Friends Of The Earth
By the Friends of the Earth staff
September/October 1975
One of the world's most effective environmental groups is San Francisco-based FRIENDS OF THE EARTH. Although FOE publishes NotMan Apart -a twice-a-month tabloid magazine packed with authenticated, hard-to-find facts that every concerned citizen needs-far too few of MOTHER's readers regularly see a copy of NMA. We are therefore quite pleased that FOE's staff has agreed to write a regular FRIENDS OF THE EARTH column for THE Mother Earth News (restricted).
WHALES: IWC MOVES SLOWLY, "GREENPEACE" MOVES FASTER
"For four years, I've been a member of the U.S. delegation to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) . . . and during these four years-although we've been repeatedly assured of the great progress made within the lWC-nothing has really changed, and the tragedy of the great whales has progressed towards its macabre finale."
So reported Tom Garrett (Friends of the Earth's Conservation Director and the only private citizen on the U.S. delegation to the IWC) to a Congressional subcommittee on fish and wildlife. The IWC's most recent meeting in June, however, has raised Mr. Garrett's hopes a little.
Although a proposed ten-year moratorium on whaling didn't make it onto the Commission's agenda, whale kill quotas were lowered (some considerably, and others just a touch), the mood of the meeting turned in a more conservationist direction than had previous conferences, and the Japanese were easier to deal with.
The Japanese and Russians, who do most of the world's whaling, are trying to perpetuate that failing enterprise as long as possible . . . even if all of the big mammals die off as a result. Talk of phasing out or consolidating the industry has been very touchy politically, but lately both diplomatic and private anti-whaling pressure has increased.
One Canadian group even runs interference for the whales. The people involved in "Project Greenpeace"-an effort to stop (or at least reduce) the wholesale slaughter of cetaceans by direct, non-violent confrontation-have been combing the waters of western Canada and the United States in the specially equipped Phyllis Cormack since April 27. When crew members spot a whaling ship in action, they launch high-speed rubber rafts between the whaler and the prey . . . thus (they hope) preventing a clear shot at the seagoing animals. In July, one Russian vessel fired a harpoon right over the heads of Greenpeace volunteers and killed a sperm whale. ("They didn't care whether they blasted us out of the water or not," reported a crewman.) The tactic did save three other whales, however, and the men on the Phyllis Cormack will keep using peaceful interference as often as possible until the whalers put down their harpoons.
That event could take some time if left up to the IWC, because the Commission is supposed to protect whalers as well as whales . . . and it's having trouble serving both masters. What the people of "Project Greenpeace" really want is to disband the International Whaling Commission and have the United Nations assume the Commission's regulatory functions.
Friends of the Earth Limited in London agrees: "Only an independent body with no vested interests in whaling or whale products can make these decisions (whether whales should be killed at all) and the decisions should be made by all nations concerned with the stability of the marine ecosystem, not just by the countries with the technology to kill whales."
The ozone layer-that blanket of air at the top of our atmosphere which keeps us all from being burned to crisps would be only three millimeters thick if brought to standard conditions (zero degrees centrigrade at atmospheric pressure). Which is why the recent research which indicates that the propellants in spray cans are degrading that thin protective shield significantly is so important.
Speaking to a conference on "The Limits to Medicine" in Switzerland, Nobel laureate George Wald, a physiologist on FOE's advisory board, said: " . . . Propellant gases (in spray cans)-mixtures of chlorofluoromethanes, often with the cancerogenic vinyl chloride added-are now entering our atmosphere in ever-increasing quantities. As they rise gradually into the high atmosphere, short-wave radiation from the sun liberates their chlorine . . . that substance then initiates a catalytic chain reaction which destroys ozone. It's estimated that if we were to stop all use of spray cans now, we would already be destined to lose about ten percent of the ozone layer. If we go on using aerosol spray cans much longer, we could lose it all.
" . . . Those spray cans," continued Dr. Wald, "now represent a $3-billion-a-year industry in the United States. Pit the future of life on the surface of Earth against the economic welfare of a $3-billion-a-year industry, and where do you place your bet?"
Well, E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.-one of the largest manufacturers of aerosol products-says the evidence isn't all in. And, until it is, DuPont will continue to manufacture spray cans that use fluorocarbons as propellants.
Johnson's Wax, on the other hand, published a national ad in June saying that-even though the evidence isn't conclusive (is it ever?)-the company has stopped making spray cans that use anything but waterbased propellants. Hurray for Johnson's Wax, the company with a conscience!
