STANISLAUS CONNECTIONS
Working For Peace, Justice, and A Sustainable Environment
July-August, 2001
Living Lightly
Bush
vs. Green: an open letter
By
BARBARA KINGSOLVER
The
author of The Poisonwood Bible and Prodigal
Summer wrote this call-to-action against threats the new administration
poses to the environment.
Dear
Friend,
Okay,
I’ll admit it, I spent the inaugural weekend in denial. (He’s not my
president. Most of us didn’t actually vote for the guy ... )
I ignored the smarmy front-page photos of parades and balls and skipped
straight to Section B to look for coverage of the protests. But the fact is, we
now have a new administration that’s hostile to the things I love most: human
kindness, the dignity of diversity, and the wild glory of life on earth. It’s
time to move on from denial to the next stage, which would be bitter cynicism or
action.
I’m
opting for action, because I don’t really have a choice. Looking out my window
right now I can see my two girls outside under the mesquite trees in this
precious riparian woodland where we live, and my heart starts to break for all
the beautiful things they’ll never see if I allow unchecked Bushwhacking in
the next four years. Civil rights and reproductive choice I suppose we could win
back in time (though not the lives lost along the way), but the waters and wild
lands devastated will never come back. So I’ve taken a vow to spend at least
some part of every week protecting the truths and places I treasure.
Part
of that commitment involves this letter asking you to do the same. I’m fairly
confident you’ll agree with my concerns, because we’re the majority. Not
only did most of us not vote for the guy, we also — by a handy majority, the
polls say — oppose the assault he and Gale Norton hope to launch.
To
choose an urgent example, their plan to drill for oil in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is hugely unsupported by U.S. citizens, and has even met some
opposition from his fellow Republicans. Most of us want the Arctic Refuge to
remain pristine and untouched — and we feel this way in spite of current
energy worries and the fact that this magnificent birthing ground for Arctic
wildlife is, for most of us, a place we’ve only imagined. The widespread
reputation of Americans for selfishness notwithstanding, we are wise and
generous enough to care about lives and places beyond our own backyards.
Starting
today, if you haven’t already, I hope you’ll do a handful of concrete things
including these: Post the addresses of your legislators somewhere you’ll see
it, and make a habit of writing them weekly to help guide their decisions about
social justice and the environment. Think of the California energy crisis as an
opportunity to institute, in your home and your conversations with friends, a
policy of conserving resources that will provide the only long-term solution.
And get involved with your conservation community, locally and nationally.
A
step I recommend is the Internet activist campaign called http://www.savebiogems.org/.
When you visit this site, it will take you only about ten minutes to send faxes
to politicians and CEOs to voice your interest in protecting places like the
Arctic Refuge, Greater Yellowstone, the Macal Rainforest of Costa Rica and Red
Rock Wilderness of Utah. If you register there, the Natural Resources Defense
Council will send you email alerts every so often (while also respecting your
privacy) asking you to return to http://www.savebiogems.org/
to participate in a crucial fax or email campaign.
These
things work. Every kind of communication adds up, and web activism is a new
force in the political landscape. Lots of effective campaigns have made good use
of the internet, such as the one against Nike, and it was web activism that
recently helped NRDC to prevent the Mitsubishi corporation from destroying
birthing grounds for the Pacific Grey Whale in Mexico.
But
it only works if we all care enough to get involved.
I
believe the Bush administration has happened to us for a reason. Setting aside
election fraud, family connections in Florida, and the fact that Republican
districts almost everywhere have better voting machinery, the reason is
complacency: too many people must have assumed that the things we cherish are
permanently protected. We underestimated the power of wealthy corporations to
put a Petroleocracy into the White House. Now that it’s there, it’s our
obligation and our right as citizens to drown out its awful agenda with our
voices. We have majority support, now we just have to use it.
Please
take a minute to visit http://www.savebiogems.org/,
and if you agree with me, please extend this invitation to your friends and
family.
Thanks
— our kids ask the world of us, and my greatest hope is to give them one,
intact.
