See also, "5,700 Vintage Los Angeles Photos Now Online," at MetBlogs.

Meanwhile, back in Kampala, the news is that the EU has done the opposite, and is encouraging the use of DDT officially, not blocking its use at all. If DDT is used to fight malaria and not in uncontrolled agricultural use simply to keep products blemish-free, in carefully-controlled sprayings, EU has no complaints.

Is there any western news agency with a stringer in Kampala who could chase this story down? Beck and Reynolds still offer no evidence to back their odd claims, but the story could sure benefit from a solid chunk of reporting from BBC, or Reuters, or Agence France Presse, or someone who could talk with the EU and Uganda officials.

Other resources:

• GlobalHealthReporting.org, Uganda/Malaria site
• Uganda Ministry of Health, malaria facts
• CDC - Malaria control in Uganda

Full text of report, below the fold.

Uganda allowed to spray DDT

New Vision, Thursday, 10th July, 2008

Mutagamba (right) chatting with to Kooki MP Mugumya Magulumaali at the seminar

THE World Health Organisation and the European Union have allowed Uganda to spray the DDT chemical, the water and environment minister has said.

Ali Mambule reports that Maria Mutagamba said the Government would use the chemical, to kill mosquitoes that spread malaria.

The union had expressed reservations about the safety of Uganda’s agricultural products due to the spraying of the chemical, which was piloted in Apac and Oyam districts.

“You should now have no fear about the use of DDT concerning the market for our products,” Mutagamba said in Masaka town on Tuesday.

The minister, who was closing a seminar on the National Agricultural Advisory Services at Hotel Brovad, wondered why Ugandans feared the effects of DDT when they consumed products from countries where the chemical was used.

Here's a photo of our real, live version.

See last year's post, here.

本人得聞曾蔭權先生最近因副部長制一事成了反對派及傳媒的攻擊對象,因為自香港政府成立十年來,貧富不均問題在香港的經濟結構下一直未有改善,而前任董建華亦留了一幅難攤子給你,在此等經濟環境下,他們如果不借你來消消氣,就不當你是特首了。本來香港是自由經濟,香港政府再強亦不可以指揮經濟,不可以把責任全推到你身上,可惜你一而再,再而三提出了具爭議性的政策,而九月立法會選舉臨近,如果不攻擊你就拿不到選票了。
我有一個相當大膽的建議,希望可以幫到你,因為你剛提出拿一百億去為四川賑災,本意及出發點都是非常好,只是提出的時機不對,如果你在五一二地震發生後第二天立刻提出此想法,則大有可能被立法會即時通過,並在中國內外受一致讚賞,如今事過境遷,香港人正為通脹而煩惱,經濟又未見有起色,而且還是在副部長制的陰雲未消下提出,要成功當然是有難度了。但是,我不以為立法會一定會否決此次撥款,問題是你要有辦法令議員不可以拿損給四川的一百億和其他的項目如增加長者生活浦貼、減稅、增加綜援等相提並論,前者不是投資亦無法保證物盡其用,後者卻可以被視為投資在市民身上,不過現在百物騰貴,成效頗成疑問。
我以為政府可以嘗試從問題的根本着手,通脹的主要成因是油價居高不下,而香港的工商業十分倚重不可再生的化石燃料。所以政府必須試圖減低香港對化石燃料的依賴,我以為目前的另類能源如風能、太陽能及節能措施都是杯水車薪,除非政府可以撥款一億資助新能源的開發。雖然看來是冒險一點,但以你和中共國政府今年屢遭天災人禍的勢頭,你大有可能成為董建華第二,因此兵行險着是其時。

我所指的新能源,是指非主流科學研究者提出的新能源(Overunity),它們可以大大減低生產能量的成本,而中共國亦打算在2009年使用同屬Overunity類的匈牙利開發的EMB技術,而台灣的民進黨本來亦打算在2000年購入,這是世界大勢,亦可能是你任內最大的成就!如果你真的打算非捐不可,不妨考慮買豬肉搭豬骨的策略,趕在議員之前,自己提出一藍子的撥款建議,迫議員去承受過量撥款的政治後果。

我同時亦寄了信給中國總理溫家寶及台灣馬英九總統,請你慎重考慮!

此致
一班關心世界能源危機的香港發明家

This is the entirety of Glenn Beck'sReynolds's post linking to the rabidly anti-Rachel Carson, RWDB with a rant about DDT that lacks several key points of accuracy:

THE HIGH COST OF fighting malaria.

Six words and he's wrong already. That's quite a skill to be dead wrong in six words.

Our friend, Mr. Beck, at RWDB, has a news report from Uganda, and rather than note it and check for accuracy, he uses it as a tee for numerous shots and mulligans against science, scientists, environmentalists, health care workers, the EU, and anyone else who inhabited his latest delerium.

The story out of Africa is that a buyer of organic cotton refused to buy Ugandan cotton due to DDT contamination. True to the line of recent events, it's not environmentalists who do anything , though the news story finds a way to blame them in the last paragraph. Instead, it's a businessman.

But here are problems with the story:

• There is no indication EU has anything to do with this failed purchase.
• There is no indication that any environmentalist ever played a role -- this is a Dutch purchasing company, shopping for organic cotton.
• There is no indication that Uganda farmers can't sell their cotton to other buyers.
• There is no reason to presume that the cotton must be sold as "organic."
• There appears to be no indication of any DDT contamination.
• It's illegal to spray DDT on cotton in Uganda, as I understand it -- if this cotton is contaminated, the problem is that DDT was diverted from malaria control. That's not a problem for environmentalists -- and, according to the PAN story cited above, farmers have incentives to keep it from happening.

