#271: National Academy Study Says Superfund Dumps Cause Many Illnesses In Humans

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #271
---February 5, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

Big guns in industry and government are aiming to kill the 12-year-old Superfund program, the multi-billion-dollar federal effort to clean up old chemical dumps. NEWSWEEK fired the opening salvo in the summer of 1989, calling Superfund sites "boring"--a code word for NOT WORTH THE MONEY WE'RE SPENDING TO PROTECT NEARBY RESIDENTS.[1] EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] appears to be helping Superfund critics by running a corrupt, wasteful, inefficient and ineffective program, all the while claiming great success. October 17, 1989, EPA issued a press release with the headline, "EPA Achieves Superfund Milestones." The press release announced that cleanups had begun at 254 sites. "The Superfund program is making significant progress," EPA chief William Reilly said. "These accomplishments are results-oriented. They reflect my management initiatives, which make cleaning up sites... our highest Superfund priority."

Two years later, the NEW YORK TIMES reported at length on Superfund (June 16, 1991, Section 3, pgs. 1, 6), revealing that only 60 Superfund sites had been cleaned up despite expenditures and commitments of $11.5 BILLION since 1981. (That's $191 million per cleanup.) The WASHINGTON POST clarified the matter three days later (pgs. A1, A14), pointing out that actual expenditures were only $7.5 BILLION and that really 64 sites had been cleaned up--so the actual cost per site was only $117 million.

To be fair, these costs-per-cleanup are not accurate because money has been spent conducting studies at many other sites. But in a sense, that is the Superfund problem. A whole industry has been created to study Superfund dumps, with little actual success cleaning anything up.

The TIMES said the official Superfund list in June, 1991, included 1126 sites but also revealed EPA's estimate of "other potentially hazardous sites" included 32,645 sites. So, despite massive expenditures and hundreds of fat, expensive studies, Superfund has accomplished little, and compared to the size of the problem, it has accomplished almost nothing. "Lawyers and consultants are the only ones cleaning up," quipped one critic.

Critics of Superfund in industry and government are now using these sorry statistics to gather their forces for a major assault on the Superfund program itself. But Congress hasn't yet shown much stomach for a fight on this issue. In the dead of night and without public discussion--Congress reauthorized Superfund for another five years in late fall 1990, so no real debate will take place until 1993 or 1994, when people begin to gear up for the next Superfund reauthorization, which will be needed in 1995.

In the meantime, real people are living near real chemical dumps. Many of them are frightened to death. Their property has lost its value entirely, in the sense that no one in their right mind would buy it. These victims are thus imprisoned in a toxic nightmare. Highly-paid consultants in moon suits take soil samples, separated by only a chain-link fence from play areas used by children whose parents are trapped and powerless because they have lost the only thing of real value that they ever owned--their home.

Is fear of chemical dumps justified? The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences recently published an excellent book-length study that tries to answer that question.[2] The National Academy recently issued a short essay by Anthony B. Miller, the project leader of the study. We reprint it here verbatim. Dr. Miller is a professor in the Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics at University of Toronto.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: superfund; national academy; epa; william reilly; superfund reauthorization; national research council; nrc-nas;

#272: After 12 Years Studying Toxic Dumps, Government Knowledge Remains Sketchy

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #272
---February 12, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

How much toxic waste is generated in the U.S. each year? Where does it go? And does it endanger the public? In 1992, 12 years after the federal government officially began studying these questions, you might think it would be easy to find answers, but you would be disappointed.

In 1973 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated annual U.S. toxic waste production at 10 million tons, or roughly 100 pounds for each person in the U.S. Throughout the '70s, that was the official story. Eight years later, in 1981, EPA estimated annual U.S. toxic waste production at 290 million tons, or roughly one ton per person per year. (pg. 60)1 Throughout the '80s, that was the official story. In 1989, the American Chemical Society estimated annual U.S. toxic waste production at somewhere between 580 million tons and 2.9 billion tons. [See RHWN #148.] That same year EPA estimated U.S. annual toxic waste production at 6.0 billion tons, or 50,000 pounds (25 tons) per year for every man, woman and child. (pg. 60) This, then, is the current best estimate, but history shows it will not be the last estimate, and the next one will most likely be larger.

Of the 6.0 billion tons of toxic waste produced each year, only 300 million tons (5% of the total) is managed according to rules established by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)--the nation's official law for managing hazardous wastes from cradle to grave. (pg. 102) Thus 95% of toxic waste is still handled outside the restrictions of the nation's toxic waste laws.

Where does hazardous waste go?

The vast majority of hazardous waste has gone--and still goes--into the ground somewhere via pits, ponds, lagoons, and landfills, where gravity pulls the waste down into the ground, or it has gone into deep injection wells, where the waste is pumped under pressure down into the ground.

In 1980 Congress passed CERCLA [Public Law 96-510], commonly known as Superfund, which required EPA to locate all contaminated sites, establish priorities for cleaning them up, then clean them up. Many people assume that, because Congress passed a law to control this problem, it must be under control. They would be disappointed. EPA has listed just over 1200 sites as official Superfund sites at this point. But EPA knows of 32,000 additional sites that contain chemical wastes; the agency has said it keeps the official Superfund list relatively small because it isn't able to manage the cleanup of more than the 1200 sites it has listed so far. (pg. 77) (As we saw last week, #271 EPA is probably right about this. Spending at least $7.5 billion over the last 12 years, the agency has managed to clean up only 64 sites.)

Unfortunately, there is evidence that even EPA's list of 32,000 sites merely scratches the surface of the problem. In 1989, one of Congress's research organizations, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), gathered information from government agencies besides EPA and concluded that the number of chemically-contaminated sites is much larger than even EPA's list of 32,000. OTA said that, if you include military sites, mine wastes, leaking underground storage tanks, pesticide-contaminated sites, non-military federal properties, radioactive release sites, underground injection wells, municipal gas facilities, and wood-preserving plants, there are probably about 439,000 chemically-contaminated sites. (pg. 76)

Why does EPA estimate there are 32,000 sites and OTA estimate there are 439,000 sites? It is because no single government agency keeps a complete inventory of sites, and there is no government program to discover new sites. As OTA reported in 1989, "EPA has never requested funds from Congress for site discovery. EPA has no site discovery program, has no budget for site discovery, and does not allow States to spend Superfund money for site discovery." (pg. 77) New sites are discovered by accident as farmers or hunters stumble upon them, or by householders who smell strange odors in their water or whose children complain of rashes and dizziness. State government agencies learn about sites and report them to federal officials in at least six different programs, but federal officials in the different agencies do not communicate well, if at all, and some agencies do not even maintain records of the sites they learn about.

Does hazardous waste endanger the public?

The National Academy of Sciences published a new book late last year--from which all the preceding information about contaminated sites is taken--trying to answer that question. The Academy concluded, from the few sites where human health has been studied, that there is good evidence people have been harmed by chemical contamination--including birth defects, nervous system damage, damage to the immune system, skin disorders, kidney and liver diseases, blood disorders, cancer, and more--but no one knows what is going on at most sites. (pg. 104) There is little doubt that hundreds of toxic chemicals reside at each of these sites--but it is not certain to what extent most people have yet been exposed and thus directly affected. For this reason, no one knows the extent of the harm to public health today. ("[W]e find that the health of some members of the public is in danger," the Academy said [pg. 97], but "We are currently unable to answer the question of the overall impact on public health of hazardous wastes." [pg. 21])

However, saying we don't know the extent of the problem is quite different from saying there is no problem.

The Academy points out that "Millions of tons of hazardous materials are slowly migrating into groundwater in areas where they could pose problems in the future, even though current risks could be negligible." (p. 10) The Academy points out that half the U.S. population, and 95% of the rural population, relies on groundwater as its main source of drinking water. (pg. 5)

One federal agency studied 725 Superfund sites to learn how many people live nearby and they found 4.1 million people living within one mile of a contaminated site; nearly half of these (46%) are women of child-bearing age, are children, or are elderly persons, "all of whom can be considered at particular risk from toxic chemical exposures," the Academy said (pg. 68).

