Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Going Forward: Global Hazardous Waste Ban Advances
The United States, the world's top exporter of electronic waste, is among nations that have not ratified the original convention
More than 170 countries have agreed to accelerate adoption of a global ban on the export of hazardous wastes, including old electronics, to developing countries.
Burning television at the dump outside of Alaba market, Lagos, Nigeria. ©2006 Basel Action Network (BAN) The environmental group Basel Action Network called Friday's deal, which was brokered by Switzerland and Indonesia, a major breakthrough.
"I'm ecstatic," said its executive director, Jim Puckett. "I've been working on this since 1989 and it really does look like the shackles are lifted and we'll see this thing happen in my lifetime."
The deal seeks to ensure that developing countries no longer become dumping groups for toxic waste including industrial chemicals, discarded computers and mobile phones and obsolete ships laden with asbestos, he said.
Delegates at the UN environmental conference in Cartagena agreed the ban should take effect as soon as 17 more countries ratify an amendment to the so-called 1989 Basel Convention.
"This agreement was stalled for the past 15 years," Colombia's environment minister, Frank Pearl, said in praising the vote.
Katharina Kummer, the convention's executive secretary, estimated it would take five years to reach the required 68 ratifying nations. Puckett said he thought it would be closer to two years.
Fifty-one nations have already ratified the 1995 amendment, which effectively enforces the Basel Convention, a treaty aimed at making nations manage their waste at home rather than send it overseas.
The United States, the world's top exporter of electronic waste, is among nations that have not ratified the original convention.
"Unless the US joins the treaty they are just going to be a renegade," Puckett said, adding that the US had no rules for exporting electronic waste, which it sends mostly to China but also to Africa and Latin America.
The global ban has been strongly backed by African countries, China and the European Union, which already prohibits toxic exports and Puckett said Colombia played a strong role in Friday's breakthrough.
Opponents have been led by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, and recently joined by India, said Puckett.
But in Cartagena, he said, Japan's position softened from 2008, when parties to the convention held their last meeting in Bali. It ended in a stalemate.
The issue took centre stage in 2006 when hundreds of tonnes of waste were dumped around the Ivory Coast's main city of Abidjan, killing at least 10 people and sickening tens of thousands.
The waste came from a tanker chartered by the Dutch commodities trading company Trafigura Beheer BV, which had contracted with a local company to dispose of the waste.
Puckett said shipping companies had opposed inclusion in the ban, wanting to keep sending old ships to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh to scrap them.
"Just about four days ago another six people died on the beaches of Bangladesh," he said.
He told AP there were no reliable estimates on how many tonnes of toxic waste were exported annually because developed nations did not accurately report them.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
14 Comments so far
Show AllIncremental steps to sanity. YAY. Occupy Wall Street: End Toxic Waste
.
Gitta wrote:
Incremental steps to sanity. YAY. Occupy Wall Street: End Toxic Waste .
* * * * *
My Comment:
Letters to Congress and the President, petitions, and even casting a measly, pathetic Plurality Voting vote are not likely to be at all effective in the absence of strikes and serious agitation in the streets.
.
Gitta wrote:
Incremental steps to sanity. YAY. Occupy Wall Street: End Toxic Waste
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Going Forward: Gobal Hazardous Waste Ban Advances", The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) October 22, 2011:
The United States, the world's top exporter of electronic waste, is among nations that have not ratified the original convention.
"Unless the US joins the treaty they are just going to be a renegade," Puckett said, adding that the US had no rules for exporting electronic waste, which it sends mostly to China but also to Africa and Latin America.
The global ban has been strongly backed by African countries, China and the European Union, which already prohibits toxic exports and Puckett said Colombia played a strong role in Friday's breakthrough.
Opponents have been led by Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, and recently joined by India, said Puckett.
* * * * *
My Comment:
Ratification of the Basel Convention banning the export of hazaradous waste to developing countries would stimulate the transformation of the materials economy from a "cradle to grave" manufacturing system to a "cradle to cradle" manufacturing system.