Truly
yours,
Barbara
Kingsolver
From:
AlterNet
Hogging
It! Healthy Livestock
Fattened on Antibiotics
By Margaret Mellon and Steven Fonriest
(Excerpted by Myrtle Osner)
The overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture is the principle cause of antibiotic resistance to food-borne bacteria like salmonella, says the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Far more antibiotics and other anti-microbials may be used for animals on farms in the United States than previously suspected. A Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report estimates that 70 percent of the antibiotics produced in the United States are fed to chickens, pigs, and cows, not to treat disease but for non-therapeutic purposes such as growth promotion.
The report is the first to show that the amount of antibiotics used in animal agriculture dwarfs that used in human medicine. Non-therapeutic use accounts for eight times more antibiotics than human medicine. Humans use only about 3 million pounds per year.
Mounting evidence indicates that, as a result of this intensive, widespread use, many bacteria have become resistant to these drugs. If we are to preserve the effectiveness of antibiotics to treat human disease, eliminating this overuse is an obvious place to start.
What we Found
The amount of antibiotics used in animal agriculture is enormous.. UCS estimates that 24.6 million pounds of antibiotics are fed to healthy livestock to speed growth and prevent disease (not the same as treating the disease itself). The amount used to treat disease in livestock is not included in these figures.
The amount of antibiotics fed to healthy livestock dwarfs the amount used to treat people.
Antibiotics important in human medicine, such as
tetracycline, penicillin, and erythromycin, are used extensively in healthy
livestock. The European Union has banned the use on animals of growth-promoting
antibiotics that are important in human medicine.
We estimate that each year US livestock producers feed healthy livestock
about 13.5 million pound of these products that the EU has banned.
Primarily due to increases in use with poultry, the
amount of antibiotics fed to healthy livestock appears to have risen by about 50
percent since 1985.
Previous estimates of
the total amount of antibiotics used for animals may be drastic underestimates.
The availability of
data on antibiotics used as pesticides for fruit and vegetable demonstrates that
such information can be obtained
without unduly burdening either agricultural producers or the pharmaceutical
industry. The US Dept. of
Agriculture(USDA) compiles these data from producer surveys each year. .In
reporting such data shortage on
antibiotics, UCS states that such data is not available in the public
record—not from the livestock or pharmaceutical industries, not from the Food
and Drug Administration(FDA), not from the (CDC) .
What Should Happen Now
UCS recommends that :
•
The FDA should establish a system requiring companies that sell
antibiotics for use in livestock to report annually on the quantity used during
the year.
•
USDA should improve the
completeness and accuracy of its surveys of antibiotic use in livestock
production.
•
The FDA, USDA, and CDC should move quickly to implement a recent
government action plan---A Public Health Action Plan to Combat Anti-microbial Resistance---which
calls for establishing a national monitoring and surveillance system that
incorporates appropriate protection for proprietary information.
THE REAL ISSUE:
The overuse of antibiotics in agriculture is contributing to the rise in
drug resistance in microorganisms such as Salmonella and Campylobacter—foodborne
bacteria that can cause human illnesses. Without
accurate data, facts are too
incomplete to design an adequate strategy to develop adequate responses to the
problem.
ACTION ALERT: Create a National Antibiotic Production Reporting System.
Let the FDA know that you want public health protected and that requires clear information about how much antibiotics are actually used in agriculture.
Letters or e mails may
be sent to :Office of the Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857. <Execsec@oc.fda.gov.>
Make the point that the
FDA needs to safeguard public health from the loss of antibiotics due to drug
resistance.
(from
“Nucleus”, the magazine of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Vol 23, No. 1.
Spring 2001. Titled: “Pearls
Before Swine: Squandering the Wonder Drugs to Fatten Livestock.)
(printed with permission). For
a complete copy of the booklet, “Hogging It!”, UCS Publications Dept. N,
Two Brattle Square,
Cambridge, MA 02238-9105. $15 plus 20% shipping and handling.
