families to give up their land and try to make a living elsewhere.

But the implications of ceasing irrigation on the Great Plains go far beyond local communities. The farming areas fed by the Ogallala supply such large quantities of grain that any drastic changes to that economy would ripple across the world -- as seen in 2007, when fuel costs drove up corn prices and sparked a food crisis in other countries, most notably Mexico.

People have been warning about the aquifer's depletion for years, but coordinating conservation programs among farmers has proved difficult. Recently, Texas has imposed state controls on the amount of groundwater that farmers can pump, requiring 16 groundwater districts to each provide a target for an acceptable groundwater level in 50 years.

Such measures, however, are mostly designed to delay the inevitable, since the recharge rate for the Ogallala Aquifer is small enough to be considered negligible. And so, Brauer says, as a natural resource the Ogallala is comparable to a vein of coal: What you take out doesn't get put back in. "All we're doing is buying time," he says.

Buying time is important -- it will allow farmers to develop dry-farming techniques and give the biotech industry a chance to deliver on the promise of drought-resistant crops. But without groundwater irrigation, crop yields will almost certainly drop, and the local, national and global economies will have to adjust.

Cochabamba and Climate Change: Another Summit, Another Try

Cochabamba and Climate Change: Another Summit, Another Try
April 21, 2010 in Press, Uncategorized

Sarah Laskow, Media Consortium blogger

On Monday, climate activists, nonprofit leaders, and governmental officials will gather in Cochabamba, Bolivia, to look for new ideas to address climate change. The World People’s Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, organized by leading social organizations like 350.0rg, “will advocate the right to “live well,” as opposed to the economic principle of uninterrupted growth,” asInter Press Service explains. In the absence of real leadership from the world’s governments, the conferees at Cochabamba are looking for solutions “committed to the rights of people and environment.”

The United States certainly isn’t stepping up. Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), were supposed to release their climate legislation next week, just in time for Earth Day. But yesterday the word came down that the release was being pushed back by another week, to April 26.

No matter when it finally arrives, like other recent environmental initiatives, this round of climate legislation falls short. Even if Congress manages to pass a bill—and there’s no guarantee—it will likely leave plenty of room for the coal, oil, and gas industries to continue pouring carbon into the atmosphere. And a wimpy effort from Congress will hinder international work to limit carbon emissions: As a prime polluter, the United States needs to put forward a real plan for change.

Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman

Although the text of the bill is not public yet, it is likely that this attempt at Senate climate legislation will limit carbon emissions only among utilities and gradually phase in other sectors of the economy. On Democracy Now!, environmentalist Bill McKibben called the bill “an incredible accumulation of gifts to all the energy industries, in the hopes that they won’t provide too much opposition to what’s a very weak greenhouse gas pact.”

Climate reform began with a leaner idea, a cap-and-trade system that limited carbon emissions while encouraging innovation. The Nation’s editors document the transformation of climate reform from the Obama administration’s original cap-and-trade proposal to the behemoth tangle it has become. Both the House and the Senate fattened their versions of climate legislation with treats for the energy industry. The Senate’s new idea to gradually expand emissions reduction through a bundle of energy bills only opens up more opportunities for influence.

“Some of these pieces of legislation may pass; others may fail; all are ripe for gaming by corporate lobbies,” the editors write. “Kerry-Lieberman-Graham would also skew subsidies in the wrong direction, throwing billions at “clean coal” technologies, nuclear power plants and offshore drilling, a questionable gambit favored by the Obama administration to garner support from Republicans and representatives from oil-, gas- and coal-producing states.”

Even with these goodies, the climate bill may not pass. The Washington Independent rounds up the D.C. players to watch as the next fight unfolds, including the Chamber of Commerce’s William Kovacs and the Environmental Protection Agency’s Lisa Jackson.

