Rachel’s News #67, March 7, 1988
Earth’s environment is deteriorating at a record rate, but the decline could be reversed by sensible programs, says the fifth annual STATE OF THE WORLD report from the Worldwatch Institute released last month. It would cost perhaps $150 billion per year to reverse the trend of environmental destruction worldwide and put the developed and developing nations onto a path of sustainable economic growth, the report estimates.
The money is needed for reforestation, halting and reversing the loss of topsoil and the growth of deserts, family planning and other measures to curb population growth, development of energy sources that do not damage the environment, and dealing with the heavy burden of third world debt. The debt is an environmental issue because it leads poorer countries to waste their resources to obtain immediate capital.
“Putting the world on a sustainable footing will not be easy, given the environmental degradation and the economic confusion that now prevail,” says Lester Brown, director of the institute. To do so would take “a wholesale reordering of priorities, a basic restructuring of the global economy, and a quantum leap in international cooperation.
“To continue with a more or less business-as-usual attitude–to accept the loss of tree cover, erosion of soils, expansion of deserts, the disappearance of plant and animal species, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the buildup of greenhouse gases–implies the acceptance of economic decline and social disintegration,” Mr. Brown says.
The report points to a ready source of funds for the needed programs: the $900 billion currently spent on military buildup each year by the world’s nations. Mr. Brown points out that during the past decade China “walked away from the arms race” and in the process doubled per capita income and increased food production by 50%.
This is the institute’s fifth annual report on the state of the world. Among the issues examined this year are ways to use energy more efficiently, reforestation, action to stem the accelerating extinction of plant and animal species, family planning, and control of toxic chemicals.
In assessing the earth’s “vital signs,” the report says “the readings are not reassuring.” The earth’s forests are shrinking, its deserts are expanding and its soils eroding–all at record rates.
Underground water tables are falling in North Africa, China and India, and groundwater in the United States and other areas is increasingly contaminated by pesticides and other toxic substances. Lakes are dying from acid rain in the industrial North of the globe, and the entire world faces the prospect of imminent warming because of the ‘greenhouse effect,’ the buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere which prevents the sun’s heat from escaping back out into space, thus heating the earth unnaturally.
“The health of the earth’s inhabitants cannot be separated from that of the planet itself,” the report warns.
SO FAR AS WE CAN SEE, THE BEST ADVICE IS STILL “THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.”
Copies of the STATE OF THE WORLD report are available for $9.95 from: Worldwatch Institute, 1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036; phone 202/452-1999. –Peter Montague
CALIFORNIA LEADS THE WAY WITH A LAW LABELING PRODUCT HAZARDS
A major earthquake shook California Feb. 27, but it wasn’t a geologic event–it was the state’s new law, Proposition 65, kicking in, requiring warnings on consumer products that contain cancer-causing chemicals. The aftershock will be felt for years to come and the effects may drift eastward, revolutionizing the way people across the U.S. deal with toxic substances.
Under the law, no business may expose people (workers, consumers, or the general public) to chemicals that can cause cancer or birth defects without giving “clear and reasonable warning.”
The California law was passed overwhelmingly by popular referendum in November, 1986, and became effective last month. The law, for the first time, shifts the burden of proof from consumers onto companies, which must now prove their products and emissions cause “no significant risk” or they must give public warnings.
The law also contains a bounty provision whereby citizens who sue violators can keep 25% of any fines.
The law now covers only 29 chemicals, but an additional 149 will be added later. Covered today are common toxics like benzene, lead, vinyl chloride, chromium, arsenic, and asbestos.
Grocery store chains are fearful the law will require the labeling of every item on the shelf. “Every single one of the 15,000 items in a market has measurable amounts of at least one of the 29 chemicals,” says Jeffrey Nedelman, a spokesman for the Grocery Manufacturers of America. Mr. Nedelman is exaggerating, but his point is well taken: the law requires grocery stores and other sellers of consumer products to look into the contents of what they sell. This of course is the intention of the law. It represents a radical departure from the “buyer beware” philosophy that has prevailed in the past and which has allowed American consumer products to become saturated with hazardous chemicals.
The California wine industry is worried that it will be required to label its products as teratogens (causing birth defects). For now, the law is only requiring warning signs at the point of sale (supermarkets, restaurants, taverns, liquor stores) but environmentalists are pushing to have the bottles themselves labeled as health hazards. “We are saying if there is any product for which labeling is appropriate it is alcohol because it is often drunk by people who do not buy it,” says David Roe of the Environmental Defense Fund, a coauthor of the law.
We have said for a long time that labeling products with their hazardous contents is the first step toward solving the problem of toxic exposures and the solid waste crisis. Until people know what chemicals are in their breakfast cereal and in their morning newspaper, they can’t make sensible decisions about what to eat or how to dispose of their solid waste. Hats off to the environmental leaders of California–once again they have shown us the way.
Copies of Prop 65, formally known as The SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT, may be obtained from the California Secretary of State in Sacramento: (916) 445-6371. –Peter Montague
Descriptor terms: worldwatch institute; studies; findings; environmentalists; earth; reforestation; population control; erosion; ozone; greenhouse effect; military; groundwater; acid rain; ca; legislation; proposition 65; cancer; carcinogens; consumer protection; toxicity; developmental disorders; occupational safety and health; risk assessment; lawsuits; birth defects; david roe; environmentalists;
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rachel’s News was published by Environmental Research Foundation (E.R.F.) from 1986 to 2009. All together, 1000 issues appeared. Unless otherwise noted, they were written by Peter Montague.
Over the years the name of the publication changed slightly, starting as “Hazardous Waste News,” then “Rachel’s Hazardous Waste News,” then “Rachel’s Environment & Health News” and finally “Rachel’s Democracy & Health News.” In this archive, we have simply used “Rachel’s News.”
E.R.F. changed its location over the years from Princeton, N.J., to Washington, D.C. to Annapolis, Md. and finally to New Brunswick, N.J.
To contact E.R.F. or Peter Montague, send email to pm8525@gmail.com.