If four million people live within one mile of 725 official Superfund sites, how many people live within one mile of the 439,000 chemically-contaminated sites that OTA identified?

In typically understated fashion, the Academy speculates about people who are being exposed today without anyone paying attention: "...the committee does find sufficient evidence that hazardous wastes have produced health effects in some populations. We are concerned that populations may be at risk that have not been adequately identified, because of the inadequate program of site identification and assessment." (p. 20) WE ARE TOO.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

 ===============

 [1] Throughout this week's text, page numbers inside parentheses refer to pages in the National Academy of Science's recent book ENVIRONMENTAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, VOLUME 1: PUBLIC HEALTH AND HAZARDOUS WASTES. $29.95 plus $3.00 shipping, from: National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave., NW, P.O. Box 285, Washington, DC 20055. Telephone: (202) 334-2000. THIS IS AN EXCELLENT BOOK.

Descriptor terms: epa; american chemical society; rcra; superfund; ota; hazardous waste sites; national academy of sciences; nas;

#289: The Recent History Of Solid Waste: Good Alternatives Are Now Available

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #289
---June 10, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ========== RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
================== Original Source ==================

Do you remember the organization Keep American Beautiful from the 1960s? Few people knew it was an industry association formed by America's largest corporations. Their symbol was a proud Indian with a tear in his eye. Their main focus seemed to be an anti-litter campaign. But there was more to it than that. 

According to the conventional wisdom of the day, to keep the postwar economy expanding, waste disposal capacity would need to keep growing. To develop and maintain a throw-away society, you needed to have plenty of "away" places. By 1960 anyone familiar with water pollution literature could see that burying waste in the ground was guaranteed to cause trouble. (See RHWN #97, #98.) In the late '60s Keep American Beautiful formed a non-profit research group called the National Center for Solid Waste Disposal. This soon became the National Center for Resource Recovery. Resource recovery meant incineration.[1] Industry had found its answer to the solid waste problem.

By the early 1970s, this industry association had EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] convinced that incineration made sense for solid waste disposal. After the first energy crisis occurred, in 1973, the federal Department of Energy (DOE) came on board; DOE became enthusiastic about "energy recovery" from the incineration of municipal solid waste.

As the '70s progressed, landfill rules were getting stricter, so landfilling was getting more expensive. The 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) greatly increased the costs of landfilling. In 1980 there were 20,000 landfills but by 1986 there were only 6000 remaining; during this period the "landfill crisis" emerged.

Simultaneously, by the mid-'70s the nuclear power industry had come upon hard times. The industry received no new orders for nuclear power plants after 1975; by 1979 when the Three Mile Island disaster occurred, the handwriting was visible to investors everywhere. Companies that built nuclear power plants had teams of people skilled at making large machines, and the four big nuclear manufacturers--Combustion Engineering, Babcock & Wilcox, General Electric, and Westinghouse--began to manufacture solid waste incinerators.[2]

DOE's goal was to build 200 to 250 new solid waste incinerators by 1992, or 4 to 5 in each state. According to a 1980 plan, these would burn 75% of the nation's trash and would require a capital investment somewhere between $11.5 billion and $21.5 billion, or roughly $50 million to $100 million per incinerator.

In 1980 DOE projected that by 1987 there would be 160,000 tons-per-day of incineration capacity in the U.S. and double this by 1992. But in reality in 1988 incineration capacity was only 50,000 tons per day,[3] and it was expanding at a snail's pace. In 1985 there were 42 new incinerators ordered, but by 1987 it was down to 25 and by 1989 new orders has dropped to 10. In 1987, for the first time in recent memory, more capacity was canceled (35,656 tons per day) than was ordered (20,585 tons per day).[4] The incineration industry had hit a wall.

That wall was made up of local grass-roots citizens concerned about many aspects of solid waste incineration: dollar cost, hazardous air pollution, toxic ash, destruction of material resources, waste of energy, the political corruption that accompanies multi-billion-dollar public works projects, and the gobbling up of small, local waste haulers by the incineration giants.

Citizens took on the incineration industry in many ways. They organized a frontal assault to kill incineration proposals one by one, but, equally importantly, they developed waste reduction, recycling and composting programs that starved incinerators by diverting trash. Eighty percent of solid waste can be recycled and composted, or it can be incinerated--but it it's an either/or proposition. If you build an incinerator, you foreclose your recycling and composting options for the lifetime of the furnace (20 years or more).

Incineration has been defeated at the local level. But the battle is not over. The incineration industry and its friends in government are doing their best to make an end run around local decision-makers. In California the industry has lobbied hard to have incineration included in that state's definition of recycling. In Ohio, the industry has lobbied to allow toxic incinerator ash to be "recycled" for roadway construction. In Michigan and New York, compliant state governments have allowed toxic ash to be exempted from hazardous waste rules. In Connecticut, state government obliged the industry by overriding local zoning laws to make it nearly impossible for citizens to oppose the siting of incinerators.

But the demise of the nuclear power industry showed that even America's leading corporations, heavily subsidized by government handouts, cannot keep a bad technology alive. Municipal solid waste incineration is not thriving for the same reasons: despite enthusiastic support and subsidies by federal and state governments, and enormous backing from private corporations, incineration is a bad idea, doomed to fail.

Meanwhile alternative technologies--which, together, go by the name of "materials recovery"--are expanding rapidly. The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) in 1991 published BEYOND 40 PERCENT highlighting 17 communities that are recycling and composting up to 57% of their total household, commercial and institutional solid wastes.[1] The leader is Berlin Township, N.J., a town of 5629 people. But even a large city like Seattle (population: 497,000) has already achieved 36% and is steadily climbing toward its goal of 65%. Rural communities, suburban communities, and large urban areas can all recycle upwards of 50% of their solid wastes. ILSR expects communities will ultimately learn to recover more than 75% of their trash.

Having examined the materials recovery programs in many towns and cities, ILSR makes these observations about key elements of successful programs:

1) Comprehensive composting programs--year-round collection of many types of yard waste at curbside, and incentives for landscapers to compost their yard waste.

2) Mandatory participation. Successful materials recovery programs are not voluntary; a law must be passed requiring people to participate.

3) Materials must be recovered not only from single-and multi-family homes, but also from commercial and institutional establishments.

4) A wide variety of materials must be targeted for recovery, not just metal cans, glass, and paper. The most successful programs aim to collect aluminum, batteries, brush, corrugated cardboard, christmas trees, ferrous (iron-containing) cans, glass, high-grade paper, leaves, mixed paper, newspapers, oil, plastics, scrap metal, tires, white goods [appliances and furniture], and wood waste.

Food waste and construction debris are other categories that are being recovered in some locales.

The Center for the Biology of Natural Systems (CBNS at Queens College in Flushing, N.Y.) is currently running a successful pilot program composting food waste from the Park Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn, demonstrating that urban composting programs are viable.

In Baltimore, the Loading Dock is a non-profit organization set up to receive sinks, bathtubs, cabinets and other construction materials removed from homes during remodeling as well as excess materials from contractors, manufacturers and distributors. They sell these materials at 25% to 35% below retail price to other non-profits, and for low-income housing. Presently, good are donated to them from as far away as West Virginia and New York. Begun in 1984 with a $35,000 seed grant, they became self-sustaining after seven years. Their budget last year was $346,000. They figure they've kept 20,000 tons of building materials out of local landfills.

Their latest experiment is to park a truck at the local landfill to collect throw-aways from do-it-yourselfers who are remodeling. At the Howard County (Md.) landfill on a recent Saturday they collected 2.5 tons of materials in four hours. They're now negotiating to park trucks at other area landfills.

They're also computerizing their inventory, in preparation for cooperation with similar organizations in other cities, perhaps as far away as Mexico and Canada. "They've got a sizable donation of light fixtures; we've got a lot of doors, so they'll send us down a truck full of lights and pick up a truckload of doors," says Ted Rouse, the Loading Dock's vice-president. For further information contact Hope Cucina, director, The Loading Dock, 2523 Gwynn Falls Parkway, Baltimore, Md. 21216; hone (410) 728-3625.