Californians
riding transit in record numbers
“By
one estimate, the average American spends 1,600 hours a year either driving or
earning the money to support a car, and drives an average of 6,000 miles a year.
That works out to about 4 miles traveled per hour spent – the equivalent of a
normal walking pace.”
Edward Tenner—Why Things Bite Back
Reversing
several decades of declining numbers, California’s transit systems are now
enjoying record ridership levels the likes of which haven’t been seen since
World War II. According to new data released by the American Public Transit
Association and the Surface Transportation Policy Project last week, 25 of
California’s 29 largest public transit systems posted significant ridership
gains between 1999 and 2000.
Leading
the pack are the newly unveiled ACE train service between Stockton and San Jose
(66% increase), Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor (up 51%) and the San Diego Trolley
(up 17%). Both urban and suburban bus systems also posted strong gains, and
overall ridership on the state’s largest 29 transit systems increased more
than 5 percent — the equivalent of 30 million new riders — and will likely
outpace the growth in driving statewide.
Here
in Stanislaus County we are well aware that the ACE train needs to come to
Modesto, since virtually all its passengers are commuters to San Jose. The
two trains a day are packed, and a third train is to be added soon, hopefully
coming to Modesto (though that is by no means a sure thing) You have to buy a
monthly ticket so casual riders who just want to go visiting up there could not
use this train. Once in San Jose, you have to find your own way to your job
unless you work at a place which sends a van to meet the train (many do) (M.
Osner)
“A
lot of people will take transit if it will take them where they want to go in a
reasonable amount of time. That’s why we think speeding up buses is going to
give the biggest bang for the buck in most areas.” Explained Stuart Cohen, Bay
Area Transportation and Land Use Coalition Chair.
Californians
sit in the worst traffic in the nation, according to a report by the Texas
Transportation Institute (TTI). Los Angeles tops the list, the Bay Area ranks
second, and San Diego is fifth among the country's most congested regions.
Building
new roads is not the solution, according to a recent study. "Easing the
Burden," by the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP) reveals there
is little difference in traffic congestion between regions that built the most
roads in the 1990s (congestion increased 6.5%) and those that have built the
fewest (congestion increased 7.2%). Since 1982, road capacity has increased
faster than population growth in California's six largest metro areas--37%
growth in roads vs. 33% growth in population. Yet, traffic congestion has just
gotten worse.
"We
can't build our way out of congestion," said STPP's California Director
James Corless. "Clearly, commuters need real alternatives to being stuck in
gridlock.” New data show that when given the choice of efficient and
effective public transit, people use it. According to recently released numbers from the American
Public Transit Association, mass transit usage in California is at its highest
level since World War II. Since 1995, there's been a 17% increase, with a 5%
increase in the last year alone. This translates into an additional 30 million
riders. Much of that increase is in the San Francisco Bay Area and San Jose,
where over half a million commuters avoid traffic by taking transit, bicycling
or telecommuting. In the San Francisco Bay Bridge corridor alone, it's estimated
that 38% of all rush hour trips are now handled by some form of public transit.
Los
Angeles ranks #1 nationwide on two counts — traffic congestion and the
"congestion burden index." LA residents have few alternatives to being
stuck in freeway traffic. The Bay Area fares better. While the San
Francisco-Oakland metro area ranks 2nd nationwide for traffic congestion, it
falls to 24th on the "congestion burden index." An increasingly
integrated regional transit network allows nearly 25% of all commuters to escape
from congested roadways.
"When
we provide convenient choices to being stuck in gridlock, Californians will use
them," explained Corless. "Roads and highways will always be
important, but we need to get serious about a 21st century transportation
strategy that invests in world class public transit systems throughout the
state. Our quality of life and our economy depend on it."
(Edited
from a report from the Surface
Transportation Policy Project, 1414 K. St., Suite 315, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Reprinted with permission).
ACTION:
In this day of high gasoline
prices, there’s more incentive than ever to take public transportation. Use it
if you can. (Amtrak is a great way to get to the Bay Area.) Car pool. Lobby for
a better bus system in Modesto and Stanislaus County. Bicycle; Walk.
