Thursday, 13 Jan 2005

Don't Fear the Reapers

A special series on the alleged "Death of Environmentalism"

Environmentalism is dead and we need to toss out its carcass so something better, stronger, and, well, alive can take its place. That's the conclusion of "The Death of Environmentalism," a none-too-subtly-entitled essay by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, a pair of green strategists and organizers. The essay -- and a subsequent speech on the same topic by enviro-wunderkind Adam Werbach -- set off a bit of a tizzy in the mainstream environmental community, which pinched itself, felt its head for a fever, knocked its knee with a little hammer, and sends this report: "I'm not dead. Really!" Today Grist launches a special series on the health and fortunes of environmentalism, featuring an interview with Shellenberger and Nordhaus, reactions from four prominent environmental leaders, and an editorial calling out the big issues at stake. Check it all out, and share your prognosis for the green movement in Gristmill.

Non-Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones

EPA finds possible risks in Teflon, will study further

The U.S. EPA yesterday released the preliminary results of its inquiry into the health effects of a chemical used in making Teflon, saying it found "a potential risk of developmental and other adverse effects" but also that there are "significant uncertainties" in its assessment. The agency has called together a special panel for further study of perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, an agent used to make fluoropolymers, which in turn are involved in the manufacture not only of Teflon but telephone cables, clothing, computer chips, carpets, and other consumer goods. Part of the uncertainty issues from the fact that while PFOA is used in manufacturing, it is not found in products themselves, so no one knows why it is so ubiquitous, both in the environment and in human blood, where it takes a very long time to break down. Some evidence indicates it may cause cancer and other maladies in animals (though at doses higher than those yet found in humans). Dupont, which makes Teflon, denies any adverse health effects; the Environmental Working Group says the EPA's assessment is highly biased in Dupont's favor.

Sorry, Wrong Number

The final (probably) word on plastics

Readers remain atwitter over kitchen plastics, about which eco-advice guru Umbra Fisk admits to having been less than perfectly clear in the past. Today she gets firm and final, even going so far as to devise a couple handy ditties: "No vinyl, that's final" and "No PVC for me." (Thank you, thank you -- she'll be here all week.) To find out -- honestly, really, and for true -- which plastics are OK, which aren't, and why avoiding them all might be the simplest answer, pop the top off of Ask Umbra -- today on the Grist Magazine website.

Full of Crop

Cultivation of GM crops on the rise

Could 8 million farmers be wrong? Well, yes, contend a growing number of critics of genetically modified crops. Despite widespread resistance to GM foods abroad and in some areas of the U.S. (OK, California), the planting of bioengineered crops is on the rise in 17 GM-friendly countries. There, farmers grew 200 million acres of the controversial plants last year, up 20 percent from 2003, according to a report by the industry group International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAABA to its roughly 8 million farmer friends). That's tremendous growth for such a young industry: In 1996, the first year GM crops were commercially available, only about 4.3 million acres were under cultivation. But by 2010, predicts ISAABA Chair Clive James, worldwide acreage of biotech crops could double from this year's figures, fueled by China's expected OK of GM rice. GM proponents tout the technology as a solution to hunger and poverty, while opponents contend too little is known about potential effects on human health and the environment.

Buy the Balls

Inauguration funded by industry; cynics jump to conclusions

Yesterday we reported on an interview in which President Bush said that nuclear energy answers the "environmental issue" and the "dependency issue." Turns out it also partially answers the "incredibly expensive inauguration issue." The Nuclear Energy Institute, a lobbying group, is coughing up $100,000 for the lavish $40 million-plus affair, though that's small beans compared to the bucks being put up by a number of oil, gas, and mining companies. They join more than 100 interests (companies, trade associations, and individual executives), nearly all of which have benefited from the Bush administration's policies, contributing a collective $18 million (so far) to the spectacle, which will include fireworks, a parade, an elaborate swearing-in, and nine black-tie balls. (If it's not obvious, campaign finance law does not apply to these gifts.) Cynics like Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington say, "They're giving the money because they want something." But hey, maybe they just have ... er, enjoy balls.