One of the most interesting experiments is called Wastewise, a community resource center for the town of Halton Hills (population: 40,000) just east of Toronto, Canada. Wastewise was begun as a protest against proposals to fill a local quarry with 20 to 30 million tons of garbage, and to build a large solid waste incinerator. Rita and Len Landry and some friends started Wastewise to demonstrate that people could do something sensible with trash.

Begun with a $250,000 government grant, Wastewise now has 3 full-time employees, six summer students, and 60 volunteers. Wastewise inhabits a warehouse with four sections:

 (1) Information and exhibits on waste reduction and waste avoidance--"This is our main function," says project manager Diana van de Valk.

(2) a giant flea market where they sell reusable goods for 50 cents a pound (25 cents for furniture); 

(3) a repair shop where volunteers fix appliances, bikes and anything else repairable; and

 (4) recycling of cans, newspapers, and bottles. Waste reduction is their real passion, and they're off to a promising start.

Wastewise is the subject of a new 30-minute video, WASTEWISE: A COMMUNITY RESOURCE CENTER, from: Video Active Productions, Rt. 2, Box 322, Canton, NY 13617; phone (315) 386-8797. $25.00.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============

[1] Brenda Platt and Others, BEYOND 40 PERCENT, RECORD-SETTING RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING PROGRAMS (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1991), pgs. 2-5. Paperback: $25.00. To order any book from Island Press phone 1-800-828-1302, 8 to 5 Pacific time.

[2] Louis Blumberg and Robert Gottlieb, WAR ON WASTE; CAN AMERICA WIN ITS BATTLE WITH GARBAGE? (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1989), pgs. 50-52.

[3] Richard A. Denison and John Ruston, RECYCLING AND INCINERATION; EVALUATING THE CHOICES (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1990), pg. 67.

[4] Brenda Platt, cited above, pgs. 3-4.

Descriptor terms: keep america beautiful; national center for solid waste disposal; doe; incinerators; nuclear power; recycling; ilsr; cbns; the loading dock; wastewise; incineration;

#316b: Clarification: Rights of Corporations

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #316
---December 16, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ========== RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
================== Original Source ==================

Last week#315 we suggested the need for a Constitutional amendment declaring that a corporation is not a natural person and is therefore not protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment to the Constitution. Such an amendment would level the playing field somewhat, giving communities and individuals a greater chance of controlling anti-social corporate behavior. As we noted in earlier newsletters (RHWN #308, #309), corporations are now literally out of control. Shareholders cannot control them; boards of directors cannot control them; workers cannot control them; in a competitive world market, even managers have lost control. In some cases, of course, management doesn't care about the environment or the community. But even when managers, as individuals, want to do the right thing, the logic of corporate growth and short-term gain often dictates choices that do not serve the environment or the community. Since corporate behavior is at the root of nearly all environmental problems, stripping corporations of some of their rights (such as the Constitutional protections guaranteed to individual citizens, which the Supreme Court extended to corporations in 1886), would help communities assert control over corporate behavior. Merely DEBATING such an amendment would get people thinking about power in the modern world, asking who has a legitimate right to control what. Ask yourself: who ever gave private corporations the right to manufacture and sell products that can destroy the planet as a place suitable for human habitation? In suggesting such a Constitutional amendment, we omitted reference to the original source of the idea, author Richard Grossman.

For historical background on control of corporations, get: Richard Grossman and Frank T. Adams, TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS: CITIZENSHIP AND THE CHARTER OF INCORPORATION*fn01 (Cambridge, Mass.: Charter, Inc., 1992). For a copy, send $4.00 plus a self-addressed, stamped envelope containing 52 cents postage to: Charter, Inc., P.O. Box 806, Cambridge, MA 02140.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

Descriptor terms: corporations; constitution; us;

Footnotes:
*fn01 http://www.ratical.com/corporations/TCoBeij.html

#309: New Strategy Focuses On Corporations

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #309
---October 28, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ========== RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
================== Original Source ==================

Whenever we fight for clean drinking water, or clean air, or a safe workplace, we are likely to find a corporation on the other side of the issue. The goal of a corporation is, first, to survive, and, second, to return a profit to its shareholders (its legal owners) and if the air has to be fouled to accomplish these goals, then the air will be fouled. The Business Council for Sustainable Development (a private group made up of the heads of major corporations such as DuPont and Dow Chemical) acknowledges that this is so: "Today, for instance, the earth's atmosphere is providing the valuable service of acting as a dump for pollutants; those enjoying this service rarely pay a reasonable price for it," they say.[1] This is an example of corporations "externalizing" their costs. By using the air as a free dump, a corporation passes the costs of waste disposal along to the public while the profits from dumping fill the corporate treasury. This is standard business practice.

During the last 200 years, corporations have evolved into huge organizations wielding trillions of dollars to achieve their goals. In theory, corporations are held in check by the marketplace. If they do something bad, they will incur penalties that hurt their profits. However in practice, society has found no effective way of imposing penalties on corporations, so society today has lost control of corporate behavior. Instead of effective control, we have the concept of regulation.

In their 1991 book, POWER AND ACCOUNTABILITY, Robert Monks and Nell Minow [M&M], argue that corporations thrive under regulation: "The ultimate commercial accomplishment is to achieve regulation under law that is purported to be comprehensive and preempting and is administered by an agency that is in fact captive to the industry," they say.[2] In other words corporations WANT regulation. Regulation limits their liability and in many cases shields them from competition. Notice how tobacco companies claim that the warning label on cigarettes absolves them of liability for lung cancers. Corporate polluters WANT a permit system that regulates their emissions; such a system LEGALIZES the dumping of poisons into air, land and water. The large waste haulers FAVOR regulations that require double liners and leachate collection systems in landfills; such regulations drive the small waste hauler out of business, thus limiting competition. From a corporate point of view, the best regulations are those that appear to cover everything, can't be set aside or undercut by other regulations, and are administered by an agency that is captive to the corporate community.

It is not difficult for corporations to capture a regulatory agency. (See RHWN #210, #289.) Who will staff the agency? Often an "expert" from the regulated community. Even the most vigorous opponent of an industry soon becomes coopted; perhaps he or she wants to expand the agency's jurisdiction or budget, for which industry support is needed. Perhaps he or she wants a job with industry when the administration ends. Perhaps all the information coming into the agency is prepared by industry itself.

As Robert Monks says, "When Nell and I worked with the Presidential Task Force on Regulatory Relief, during the Reagan Administration, we found that business representatives continually sought more rather than less regulation, particularly when it would limit their liability or protect them from competition." [M&M pg. 131.] Regulation was supposed to make corporations accountable, but corporations have turned regulation into a shield against accountability.

It is this ability to mold the environment to its own purposes that causes Monks and Minow to say, "Despite attempts to provide balance and accountability, the corporation as an entity became so powerful that it quickly outstripped the limitations of accountability and became something of an externalizing machine, in the same way that a shark is a killing machine--no malevolence, no intentional harm, just something designed with sublime efficiency for self-preservation, which it accomplishes without any capacity to factor in the consequences to others." [M&M pg. 24.]

Several things happened during the past decade to make a bad situation worse.

When Michael Milken and his associates discovered that "junk bonds" could raise enormous amounts of money easily and quickly, this paved the way for "hostile takeovers" by "corporate raiders." As Monks and Minow describe it, "Corporations are ideally suited for self- preservation, which is the definition of the externalizing machine. When they saw what Milken was doing, corporate management proceeded to do whatever was necessary to protect their capacity to direct enterprises, and they found that protecting themselves from raiders meant protecting themselves from shareholders and squeezing any semblance of accountability out of the system." [M&M pg. 47.] Since corporate raiders gained control by buying shares, corporate management protected its turf by taking control away from shareholders. This protected corporations against hostile takeovers, but it also insulated management from accountability to shareholders.

With their new-found control over everything, corporate managers began to pay themselves higher and higher salaries. Between 1973 and 1975, CEOs' [chief executive officers'] after-tax pay averaged 24 times that of the average manufacturing worker. By 1987 to 1989, the differential was 157 times the average manufacturing worker. But taxes for CEOs declined from 50 percent to 28 percent, while worker taxes increased from 20 percent to 21 percent." [M&M pg. 166.]