Occupy Wall Street!
Occupy Everywhere!
Demand ratification of the Basel Convention!
Demand a "cradle to cradle" manufacturing system!
End Toxic Waste!
- -
See also: The Story of Stuff by Annie Leonard.
YouTube URL: www.youtube.com/storyofstuffproject#p/u/22/9GorqroigqM
Good Lord: morality-101, and the United States has stalled for 15 years! As bad as electronics and asbestos debris are, the biggest elephant in the room is nuclear wastes --given the failure of the Yucca Mountain project and the many square miles of contaminated everything around Fukushima. This movement must emphasize strong initiatives for stopping the generation wastes in the first place. ** Sadly: one such effort is going down to failure on Sunday (October 23rd) for lack of only 800 signatures --on the White House petition to "end taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactors" (that phrase Googles) at: wh.gov/gfN
.
_Craigster_ in part wrote:
This movement must emphasize strong initiatives for stopping the generation wastes in the first place. ** Sadly: one such effort is going down to failure on Sunday (October 23rd) for lack of only 800 signatures --on the White House petition to "end taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactors" (that phrase Googles) at: wh.gov/gfN
- - - - -
Excerpt from “We The People: Your Voice In Our Government” , White House petition website:
"When I ran for this office, I pledged to make government more open and accountable to its citizens. That’s what the new We the People feature on WhiteHouse.gov is all about – giving Americans a direct line to the White House on the issues and concerns that matter most to them.”
– President Barack Obama
- - - - -
Excerpt from “We The People: Your Voice In Our Government” , White House petition website:
Only petitions that reach a certain number of signatures, or “threshold,” within a given amount of time will generate an official response. Thresholds are subject to change, but changes will not be applied retroactively.
The current threshold is 25,000 signatures within 30 days.
* * * * *
My Reply:
_Craigster_ ,
I wouldn't describe a petition to the White House, on the White House web site, calling for an "end [to] taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactors", where the White House will respond with some sort of answer if 5,000 or 25,000 people sign the petition, as one example of "strong initiatives for stopping the generation of wastes in the first place."
Nevertheless, I searched for the White House petition you mentioned and would have signed it, but I couldn't find it.
This was sort of weird actually, since the URL displayed when I got to the White House petition website was https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/end-taxpayer-subsidies-new-nuclear-reactors/nx1cDPsK, but no petition text was displayed, either before or after I signed in.
For what it's worth, even though the petition you mentioned isn't likely to get the necessary signatures for an official White House response, I expect that if anyone in the White House bothers to pay any attention at all to the email / webmail sent to the White House in order to gauge the intensity of public opinion, then they probably also pay at least some attention to White House petitions with 24,200 or even 4,200 signatures.
Paying attention to public opinion may be useful when crafting propaganda, after all.
In fact, the “We The People: Your Voice In Our Government” White House petition website is itself a propaganda tool that encourages people to believe that the White House will actually listen and act on the interests and concerns of the people, even when those interests and concerns conflict with the interests of powerful and wealthy people who control powerful corporations and the people have done nothing more than petition their government.
So, in an effort to help the White House further craft their propaganda, I did find and sign the following two petitions at the White House petition website, https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions:
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Put a fee on carbon-based fuels and return revenue to households.
We believe the Obama Administration should propose legislation that would place a gradually-increasing fee on carbon-based fuels and return the revenue from that fee to American consumers. Such a fee would motivate private investment in clean energy and energy efficiency, creating new jobs and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change. Returning revenue to consumers would shield households from the economic impact of rising energy costs associated with the carbon fee.
Created: Sep 28, 2011
Issues: Climate Change, Energy, Job Creation
- - - - -
WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Reject the Keystone XL Pipeline
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline threatens our water, our land, and our future. If permitted and constructed, the pipeline would further fuel the devastating extraction of tar sands in Alberta, and funnel highly toxic tar sands oil across the U.S.
Big Oil has exploited the Canadian tar sands to great profit, but the environment and indigenous communities have paid a steep price.
