Thursday, 05 Jun 2003

The Eat Generation

In 2001, Eric Schlosser published Fast Food Nation -- an expose of America's increasingly consolidated and industrialized food system and the threat it posed to human, societal, and ecological well-being. The book was a phenomenal success and helped to raise concerns about the relationship between the food we eat, the land we live on, and our own health. Now, two new books take a close look at that relationship from different perspectives. Corby Kummer's The Pleasures of Slow Food could have been called "Slow Food Nation"; the book tracks the rise of the Slow Food movement from its modest Italian roots to its emergence as the leading grassroots critique of fast food and fast-paced lifestyles. And Marion Nestle's Safe Food chronicles a recent rise in food-borne illness and consumer distrust of food-producing multinationals. Read Alison Macalady's review of the two books, only on the Grist Magazine website.

From Russia With Sludge

Fifteen percent of Russia is facing disastrous environmental conditions, President Vladimir Putin said yesterday. Putin identified environmental devastation as one of the most serious problems facing the country and affecting the livelihood of its people, and said many areas of the country were in a "critical or near-critical state." The most industrialized regions of the country are the hardest hit, Putin said, especially parts of central Siberia and the Ural Mountains region. Meanwhile, as the president was calling on industries to take responsibility for protecting the environment and announcing that "ecology must become an important element in our government policy," some of his top cabinet members were declaring their opposition to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

C02, Too?

Connecticut, Maine, and Massachusetts sued the federal government yesterday to force it to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The lawsuit, which alleges that the emissions fuel global warming and should therefore be governed by the Clean Air Act, marks the first time a state has sued the government to force it to take action on climate change. The three states want to see CO2 classified as a "criteria pollutant" under the act, which would oblige the U.S. EPA to set allowable atmospheric levels, as it currently does for ozone, lead, sulfur dioxide, and other forms of pollution. The states' argument turns on the definition of a "pollutant," with the lawyers arguing that although CO2 does not pose a direct threat to human health, the long-term dangers of climate change make the emissions at least as hazardous as, say, smog. So far, the EPA has declined to comment on the suit.

Don't Bank on It

A coalition of U.S. and European banks are adopting new principles to guide the financing of projects, especially in the developing world. But environmentalists say the "Equator Principles" will not prevent the banks (which include Citigroup, Holland's ABN Amro Holding, Britain's Barclays, and Germany's WestLB) from backing projects that lead to the destruction of rainforests, wetlands, and other natural habitat, and the disruption of local communities. Under the principles, which were drawn up by the International Finance Corporation (a private-sector arm of the World Bank), the institutions are agreeing "not [to] provide loans directly to projects where the borrower will not or is unable to comply with our environmental and social policies and processes." Critics say the guidelines fail to protect critical areas and lack an enforcement mechanism.

Gag Me With a Rule

There was good news and bad news for U.S. forests yesterday. In the former department, the Bush administration announced that it would not renew a temporary rule that permitted some road-building in national forests. That decision effectively restores the "roadless rule," a Clinton-era policy prohibiting development on almost one-third of the nation's forests, or 58 million acres of public land. In worse news, as of yesterday, environmental impact studies will no longer be required for many projects to log or burn trees in the name of preventing forest fires. The new rules, championed by the Bush administration, also limit the appeals process for such projects. Environmentalists say the rules, which are part of President Bush's "Healthy Forests" initiative, are simply a way to increase logging and gag public opinion.