One consequence of high salaries in business is that smart, aggressive people are drawn into the corporate world, rather than into government or education, thus further consolidating the power of corporations. When the education system deteriorates, corporations educate workers and potential workers for their own purposes; this may provide loyal workers but it seems unlikely to produce well- rounded citizens ready to question the proper role of corporations in a free society.

Directors of corporations have never provided an effective check on the behavior of management. Directors are selected by management, paid by management, and informed by management. As compensation expert Graef Crystal says, boards are typically "ten friends of management, a woman and a black." [M&M pg. 77.] Generally speaking, boards of directors are captives of management. They provide little or no accountability.

Corporations now dominate our political life. There are 40,000 registered lobbyists in Washington--75 lobbyists for each senator and representative. A run for federal office costs anywhere from $10 million to $150 million, and most of this money comes from corporate PACs (political action committees). So every politician who gets elected is beholden to corporate interests from day one. As Senator Barry Goldwater has said, "PACs set the country's political agenda and control nearly every candidate's position on the important issues of the day. [M&M, pg. 124.]

Corporate crime is rampant. One study of America's largest 500 corporations in 1982 revealed that 23 percent of them had been convicted of a major crime or had paid more than $50,000 in penalties for serious misbehavior during the previous decade. And of course those statistics merely describe the ones who got caught.

"Why do corporations engage in criminal behavior? It has to be because, at some level, they find that the benefits outweigh the costs. Or, more likely, management finds that the benefits accrue to the corporation, while the costs are borne elsewhere--the externalizing machine at work," say Monks and Minow. [M&M pg. 133.]

Corporate greed and abuse of power seem to have worsened during the 1980s, but it has been obvious to some people for a long time that corporations exert an unhealthy influence over many aspects of American society. As W.H. Ferry said in 1959, "As the most important single factor in the lives of most Americans, the corporation should be required to make affirmative contributions to freedom and justice as our distinguishing values."[3]

Yet control of corporations has never been the focus of the environmental movement, the women's movement, or even of the labor movement. Activists have focused their attention everywhere but on the corporation, the key institution of modern life. As Richard Grossman and Frank T. Adams say,[4] "What passes for political debate today is not about control, sovereignty, or the economic democracy which many Americans thought they were fighting to secure.

"Too many organizing campaigns accept the corporation's rules, and wrangle on corporate turf. We lobby congress for limited laws. We have no faith in regulatory agencies, but we turn to them for relief....

"How much more strength, time and hope will be invest in such dead ends?" they ask.

To gain control over corporations, examine the corporate charter, Grossman and Adams argue (see RHWN #308). The corporate charter is granted by state legislatures; without a charter, a corporation ceases to exist. The charter says a corporation must obey the law, serve the public good, and do no harm. Corporations that fail to comply can lose their right to do business.

Grossman and Adams suggest a wide range of controls that might be exerted through the corporate charter, among them:

--corporate owners and officers must be liable for harms they cause; --charters must be reviewed annually and corporate officers show that all corporate harm has ceased; --the corporation is an artificial creation and must not enjoy the protections of the bill of rights; --no corporation should exist forever.

It is a curious fact of history that the environmental movement has never focused its attention on the corporate charter as a means of controlling corporate behavior. Now that seems likely to change.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============

[1] Stephen Schmidheiny and others, CHANGING COURSE (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1992), pg.9.

[2] Robert A.G. Monks and Nell Minow, POWER AND ACCOUNTABILITY*fn01 (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 1991), pg. 131. Hereafter cited as M&M.

[3] W.H. Ferry, THE CORPORATION AND THE ECONOMY (Santa Barbara, Calif.: Center for Study of Democratic Institutions, [1959),] pg. 7. Single copies available from us for $6.00.

[4] Richard Grossman and Frank T. Adams, TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS: CITIZENSHIP AND THE CHARTER OF INCORPORATION (Cambridge, Mass.: Charter, Inc., 1992). For a copy, send $4.00 plus a self-addressed, stamped envelope containing 52 cents postage to: Charter, Inc., P.O. Box 806, Cambridge, MA [22140.]22140.

Descriptor terms: corporations; business council for sustainable development; corporate charters;

Footnotes:
fn01: http://www.amazon.com/Power-Accountability-Robert-A-Monks/dp/0887305342

#308: Corporations Are Externalizing Machines; The Way Sharks Are Killing Machines.

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #308
---October 21, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ========== RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
================== Original Source ==================

The modern corporation defines our world. The invention of the modern corporation has allowed us to become the wealthiest people in all of human history. It has also allowed us--in just 100 years of industrial enterprise--to march to the brink of collapse, rapidly destroying the planet as a place suitable for human habitation.

Today, when the top 2 percent of us hold as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, it is an open question whether our democratic form of government can survive in any meaningful way. Here again, corporations are key. How to control the behavior of corporations has become the central question we must all address.

A corporation is a group of people who have been granted a bundle of rights and privileges guaranteed by the government. The government grants those rights and privileges by issuing a piece of paper, a certificate of authority called a corporate charter.

Before there was a United States of America, kings granted corporate charters, creating organizations such as the East India Company and the Hudson's Bay Company.

As American colonists fought to throw off the rule of English kings beginning in 1776, and created the world's first constitutional democracy in 1789, they carefully placed the right to charter corporations in the hands of state legislatures. Today every state legislature still has the power to grant, to amend, and to revoke, corporate charters.

Corporations chartered in other states are called foreign corporations. Corporations chartered in other nations are called alien corporations. Legislatures allow foreign or alien corporations to go into business in their states through the same chartering process. An important new booklet,[1] published this month, describes some of the changes that have taken place in corporate rights, privileges, and behavior, during the last 200 years. Called TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS: CITIZENSHIP AND THE CHARTER OF INCORPORATION, by Richard Grossman and Frank T. Adams, the booklet describes how citizens controlled corporations before the civil war of 1861. Up to that time corporations were chartered for a specific limited purpose (for example, building a toll road or canal) and for a specific, limited period of time (usually 20 or 30 years). At the end of the corporation's lifetime, its assets were distributed among the shareholders and the corporation ceased to exist. The number of owners was limited by the charter; the amount of capital they could aggregate was limited. The owners were personally responsible for any liabilities or debts the corporation incurred, including wages owed to workers. Often profits were specifically limited in the charter. Corporations were not established merely to "make a profit." Each corporation was chartered to achieve a specific social goal that a legislature decided was in the public interest.

Early Americans feared corporations as a threat to democracy and freedom. They feared that owners (shareholders) would amass great wealth, control jobs and production, buy the newspapers, dominate the courts and control elections.

After the civil war, during the 1870s and 1880s, these fears began to be realized. Owners and managers of corporations pressed relentlessly to expand their powers, and the courts gave them what they wanted. Perhaps the most important change occurred when the U.S. Supreme Court granted corporations the full constitutional protections of an individual citizen. Congress had written the 14th amendment to the constitution to protect the rights of freed slaves, but the court in 1886 declared that no state shall deprive a corporation "of life, liberty or property without due process of law." Now corporations had real legal muscle.

By the early 20th century, courts had limited the liability of shareholders; corporations had been given perpetual lifetimes; the number of owners was no longer restricted; the capital they could control was infinite. Some corporations were given the power of eminent domain (the right to take another's private property with minimal compensation to be determined by the courts). Of course a corporation cannot be jailed. It cannot even be fined in any real sense; when a fine is imposed, it is the shareholders who pay it and it becomes just another cost of doing business.

With limits on liability, perpetual life, and the same rights as every citizen, corporate growth was guaranteed.

A corporation brings together three groups of people--investors (shareholders), who are the legal owners; labor; and management, which includes a board of directors.

In theory the shareholders are responsible for all decisions. But a recent book on the modern corporation by Robert Monks and Nell Minow[1] makes it clear that this theory has been an empty fiction for many years. Ownership is now fragmented into shares so small that "the concept of ownership has been diluted to the point of disappearance." Increasing the number of shareholders reduces the incentive and ability of each shareholder to gather information and monitor management's performance.