Are we to believe that marauding anti-insect people roam Uganda, forcing farmers to steal DDT from health authorities and spray it on their cotton instead, against the farmer's better interests?

Neither Glenn Beck at Instapundit nor the other Beck at RWDB bothered to check the facts, nor even to see whether the first face story passes the smell test. Where would DDT contamination come from? Why would a buyer refuse cotton if there's no DDT contaminant? Why wouldn't there be tests? Where are the test results? If EU is so down on DDT on cotton, where is the document that says so?

The company in the news story, ineptly named as it is, Bo-Weevil, does exist, it appears, either there or in the Netherlands. That surely is not the only cotton buyer for the EU. The first BoWeevil isn't an EU company, since it's headquartered in Tennessee. From their website:

Welcome to Bo-Weevil Eco Sportswear Mfg. LLC., nestled in the hills of Tazewell, Tennessee.

Producers of the most earth friendly clothing on the planet.

Bo-Weevil Eco started manufacturing and supplying clothing with one main vision: “Provide our customers with the highest quality clothing that integrates current fashions with timeless style, to create lifestyle clothing that brings awareness to care what you wear.”

We are a company that practices to restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony. Doing so by being at the forefront of U.S.A. factories producing a line of women’s, men’s, kids and k-9 apparel made by pre-consumer recycled fibres. We are working to create change in the textile industry; to offer one step on the path to more sensible and sustainable use of resources in the production of basic commodities.

So, how does the EU get into this story at all? The second company, I can find listed only through a post at Pesticide Action Network, a source that is not always reliable on such issues.

Smell test: Does this sound accurate to you? When was the last time you saw anyone at Wal-Mart demand organic cotton?

The use of DDT has now affected cotton prices in the region. Patrick Oryang from Lango Cooperative told All Africa, “We are buying cotton at sh500 per kilogram instead of sh750. The country will lose about US$20 million because EUREP-GAP, an EU exporters body, has suspended buying products from the region because the consumers in Europe and America want purely organic products.”

What's the real story?

Neither Beck seems to care. They get a dig at environmentalists, so what if Ugandans get malaria?

Update, sorta: News from Uganda, in New Vision, seems to indicate that the EU has okayed the wise use of DDT in Uganda, contrary to claims of an EU ban (July 10 story). You can't help but wish there were some good, clear reporting of this issue, from BBC or Reuters, or someone in Kampala besides these few, shallow news dailies.

You don't have to study three years of fluid dynamic to realize that pumping the water at the lowest point would consume the largest amount of kinetic energy just to fight off the weight of water pumped to the bucket; lesser if we choose the middle. And we virtually waste no energy (except against liquid-air friction) if we choose the pump at the height of the bucket.

To illustrate it, we just need to look the amount of pressure required to pump out the water at various instant. Naturally, when we choose the bottom of bucket to begin with, the pump would have to continually spare a part of kinetic energy to prevent water already pumped to the bucket going back to the pump. There will be less when the pump is the middle, and there will be none if the pump is positioned at the height of bucket.

The curious part is: The result are all the same, but the amount of energy spent is different. Where does the extra energy gone to?

waterbucket1

Morale of the story: In order to save electrical energy from the water pump, it is best to fill the water bucket from the highest position.

Below, his e-mail newsletter/column, with observations about the 50 years of science progress since his graduation from college. FYI.

Dear Friend:

Here's your weekly Science Matters column by David Suzuki with Faisal Moola.

What a difference 50 years makes

Last month, I attended the 50th anniversary of my college graduation. A week later, I celebrated my grandson’s graduation from high school. I don’t think I was much different from the kids in my grandson’s class when I went away to college in 1954 (give or take a few rings and tattoos). Like them, I was filled with trepidation but also excitement about testing my physical and intellectual abilities beyond high school. But my how the world has changed in 50 years!

I began my last year of college in 1957. On October 4 that year, the Soviet Union electrified the world by successfully launching a satellite, Sputnik 1, into space. Little did we dream that out of the ensuing space race between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. would come 24-hour television news channels, cellphones, and GPS navigation. In 1958, the only trans-Atlantic phone lines were cables laid on the ocean floor, so phone calls to England had to be booked hours or sometimes days in advance. I flew from Toronto to a roommate’s wedding in San Francisco on a propeller plane that made several stops during the 22-hour trip.

In 1958, scientists were still debating about whether genetic material was DNA or protein, we didn’t know how many chromosomes humans have or that the Y chromosome determines sex, and the Green Revolution was yet to come. Polio was still a problem in North America, smallpox killed hundreds of thousands annually, and oral contraceptives, photocopiers, personal computers, colour TV, and DVDs didn’t exist. In 1958, parts of the Amazon, Congo, and New Guinea had not been explored. We were yet to learn of species extinction, depletion of fish in the oceans, the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer, acid rain, global warming, PCBs, and dioxins.

In half a century our lives have been transformed by scientific, medical, and technological advances, as well as a host of environmental problems. No one deliberately set out to undermine the planet’s life-support systems or tear communities apart, but those have been the consequences of our enormous economic and technological "success" over the past five decades. Beset by vast problems of wealth discrepancy, environmental issues, poverty, terror, genocide, and prejudice, we are trying to weave our way into an uncertain future.

