UVic has bunnies, UofO has chickens (at least when there are crazy hippie buses parked outside the law school :)
Saturday, February 28, 2009
chick-chick-chickens!
UVic has bunnies, UofO has chickens (at least when there are crazy hippie buses parked outside the law school :)
toxic chemicals and why we need to "design with complete intention"
I went to hear Claudia Polsky speak about the use and effects of toxic chemicals in consumer products. On top of being a talented and engaging presenter, she was a very good educator and presented some convincing and seemingly balanced information.
What are the effects of using all these toxic chemicals? The cause-effect relationship is often not 100% direct, but the take home point is that toxics that we produce and use are having a lot of long term effects on us and all other living things in our ecosphere. The overarching problem is that we do not and often cannot anticipate all of the effects that these chemicals will have.
One oft-cited example of the effects of toxic bioaccumulation are beached, dead whales that need to be disposed of according to biohazard procedures. A new example that Claudia gave was that one in 50 female polar bears are now hermaphrodites as a result of hormonal disruption.
Just trace amounts of copper, released through the use of car brake pads, cause salmon to lose their sense of smell and therefore their ability to detect predators.
Bioaccumulation of flame retardants in peregrine falcon eggs is causing neurological/ behavioural changes so severe that the birds no longer know how to care for their young properly.
In humans, some of the indicators of toxic contamination are measured through (the skyrocketing) rates of cancer and autism. Good quote from Claudia: “Why do we ‘race for the cure’ but crawl toward prevention?”
Why is it happening? Short answer: because we don’t know any better and we do not follow the precautionary principle. Many chemicals are used in products and/or added to food before we know that they are or will be problematic. There are also a lot of economic reasons. Also, the more geographically dispersed a supply chain is, the less regulatory control there is over chemicals added to the product or used in the production process.
What can be done? The US has a very poor federal statute that grandfathers 62,000 chemicals and gives the EPA virtually no ability to regulate chemicals. As a result, some of the progressive states (i.e. Cali) have been passing individual chemical bans. There are many limitations to this approach: labourious, too many chemicals and too few banning bills, often leads to regrettable substitutes that cause more problems.
Currently Cali has two bills that establish broad authority for the state to regulate chemicals and establish information sharing and research initiatives to advance both industry and consumer knowledge.
Other pressures for reform come through data on bioaccumulation effects, the increased number of consumer recalls, and the advances of other jurisdictions (e.g. EU adopted “REACH” program where if there is not enough data on the chemical then it will not be permitted on the market).
‘The Market’ plays a pivotal role in what and how chemicals are used. Until there is more complete information about toxic chemical effects in the market, it will continue to send false cost signals and perpetrate poor health and long term cost choices.
Another big next step is to mandate ingredient disclosure on all consumer products. The more we know, the better choices we can make for our own health… theoretically. A good example of this is in NY where they passed a law requiring nutrition information be disclosed at restaurants. Once people knew a frappuccino had 600 calories and 23g fat (why was this a big surprise?!) and stopped buying it, Starbucks responded by developing the 250 calorie, 2g fat Vivano. Changes? People are a little healthier, no change in revenues, no jobs lost. The market can adjust and will respond to better information on toxic chemicals used in our products and food.
Big lesson: we need to know more, employ our knowledge, err on the side of precaution and “design with complete intention.”
What are the effects of using all these toxic chemicals? The cause-effect relationship is often not 100% direct, but the take home point is that toxics that we produce and use are having a lot of long term effects on us and all other living things in our ecosphere. The overarching problem is that we do not and often cannot anticipate all of the effects that these chemicals will have.
One oft-cited example of the effects of toxic bioaccumulation are beached, dead whales that need to be disposed of according to biohazard procedures. A new example that Claudia gave was that one in 50 female polar bears are now hermaphrodites as a result of hormonal disruption.
Just trace amounts of copper, released through the use of car brake pads, cause salmon to lose their sense of smell and therefore their ability to detect predators.
Bioaccumulation of flame retardants in peregrine falcon eggs is causing neurological/ behavioural changes so severe that the birds no longer know how to care for their young properly.
In humans, some of the indicators of toxic contamination are measured through (the skyrocketing) rates of cancer and autism. Good quote from Claudia: “Why do we ‘race for the cure’ but crawl toward prevention?”
Why is it happening? Short answer: because we don’t know any better and we do not follow the precautionary principle. Many chemicals are used in products and/or added to food before we know that they are or will be problematic. There are also a lot of economic reasons. Also, the more geographically dispersed a supply chain is, the less regulatory control there is over chemicals added to the product or used in the production process.
What can be done? The US has a very poor federal statute that grandfathers 62,000 chemicals and gives the EPA virtually no ability to regulate chemicals. As a result, some of the progressive states (i.e. Cali) have been passing individual chemical bans. There are many limitations to this approach: labourious, too many chemicals and too few banning bills, often leads to regrettable substitutes that cause more problems.
Currently Cali has two bills that establish broad authority for the state to regulate chemicals and establish information sharing and research initiatives to advance both industry and consumer knowledge.