Historically, labor has not sought control of decision-making, leaving that to management. Instead, labor has settled for a growing share of profits. In the past decade, labor's share and its power have steadily diminished.

The board of directors is appointed by management. Its compensation is set by management. The average corporation director puts in less than three weeks each year but draws compensation ranging from $20,000 to $60,000 or more.

"Since they are selected by management, paid by management, and-- perhaps most important--informed by management, it is easy for directors to become captive to management's perspective," say Monks and Minow.

Management has the Board of Directors in its pocket. This leaves but one remaining check on management--the shareholders. Management is directly accountable to the shareholders; at least that is what the theory says. But the reality is quite different. Monks and Minow trace, step by step, court case by court case, the disintegration of accountability in the modern corporation. Particularly during the 1980s (when Monks was a top Reagan appointee), corporate managers cut their last remaining ties of accountability to shareholders.

People like to think that the power of management is balanced by the power of shareholders. "This remembered sense of balance is so powerful that it persists despite unmistakable proof that it no longer exists," say Monks and Minow. "Management accountability to shareholders is more than an economically beneficial arrangement; it is the basis on which we, as a matter of public policy, give legitimacy to the impact that private entities have on our lives. We would no more create a private entity without accountability than a public one; we don't want corporate dictators any more than we want political ones. But today, any remaining accountability is little more than a vestige of the original contract, the last remaining trace of the myth that no one seems to want to give up."

Monks and Minow describe in detail the tools that corporate managers developed during the 1980s to diminish the decision-making power of shareholders. They argue persuasively, and in detail, that today the modern corporation is run by management chiefly for the benefit of management. Though shareholders continue to benefit from profitable decisions, shareholders no longer call the shots. Management rules the roost.

But even management is not entirely in control. Monks and Minow argue at length that the modern corporation has a life and a logic all its own. The main goal of a corporation is to gather benefits for its members, and to pass costs on to others--to "internalize" benefits and to "externalize" costs.

"Despite attempts to provide balance and accountability, the corporation as an entity became so powerful that it quickly outstripped the limitations of accountability and became something of an externalizing machine, in the same way that a shark is a killing machine--no malevolence, no intentional harm, just something designed with sublime efficiency for self-preservation, which it accomplishes without any capacity to factor in the consequences to others."

What about government regulation? Monks and Minow argue that governments do not have what it takes to control corporations. "In fact, government is now as much a creation of business as the other way around," they say. Historically, they argue, corporations have turned government controls into corporate shields. And: "...the actual impact of all the laws, all the regulations, and all the bureaucrats on large corporations is surprisingly small."

What is left?

Grossman and Adams suggest that anyone concerned about justice-- anyone skirmishing with corporations to stop them from doing harm-- should focus attention on the corporate charter, the original source of control created for us by the earliest Americans--a source of power still available to us today, if we will only explore it and put it to use.

All state legislatures still have the right to grant, to amend, and to revoke corporate charters. Legislatures are still responsible for overseeing corporate activities through the chartering process.

Citizens can define and control corporations. It will require some homework, examining state histories and precedents, examining the charters of existing corporations, thinking creatively about how to assert control, focusing, and organizing.

Grossman and Adams say, "Our right to charter corporations is as crucial to self-government as our right to vote. Both are basic franchises, essential tools of liberty."

WE STAND IN PERIL OF LOSING OUR LIBERTY AND OUR LIVES--THE HEALTH OF OUR PLANET AND OF OUR CHILDREN--IF WE DO NOT LEARN TO CONTROL CORPORATE BEHAVIOR. THIS MUST BECOME A CENTRAL FOCUS OF OUR WORK, LOCALLY, NATIONALLY, AND WORLDWIDE. THE BEHAVIOR OF CORPORATIONS IS CENTRAL TO EVERY DANGER THAT THREATENS US. THERE IS NO MORE CRUCIAL CHALLENGE THAT WE FACE.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============

[1] Richard Grossman and Frank T. Adams, TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS: CITIZENSHIP AND THE CHARTER OF INCORPORATION*fn01 (Cambridge, Mass.: Charter, Inc., 1992). To inquire about copies, write: Charter, Inc., P.O. Box 805, Cambridge, MA [22140.]22140.

[2] Robert A.G. Monks and Nell Minow, POWER AND ACCOUNTABILITY*fn02 (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 1991).

Descriptor terms: corporations; corporate charters; shareholders; labor; management; corporate accountability;

Footnotes:
fn01: http://www.ratical.com/corporations/TCoBeij.html
fn02: http://www.amazon.com/Power-Accountability-Robert-A-Monks/dp/0887305342

#301: Global Warming--Part 2: Extremes of Weather Are Increasing

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #301
---September 2, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

Each year more "greenhouse gases" (chiefly carbon dioxide and methane) are building up in the Earth's atmosphere, creating conditions that physicists say must eventually lead to a warmer planet. Global warming will be humanity's greatest challenge because the buildup of gases is continuing year after year but the warming effects are masked by other pollutants (mainly sulfur particles) that have blocked out some sunlight and caused a counter-trend of cooling. (See RHWN #300.) Thus things look and feel normal even though trouble is brewing on a global scale. Eventually the warming trend will overwhelm the cooling trend, and the planet's temperature will rise noticeably. A modest rise is already measurable; the temperature of Earth has climbed 1 degree Fahrenheit (F) since 1880. However, by the time scientists all agree (a decade or two from now, most likely) that the temperature of the Earth has risen BECAUSE OF a buildup of greenhouse gases, it will be too late to achieve easy or gradual solutions.

The global warming problem is not like the depletion of Earth's ozone layer (see RHWN #285). When scientists in 1974 said we should be looking out for evidence of ozone loss in the upper atmosphere, the skeptics sneered. Then in 1985, NASA [the National Aeronautics and Space Administration] measured a gigantic "ozone hole" over the South Pole and from that moment onward the existence of the ozone depletion problem has not been seriously challenged, at least not by scientists.

On the other hand, global warming will be harder to prove because there will be no single "smoking gun" event to galvanize public attention the way discovery of the ozone hole did. The temperature of the planet is creeping upward, but is this definitely caused by greenhouse gases? Maybe, maybe not. While the debate goes on, the buildup of gases inexorably continues.

What evidence could prove the existence of this problem? Many researchers believe that the first real evidence of global warming will be increased variability in the climate--greater swings of high and low temperature; larger hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones; more tornadoes; drier and longer droughts; more and bigger floods. Have weather and climate events of the past decade offered any evidence of extreme variations? A new study by Douglas Cogan[1] summarizes evidence from the 1980s and 1990s of climatic instabilities in the U.S. and elsewhere. Cogan reports record-breaking cold and warmth; extremes of barometric pressure; record numbers of tornadoes; unprecedented hurricanes and tropical cyclones; record gales; near- record drought and wetness; record-breaking heat in Europe; and miscellaneous strange record-setting events such as snows in places that have never before experienced snow during recorded history.

These events do not "prove" that global warming has begun. But if more such events occur in the next few years, it seems likely that skeptics may begin to agree that global warming is upon us, and that we need to take rapid steps to phase out coal and oil (the main sources of greenhouse gases) and phase in renewable forms of energy that won't leave a legacy of unmanageable wastes and won't heat up the planet--namely solar power.