I began speaking out on television in 1962 because I was shocked by the lack of understanding of science at a time when science as applied by industry, medicine, and the military was having such a profound impact on our lives. I felt we needed more scientific understanding if we were to make informed decisions about the forces shaping our lives. Today, thanks to computers and the Internet, and television, radio, and print media, we have access to more information than humanity has ever had. To my surprise, this access has not equipped us to make better decisions about such matters as climate change, peak oil, marine depletion, species extinction, and global pollution. That’s largely because we now have access to so much information that we can find support for any prejudice or opinion.

Don’t want to believe in evolution? No problem – you can find support for intelligent design and creationism in magazines, on websites, and in all kinds of books written by people with PhDs. Want to believe aliens came to Earth and abducted people? It’s easy to find theories about how governments have covered up information on extraterrestrial aliens. Think human-induced climate change is junk science? Well, if you choose to read only certain national newspapers and magazines and listen only to certain popular commentators on television or radio, you’ll never have to change your mind. And so it goes. The challenge today is that there is a huge volume of information out there, much of it biased or deliberately distorted. As I think about my grandson, his hopes and dreams and the immense issues my generation has bequeathed him, I realize what he and all young people need most are the tools of skepticism, critical thinking, the ability to assess the credibility of sources, and the humility to realize we all possess beliefs and values that must constantly be reexamined. With those tools, his generation will certainly leave a better world to its children and grandchildren 50 years from now.

Take David Suzuki's Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

If so, this is one of the final barriers to use of U.S. funds for DDT use. Oddly, the news report offers no details on when or where the contract was made.

DDT use in Uganda was halted pending a suit by Uganda agricultural businesses to stop the spraying. The contract discussed would allow purchase of other insecticides to be used in place of DDT for IRS.

It's important to note that no environmental organizations have expressed opposition to the limited use of DDT in IRS applications. It may be significant to note that the programs involving indoor spraying fall into the category of integrated pest management, which is what Rachel Carson urged in her 1962 book, Silent Spring.

"The loss of a gipsy family’s home with no immediate prospect of replacement was capable in law of being regarded as a very special factor within para 3.2 of the Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 issued by the Secretary of State to local planning authorities. It was a factor to be weighed in the balance when considering the value society attached to the protection of gipsy homes against the public value of the protection of the Green Belt."

WLR Daily, 24th June 2008

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

Off the internet, serious scholars still work. SUNY Press published a compilation of lectures at Oregon State Univesrity commemorating the 40th anniversary of Carson's most famous book, Silent Spring. The new book, Rachel Carson: Legacy and Challenge is edited by Lisa Sideris and Kathleen Dean Moore.

The press release from the University of Indiana is below the fold.

Book Examines Legacy of Rachel Carson

Published on Jun 18, 2008 - 7:27:33 AM, YubaNet.com

By: Indiana University

Lisa Sideris

June 17, 2008 -- Rachel Carson is best known for Silent Spring, her 1962 book that changed Americans' thinking about the dangers of chemicals and inspired the environmental movement. But Carson had a long a varied career as a writer of books and articles that celebrated nature and science.

Rachel Carson: Legacy and Challenge, co-edited by Lisa H. Sideris, assistant professor of religious studies at Indiana University Bloomington, examines the contested influence of Silent Spring along with Carson's earlier work, such as The Sea Around Us and her posthumously published The Sense of Wonder.

"Rachel Carson's life work shows us how a sense of wonder can be a virtue, perhaps a keystone virtue in our time of reckless destruction, a source of decency, hope and restraint," write Sideris and co-editor Kathleen Dean Moore, distinguished professor of philosophy at Oregon State University.

Published by SUNY Press, Rachel Carson: Legacy and Challenge incorporates a range of perspectives, in keeping with Carson's own multidisciplinary approach. Contributors include a poet, a philosopher, an entomologist and scholars of ethics, history and gender. There are chapters by activists Terry Tempest Williams and Sandra Steingraber, leading voices on the dangers of nuclear waste and toxic chemicals.

The idea for the book grew out of a series of lectures at Oregon State in 2002 celebrating the 40th anniversary of the publication of Silent Spring. It appears shortly after the centennial of Carson's birth; she was born in 1907 and died from breast cancer in 1964.

"I think what's revolutionary about her was that she was really the first person to make the argument that humans have a moral obligation to nature. That's something we take for granted now," she said.

The book is divided into five parts, titled A Legacy of Activism and Advocacy, Ethics on Land and at Sea, Reflections on Gender and Science, An Ongoing Toxic Discourse and A Legacy of Wonder. One chapter addresses the continuing symbolic power of DDT. (Some critics accuse Carson of "genocide" for inspiring a ban on a pesticide that killed malaria-carrying mosquitoes). Another looks at the gender bias that Carson faced writing in the "man's world" of science; it is titled "Silence, Miss Carson!", the headline on a review of Silent Spring in Chemical and Engineering News.

Sideris contributes essays on the relationship between Carson's breast cancer and her understanding of the environment and on the religious aspects of her work. While Carson wasn't a regular churchgoer, the influence of her Presbyterian upbringing shows up in her criticism of humans as "puffed up with pride" in their attempts to control nature, Sideris said.

Carson's outrage over the destruction of nature, the book makes clear, grew directly from her appreciation of the beauty, complexity and mystery of the natural world. In 1956, six years before Silent Spring, Carson wrote an article, "Help Your Child to Wonder," for the magazine Woman's Home Companion. Published after Carson's death as The Sense of Wonder, that celebration of the healing power of nature and the moral significance of wonder "is really her last word," Sideris said.