Green leftovers

In theory, the climate bill should not be America’s only ride to a greener future. But the other vehicles for green change choked during start-up. The EPA was going to regulate carbon emissions, but Congress has reared against that effort. The climate bill could snatch away that power from the executive branch.

If companies won’t limit their carbon emissions, individuals still have the option for action. But asHeather Rogers explains in The Nation, carbon offsets, one of the most popular mechanisms for minimizing carbon use “are a dubious enterprise.”

“To begin with, they don’t cut greenhouse gases immediately but only over the life of a project, and that can take years–some tree-planting efforts need a century to do the work. And a project is effective only if it’s successfully followed through; trees can die or get cut down, unforeseen ecological destruction might be triggered or the projects may simply go unbuilt.”

The pull of carbon offsets should diminish as energy use in buildings, cars, food, and flights gains in efficiency and uses less carbon. But if the green jobs sector is any indication, that revolution has been slow in coming. ColorLines reports that “there are no firm numbers on how many newly trained green workers are still jobless. But stories abound of programs that turn out workers with new, promising skills—in solar panel installation and weatherization, in places like Seattle and Chicago—and who nonetheless can’t find jobs.”

Cochabamba’s unique approach

These failures and setbacks don’t just affect Americans; they keep our leaders from negotiating with their international peers. The United Nations led a conference last winter in Copenhagen that promised to hash out carbon limits, yet produced no binding agreement. This coming winter, the UN will try again in Mexico, but if the United States shows up with the scant plan put forward by Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman, those negotiations have little promise.

In Cochabamba, leaders from inside and outside the government will attend a summit to discuss the future of climate change action. In The Progressive, Teo Ballve writes that,

“One of the bolder ideas is the creation of a global climate justice tribunal that could serve as an enforcement mechanism. And conference participants are already working on a “Universal Declaration of Mother Earth Rights” meant to parallel the U.N.’s landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.”

With U.S. government action paling, it might take outside ideas like these to revitalize the push towards a green future. By the end of next week, we’ll see if the Cochabamba group made any more progress than the bigwigs at Copenhagen.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.

Rude Awakening

This was posted yesterday by Jeffrey M. Smith the pioneer on the fight against GMO.
Check it out!

A wise customer wanted to find out if the corn nuts she was eating were from genetically modified (GM) corn. She emailed the company and got a shocking reply. It began:

"Thank you for your contact. We are not aware of any GMO free corn in the U.S. We feel it is a ridiculous concern based on very poor science."

The email, reproduced at the blog of Kelly the Kitchen Kop, even recommended:

". . . if these concerns are truly important to you, you may be better served at a health food store.

We appreciate your patronage.

The Customer Support Team,

American Importing Co., Inc."

Talk about being opinionated and misinformed.

There's overwhelming evidence showing that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are unsafe. And there are plenty of sources for non-GMO corn.

Did this email get you angry? Are you thinking about flooding the company's email with hostile missives? I had another idea.

I phoned the company owner.

I figured that although the email's author was clearly misled, I also knew all about Monsanto and the other devious corporations that dis-informed him—and how they skillfully depict GMO critics as ridiculous and unscientific.

When I got President Andy on the phone and asked if his products were genetically modified (GM), it didn't take me long to realize that he was almost certainly the author of his company's tactless email. He launched into a diatribe blasting GMOs as the most misconceived issue in the entire food industry.

As I took notes documenting his string of incorrect statements, (no, there is no GMO wheat yet, same with apples; no there was not a massive death of monarch butterflies in Europe), he heard my keyboard tapping and stopped momentarily to ask who I was. I told him that I was a leading spokesperson on the dangers of GMOs, that I wrote the world's bestselling book on the subject, and that I was doing a blog based on an email response sent by his customer service.

That didn't slow him down in the least. Andy continued his rant, which literally went on for 12 minutes. I was impressed.

When he finally ran out of steam, I decided to begin my response by agreeing with him—that we certainly do need to apply real science on this issue. Then I told him the truth.