Clues to climate-change come in many forms: the oceans are getting warmer. Coral reefs are blanching. The sea level is rising. Average sea level has risen 4 to 8 inches since 1900; now it appears to be rising at the rate of one inch per decade. The extent of polar sea ice has shrunk about 6% globally in the last 15 years. The Rhone Glacier in Switzerland, the Grinnell Glacier in Montana's Glacier National Park, the Mt. Quelccyaya Ice Cap in Peru, and the Speke Glacier in the Ruwenzori Range in Uganda are among dozens of famous glaciers around the world that are receding at record rates. Snow cover throughout the Northern Hemisphere has shrunk 8% since 1973, to its lowest amount in the 19 years such records have been kept. [pg. 22]

During the summer of 1988 a dome of high pressure covered more than half the U.S. and Canada. Inside the dome, temperatures soared 6 to 12 degrees above normal. The jet stream, with its parade of rainstorms, veered around the dome, reducing precipitation beneath the dome to less than 40% of normal. The resulting heat and drought cut the U.S. corn crop by 34%; soybean production fell 21% and the wheat harvest slipped 14%. Congress subsequently approved $4 billion for what the President's Interagency Drought Policy Committee called "the largest disaster relief measure in U.S. history." [pg. 20]

Conditions in Europe have been similar. A localized drought began in the Alps in the mid-1980s, spread to several European nations in 1988, and then encompassed almost the entire continent in 1990. Temperatures ran more than 10o F above normal for weeks at a time. [pg. 21]

December 1989 was the coldest December on record for 15 states east of the Mississippi and the fourth coldest December for the nation as a whole. However the next month, January 1990, was the warmest January on record for the entire country. At the end of 1990 the western states experienced the coldest December ever. Though 1990 was the warmest year ever recorded California's citrus growers lost $750 million in the December deep freeze. [pg. 43]

The winter of 1991-92 was the warmest winter on record with temperatures 4o F above normal nationwide and 11o F above normal in the upper midwest. There was almost no snowfall outside the mountainous region of the country. But a freak storm in May provided northern Georgia with its largest snowfall ever recorded. Other parts of the world that rarely get snow had plenty of it during 1991-92: Jerusalem received 2 feet of snow; Shanghai had a rare snow shortly after Christmas; it snowed on Cyprus for the first time in 40 years, in Beirut for the first time in 55 years and in Eliat, Israel for the first time in recorded history. [pgs. 44-45]

Normally barometric pressure rises and falls within a narrow band between 29 and 31 inches of mercury. Cold, dense air pushes the barometer up; warm, moist air drives it down. During a five-month period between late 1988 and early 1989, both records--the all-time high and the all-time low barometric pressure for North America-- were broken. [pg. 45]

In the U.S. in 1990, the National Weather Service reported a record number of tornadoes (1115 twisters occurring in 44 states); the previous record was 1102 in 1973. The next year, 1991, set another new record (1141 tornadoes), though improved detection may account for part of the increase. The severity of tornadoes also appears to be increasing, with 14 tornadoes in 1990 reaching F4 and F5 on the Fujita scale, 3 of them with winds reaching 260 mph.

Hurricanes draw their strength from the heated surface layers of the sea. The warmer the sea, and the deeper the heated layer, the more powerful the storm will be. Hurricane Gilbert (1988) was the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic. Hurricane Hugo in 1989 set a new record for sustained wind speeds (more than 200 miles per hour). Hurricane Andrew in 1992 was "one of the century's most powerful hurricanes." (NY TIMES August 26, pg. A1.) A tropical cyclone that struck Bangladesh in 1991 was the most powerful storm ever to ply the Bay of Bengal. Known only as Cyclone 2B, it reached sustained winds of up to 200 mph shortly before it struck land. A 20-foot tidal crest ushered the storm ashore where it killed 140,000 people. [pg. 46]

Seven typhoons struck Japan in 1991, including Mireille, which killed 50 people and caused more damage to insured property than any other storm in that nation's history. The '90s do seem to be shaping up as a time of unparalleled storms.

Three successive gales struck Great Britain and the European continent in late January and early February 1990, with sustained winds of 100 mph. These storms were unprecedented in European memory. During that same period, the jet stream accelerated to 230 mph over the north Atlantic--as fast as it has ever been measured there. [pg. 46]

Before these gales struck, the concern in Europe and the U.K. had been drought. The water table as measured at West Sussex, England-- the longest continuous observation site in the world--was within an inch or two of the lowest level ever recorded as of mid-December 1989. But the winter of 1989-90 was the wettest winter in 70 years. February, 1990, was the wettest February ever. The water table in West Sussex rose 125 feet in just 8 weeks, an unprecedented rise in the 150-year history of the site. Despite the wet February, 1990 turned out to be the second-driest year of record in England, though in Scotland 1990 was the wettest year ever recorded. March through September was the driest spring and summer period for England and Wales in a rainfall series dating back 220 years. "[T]here is no modern parallel to the remarkable swings in water resources recently experienced," two researchers wrote in WEATHER, the journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

Heat has also set records in England in recent years. Three consecutive winters, starting in 1987-88, constitute the warmest "triplet" of winters in 332 years of record-keeping. Almost every month during 1989 and 1990 was warmer than normal, making it the warmest two-year period in a record dating back to 1659.

Cogan offers considerably more evidence of recent chaotic weather, which we haven't space to report here. We merely note that the dollar cost of extreme weather is already great and is evidently growing. Witness the $15 to $30 BILLION estimate for repairs following hurricane Andrew in Florida and Louisiana in 1992.

Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, remains in the atmosphere for a long time. CO2 released today will destabilize the atmosphere for our grandchildren. Each day of delay makes needed solutions more drastic, more expensive and more difficult to implement.

THE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES ARE COAL AND OIL EXECUTIVES WHO STEADFASTLY OPPOSE CHANGE. THE SOLUTION IS SOLAR TECHNOLOGIES, WHICH ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE. THE LEAST-COST TIME TO BEGIN THE TRANSITION IS NOW.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============

[1] Douglas Cogan, THE GREENHOUSE GAMBIT: BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT RESPONSES TO CLIMATE CHANGE (Washington, D.C.: Investor Responsibility Research Center [IRRC], 1992). Available for $45 from IRRC, 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC [20036;] phone (202) 234-7500.

Descriptor terms: global warming; greenhouse gases; methane; climate; interagency drought committee; carbon dioxide;

#300: Global Warming--Part 1: How Global Warming Is Sneaking Up On Us

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #300
---August 26, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org ==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
========================Original Source========================

Global warming is caused by the "greenhouse effect," which in turn is caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases in the Earth's atmosphere. These gases act like the glass covering a greenhouse; they let sunlight in but they don't let it back out again. The result is a buildup of heat inside the greenhouse, which in the case of a real greenhouse is good. However in this instance the "greenhouse" is planet Earth, and warming up the planet will cause big trouble. "A continuous warming will cause extraordinary disruption of the human enterprise," says biologist George M. Woodwell, director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts.[2]

The "greenhouse effect" itself is normal and natural. Carbon dioxide and water vapor ordinarily trap some of the heat from sunlight, keeping the Earth about 60 degrees Fahrenheit (F) warmer than it would otherwise be, thus making life possible. Before the industrial age began, in about 1750, the atmosphere contained 275 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide (CO2).

In the Earth's distant past, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied up and down; and the planet's temperature has varied up and down in lock step with the CO2. See Figure 1, which was produced by scientists who found the history of earth's climate and atmosphere revealed in the polar ice caps. There is little doubt that as CO2 has gone up in the past, Earth's temperature has gone up. Thus the "greenhouse effect" is not doubted by physicists, who know that CO2 really does trap heat from the sun. But there is a mystery in our present situation.

Humans have recently been loading up the atmosphere with CO2 and other so-called "greenhouse gases," yet the planet's temperature has not risen as high as the theory predicts it should. When scientists look at the amount of greenhouse gases, and then check the planet's temperature, they don't find as much warming as the CO2 would lead them to expect. This is why we hear, "Oh, global warming isn't really a problem, it isn't really happening."

The planet IS warming. Since 1880, when careful temperature records began to be kept in the U.S., the average temperature has risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit. But if greenhouse gases really had the effect that scientists say they do, the temperature should have risen by 2 degrees F or more by now. This discrepancy between what scientists SAY should be happening, and what IS happening, provides wiggle room for those who want to deny the existence of the problem entirely. IT WILL ALLOW THE DEBATE OVER GREENHOUSE WARMING TO CONTINUE FOR DECADES, WHILE THE BUILDUP OF GREENHOUSE GASES INEXORABLY CONTINUES. Recent findings have now explained the mystery. [3] Although a buildup of greenhouse gases is occurring (and is in fact accelerating), three other forces are working simultaneously to cool the planet off. These cooling forces are "masking" or canceling out the warming effects of the greenhouse gases.