The threat that pipeline spills pose to our land and water supplies is simply unacceptable.
Additionally, tar sands oil produces three times as much carbon pollution as conventional oil. We have a moral obligation to prevent the expansion of the tar sands and move towards a 100% clean energy future.
Please reject the Keystone XL permit and invest in real solutions to our climate and energy crisis.
Created: Sep 22, 2011
Issues: Climate Change, Energy, Environment
Thanks.
P.S.
People who would like to sign a petition can click on White House petition website. Once there, click on the Open Petitions tab. I recommend clicking on the green Filter By Issue drop down arrow button and selecting an issue category, for example Energy by clicking on the check box next to the category, and visually searching through the list for the petitions of your choice. Alternatively, there is a green Search drop down arrow button that displays a text box for a search based upon a text string.
White House petition website URL:https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions
.
_Craigster_ in part wrote:
Good Lord: morality-101, and the United States has stalled for 15 years! As bad as electronics and asbestos debris are, the biggest elephant in the room is nuclear wastes --given the failure of the Yucca Mountain project and the many square miles of contaminated everything around Fukushima. This movement must emphasize strong initiatives for stopping the generation wastes in the first place. ** Sadly: one such effort is going down to failure on Sunday (October 23rd) for lack of only 800 signatures --on the White House petition to "end taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactors" (that phrase Googles) at: wh.gov/gfN ..
- - - - -
Excerpt from “We The People: Your Voice In Our Government” , White House petition website:
Only petitions that reach a certain number of signatures, or “threshold,” within a given amount of time will generate an official response. Thresholds are subject to change, but changes will not be applied retroactively.
The current threshold is 25,000 signatures within 30 days.
* * * * *
My Reply:
_Craigster_ ,
Well, I suppose you could try again, and create a new White House petition to "end taxpayer subsidies for new nuclear reactors". But I wouldn't consider the petition anything more than an electronic letter to the White House about a matter of policy that large numbers of people can sign.
You might consider creating a petition urging Barack Obama and others in the Obama administration to push for ratification of the Basel Convention, banning the export of hazardous wastes, including old electronics, to developing countries.
Heck, I’ll even sign your petitions.
But, please don’t vote for Barack Obama or for whoever his Republican opponent may be for president of the United States in 2012. Vote for the Green Party candidate or some other suitable alternative to the Democrats and Republicans; and please support those engaged in strikes, protests, and civil disobedience against corporate and government policies that are destroying the environment, the economy, and what passes for "genuine" democracy in the United States, that is destroying proto-democracy.
Ya, we sure do make some good Christians here, don't we?
Gee, what a surprise the U.S. has not signed on to the amendment. Our government's selfish disregard for the health and well-being of the planet is completely shameful. This one is right up there with our country's refusal to recognize Palestine as a state, our refusal to ban landmines and cluster bombs, our refusal to join the rest of the world in reducing our carbon output... there's not enough room in this forum for the entire list.
Amen --and how sad. Not only did the environmental movement get sandbagged into supporting this lunacy, the last light bulb factory in the United States was forced to close its doors.
I've gathered my source material for the CFL issue at:
> http://webpages.charter.net/123goto/cfl.html
Craig
.
_Craigster_ (in reply to Different viewpoint) wrote:
Amen --and how sad. Not only did the environmental movement get sandbagged into supporting this lunacy, the last light bulb factory in the United States was forced to close its doors. I've gathered my source material for the CFL issue at: > http://webpages.charter.net/123goto/cfl.html Craig ..
- - - - -
Excerpt from Craig's "Fluorescent Lamps: Mandatory Compact Fluorescent Lamps In Particular":
* Another factor is the room heating lost by switching from hot incandescents has to be made up by electric, or other, heating - so more energy has to be paid for, payment which may go to the utility company.
* * * * *
My Reply:
_Craigster_ ,
Regarding CFLs:
Most people I know who bought CFLs understood that CFLs were a transitional technology that would be superceded by LED lighting as LED lighting was developed for more general and diverse uses. They also knew that CFLs needed to be taken to recycling centers. Towns and cities in Massachusetts responded to that need.
