An important article about forest spraying
This is from David Ortin
In 1990 I wrote a Green Web Bulletin (#6) called “Opposing Forest Spraying”, giving a basic overview of forest spraying in Nova Scotia and its relationship to industrial forestry and how to fight it. (It was published in the journal Capitalism, Nature, Socialism: A Journal of Socialist Ecology, 2 (1), February, 1991.) See http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Opposing_Forest_Spraying.html
This article is now being made available on the internet in the hope that it can be helpful for people who are today taking up forest spraying issues, and who may need an overview of what is at stake.
It is necessary for all of us who care about our ecology to oppose the destructiveness of industrial forestry AND to cast aside organizing illusions. There is a theoretical or ideological side to the anti-spraying struggle and a resistance side, as the “Opposing Forest Spraying” article points out.
Where I live in Pictou County, Nova Scotia, and in other areas of the province, there has been an upsurge in opposition to the use of forestry biocides in 2007 by rural people who live in areas targeted for forest spraying. New voices have come forward to take up the fight, usually out of personal necessity, in order to try and stop herbicides being dumped on woodlands in the vicinity of where they live. But public opposition to forest spraying goes back in this province to the late 1970s. We are talking about 25-30 years of rural opposition, and the experience which goes along with this, plus opposition to the spraying of Christmas trees, blueberry fields, power lines, and roadside spraying.
After moving to Nova Scotia from the West Coast in 1979 with my family, I became involved in organizing around uranium mining/exploration and forest issues, although then living in Halifax and later Truro. Our own family’s direct personal involvement in forest spraying dates back to 1984 when we moved to our rural place in Saltsprings, Pictou County, and then found out, completely out of the blue, that there was an imminent forest spraying planned right alongside of us by the Scott pulp and paper company. With the help of our new neighbours, and after much scrambling, we were able to stop this spraying. Some twenty years later, on August 15th 2005, a helicopter with spraying booms suddenly appeared fairly close to our residence and started spraying herbicides – forest poisons – into the environment. Nobody had told us about the spray site, which is on land to one side of us, under so-called forest management with Neenah Paper, formerly Kimberly Clark and before that Scott Paper. So the forest spraying issue is a persistent one for many of us and not only of theoretical interest.
The article “Opposing Forest Spraying” is somewhat dated, but while the names of two of the three multi-national pulp and paper companies in the province may have changed (and Irving, based in New Brunswick, has now entered the province as the new kid on the block, having acquired large forest holdings in Nova Scotia which it clearcuts and sprays), the picture of industrial forestry remains, generally accurate for today. (Some mainstream environmentalists have lent their voices to praising Stora-Enso in 2007 for stopping herbicide spraying in 1997. However they seem to have forgotten that a Btk forest insecticide spraying program against the black-headed budworm was conducted in the summer of 2005 on crown lands in Cape Breton under lease to Stora-Enso by government agencies.) As my article notes, because all spraying is being done “legally,” stopping the spraying will be done illegally, at the actual spray sites, through people being prepared to put their bodies on the line. Past experience in Nova Scotia shows that no government agency is going to protect human and non-human environments from pesticide contamination. If anything is going to be done, people in their own communities will have to do it themselves. All political parties within the province, including the New Democratic Party, have in the past supported forest spraying.
What has changed since 1990, is accessibility to critical information on biocides is now much more easily available to citizens via the internet. This means that those who oppose forest spraying can more rapidly get on top of the critical information and have access to the experience of other anti-spray activists. This, plus the general rise in environmental consciousness within Canadian society around the dangers of biocide use, and the in-your-face evident destructiveness of industrial forestry which can be seen everywhere, means it is much more difficult for the forest spraying fraternity to claim any moral high ground — not that they do not still try to sing the forestry job creation blues. However, on the environmental side it remains folly today, as in 1990, to believe that having the right “facts” about the herbicides or insecticides being sprayed on forests and their potential impacts on people or ecosystems will determine the outcome of any particular spraying situation. Entering “dialogue” with the sprayers and their government accomplices — the “talk and spray” ongoing scenario — remains a mug’s game. However, if we educate ourselves and then others, AND are prepared to fight on our own terms, spraying issues can becomes levers for a paradigm change.