There are four kinds of greenhouse gases: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons. The main culprit is CO2, and the greenhouse potential of the other gases is often expressed as "CO2 equivalents." When the warming effect of all four gases is added together today and translated into CO2 equivalents, we have 425 ppm of CO2 equivalents in the atmosphere, a 55% increase since 1750. (Actual CO2 is now 356 ppm and the remainder is other greenhouse gases.)

CO2 itself comes chiefly from the combustion of coal and oil. Methane comes from agriculture (mainly the growing of rice and cattle). Sources of nitrous oxide are not well understood but production of Nylon is certainly one source, and catalytic converters on automobiles, and nitrogen fertilizers may be others. CFCs are created exclusively by humans; they are refrigerants that are now famous because they are destroying the Earth's stratospheric ozone layer, allowing an increase in deadly ultraviolet light to reach the Earth's surface (see RHWN #285).

Ironically the heating effect of these four greenhouse gases is being nearly canceled out by other pollutants.

First, the effects of the CFCs are being countered by the CFCs themselves as they destroy the stratospheric ozone layer. Ozone itself is a greenhouse gas. The CFCs contribute to the greenhouse effect themselves, but they destroy the ozone, thus removing the ozone's greenhouse effect. Thus CFCs cancel out their own warming effect.

However, as CFCs are being phased out, DuPont and others are phasing in substitute gases which are, themselves, powerful greenhouse gases, but which will not destroy the ozone layer as effectively as the CFCs. The effect of the new CFC substitutes will be to promote global warming.

Secondly, the injection of sulfur into the atmosphere in the form of tiny particles emitted from the tall smoke stacks of coal-burning power plants (and from metal smelters, and to a lesser extent from automobiles), has created a haze over the whole planet, which is reflecting sunlight back out into space. As a result, less sunlight is striking the Earth's surface. This has nearly canceled out the warming effects of all the greenhouse gases.

As sulfur pollution becomes better-controlled (for example, by provisions of the Clean Air Act of 1990), the sulfur haze will clear up and will "unmask" the effects of the greenhouse gases which are relentlessly building up. At this point--in a decade or two--global warming will become apparent with a vengeance.

The third (temporary) masking effect is the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in June, 1990. Airborne debris from Pinatubo has reduced the sunlight reaching Earth's surface about one percent and produced the relatively cool summer that we all experienced in 1992.

Pinatubo's cooling effects will disappear after a year or two. But the masking effects of CFCs and sulfur will linger for a decade or longer. While this masking is occurring, those who are inclined to pooh-pooh the problem, such as most political leaders in recent memory, will be able to pretend the problem isn't real and will prevent the action we need: a rapid transition away from our coal-and-oil-based economy and a switch to renewable fuels. Meanwhile greenhouse gases are inexorably building. CO2 alone grows at 1.5 ppm each year.

When the effects of greenhouse gases become fully apparent, what will happen? Ultimately, major shifts in ecosystems will occur. Cold regions will become warmer; warm regions will become hotter. Rainfall patterns will change. The interiors of continents, such as the corn-and wheat-growing regions of the U.S. may become drier and less productive.

In the meantime we can probably expect unstable weather conditions, such as more unusual events like big hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, and extremes of temperature (hot AND cold). As Douglas Cogan says,

A SIMPLE ANALOGY TO THE PRESENT SITUATION IS TRYING TO PREDICT WHEN WATER WILL DRIP FROM A FAUCET. WHEN THE FLOW OF WATER THROUGH THE SPOUT IS SLOW AND REGULAR, ONE CAN OBSERVE THE PATTERN OF DROPS AND EASILY PREDICT WHEN THE NEXT DROP WILL FALL. IF THE FLOW IS THEN INCREASED SUFFICIENTLY AND MAINTAINED AT THAT RATE, ONE CAN SIMILARLY FORECAST THAT THE DRIPS WILL BEAD TOGETHER AND FORM A CONTINUOUS STREAM. THE SYSTEM HAS SHIFTED FROM ONE STEADY STATE TO ANOTHER. BUT IF THE FLOW OF WATER IS INCREASED GRADUALLY, THERE WILL BE A PERIOD WHEN THE DRIPS COME TWO OR THREE IN A ROW, THAT PAUSE FOR AN INSTANT, FOLLOWED BY FIVE DRIPS IN RAPID SUCCESSION, AND SO ON; THE PATTERN BECOMES ERRATIC AND HIGH UNPREDICTABLE. THIS UNSTEADY PHASE IS THE PART OF GLOBAL WARMING THAT THE PLANET MAY NOW BE EXPERIENCING, AS THE FLOW OF GREENHOUSE GASES ENTERING THE ATMOSPHERE SLOWLY INCREASES. [pgs. 42- 43]

Outstanding among all the available facts is the global temperature record dating back more than a century, in which the 1980s stand out as the warmest decade by far, and in which the '90s are now setting new records.

The ten warmest years since 1880 have been (in temperature order): 1990; 1991; 1988 and 1981 (tied); 1987; 1983 and 1980 (tied); 1989; 1973; 1986 and 1977 (tied). Is it a coincidence that the past six years are among the 10 hottest years ever recorded? Not likely.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============

[1] Douglas Cogan, THE GREENHOUSE GAMBIT: BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT RESPONSES TO CLIMATE CHANGE (Washington, DC: Investor Responsibility Research Center [IRRC], 1992). Available for $45 from IRRC, 1755 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036; phone (202) 234-7500.

[2] THE EARTH IN TRANSITION; PATTERNS AND PROCESSES OF BIOTIC IMPOVERISHMENT (NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pg. 5.

[3] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC], 1992 IPCC SUPPLEMENT (Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, February, 1992).

Descriptor terms: global warming; greenhouse effect; ozone; pinatubo; greenhouse gases; global environmental problems; carbon dioxide; ozone depletion; cfcs;

#315: Al Gore Takes On The WTI Incinerator

=======================Electronic Edition========================

RACHEL'S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #315
---December 9, 1992---
News and resources for environmental justice.
------
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org==========
RACHEL-4CM = DIOXIN FOCUSED DIRECTORY Remote Access Chemical Hazards Electronic Library. Dioxinnz.com
=======================Original Source========================

Earlier this week, Vice-President-elect Al Gore weighed in heavily on the side of citizens fighting the WTI incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio. On Monday Mr. Gore announced that he and 5 other senators have asked the General Accounting Office (GAO)--an investigative arm of the Congress--to make a thorough examination of WTI, to answer nagging questions about the safety of its huge incinerator, and about the illegality of permits it received from the Bush-Quayle EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] for construction and operation. (See RHWN #287.) Mr. Gore said the new Clinton-Gore administration will not give WTI a test burn permit until all questions have been satisfactorily answered.[1]

It appears to be a major victory for citizen activists who mounted a steadily-escalating campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience to stop WTI. A total of 182 people have been arrested so far in the campaign, which is not over.[2] At a rally November 22, hundreds of people were lined up in the cold rain waiting their turn to climb over the fence onto WTI's property, when the police intervened. No doubt those people remain ready to act whenever necessary. Two young women, local leader Terri Swearingen, 36, and Greenpeace staff member Beth Newman, 32, still face serious contempt-of-court charges for urging others to break the law at the plant gate. They could both be fined several thousand dollars and be jailed for months or longer.

A multi-racial coalition of citizens from Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania has fought for 12 years to stop the WTI hazardous waste incinerator, the largest ever built. With extralegal and even illegal help from Vice-President Quayle's Council on Competitiveness,[3] and George Bush's EPA and Department of Justice, both of which went to bat for WTI AGAINST the local citizenry on several occasions, construction was completed in June, 1992, and the machine now stands poised to burn 176,000 tons of liquid hazardous wastes each year, plus 83,000 tons per year of inorganic wastes,[2] on a flood plain immediately adjacent to the Ohio River, 100 yards from a residential neighborhood, 400 yards from an elementary school, in a valley known for its stagnant air.