The introductory chapter of Rachel Carson: Legacy and Challenge can be read online at the SUNY Press Web site, http://www.sunypress.edu.

Tip of the old scrub brush to YubaNet.com.

Chapter 11 setzt auch Richtlinien zur Enteignung. Demnach darf es dazu nur unter folgenden Bedingungen kommen:

a largely symbolic move unlikely to have any short-term impact on high gasoline costs.

Of course, off-shore drilling isn't the only forbidden activity that President Bush has just approved- he also approved drilling of 4400 wells in Wyoming and related energy mining activities on Federal land formerly protected by a large number of environmental regulations. In "Heedless Rush to Oil Shale" by Democratic Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado writes in the Washington Post:

Bush and his fellow oil shale boosters claim that if only Western communities would stand aside, energy companies could begin extracting more than 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil from domestic shale deposits. If only the federal government immediately offered even more public lands for development, the technology to extract oil from rock would suddenly ripen, oil supplies would rise and gas prices would fall.

If only.

Since the 19th century, we in the West have been trying to extract oil from the vast oil shale riches that lie under our feet. It is no easy task, and past efforts have failed miserably. Commercial oil shale development would require not only immense financial investments but also an undetermined quantity of (scarce) water from the Colorado River basin and the construction of several multibillion-dollar power plants.

Sometimes it seems that we are getting close to overcoming these barriers. But each time we near a boom, we bust. The last bust, the infamous "Black Sunday" of 1982, left Western communities holding the bill long after the speculators, Beltway boosters and energy companies had taken off.

Senator Salazar goes on to add:

The governors of Wyoming and Colorado, communities and editorial boards across the West agree that the administration's headlong rush is a terrible idea. Even energy companies, including Chevron, have said we need to proceed more cautiously on oil shale. With more than 30,000 acres of public land at their disposal to conduct research, development and demonstration projects (in addition to 200,000 undeveloped acres of private oil shale lands they own in Colorado and Utah), they already have more land than they can develop in the foreseeable future.

So why is the president hurrying to sell leases for commercial oil shale development in the West's great landscapes? A fire sale will not lower gas prices. It will not accelerate the development of commercial oil shale technologies.

Senator Salazar continues by saying that he supports the idea of developing technology for removing shale oil in a commercially feasible manner, something I would not be in favor of relative to solar and wind power, but he concludes that Federal land is being given away for no logical reason- not even the oil companies are making any promises about if and when shale oil from the Western US will become a viable commodity.

Returning to the subject of off-shore drilling, I think that this policy change will be considerably more than symbolic to the environment, even if it is only symbolic with regard to our national energy crisis. The construction of drilling platforms and the potential for oil spills, ruined beaches and dead fish and birds may well dwarf the wreck of the Exxon Valdez on March 23. 1989. Let's hope not, but let's also remember that the Exxon Valdez spill broke many Federal laws and some prosecution resulted (although, as shown below, the Supreme Court recently protected Exxon from significant financial punishment). The President and his corporate friends should be held to strict environmental standards that they haven't done well in following, historically: if President Bush's close friends in the oil industry keep up their poor track record of environmental protection and cause serious damage, they should be prosecuted.

In case some of the details of the Exxon Valdez case may need to be reviewed, here are a few worthwhile quotes and links to the original sources. In a case the went to the Supreme court and was resolved in June of 2008, Adam Liptak of The New York Times reported on June 26, 2008 that (note, you may have to sign up for a free registration to set the Times article)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reduced what had once been a $5 billion punitive damages award against Exxon Mobil to about $500 million. The ruling essentially concluded a legal saga that started when the Exxon Valdez, a supertanker, struck a reef and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into the Prince William Sound in Alaska in 1989.

From alternet.org:

The spilled oil -- somewhere between 11 to 38 million gallons (the figure is elusive because as we learned the hard way, the truth was one of the first casualties of the spill) -- created a big mess and broke a lot of federal laws. It shouldn't surprise anyone that Exxon paid $2.5 billion for its cleanup and another $1 billion for penalties. But, it might surprise people who live outside Alaska to learn that taxpayers, not Exxon, paid a majority of that bill. Exxon recouped most of its remaining expense from its insurance companies and from money it paid to settle damages for natural resources -- publicly-owned wildlife and lands.

From the State of Alaska and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council:

The Exxon Valdez spill, though still one of the largest ever in the U.S., has dropped from the top 50 internationally. However, it is widely considered the number one spill worldwide in terms of damage to the environment. The timing of the spill, the remote and spectacular location, the thousands of miles of rugged and wild shoreline, and the abundance of wildlife in the region combined to make it an environmental disaster well beyond the scope of other spills. Much has been accomplished over the years to prevent another Exxon Valdez-type accident. See the Spill Prevention and Response section of this website.

For more information about the environmental impact, case studies, legal history and science of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, this time from NOAA (the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration of the US Department of Commerce), see here.

Getting back to Monday's decision by President Bush and the Reuters story by Pelofsky and Dogget,

With prices at the pump over $4 a gallon, Bush pushed the Democratic-controlled Congress to expand offshore oil and natural gas drilling and give companies access to the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge despite fierce opposition from environmentalists.

However,

Democratic leaders in Congress and environmentalists immediately condemned the move as having have no short-term impact on soaring oil prices.