Now then . . . what will the fertilizer industry do if preliminary research recently completed at Harvard is right; that nitrogen fertilizer is a worse ozone depleter than fluorocarbons?
Think of Johnson's Wax and keep your fingers crossed.
Americans for Democratic Action, the American Physical Society, and The Economist have all put up their dukes against nukes.
**********
The American Physical Society's blue-ribbon, independent panel studying safety in fight-water reactors issued a report that joins the Union of Concerned Scientists in criticizing the emergency core cooling system (the last-ditch safety device that's supposed to keep an atomic power plant accident from becoming a major disaster). The APS says: "Quantitative evaluation of the performance adequacy of the ECCS proved to be beyond our scope (and beyond that of all others who have examined the question to date)." Also, the panel observed, the latest Atomic Energy Commission safety report (WASH-1400, known as the Rasmussen Report) puts the number of probable delayed deaths resulting from an accidental, core meltdown at a level about 50 times too low.
**********
Even with moral and safety issues set aside, the feasibility of nuclear power plants remains questionable. The Economist -a stodgy British magazine devoted to money-says "There are sound economic reasons for doubting whether nuclear energy can, must, or should satisfy the growth in world energy needs between now and 1985.
"For example," the publication stated, "a reactor that cost $140 million when it went into operation in 1972 would cost $750 million if ordered in 1973 to go into operation by 1983." That's a price increase which makes today's "ordinary" inflation look like it's positively holding the line.
The Economist also observed that the price of uranium has risen from $7.00 to $20.00 a pound in the last two years, and supplies are running shorter every day, so "uranium is not really a surer long-term bet than oil".
**********
If nuclear power isn't safe or economical, why are we developing it? The Americans for Democratic Action-early opponents of the Vietnam War-want to know. They've adopted a stiff nuclear moratorium position (drafted by FOE member Dr. Donald Scroggin) that advocates a six-part course of action: [1] stopping all research into the breeder reactor idea, [2] halting all construction of nuclear plants for ten years, [3] funding research into solar, geothermal, and other alternative energy sources, [4] gradually phasing out present nuclear power plants as more feasible energy sources become available, [5] stopping the exportation of reactors, and [6] developing a long-term program of energy conservation. We support the ADA's ideas wholeheartedly, and welcome our diverse new allies to the fray.
**********
Speaking of the fray, the House of Representatives' fight over the breeder reactor (which would use plutonium, a "fiendishly toxic" substance, to make still more plutonium and create power at the same time) has reached an end. An environmentalist-supported bill to cut $94 million from breeder reactor funds was defeated when the Administration proposed a "compromise" bill that would cut only $70 million. It works out that $36.8 million of that cut money would've gone into construction of the Clinch River demonstration breeder facility in Tennessee. Just after the Administration's bill passed the House, however, the utility companies also contributing to Clinch River funds suddenly kicked in an extra amount . . . guess how much: $36.8 million. (Some compromise.)
Now the bill goes to the Senate, where John Tunney (D-Calif.) will try to cut the government funding a little more.
The strip mine situation may not be as bad as it looks, even though the "veto-proof' Congress did let President Ford's veto ride on the recent strip mine bill. The legislation-which would've imposed environmental mining and reclamation standards, and permitted states to impose a tax of up to 35 cents a ton on strip-mined coal-lost by a hair. The House voted 478-143. Three votes swinging would have overridden the veto with the required two-thirds majority . . . but, as they say, close only counts in horseshoes.
Still, coal companies are nervous about starting any new projects because of the possibility of new rules changing their plans in the middle of operations. After all, one strip mine proposal was pocket vetoed last December (when the President went skiing in Vail, if you recall), and the most recent bill was only narrowly defeated. The next time, strip mine legislation could get through. The companies, therefore, are anxious to have at least some regulations on paper . . . although what they apparently want is: [1] no specific mining standards, [2] no way for citizens to file lawsuits against them, [3] no prohibitions against mining high slopes (where erosion is worst), and [4] no regulations against dumping wastes wherever they choose.
The President's Federal Energy Administration is working now on strip mine legislation that's likely to come before Congress this year, but the proposal may be more a compromise than is good for the land. In that case, it would be better to wait for a good bill, and hope more states than just Pennsylvania-which recently enacted stringent strip mining legislation-begin to establish and enforce their own environmental standards.