In particular, as my article notes, forestry spraying struggles can show the following:
• Humans must adjust to Nature and we must stop trying to make the forests of the world “adjust” to demands of unlimited economic growth. From such a perspective, it is we who must come into harmony with non-sprayed natural forest ecosystems, and not the forests that must adjust to us. Commercial pulpwood forestry spokespersons argue that growing trees is essentially an agricultural activity that produces “fibre.” A plantation of softwoods is analogous to a sprayed field of corn. To the view that a living forest needs to be turned into pulpwood producing woodlots, we counterpose a Land Ethic, inspired by Aldo Leopold: “We must, in our actions, make sure that we uphold the welfare of mammals, birds, fish, insects and other animals; uphold the well being of soils and waters; and uphold the interests of the diverse varieties of trees and other plants in our forests. The extraction of trees, whether for pulp, sawlogs or Christmas trees, must uphold such a land ethic.”
From a Land Ethic perspective, all forest spraying should be banned.
• The demands of the pulp and paper industry on the forests are open-ended, that is, the demands are for continual expansion, given the commitment to growth (grow or go under) of any pulp and paper company. The three pulp and paper multinationals in Nova Scotia, with the assistance of government grants, have “modernized” and improved their daily productive capacities and hence their demand for more “fibre” from the woodlands. Thus, there has been more pulp mill pollution, more clearcutting and pesticide use, more destruction of hardwoods and wildlife habitats, more groundwater contamination, and more plantation forestry, favoring a narrow range of softwood pulp species. Bringing the growth ethic of the pulp and paper companies out in the open for discussion raises the same basic growth values for the societies in which the companies operate, and shows how their values are incompatible with an ecologically sustainable society, given a finite world.
• Chemical use in forestry reduces labour costs. This makes “sense” from a capitalist corporate viewpoint, but the human costs, e.g., possible pesticide-related cancers or other illness, and ecological costs, e.g. killing of “non-target” wildlife or contamination of groundwater, are not born by the pulp and paper company — hence the need to move beyond “private property” considerations. Ecological rights must override private, corporate, state, or crown property rights. Landowners do not have the right to do whatever they want, when their activities impact on other humans and non-human species. Land cannot be “owned.”
• The alliance of the state apparatus at the provincial and federal levels — departments of the environment, forestry, agriculture, and health — with large scale industry like the pulp and paper companies and the chemical industry: The view that it is necessary to use chemicals in forestry and of their “safety” is shared by these various groups. I have attended many community meetings in Nova Scotia organized to air concerns about some local spraying situation. All the government officials, whatever the department, sing the same tune. The lead role is normally assumed by the provincial Department of Environment If they appear at all, politicians on such occasions shift and squirm on their seats. However, when the chips are down, the politicians will not publicly oppose the pulpwood orientation of forest policy or the use of pesticides which is part of this orientation. Hence, your political representative does not “represent” you; people must rely on their own activities to bring changes in forestry policy and eliminate pesticide spraying.
• The international nature of the pulp and paper companies and their role in destroying indigenous forests around the world.
For the Earth,
David Orton
<greenweb@ca.inter.net>
This should scare the hell out of you
Cell phones are the new cigarettes.
Just five minutes of exposure to mobile phone radio wave emissions can trigger cellular changes that occur during cancer development, according to new research.
Scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, found that mobile phone signals induced the production of natural chemicals that stimulate cell division and growth – central to the growth of tumors — even at very low power levels.
Until now, the mainstream scientific assumption has been that electromagnetic radiation could only pose a health hazard as a result of thermal heating. However, this may not necessarily be the case.
According to Professor Rony Seger of the Weizmann Institute, “The real significance of our findings is that cells are not inert to non-thermal mobile phone radiation… The changes we observed were clearly not caused by heating.”
Other scientists are quick to point out that cell division occurs naturally, as tissues grow and constantly rejuvenate within the body, and that this study does not prove any health effects.
Graham Philips with the campaign group Powerwatch said, “Further research is required, however guidance based purely on thermal effects is clearly out of date.”
The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR), a government and industry-funded investigation into the potential health hazards of cell phones, launched in 2001, is scheduled to publish its final report next month.
A truly frightening article.
This was from July 6th, and I was reminded of this recently.
Everyone needs to be extremely concerned when politicians push so hard for new nuclear plants.
http://www.thestar.com/article/233052
Nuclear selloff in works
July 06, 2007
Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter
The federal government is in advanced negotiations with U.S. industrial giant General Electric Co. to sell a large share of Crown-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the Star has learned.