Of further note, from Reuters:

Democratic White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama's campaign quickly condemned the move. "It would merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years," spokesman Bill Burton said.

and

Republican White House contender Sen. John McCain, who reversed his previous opposition to offshore drilling, told reporters that he thought the decision was a "very important signal" and that "states should continue to decide."

Meanwhile, Japan, Germany, Spain, China and many other countries are cornering the market on fuel efficient cars, plug-in electric hybrid vehicles, solar power installations, wind power installations, and manufacturing plants required for producing solar panels, while the U.S. is left in the position of having many innovative companies but no significant tax support or other incentives to reduce our dependence on oil.

This latest act of poor judgment by the President is typical of his actions, where he has consistently fought and overturned environmental protections and the White House has ordered officials to ignore science and the environment in favor of big business. Some of these orders have come from Vice President Cheney's office, though he has been stealthy while interfering with the EPA and other agencies. For a 2007 report on the Vice President's role in hampering EPA efforts, see the Washington Post article "Leaving no Tracks" by Jo Becker and Barton Gellman:

Law and science seemed to be on the side of the fish. Then the vice president stepped in.

First Cheney looked for a way around the law, aides said. Next he set in motion a process to challenge the science protecting the fish, according to a former Oregon congressman who lobbied for the farmers.

Because of Cheney's intervention, the government reversed itself and let the water flow in time to save the 2002 growing season, declaring that there was no threat to the fish. What followed was the largest fish kill the West had ever seen, with tens of thousands of salmon rotting on the banks of the Klamath River.

Characteristically, Cheney left no tracks.

It is long overdue for the USA to develop a reasonable and sustainable energy policy that will diminish our dependence of oil, introduce sustainable energy and transportation on a large scale, and do so without damaging or adding threats to our health or environment. It is long overdue to rein in the the current administration's reign of international policy, environmental, and financial disasters.

Original text copyright © 2008 James K. Bashkin

Technorati Tags:off-shore drilling, president bush, environment, shale oil, new york times, exxon valdez, supreme court protects exxon, reuters, washington post, news, senator ken salazar (d colorado), environmental, green, federal land, fire-sale of federal land, drilling for natural gas in wyoming, no technology for shale oil, lack of sustainable energy policy in us, us energy policy, vice president cheney damages the environment, white house ignores science, errors of judgement by bush white house, sustainability, global warming, gas prices, new bush policies have no effect on gas prices
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

In einem Bericht aus dem Jahr 2004, der zum 10. Geburtstag der WTO verfasst worden ist, übt Greenpeace in 10 Punkten Kritik an der WTO (I). Besonders Interessent hierbei ist Punkt Nummer 6:

"a) Die Nichtberücksichtigung der Herstellungsverfahren im WTO-Regelwerk: Ohne eine nachhaltige Konsum- und Produktionspolitik fördert der Freihandel zahlreiche unnötige, billige Produkte. Dies erfordert die so genannte Gleichbehandlung von Produkten: Umweltfreundliche Produkte dürfen nicht besser gestellt werden als umweltschädliche. Label und Siegel können sogar als Handelshemmnisse eingestuft werden. So schwächen Freihandelsregeln die Möglichkeit, nachhaltige Produktionsweisen und Produkte durch eine entsprechende Kennzeichnung zu fördern.

b) Kernprinzipien des Umweltschutzes fehlen: Handelsabkommen respektieren nicht die Kernprinzipien, die seit Rio 1992 die Grundlage einer nachhaltigen Umweltpolitik bilden. Dazu zählen unter anderem die Haftung und Entschädigung für nachteilige Auswirkungen von Umweltschäden, das Vorsorgeprinzip, die Internationalisierung von Umweltkosten und die Durchführung von Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfungen.

c) Umweltschädliche Subventionen bestehen fort: Obwohl Subventionen dem Geist des Freihandels widersprechen, gehen internationale Handelsregeln nicht oder nicht konsequent genug gegen umweltschädliche Subventionen zum Beispiel in der Landwirtschaft oder Fischerei vor.

d) Handelsrecht vor Umweltrecht: Das Handelsrecht bildet ein eigenes Rechtsregime, das mit dem internationalen Umweltabkommen nicht abgeglichen ist. Aufgrund der Tatsache, dass die WTO ihr Handelsrecht mittels des Streitfallverfahrens durchsetzen kann, dominiert das Handelsregime vor internationalem Umweltrecht, somit kann die WTO multilaterale Umweltabkommen aushebeln." 

Hier werden die Mängel der WTO in der Umweltpolitik zusammengefasst. Demnach hat der freie Handel immer noch oberste Priorität und es wird kaum Rücksicht auf Umweltschutz genommen. Dies mag damit zu tun haben, dass die WTO auf dem veralteten GATT Regelwerk von 1947 basiert, wo noch "das Prinzip der Gleichbehandlung der Handelspartner (Meistbegünstigung) und das Prinzip der Gleichbehandlung der Waren (Inländerbehandlung)" (II) gilt. Es wird Staaten also zum einen erschwert, den Import von Waren aus Umweltschutzgründen zu verbieten und zum anderen unterscheidet die WTO in keiner Weise zwischen Waren mit ökologisch einwandfreier und Waren mit ökologisch bedenklicher Herkunft. Um dies zu ändern und den Welthandel endlich besser mit dem Umweltschutz zu vereinbaren, gibt es viele verschiedene Forderungen:

1. Radikale Kräfte fordern die Abschaffung der WTO und eine neue Welthandelsordnung (III)

2. Gemäßigte Stimmen fordern "die Zulassung umweltpolitisch motivierter Handelsmaßnahmen als Instrument zur Realisierung  umweltpolitischer Ziele und die rechtlich verbindliche Regelung des Vorrangs umweltpolitischer Handelsmaßnahmen auf der Grundlage internationaler Umweltschutzabkommen" (IV)

3. Greenpeace fordert die WTO auf, Umwelt und Menschenrecht nicht länger "ökonomischen Erwägungen" (V) unterzuordnen

In einer Zeit, in der natürliche Ressourcen knapper und Umweltschäden, zum Beispiel durch häufiger auftretende Wetterextreme, spürbarer werden, steht auch die WTO in der Pflicht, sich in Sachen Umwelt den neuen Gegebenheiten anzupassen. Allerdings bleibt hierbei fraglich, ob sie dies überhaupt will und kann. Denn in erster Linie vertritt die WTO immer noch die Interessen der Wirtschaft, so dass sie sich wohl im Zweifelsfall eher für den freien Handel als für Umweltschutzmaßnahmen, die jenen einschränken könnten, entscheiden würde.

Meiner Meinung nach liegt eine Lösung des Problems in den Händen der UN. Diese müsste das Thema Umweltschutz stärker forcieren und verbindliche Richtlinien für alle Mitgliedsstaaten aufstellen, so dass es erst gar nicht zu "green protectionism", also zu ökologisch begründeten Handelsbarrieren, kommt. Dies scheint  auf Grund der Vielzahl der Interessen und des breiten Meinungsspektrums, das in den Vereinten Nationen vertreten ist, jedoch eher unwahrscheinlich. Noch dazu zeigt zum Beispiel die Debatte um Emissionsbeschränkungen und den Klimaschutz, wie langwierig und zäh multilaterale Verhandlungen sein können. Eine baldige Lösung des Konflikts zwischen Welthandel und Umweltschutz ist also nicht in Sicht.

Quellen:

I, II, V : http://www.greenpeace.de/themen/umwelt_wirtschaft/wto/artikel/10_jahre_wto_10_kapitale_fehler_im_system/

III, IV:

Pfahl, Stefanie. 2000. Internationaler Handel und Umweltschutz. Zielkonflikte und Ansatzpunkte des Interessenausgleichs. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag.

http://www.blaetter.de/artikel.php?pr=2845

Fred Meyer extends beef recall to Northwest - Tri-city Herald – 7/2/08
”The Kroger Co. expanded its voluntary recall of some ground beef products beyond stores in Michigan and parts of Ohio to its stores in more than 20 states today, including such outlets as Fred Meyer and QFC in Oregon.”

Where have all the bees gone? - Oregonian – 6/28/08
”A dramatic decline in bees could be devastating for crops throughout the state. The value of Oregon crops dependent on bee pollination was more than $457 million in 2007, according to information from Oregon State University.”

Student encourages change in attitudes - Oregonian – 6/28/08
”The lack of diversity translates into a lack of cultural awareness and ability to interact with minorities. Once students leave places like Lake Oswego, they'll be confronted with diversity and not know what is and isn't culturally insensitive.”

“America’s Favorite” vegan cookbook author moves to Portland - Portland Mercury – 6/26/08
”Moskowitz's recent move to Portland may go a long way in helping her create more delicious vegan recipes. Though reluctant to leave Brooklyn, she was seduced by Portland's livability, natural beauty, and, of all things, the french fries at Dot's on SE Clinton.”

More local businesses going green - Oregonian – 6/26/08
”The [green] philosophy has not only caught on as a popular ethos, but it also benefits businesses by helping them ultimately save money, enhance the work environment and attract customers.”

Portlanders enjoy first vegan prom - Oregonian – 6/26/08
“The prom fits Portland's reputation as one of the nation's most vegan-friendly cities. There's a vegan tattoo artist (he doesn't use ink made with glycerin or animal bones), a vegan bodybuilder (he travels the world giving lectures about bulking up without meat), a vegan blogger (she recently won a "Veg Bloggy" award), even a guy in a slimming black gown who has "vegan" tattooed in superhero font across his shaved head.”

Reporter tries vegan for a week - West Linn Tidings – 6/26/08
“Some people regard veganism as restrictive, but we actually found it opened options for us. We ate foods we had previously ignored, like grains and legumes.”

For an annotated list of recent national/international stories, check out a recent post from Humane Connection.

~ Marsha

Now, interior design isn't a subject in which I'm engaged, but the fact that this girl, a PSU student, new so much about substituting regular design practices with efficient sustainability measures made me think just how important conservation is to college students around the country. This notion was only solidified when some dude sitting across the aisle from me -- diagonally from said girl -- chimed in with his student expertise in sustainable architecture, the very subject he was on his way to take a final exam for at Portland Community College: Sylvania.

Being the social chameleon I am, I had to get involved in this discussion. I mentioned sustainability clients the ad/pr agency I work for represented and the use of sustainable materials that went into the construction of Cafe Yumm! franchise models (my former employer) in Eugene, Ore.

What really caught my eye was that we were three twentysomethings engaged in this political conversation while riding the bus, a green effort in itself, and that no one around us really took an interest. In fact, we probably pissed more people off with our discussion than inspired others to join in. I wonder though, did the fellow TriMet riders not care about sustainability enough to talk about it? Was it because they were tired from their work day or because most of the riders were older and perhaps weren't paying as much attention to this subject, unlike young college-aged students who grew up in households where recycling was stressed and are now studying sustainability because it leads to both profitable and good-natured (pun intended) careers?