By
VASU MURTI
Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory scientists estimate that
if the U.S. became as energy efficient as Japan, it would save $220 billion per
year on its energy bill. Nuclear power has proven to be a disaster: 116 plants
have been canceled in the United States since 1973 and no new plants ordered
since 1978. This has been an economic waste of more than $50 billion.
Nuclear power suffers from
uncontrollable expenses due to construction, operation, maintenance and
radioactive waste management. The nuclear waste that comes from nuclear power
generation is deadly, and contains isotopes that remain toxic for up to 220,000
years. There is no safe way to dispose of it.
In June 1989, the citizens
of Sacramento voted to shut down the Rancho Seco nuclear plant after 15 years of
operation. The plant may be converted to solar power. The New York’s Shoreham
nuclear plant will never operate due to public opposition. The nuclear industry
ignored the public outcry, and it now costs the taxpayers and the industry $6
billion.
The nuclear power industry
is an industry plagued with safety hazards, routine radiation releases,
mismanagement, cost overruns, increased maintenance costs, extended outages and
a dependence on federal subsidies. Forbes
magazine has called the failed
nuclear power program “the largest managerial disaster in U.S. business
history,” costing as much as the space program and the Vietnam War combined.
According to the Nuclear
Information and Resource Service, moving from fossil fuel to nuclear power on a
global level would require building a new reactor every one to three days for
the next 40 years, at a cost of $200 billion per year. This would result in
300,000 tons of radioactive waste in the United States alone.
Reasonable alternatives
exist. Solar energy is abundant, non-polluting and dependable.
Electricity-producing wind turbines exist in 95 countries, with an installed
capacity of 1,450 megawatts. They can be installed alone or in clusters. A coal
or nuclear plant can take a decade or longer to plan or construct, whereas wind
turbine clusters have been built in under 90 days. New wind systems generate
power at six to nine cents per kilowatt hour, while electricity from new nuclear
power plants costs 13 cents per kilowatt hour.
According to United Nations
energy statistics, hydroelectric power supplies 21 percent of the world’s
electricity, more than nuclear power. Hydroelectric power provides the most
efficient, most reliable and lowest cost source of electricity, with production
costs generally one-tenth those of nuclear power. Geothermal energy projects
cost less than half the cost of nuclear reactors, and can be built in one-fifth
of the time.
According to the Union of
Concerned Scientists, nuclear power has become the least competitive of
conventional electricity sources. Costs of $2 to $3 billion per plant are now
commonplace, with some plants costing upwards of $5 billion. In contrast, while
the price of electricity generated by solar energy is not yet as low as that
from coal-fired plants, some technologies are already cheaper than
nuclear-generated electricity.
The average output of
nuclear plants is only about 60 percent of designed capacity, because many
plants are forced to shut down frequently for repairs and maintenance. In the
1980s, the time required for construction of a nuclear reactor typically ranged
from 8 to 14 years. The real roots of this problem lie in faulty and incomplete
design work, inadequate quality control during construction and poor management.
General safety issues
plague the nuclear power industry. These include the capability of safety
control systems to survive fires, earthquakes or hydrogen explosions; the
capability of reactor systems to respond to an emergency shutdown command; and
the capability of a plant to withstand the loss of power needed to operate
safety systems.
A typical nuclear power
plant generates over 30 metric tons of highly radioactive material, which
remains hazardous to humans for thousands of years. There is no easy solution to
the disposal of nuclear waste.
According to Greenpeace, a
1989 Lou Harris poll found 62 percent of U.S. citizens strongly opposed to
nuclear power. Like the environmental movement, the antinuclear movement has
grown in past decades from a radical fringe element into a mainstream public
concern. Questions to ask proponents of nuclear power are as follows:
1) How will the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) define safety standards for new reactors?
2) Will the quality of
construction be better than in the past?
3) Where and how will the
additional nuclear wastes generated by new plants be disposed of?