Sources say Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn has been leading the privatization discussions along with AECL’s new chair Michael Burns.
The aim is to establish the strategic partnership by year’s end, giving the Ontario government a chance to consider the new arrangement in advance of any decision to build new nuclear reactors in the province.
“Lunn is driving this himself,” said one source close to GE. “GE is very confident that this is a done deal.“
AECL has been the heart of Canada’s nuclear industry for more than 50 years and its engineers are considered world class.
Its CANDU reactor technology –somewhat unique for relying on heavy water and natural uranium fuel – is behind the construction of 22 nuclear power reactors across the country over the past four decades, most of them in Ontario where the Crown corporation’s workforce is approaching 4,000.
But AECL also has the reputation of being a sinkhole for taxpayer dollars and a struggling underdog in a market increasingly dominated by three global giants – GE, Areva and Westinghouse.
Past projects in Ontario have been controversial, and future projects based on next-generation CANDU technology are uncertain, raising questions about the company’s ability to compete globally and the willingness of taxpayers to continue funding it to the tune of more than $100 million a year.
A strategic partnership with GE would likely aim to shift much of the financial risk of nuclear projects away from Canadian taxpayers, keep the CANDU design and its proud heritage alive, and protect Canadian jobs in a nuclear-power sector on the verge of a renaissance.
GE would gain new intellectual property related to reactor design, waste storage and fuel recycling, as well as access to a talented pool of nuclear engineers.
The company would also have another product to offer its global customers as it bids against Areva and Westinghouse for lucrative contracts in the United Kingdom, the U.S. and massive emerging markets such as China.
Such a deal would require cabinet approval, and the government may yet decide to open the process to other bidders, particularly France’s state-owned nuclear giant Areva Group.
Lunn and other federal officials met with Areva’s Paris-based CEO Ann Lauvergeon, considered the most powerful businesswoman in France, and Areva Canada president Armand Laferrere on June 19 to discuss Areva’s role in the Canadian nuclear industry and its willingness to invest in AECL, according to a source connected to the meeting.
When contacted by the Star, Laferrere confirmed that a meeting took place but would not discuss details, saying only that Areva is interested in a partnership with AECL that could include part ownership.
One source said the government’s preference is to maintain a 51-per-cent stake in AECL’s commercial CANDU business. Ottawa would retain sole ownership of the Chalk River laboratory, AECL’s research and development arm.
The majority interest in the commercial business would give Ottawa veto over any changes to the structure of AECL or threat to CANDU’s survival, but the minority partner would get to appoint management and have complete operational control.
Sources point to the recent decision by AECL chief executive Robert Van Adel to retire in November, well before his contract expires, as a sign that the federal government is determined to get a deal done by year’s end.
“We don’t comment on speculation or rumour,” said AECL spokesperson Dale Coffin. GE officials, including the company’s Canadian nuclear boss Peter Mason, would not comment.
A spokesperson for Lunn said only that the government “sees expressions of interest” in AECL “from time to time,” but would not confirm that a deal with GE was in the works or that Lunn met with Areva executives last month.
Some industry observers estimate that a 49-per-cent stake in AECL could fetch up to $300 million, but an agreement is likely contingent on Ontario selecting CANDU’s heavy-water technology either alone or in combination with the winning bidder’s light-water reactor design.
Light-water reactors, by far the most popular models in operation and used exclusively in the United States, use ordinary water and enriched uranium as fuel.
Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan has repeatedly said that Ontario is open to choosing a foreign nuclear reactor supplier if it’s found to be in the best interest of the province’s economy and hydro ratepayers.
Laferrere, in a speech last month at the Toronto Board of Trade, argued Canada would be better off if it diversified its choice of nuclear reactor design.
“Canada should not only develop skills in its homegrown technology, which accounts for 10 per cent of the existing global fleet, but also gain a significant foothold in the light-water technology which today represents clearly more than 90 per cent of world demand,” said Laferrere.
It’s an argument that could just as easily come from GE, which in many ways has a natural edge over Areva in any dealings with Ottawa.
GE’s historical ties to AECL run deep. The two companies collaborated on the original CANDU reactor design, but GE decided in the late 1960s to leave the heavy-water business so it could focus on other areas.