Good afternoon to everyone in DCNR.

To say these are trying times is an understatement. State revenues continue to be weak, resulting in the need for DCNR’s administration and budget staff to evaluate further cuts for the 2009 fiscal year as well as the next biennium (more below). These reductions have the potential to fundamentally change the way we do business and achieve our agency mandates. I will continue to work with the agency administrators to identify the necessary budget reductions while still providing essential services to our customers and regulated communities.

I would like to thank DCNR’s Deputy Director, Kay Scherer for her hard work and professionalism in understanding the extremely complicated reduction directives and guiding us through this process. It is critical we make our reductions in a logical and strategic way, understanding the implications to our programs, employees and Nevada’s citizens. I want to make this process as transparent as possible and keep the lines of communication open with all DCNR employees.

Allen Biaggi
Director

Budget update

The fiscal situation heading into FY 09 has worsened and the Budget Office has asked the Department and its agencies to identify by Friday, June 20, additional reductions for the fiscal year beginning July 1.

In addition, the Governor has called the Nevada Legislature into special session beginning Monday, June 23, to consider the state’s significant revenue challenges, identify potential solutions and act on some of these ideas. The agenda for the special session has not been announced at the time I am sending this email, but the media has said sources define it as a broad agenda.

Beyond that, I have not been provided any specifics other than the speculations that all of us can read about in the news, including potential postponement of employee cost of living increases.

Our goal is to do everything possible to keep you employed in the Department, perhaps by holding open positions that come vacant to add to cost savings, or identifying open positions in the same class elsewhere within the department for transfer.

With regard to the special session of the Nevada Legislature, keep in mind that all options are on the table. As a result you may hear some outlandish and even disturbing proposals brought forward. Don’t panic. Keep in mind the legislative process is one of compromise and usually the extremes are moderated in the end. If nothing else it should be a fascinating process to watch.

Pam Wilcox retires

On Friday, June 27, Pam Wilcox will serve her last day as a state administrator, a role she has held for 28 years. I will certainly miss Pam, and I wish her the very best in her retirement. Pam has skillfully led the divisions of State Lands (including the land office, land use planning, Question 1 team and Tahoe team) and Conservation Districts.

Since Pam announced her retirement many individuals have expressed their admiration and best wishes for the future. Individuals have told me to “wish Pam the best and thank her for all her good service and good humor” and “Pam has dealt with many complex issues affecting Nevada. She always contributes well to solutions because of her clear, logical thinking. She uses this thinking to deliver answers in simple to understand and straight forward language. She will be missed.”

I welcome Jim Lawrence, the current deputy administrator, as the new administrator of State Lands and acting administrator of Conservation Districts. Jim has been with State Lands for nine years.

Climate change draft report

A number of DCNR personnel have been working diligently to help draft a report requested by Governor Gibbons on climate change in Nevada and what Nevada can do to help address the issue.

The draft document should be posted online this week for a 30-day public review and comment. It will be available on the State Energy Office’s website.

State Parks receives a solar utility vehicle from BP

ARCO and its parent company BP are donating a solar SUV buggy to the Nevada Division of State Parks. Governor Jim Gibbons and personnel from DCNR will be at Spring Mountain Ranch State Park on Wednesday to accept the vehicle from the energy company.

This vehicle will be a tremendous asset to help manage the 520 acres at Spring Mountain Ranch. Parks personnel will be using it to help maintain the park, for demonstrations at the Earth fair and for educational purposes to the numerous school groups that visit the ranch. Alternative technologies such as this must be the way of the future in the face of environmental impacts and the high costs of fuel. I am thrilled that State Parks will play a role in the demonstration of this new technology.

Water hearing scheduled

The Division of Water Resources is holding the last of three hearings over water right applications filed by the Las Vegas Valley Water District to import water from rural Nevada counties into Las Vegas.

As you know, this has been a contentious issue that has received worldwide attention. The Department’s role is to remain objective and fulfill its statutory obligations. Specifically, State Engineer Tracy Taylor is tasked with deciding how much water can be appropriated in these applications that were filed for unappropriated water.

State water law maintains that Nevada’s water belongs to the state, in trust for our citizens, and transferring water from one region to another has historic roots beginning mostly notably with the Marlette water system which transferred water into Virginia City during the mining boom of the late 1800s. That water system is still in service today.

The Las Vegas pipeline project is different in magnitude, however, and so far two hearings have been held to determine how much ground water is appropriate to allocate to the project. I commend the State Engineer and his staff in the Division of Water Resources for continuing to handle these high-profile hearings with objectivity, fairness, professionalism and within the confines of state law.

The third hearing, covering Snake Valley in eastern Nevada, begins with a one-day hearing schedule for July 15 at the Legislature. The full hearing will commence probably in early 2009.

Environmental Protection participated in Vigilant Guard exercise

The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) activated its Emergency Operations Center (EOC) June 12 and 13 as part of the State of Nevada’s Vigilant Guard 2008 emergency response exercise. State and local exercise planners, along with Nevada Emergency Support Function personnel, developed a large-scale realistic scenario dealing with the effects and aftermath of a catastrophic earthquake in the Reno-Sparks-Carson City-Lake Tahoe area. For NDEP personnel, the challenges included damage to water and wastewater facilities; potential releases of contaminants to the air, soil and groundwater; disruption of electric and natural gas service; hazardous materials spills; and assessment and disposal of contaminants hidden among the rubble.