A spokesman for the WTI incinerator said Mr. Gore's actions would not affect their plans for burning waste, or for conducting a test burn, now scheduled for January. Thus the Clinton administration appears to be on a collision course with the operator of the plant, a subsidiary of the Swiss company, Von Roll, Inc., best known in the U.S. for its part in manufacturing a Supergun for Iraq.

The NEW YORK TIMES, which ran the story in its business section, observed that this is the first environmental policy decision of the Clinton-Gore administration. The TIMES said it signals two things: first, that Mr. Gore will have a leading role in setting environmental priorities; and second that the new administration intends to enforce environmental laws aggressively.[4] Indeed, Gore's press statement on Monday was couched in law-and-order terms: "Gore's request follows efforts by the Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania lawmakers over several years to persuade government regulators to comply with state and federal environmental laws."

But Gore's action Monday may signal more than a get-tough-on-crooks attitude. It may indicate that Messrs. Gore and Clinton intend to try to rehabilitate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and its partner in misfeasance, the U.S. Department of Justice, and thus to continue the endless duel between corporate crime and government eco-police.

Rebuilding the government's eco-police force will prove to be an uphill struggle, particularly at EPA where many Reagan-Bush ideologues are now entrenched in jobs protected by civil service laws.

Even though it has 18,000 employees and an annual operating budget of $4.5 billion,[5] EPA is only a shell of a regulatory agency. Its main function for the past decade has been to shovel taxpayers' money into the pockets of private contractors, known affectionately in Washington as "beltway bandits."

For the past decade, the effect of White House policy has been to drive out good people and replace them with functionaries. Today EPA has few talented, committed employees left, and fewer still who are competent managers. Today many employees simply look upon the agency as a place to do time while awaiting an opportunity for a lucrative trip through the revolving door. Nearly all of EPA's substantive work is now conducted by private contractors, many of whom do shoddy work for which they charge high fees. Of course EPA is not alone in this. "Privatization" has been the hallmark of the Reagan and Bush administrations, and it has proven to be an expensive failure. 

As the NEW YORK TIMES said last week, "In several agencies, particularly the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, contractors are performing virtually all the work."[6]In fact, a report released last week by the White House Office of Management and Budget [OMB] said the problem is "endemic across all the civilian agencies." OMB said their investigation revealed a "culture" of federal agencies eager to award contracts but reluctant to supervise them. Result: "Contractors are squandering vast sums," the TIMES said in summarizing the OMB report which concluded that untold billions of dollars of taxpayers' money has been wasted and spent illegally by private contractors on parties, vacations, and sporting events. In almost every instance where auditors looked, they found problems with contracts. 

For example, CH2M Hill, an Oregon company that supervises the cleanup of hundreds of Superfund dumps for the EPA, and more recently for the Department of Energy, billed the government for parties, country club fees for employees and the use of a corporate airplane, all of which are illegal. In defense of his company, Lyle Hassebrook, president of CH2M Hill, said he is "very proud of our accomplishments" and denied all wrongdoing.

The problem isn't merely wasted money. The work of contractors is often shoddy. For example, the TIMES reported last week, "The Government spends between $500 million and $1 billion annually to determine the levels of toxic materials in soil and water and is becoming concerned that the results are meaningless. In the last four years, in the E.P.A.'s Superfund program to clean abandoned waste sites, the Government has successfully prosecuted six laboratories and 17 individuals for fraud, and three dozen other laboratories are under investigation."[6]

The TIMES says EPA has so little in-house talent left that it cannot function without contractors. Indeed earlier this year a contractor was paid $20,000 to prepare the official response to a Congressional report that criticized the EPA's improper use of contractors.[7]

The Clinton-Gore administration will have a lot of rebuilding to do, if they want to create even the APPEARANCE of a competent environmental protection agency. But they should ask whether it would be worth the trouble. Let's face it: Even in their heyday, the ecopolice could not even slow, much less stop, the poisoning of America. Something much more fundamental than a refurbished EPA will be needed.

In truth, we need something as fundamental as an amendment to the Constitution, declaring that a corporation is not a natural person, and is not protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment. This would begin to level the playing field in the struggle between predatory corporate marauders and ordinary Americans. Corporations only became "natural persons" under the law when the Supreme Court declared them such in 1886, so we are merely suggesting a return to America's past. Earlier generations of Americans feared corporate power, and now it clear their fears were justified.

To succeed in protecting the environment, the Clinton-Gore administration (and the traditional environmental movement) will have to admit that our problems go much deeper than mere regulatory failure. Few dare speak of it, but let's be candid: the problem is a corporate culture that expects to get rich off government handouts in return for shoddy work or no work at all. The real welfare queens are the likes of Westinghouse, GE, Boeing, Silverado Savings & Loan, General Dynamics, and Rockwell International. The defense industry is justifiably famous for its $600 toilet seats, but now that mentality permeates many, if not most, large corporations. The standard rule seems to be: If the law is in the way, bend it and, when necessary, break it. A corollary is: If human lives are endangered, hire a consultant to complete a risk assessment, then push ahead with the project.

These are not problems that will be solved by buffing up the EPA's image, or even rebuilding its scientific and managerial talent. There is a fundamental imbalance of power in America, which threatens not only our democracy but now even our lives. Many corporations are larger and more powerful than all federal agencies combined. As global competition puts a squeeze on America's traditional way of doing business (see Robert Reich's WORK OF NATIONS, for example), the urge becomes stronger to cut corners and to save a dollar by trashing the environment. Without fundamental reform, things will continue to go downhill at an accelerating pace.

WE APPLAUD AL GORE'S MOVE AGAINST WTI. HE HAS DONE THE RIGHT THING. LET US HOPE THAT IT PRESAGES A FUNDAMENTAL RE-THINKING OF POWER RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CORPORATE AMERICA AND ORDINARY PEOPLE.

--Peter Montague, Ph.D.

===============

[1] Press statement from U.S. Senator Al Gore dated December 7, 1992. 2 pages. Available by fax from the senator's office at (202) 224-4944.

[2] Ellen Connett, "WTI's Hazardous Waste Incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio: Von Roll's Supergun 2," WASTE NOT #217 (November, 1992), pgs. 1-2. WASTE NOT is published weekly by Ellen and Paul Connett, 82 Judson St., Canton, NY 13617; $40/year. Phone: (315) 379-9200.

[3] T.C. Brown, "WTI Sought Quayle's Aid," CLEVELAND PLAIN DEALER August 5, 1992, pg. 4-C.

[4] Keith Schneider, "Gore Says Clinton Will Try to Halt Waste Incinerator," NEW YORK TIMES Dec. 7, 1992, pgs. A1, D9.

[5] Peter Brimelow and Leslie Spencer, "'You Can't Get There From Here,'" FORBES July 6, 1992, pgs. 59-64.

[6] Keith Schneider, "U.S. Admits Waste In Its Contracts; Study Says Unsupervised Jobs Cost Government Billions," NEW YORK TIMES December 2, 1992, pgs. A1, D24.

[7] Keith Schneider, "For the Government, Contractors Have Special rates," NEW YORK TIMES December 6, 1992, pg. E2. OUR NEW P.O. BOX HAS ALREADY CHANGED

Last week we announced we're moving to Annapolis, Maryland December 9. This is true. In fact, the deed is done. However the address we gave is already obsolete. At the last minute (yesterday), the Annapolis Post Office offered us a larger P.O. Box, which we need to manage the quantity of mail you all send us.

Therefore, our correct mailing address henceforth is: Environmental Research Foundation P.O. Box 5036 Annapolis, Maryland 21430

Our phone is still (410) 263-1584, our fax is still (410) [263-8944,] and the Rachel database's phone is still (410) 263-8903; please dial in with 8N1, not 7E1.

Don't worry, if you mailed something to the P.O. Box we listed last week, it will be automatically forwarded to the new box, which is only 2 feet away.

Descriptor terms: vice-president gore; president clinton; wti; waste technologies inc; east liverpool; oh; citizen groups; gao; congress; air pollution; epa; superfund; hazardous waste incineration; waste disposal technologies; waste treatment technologies;