More recently, GE and AECL have agreed to collaborate closely on any CANDU refurbishment contracts and, according to AECL’s annual report, GE has no immediate plans to enter the Ontario market because of its “strong alignment with CANDU products” in Ontario.
Specifically, GE supplies most of the uranium fuel that is used in CANDU reactors operated by Ontario Power Generation and Bruce Power.
It has fabricated uranium pellets at a Toronto facility since the 1960s and turns those pellets into CANDU fuel bundles at a Peterborough plant, representing a constant flow of revenue worth protecting.
GE’s nuclear business in Canada is worth about $60 million and could grow with stronger ties to AECL and by maintaining a stable fleet of CANDU reactors that need a stable supply of fuel. Alternatively, it could shrink if AECL and Areva link up.
Industry officials say Van Adel has strongly opposed any partnership between AECL and Areva. They point out, however, that the government may have called a meeting with the Areva executives after Prime Minister Stephen Harper talked about nuclear power issues with French President Nicolas Sarkozy on June 5 at a meeting of G8 leaders.
Laferrere was a personal adviser of Sarkozy when the French president was minister of interior between 2002 and 2004. Sarkozy, personal friends with Lauvergeon, is reportedly keen on expanding and privatizing Areva’s global nuclear business.
The nuclear industry has been hit with a wave of consolidation that has already seen Areva team up with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan’s Toshiba acquire Westinghouse, and GE partner with Hitachi.
The Green Party and garbage, but in a good way
Stop making garbage, Green party leader says
Better product design will help reduce need for landfill sites, he says
By Dave Rogers , ottawa citizen
Published: Friday, September 21, 2007
Ontario should aim to eliminate garbage through better product design, instead of expanding landfills and using waste to generate electricity, Ontario Green party leader, Frank de Jong, said Friday.
Speaking to the Citizen editorial board yesterday, Mr. de Jong said Ontario should aim to eliminate not be a consumer society that generates more waste than it can handle.
Mr. de Jong said plasma gasification – the heating of garbage to produce gas for generating electricity – is really garbage incineration that requires government subsidies and causes air pollution.
“We will always need clothing, household items and manufacturing tools, but the challenge is to make it as sustainable as possible,” Mr. de Jong said. “But we don’t have a garbage crisis – we have a design crisis.
“Every product sold in Ontario should be designed from the outset to be repairable, recyclable, recoverable and compostable. With proper stewardship, we wouldn’t produce anything that needs to be gasified. We could probably get to zero garbage in Ontario in a dozen years.
“Everyone knows that incinerators always produce toxic emissions and even when you scrub it, you end up with 30 per cent of the volume with more toxic materials than the original waste,” Mr. de Jong said. “It has to be disposed of with even more complicated and expensive systems.
“Landfilling to date is half the price of incineration, but we shouldn’t use landfills, either. There should be no such thing as garbage, because that is like throwing resources into a hole in the ground. It is like burying money.”
Mr. de Jong said he opposes plasma gasification because it requires large amounts of energy and produces concentrated waste.
Ottawa is experimenting with generating electricity from garbage. Plasco Energy Group has a $32-million Ottawa plant that will be used to test area generation technology.
The gasification process uses a sealed system that breaks down solid waste at an intense heat without burning it. The plant does not have a smokestack because no combustion takes place. The gas produced is refined to remove most impurities.
Plasco Energy president Rod Bryden said yesterday he opposes earlier forms of plasma gasification because they require heavy government subsidies and produces little electricity.
Mr. Bryden said current technology to be tested in Ottawa will convert 46 per cent of the waste into electricity, compared to 18 per cent in older systems.
© ottawa citizen 2007
Came across this on Alternet…click on the clink to read the full article
http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/59714/
The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products
American industry would have you believe that taking potentially hazardous and toxic chemicals out of everyday consumer products — removing phthalates from children’s toys and cancer-causing coal tar from hair dye — would damage our economy and result in a loss of American jobs. In his latest book, Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products, Mark Schapiro busts this myth and reveals the grim fact that some companies, whether American or international, often have two production lines: one that manufactures hazard-free products for the European Union and another that produces toxin-filled versions of the same items for America and developing countries.
Schapiro examines how America, once a leader in environmental protection, came to allow potentially toxic and mutagenic chemicals, banned by the EU, into everyday products. He also looks at how the EU’s economy — almost identical to that of America — continued to thrive even after these chemicals were banned, essentially “calling the bluff” of the American industry.