What people who were a part of the environmental movement also expected was that government would respond to political pressure and enact legislation (e.g. Fee and Dividend) that complemented their own individual actions by putting a premium price on fossil carbon.
The problem, of course, is that large corporations essentially control the federal government, own most of the politicians, and spend huge amounts of money on various kinds of propaganda, in order to distort the truth and manipulate public opinion.
Regarding Incandescent Light Bulb "Waste Heat":
So-called "waste heat" from incandescent light bulbs does, of course, contribute to heating a room. In climates where it is almost always cold perhaps that isn't such a bad thing.
But ideally, from an efficiency point of view, regardless of the climate, it is better for the lighting system to efficiently produce light when light is needed without producing significant amounts of "waste heat", and for the heating and cooling systems to efficiently heat or cool a room's air without producing large amounts of additional waste heat.
Effective government and the use of laws seems almost foolish. OWS is a needed restructuring. The USSR had glasnost and perestroika and now we have Russia and not the USSR. Signs of the times?
.
Stop Polluting The Planet With Toxic Waste!
Support Fee and Dividend, Oppose TransCanada's
Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline!
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Canadian Arctic Loses Nearly Entire Ice Shelf" by Associated Press, September 30, 2011:
Two ice shelves that existed before Canada was settled by Europeans diminished significantly this northern summer, one nearly disappearing altogether, Canadian scientists say in newly published research.
The loss is important as a marker of global warming, returning the Canadian Arctic to conditions that date back thousands of years, scientists say.
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Canadian Arctic Loses Nearly Entire Ice Shelf" by Associated Press, September 30, 2011:
Floating icebergs that have broken free as a result pose a risk to offshore oil facilities and potentially to shipping lanes.
The breaking apart of the ice shelves also reduces the environment that supports microbial life, and changes the look of Canada's coastline.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/09/30-5
- - - - -
Excerpt from "Ottawa Action Kills Notion of Ethical Oil", by Curtis Morrison, Waging Nonviolence, September 30, 2011:
According to Article 32 of the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Harper is required to cooperate in good faith to obtain:
free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting
their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection
with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other
resources.
“We’ve been informed and we do not consent.” said Chief Jackie Thomas of the Saik’uz First Nation, to the crowd during the rally. Her Nation is one of five nations making up the Yinka Dene Alliance. Enbridge Pipeline offered to give the Alliance a 10-per-cent ownership stake in the proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline, and the Alliance declined.
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/09/30-6
* * * * *
My Comment:
It would be great if the Barack Obama administration or the Stephen Harper government would put a stop to the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline or the pipeline was somehow blocked by other means.
The Yinka Dene Alliance has rejected Enbridge Pipeline’s offer to give the Alliance a 10-per-cent ownership stake in the proposed North Gateway pipeline project from the Alberta tar sands to Kitimat, British Columbia. But that is unlikely to deter Enbridge.
When the Arctic Ocean becomes largely free of sea ice year round, there will also be an incentive to build a tars sands pipeline from Alberta to Port Churchill, Manitoba on the Hudson Bay.
On August 20, 2009, the U.S. State Department issued a presidential permit for an Alberta Clipper Pipeline from Hardisty, Alberta to Superior, Wisconsin. The pipeline will be capable of carrying up to 450,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries in the U.S.
Clearly, a more comprehensive approach to preventing extensive exploitation of the Alberta tar sands, as well as reducing our dependence on other fossil fuels energy sources, is needed.
Canadians and USans need to overcome the opposition within their respective countries to government action to counter global warming, catastrophic climate change and the direct destruction of the environment, and force their governments to enact Fee and Dividend legislation.
.
Stop Polluting The Planet With Toxic Waste!
Support Fee and Dividend, Oppose TransCanada's
Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline
- - - - -
Excerpt from "A Primer on Class Struggle" by Michael Schwalbe, Common Dreams, March 13, 2011:
"The most important arena outside the workplace is government, because it’s here that the rules of the game are made, interpreted, and enforced. When we look at how capitalists try to use government to protect and advance their interests -- and at how other groups resist -- we are looking at class struggle."