Other pressures for reform come through data on bioaccumulation effects, the increased number of consumer recalls, and the advances of other jurisdictions (e.g. EU adopted “REACH” program where if there is not enough data on the chemical then it will not be permitted on the market).
‘The Market’ plays a pivotal role in what and how chemicals are used. Until there is more complete information about toxic chemical effects in the market, it will continue to send false cost signals and perpetrate poor health and long term cost choices.
Another big next step is to mandate ingredient disclosure on all consumer products. The more we know, the better choices we can make for our own health… theoretically. A good example of this is in NY where they passed a law requiring nutrition information be disclosed at restaurants. Once people knew a frappuccino had 600 calories and 23g fat (why was this a big surprise?!) and stopped buying it, Starbucks responded by developing the 250 calorie, 2g fat Vivano. Changes? People are a little healthier, no change in revenues, no jobs lost. The market can adjust and will respond to better information on toxic chemicals used in our products and food.
Big lesson: we need to know more, employ our knowledge, err on the side of precaution and “design with complete intention.”
friday photo dump
Checking out some of the booths.
Taking advantage of the free coffee.
ELC director Claire Hutton in an international panel moderated by ELC Legal Director Calvin Sandborn.
The session (above) on Indigenous enforcement of environmental laws was packed to the windows, to the walls.
The future.
You can't be an Environmentalist without getting a Vasectomy.
The conference is awesome. My favourite feature is the extremists. They range from proselytizing vegetarians -- "You can't be a meat-eating environmentalist." -- to voluntary human extinction advocates who distribute bumper stickers that say "Thank you for not breeding." and "Vasectomy prevents Abortion." The extinction people also have a double-sided handout with 3 columns: reasons people say they want to have babies; the corresponding *real* reason they want to have babies; and suggested alternatives. There are over 30 reasons listed, such as "Pregnancy and childbirth are life experiences", which *really* means "My life choices have been limited by social indoctrination", to which the suggested alternative is "Rent a pregnancy simulator and choose different life experiences."
I like extremists because they make me think "I wouldn't do that, but I guess I could do this" -- "this" being something moderate along the same lines. Extremists give me ideas I would never have otherwise.
Today's lunch time keynote speaker is Derrick Jensen, who -- if I understand correctly -- thinks we should bring an end to our current industrial civilization because it's unsustainable. I genuinely can't wait.
-Mike
Friday, February 27, 2009
Environmental Assessment around the world
This session was riveting for anyone waist-deep in environmental impact assessment (EIA) research – e.g., me. The multi-national panelists discussed the problems encountered in EIA in their respective countries. Marketa Visinkova, a lawyer practicing in the Czech Republic, noted that during the initial screening process, nearly all projects are determined not to require any EIA. The reasons given for these decisions are sparse. Visinkova also explained the phenomenon of ‘salami slicing’: assessing mega projects as several smaller projects. She gave the example of a highway assessed and built as several small stretches of road so that cumulative impacts were never studied. When it came time to assess the highway passing through a highly sensitive area where impacts would be large, the road had already been built behind and ahead of the area – this was the last stretch of highway to be built and by that time the project could not be stopped.
Interestingly, a similar thing happens to projects in Canada, although none of the panelists were from Canada or had studied Canadian EIA.
One common theme among the panelists was the importance of public participation in EIA. Unfortunately, in many countries, the knowledge of local and indigenous peoples is undervalued or ignored. I suppose we should be thankful that at least, in Canada, people are not forced off their land at gunpoint.
*****
Unrelated note: there is no internet access in the rooms - only at school and in the hotel lobby - so updates may not be as frequent as we would like.
Also, everyone is accounted for as of this afternoon!
Day One (lunch break)
Most of us met for lunch at the Holy Cow Cafe. The food here is ridiculously good.
The morning panels were awesome; we spread out to cover as many topics as we could.
That rhyme was unintentional.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
prologue
Tomorrow the first wave of students will advance, leaving Victoria early in the morning. They will arrive at the beautiful University of Oregon in time to see the stellar keynote speakers. Gradually, carload after carload will arrive (carbon offset, of course), until by the next morning, we number 38 strong. This is by far the most students we have ever taken to the PIELC, and we hope Eugene is ready for us.
What unites these 38 people? For some it's a passion for public interest law; for others it's a passion for frisbee. Some seek knowledge; some seek rejuvenation and a renewed enthusiasm for legal studies; others simply seek reassurance that law school was not a terrible decision.
Right now we’re making final preparations: packing bags, checking maps, circling sessions in the conference program. Depending on internet access, we hope to log in frequently and allow everyone to share their stories and experiences.
What unites these 38 people? For some it's a passion for public interest law; for others it's a passion for frisbee. Some seek knowledge; some seek rejuvenation and a renewed enthusiasm for legal studies; others simply seek reassurance that law school was not a terrible decision.
Right now we’re making final preparations: packing bags, checking maps, circling sessions in the conference program. Depending on internet access, we hope to log in frequently and allow everyone to share their stories and experiences.
Like last year, our goal for this blog is to be informative and fun. There are some budding photographers in our group too, so we hope to throw in a few photos.
Finally, we’d like to thank our generous sponsors, the Law Foundation of British Columbia and, indirectly, the TULA foundation, for making this trip possible.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