I told Andy of concerns by FDA scientists that GMOs might create serious, hard-to-detect health hazards, and how Monsanto's man placed at the top of the agency ignored and covered-up the warnings. As a result, the FDA lets GMOs onto the market without any required safety tests.

I told Andy that I worked with more than 30 scientists to document 65 health risks of GMOs for my book Genetic Roulette, which cites peer-reviewed science, industry research, and medical investigations, among its 1100+ endnotes.

I told Andy about the American Academy of Environmental Medicine's condemnation of GMOs, and their prescription of non-GMO diets for all patients. And how this renowned physician's organization linked GMOs to infertility, immune system dysfunction, gastrointestinal problems, organ damage, and disruption of insulin and cholesterol regulation.

And I told Andy how the same corporations that fed him the lie that GMOs are safe, fired and gagged scientists who discovered that they're not.

Now Andy was impressed.

And he realized he had been duped—that the information given to him and others in the food industry had been "filtered" by those earning profits from GMOs. He said that the science that I presented was not getting to the executives in the food industry, to people like him who want to give customers healthy food.

Andy was again on a roll, but with a different agenda. He now urged me to get in front of the decision makers in the food industry, and he even offered to help make it happen.

I told Andy that I was impressed by his passion, which he had unleashed on me like a fire hose at the beginning of the call. And I knew that once armed with the real evidence against GMOs, he could use that same passion and make a big difference.

Andy committed to order and read Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. And while waiting for it to arrive, he and his colleagues will review my keynote speech online, Everything You HAVE TO KNOW About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods.

Before we hung up, Andy thanked me over and over for not being reactive to his initial onslaught, and for staying with him and leading him through the science.

I now have a new friend. And I am reminded again about the importance of educating leaders in the food industry as part of our campaign to rid the food supply of GMOs.

If you know a food company executive, please take the time to send him or her a link to the online video presentation, to the article showing that doctors now prescribe non-GMO diets, and to a summary of the GMO health risks. It's time well spent.

And if they run a very large food company, please introduce me. I'm on a roll.

Safe eating.


International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. His first book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating, is the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on GMOs. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat everyday. Both are distributed by Chelsea Green Publishing. To help you choose healthier, non-GMO brands, use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.

Stop Obama's sneak attack on GMO labeling!

Stop Obama's sneak attack on GMO labeling!

Dear Renata,

If the U.S. government has its way, a powerful intergovernmental group you’ve probably never heard of may soon prevent anyone anywhere from labeling genetically modified (GMO) food.

Operated by the United Nations, the Codex Alimentarius is a collection of guidelines, codes and recommendations regarding food safety and labeling standards which are used by the World Trade Organization (WTO) to settle international disputes regarding food and agricultural trade agreements.

The U.S. Delegation to the Codex meeting is adopting a position that would make it virtually impossible to label foods as "GMO-free" anywhere in the world. Click on the link below to stop this end-run around our democratic process and make sure the voice of the American people is heard on GMO labeling.

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/stop_the_sneak_attack/127?akid=115.101046.EUS1rW&t=7

According to draft language circulated by the FDA, the U.S. will oppose a proposal at an upcoming meeting of an important Codex committee that would allow the labeling of genetically engineered food. Consumers Union and more than 80 family farm, public health, environmental and organic food organizations, including Food Democracy Now!, have raised concerns that the U.S. position will create major problems for American producers who want to label their products as “GMO-free.”

Unfortunately, rather than taking a proactive stance on GMO labeling and standing up for the rights of America's citizens, the Obama administration has incorporated pre-existing Bush administration positions, stating that Codex should not “suggest or imply that GM/GE foods are in any way different from other foods.”1

Leading national food policy experts believe this position directly contradicts USDA Organic standards, which prohibit the use of genetically engineered products. If adopted, the Obama administration’s proposal might not only weaken organic standards, but could also lead to further genetic contamination of U.S. organic crops - the fastest and most profitable segment of agriculture today.