Article URL: www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/31-4
* * * * *
My Comment:
Support Fee and Dividend
How about getting nasty and forcing the U.S. Congress to pass Fee and Dividend legislation that puts an economy wide premium on the cost of fossil carbon products collected at the point of importation or extraction, where the proceeds from the fee are periodically returned to the people throughout the year?
Placing a premium on the cost of fossil carbon products through a Fee and Dividend system is the best approach to reducing fossil carbon emissions.
Fee and Dividend is specifically designed to protect the poor and the middle class (what's left of it) from the rising cost of fossil carbon and to enable them more directly to participate in the choice of alternatives to fossil carbon consumption, including their own efforts to manage their consumption through conservation and lifestyle changes, by adding a large premium to the cost of fossil carbon through the payment of a fee by corporations that import or extract fossil carbon, and then distributing the proceeds of that fee as a dividend to the people in the form of periodic payments during the year.
Sure, corporations may still obtain windfall profits on steeply rising oil prices as the market price changes due to fluctuations in "available" supply, speculation, and the dynamics of peak oil; but the large premium added to the cost of fossil carbon products as a result of the fee is transferred from corporations to the people as a dividend. Corporate windfall profits on fossil carbon based energy should be taxed separately.
The fee adds a stable and predictable premium to the cost of fossil carbon. Usually, Fee and Dividend proposals include provisions for the steady increase in the amount of the fee on fossil carbon importation and extraction with the passage of time. Presumably, the increase in the fee per unit of fossil carbon will correspond with reductions in fossil carbon consumption as more alternatives are developed. The initial fee should be large enough to make current alternatives economically attractive and to encourage the development of new alternatives.
Rather than simply letting large corporations manage the increase in fossil carbon costs and the development of alternatives for consumers in ways which perpetuate corporate control, Fee and Dividend puts money in the hands of the people, who can then more easily make their own choices regarding alternatives to fossil carbon consumption including conservation and lifestyle changes.
Instead of a "trickle down" approach Fee and Dividend transfers money from corporations to people; giving people the "carrot" that works with the fee based premium on the cost of fossil carbon "stick" to generate market incentives for the development of innovative alternatives.
Given what was once a consumer driven economy, the great disparities in wealth and income in the United States, and the fact that large corporations are essentially withholding $2 trillion in liquid assets from the real economy, just about any transfer of the ill gotten gains of wealthy people and wealthy corporations to the middle class and the poor is more likely to stimulate the economy and generate jobs than another tax break for wealthy people, the super rich and large wealthy corporations. When that transfer of funds also puts a premium on the price of fossil carbon, then there is an additional incentive favoring the development of a healthy economy.
Fee and Dividend in a Nutshell
1. Corporations and other types of businesses that import or
extract fossil carbon pay a fossil carbon fee per unit of fossil
carbon and choose whether or not to pass on the increased
cost to consumers or possibly develop a new line of business.
2. Corporations and other types of businesses choose whether
or not to pay the increased cost of fossil carbon and
other products and pass on the increased cost to consumers or
find more suitable alternatives.
3. People periodically receive the proceeds from the fossil carbon
fee as dividend payments, which buffer the impact on them of
the increase in fossil carbon prices due to the fossil carbon
fee and enable them more easily to purchase alternatives.
4. People choose whether or not to pay the increased cost of fossil
carbon and other products or find more suitable alternatives
using what funds they have available including funds from fossil
carbon dividend payments as they see fit.
Fee and Dividend is the approach to putting a premium on the price of fossil carbon that is favored by NASA climatologist James Hansen and many economists.
If Canadians get nasty too, maybe they can force their government to enact Fee and Dividend legislation.
Canadians and USans need to overcome the opposition within their respective countries to government action to counter global warming, catastrophic climate change and the direct destruction of the environment, and force their governments to enact Fee and Dividend legislation.