NDEP’s EOC worked in conjunction with the State of Nevada’s EOC, the Joint Information Center and five other local EOCs in a coordinated response to the simulated disaster.

The goal of the exercise was to evaluate and refine emergency response procedures, so responders will be better prepared in the event of a real emergency.
Sign up
You may sign up to receive the Department’s news as it happens. Subscribe to receive the news by email.
You can also now follow departmental updates on Twitter: http://twitter.com/NevDCNR.

Umweltschutz und nachhaltige Entwicklung sind Grundsätze der WTO. Sie fordert ihre Mitglieder auf, dem Freihandel offen gegenüber zu stehen, ohne dabei den Umweltschutz aus den Augen zu verlieren, da beide nach Ansicht der WTO miteinander verkuppelt sind. Denn nur durch freien Handel ist eine effiziente Ressourcennutzung möglich, die wiederum zu Wirtschaftswachstum und steigendem Wohlstand führt, wovon letztendlich die Umwelt profitiert: "An important element of the WTO’s contribution to sustainable development and protection of the environment comes in the form of furthering trade opening in goods and services to promote economic development, and by providing stable and predictable conditions that enhance the possibility of innovation. This promotes the efficient allocation of resources, economic growth and increased income levels that in turn provide additional possibilities for protecting the environment." (I)

Damit das erreicht werden kann, ist es wichtig das richtige Maß zwischen nationalen Umweltschutzgesetzen und Freihandel zu finden. Den sog. "green protectionism" (II) zu verhindern ist eine Aufgabe des von der WTO geschaffenen Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE). Umweltschutzstandards sollen nicht abgeschwächt, sondern müssen sinnvoll gesetzt werden, da sonst die Gefahr der Entstehung von Handelsbarrieren droht. Die richtige Balanz gilt dann als gegeben, wenn trotz Umweltschutzregelungen folgende Grundsätze befolgt werden:

• consistent with WTO rules
• take into account capabilities of developing countries
• meet the legitimate objectives of the importing country (III)

Hierbei handelt es sich jedoch nur um Grundsätze und keine feste Regelung. Bezüglich des Umweltschutzes lässt sich eine solche im GATT Artikel XX (b) und (g) finden. Gemäß diesem Artikel ist ein WTO Mitgliedsstaat bei Maßnahmen, die " necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health" (b) oder "relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption" (g) sind, von seiner vertraglichen Verpflichtungen entbunden.

Wie das in der Praxis aussehen kann, zeigt zum Beispiel der sog. "US-Shrimp" Fall: Die USA verhängten, u.a. auch weil dies amerikanischen Fischern schon seit einiger Zeit nicht mehr erlaubt war, ein Importverbot auf Shrimps, die mit Netzen gefangen worden waren, die auch für Schildkröten eine Gefahr darstellten. Dagegen legten Indien, Thailand, Malaysia und Pakistan gemeinsam Beschwerde bei der WTO ein, weil sie sich in ihrer Exporttätigkeit gehindert sahen. Letztendlich wurde diesen Staaten auch Recht gesprochen, da die USA karibischen Staaten längere Fristen zur Umstellung auf neue Fangmethoden und noch dazu technische Unterstützung bei der Umrüstung gewährt hatte, was als eine klare Benachteiligung der Kläger galt. Gleichzeitig wurde klargestellt, dass der Schutz der Schildkröten unter GATT Artikel XX (g) falle. Hätten die USA karibische Staaten nicht begünstigt, dann wäre ihr Importverbot für Shrimps aus Südostasien also rechtens gewesen.

Quellen: (I) http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/envt_intro_e.htm

              (II) http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/envir_req_e.htm

             (III) http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/envir_req_e.htm

Ba did zootechny in foible an strange plywood during the Dublin Laminated glass Kermis. Oneself is in lock-step with unlimited as regards my favourite directors- Werner Herzog and astral influences lone anent my favourite present-time actors- Unstained Superincumbency.

Bear a hand Establishment is incidental to the subject regarding Dieter Dengler. A German who decisive male person hoped-for into mite in what period you verse US fighers shut down thus and so hierarchy were cover his hometown now All creation Struggle II.

Across his smallest blitz at the dawn touching the renitency hombre was Wirephoto tuck in upside down Vietnam. Homme survived save was captured and behind bars. Subliminal self's a predominant course with regard to butt end and quantitative is closely reminded with respect to Disposition at any rate. Highly respectable Overload is fancied and irreparable a pickle with regard to infliction for flirt the puny Dengler. So favor seeing is Herzog's educational film close upon Dengler- Despicable Dieter Needs Over against Slip.

Spirit this morning not rather the while the picture show relentlessness move scot-free. Thus and so as regards nonetheless other self has incompletely been attested at festivals.

Published quarterly in English and Turkish since 1991, Ekoloji is the first and leading Turkish scientific journal in the environmental field. "Its coverage extends to all environmentally related issues: air, water, solid waste, noise, recycling, natural resources, ecology, education and environmental protection. It includes articles on basic and applied environmental pollution research, including environmental engineering and environmental health."

(from http://www.ekolojidergisi.com.tr/?s=icerik&id=9&lang=eng)

The primary criteria for publishing on Ekoloji are scientific quality and ecological/environmental significance. Further instructions for authors can be found at http://www.ekolojidergisi.com.tr/?s=icerik&id=11&lang=eng