Even worse, the current U.S. draft position paper declares that mandatory labeling laws such as they have in Europe are “false, misleading or deceptive.“2 If the U.S. succeeds in writing this proposed Codex regulation, any attempts to label foods here in the U.S. as genetically engineered, whether voluntary or by law, would become far more difficult, if not impossible.

This extreme position on genetically engineered food is unacceptable. Countries should be able to make their own decisions on the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Please click on the link below to tell the Obama administration that you support labeling of GMO food:

http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/stop_the_sneak_attack/127?akid=115.101046.EUS1rW&t=9

Thank you for participating in food democracy –

Dave, Lisa and The Food Democracy Now Team

We need to keep the pressure on! Please donate to Food Democracy Now today – whether it’s $5 or $50. We rely on folks like you to keep us going. Thank you!

Sources:
1. Consumers Union, Press Release, April 20, 2010
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/go/128?akid=115.101046.EUS1rW&t=12
2. 80+ Groups Urge FDA, USDA to Change U.S. Position on Food Labeling Civil Eats, April 20, 2010
http://action.fooddemocracynow.org

MORE THAN 80 GROUPS URGE FDA AND USDA TO CHANGE U.S. POSITION ON FOOD LABELING

April 20, 2010

MORE THAN 80 GROUPS URGE FDA AND USDA TO CHANGE U.S. POSITION ON FOOD LABELING


Position Will Create Problems for American Producers to Label Products GM/GE-Free Upcoming International Codex Meeting to Discuss Food Labeling, May 3
Yonkers, NY—Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, and more than 80 farmers, public health, environmental, and organic food organizations today sent a letter to Michael R. Taylor, Deputy Commissioner for Food at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and to Kathleen Merrigan, Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), expressing serious concerns that a proposed U.S. position on food labeling would create major problems for American producers who want to label their products as free of genetically modified (GM)/genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. A copy of the letter can be found online: http://www.consumersunion.org/pdf/Codex-comm-ltr-0410.pdf

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is a United Nations agency that develops food safety and labeling standards. Its standards carry weight because they are used to settle disputes at the World Trade Organization. The Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) meets in Quebec City, Canada May 3-7, 2010 to discuss the labeling issue.

The letter refers specifically to a position, drafted by USDA and FDA, that opposes a Codex document stating that countries can adopt different approaches to labeling of GE food, in line with existing Codex guidance. The current U.S. draft position goes even further to say that mandatory labeling of food as GE/GM “is likely to create the impression that the labeled food is in some way different” and would therefore be “false, misleading or deceptive.”

“We are concerned that the current U.S. position could potentially create significant problems for food producers in the U.S. who wish to indicate that their products contain no GE ingredients. Organic food in particular, which prohibits GE ingredients, are frequently labeled ‘GE-free’ or ‘No GMOs’. A recent CU poll found that two-thirds of consumers would be concerned if they thought that GE/GM ingredients were in organic food,” said Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union.

The U.S. position paper states that Codex should not “suggest or imply that GM/GE foods are in any way different from other foods.” However, Dr. Hansen stated, “Such foods clearly are different. USDA organic rules specifically state that GE seed cannot be used in organic production. The FDA has also taken the position that within the U.S., voluntary labeling as to whether or not a product contains GE ingredients is permissible.”

The letter to USDA and FDA is signed by the Organic Trade Association, the Organic Consumers Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the National Organic Coalition, and R-CALF USA, among many others. A full list of the signatories can be found online.

“We find it hard to understand how FDA and USDA can argue to Codex that mandatory labeling is inherently false and misleading, but voluntary labeling, which is permitted in the United States, is not,” the groups state. “We are, in fact, concerned that the current U.S. position appears to seek to establish precedents at Codex that would make it difficult to label food as non-GM within the U.S.”

The groups also urge the U.S. to not allow trade goals to interfere with or overrule judgments made on sound science and existing policy.