4) Will the nuclear
industry be more willing to accept stringent regulation and enforcement than it
has been in the past?
Until these questions are
answered satisfactorily, nuclear power remains a risky solution to the energy
crisis. Making use of energy-efficient systems, conserving energy, recycling,
vegetarianism, and becoming energy and environmentally conscious, however, are
steps we can all take towards a sustainable world.
By
WILLIAM E. BISHOP
According to Vice
President Richard Cheney, Energy Conservation is an “outmoded idea left over
from the 1970s.”
However, there are those
who'll tell you that Richard Cheney is an outmoded idea left over from another
era. Cheney says that “price caps don’t produce kilowatts.” On the other
hand, some folks would have you believe that Mr. Cheney is more concerned with
enriching his pals in Texas than with resolving what is becoming a major
national disaster.
Who is right? Just check
your latest electric bill.
Anyone
believing that either President Bush or Vice President Cheney will soon rescue
them from exorbitant (and artificially manipulated) energy bills is not likely
to see any need to conserve energy, so the balance of this article will likely
seem irrelevant. But the message here is that anyone wanting relief from high
energy bills must take action themselves to reduce the bill. Believe it or not,
conservation, outmoded idea or not, will reduce your electric bill.
(Can
anyone explain why a conservative politician is against conservation?)
This
outmoded idea has resulted in a 47% reduction in our home electric bill. The
drill is simple. Count all the light bulbs — all the bulbs you ordinarily use
in the course of a day — in your house. Make note of the wattage of each bulb.
Add up all the watts of light bulbs you have plugged into the grid. In our
house, we were regularly burning 12 different 60 watt bulbs (not all at once,
usually), and 10 different 40 watt bulbs and 3 different 100 watt bulbs. The way
our usage pattern went, we were usually burning eight 60 watt and four 40 watt
bulbs for 6 hours a day, and an additional six 40 watt bulbs for an additional 3
hours a day. And by the way, this is not a really exhaustive survey of our usage
— just a rough guestimate based upon our living habits. This adds up to more
than 4 1/2 kilowatt hours per day for lighting our house.
To
cut our bill, we took a two-pronged approach. First, we used our usage survey to
make us become more aware of which lights were on and when. And if we left the
back end of the house, we turned the lights off. But more importantly, we
changed over to using the small screw-in fluorescent bulbs. The really small
ones now are no larger in size than an average 60 watt bulb. These small bulbs
burn only 13 watts and put out more light than a 60 watt bulb.
The
screw-in fluorescent light bulbs are more expensive that the incandescent bulbs.
A lot more expensive. The price is enough to make most people think twice. But
I'm here to tell you that not buying them is false economy. (Don't tell Richard
Cheney — he doesn't need to know.) The numbers speak for themselves: a 60 watt
light bulb will cost 40 cents, produces 865 lumens, is rated to last for 1000
hours, and will burn 60 kWatt hours of electricity. A fluorescent bulb will cost
$8.98, produces 925 lumens, has a rated life of 6000 hours, and will burn 78
kWatt hours of electricity. But before we begin to compare apples and oranges,
let me point out that during the life span of one fluorescent bulb you'll go
through six incandescent bulbs.
Thus
the cost of six incandescent light bulbs is $2.40, and the total electricity
burned is 360 kWatt hours. The one fluorescent bulb cost us $8.98, and will
still burn only 78 kWatt hours. Based upon the price at our meter, the total
cost of burning incandescent light bulbs is $35.16, while the total cost of
burning fluorescent bulbs is $17.15. This is the cost comparison made over 6000
hours. So seems like it might make a trivial difference when taken a month at a
time. But the cost of running our electric meter went from $140 to $75 per
month. This change occurred in March of this year. Between what we paid to
change over and what we saved by making the change, we reached the break-even
point around the end of April. Now the savings go directly into our pockets.
Of
course, there will always be some folks who believe that they need to keep on
sending this money to the poor folks in Texas. Obviously, we are not so
inclined, and next month we will discuss ways to spend this savings in ways that
will produce even more savings.
ACTION: Anyone who wants
to do more than just save a few dollars on their electric bill, all you need do
is email Senator Feinstein in Washington, D.C. and tell her whom you think is
outmoded. Her e-mail address is
senator@feinstein.senate.gov. She has recently become a member of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, so she now has some clout. You
can also telephone her Washington office at (202) 224-3841.
By
WILLIAM E. BISHOP
Now
that the oil-refinery-fire season is upon us again, I find it timely to reflect
further upon the energy crisis facing us. A recent newspaper article brought us
the news that the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) now has evidence of
intentional market manipulation by the electric power generators, in California.
Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle
reported on Mr. Bush's threats of national black-outs if we don't cave in to the
demands of the oil industry. In direct counterpoint, the Wall
Street Journal reported on
Kenneth Lay's meeting with Vice President Cheney, where Lay delivered the Enron
manifesto for further profit taking in the new millennium.
This
is the same Kenneth Lay who wielded considerable influence over the California
legislators who were writing what has since been recognized as a seriously
flawed energy de-regulation plan. Having had such a resounding success in
California, Mr. Lay apparently believes that the same plan will work for the
nation.
In
view of this, I believe that We, the People, must recast our vision of the
energy crisis
1. We must recognize
that energy affects the very well-being of every citizen in the nation. If
California’s energy situation deteriorates further, the state’s food
processing industry could shut down. California is not the only agricultural
state in the nation, but the rest of the country will not be able to make up the
loss of California produce.
2. We must recognize
that solar energy is the fundamental source of all the energy we make use of
today. The energy we obtain from burning oil and coal is simply solar energy
that has been saved in a natural bank account. This reserve has been built up
over millions of years as solar radiation was captured one photon at a time by
living plants. Over the past 750,000 years the mean value of insolation (the
receipt of energy from the sun) has been about 400 Watts per square meter. This
constitutes THE EARTH'S total daily ration of incoming energy. Our energy usage
exceeds this. We make massive withdrawals from the energy reserve — i.e. we
pump oil — and we do this in full knowledge of the fact that this reserve is
limited. There will come a day when the pump will run dry. It is not important
whether that day is tomorrow or ten years from now. Any energy policy that
ignores this fundamental limit on energy is a dangerously reckless policy.
3. The oil companies
today tell us that we need more oil. The rolling-blackouts are a direct result
of this oil shortage. The oil company's solution is to drill in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
4. Oil that is already
being taken out of Alaska is being sold to Asian countries because the oil
companies can get a better price there than here at home. We are told that this
is just good business and we need to drill more Alaskan oil wells.
In
view of the above points, we must recognize that an integral part of the energy
crisis we face today is the result of the energy companies themselves. They are
part of the problem — not a part of the solution. Any comprehensive resolution
of the crisis will recognize this and include the following points:
a.
The requirement that any
oil pumped from U.S. oil wells will be sold only in U.S. markets.
b. The requirement that
any oil pumped from U.S. oil wells will be priced and sold as U.S. oil, with no
exceptions or loopholes.
c. The requirement that
any company engaged in the harvesting of coal, oil and natural gas, or the
generation of electric power, or any company engaged in the distribution of
energy products, be structured as a 501.c.3 (Not For Profit) Corporation. There
was a time when it was considered to be in the nation's best interest to
encourage the development of these resources by granting tax relief and
permitting profiteering. The energy companies in Texas have demonstrated that
this policy is no longer in the nation's best interest.
d. The requirements to
establish a National Policy of Energy Conservation and to develop alternative
energy sources.
If
we as a nation are unable to develop such a solution, we will face a choice of
nationalizing the energy industry or going the way of the Soviet Union.
As
a closing thought: the Chinese ideograph denoting "crisis" contains
within it the ideograph denoting "opportunity." What we have today is
an opportunity which we cannot afford to squander.
ACTION: Contact Senators, Congresspersons, and Assemblypersons and
express your views.
