The Washington Post reports on changing rules in the European Union on the regulation of chemicals. The E.U. has flipped the old equation and put the burden of proof on the regulated, rather than the regulator. Basically, this means that it is a chemical producer's job to prove that its chemicals are not dangerous. This has greatly displeased chemical manufacturers in the United States and the Bush administration, both of which have fought hard to push the American approach, where chemical products are essentially innocent until proven guilty.
There are a couple of interesting factors to note in the E.U. move here, the first of which is the ability to use market power to lead the way in policy. This is usually called the "California effect" in the U.S., since that is the state most prone to using its market power to improve regulation, particularly environmental standards. At 27 countries and around 500 million people, the European Union represents the largest market in the world, and if U.S. manufacturers want to sell their products in that market, they've got to be up to European standards. In this way, Europe is able to take the mantle of environmental leadership and essentially force U.S. and other international manufacturers to comply.
The second point of note is why the E.U. would do this when it obviously costs manufacturers a lot of money. The reason is that European Policy is bound at its foundation to comply with the "precautionary principle," the idea that perhaps it is not best to wait until a product is harming the population before investigating its properties. By checking the risks of products before they enter the market, the level of safety for consumers and the environment is obviously elevated. As the Post article points out, many Americans are shocked to learn that this is not the case in their country, and that only about one quarter of one percent of all chemicals on the U.S. market have actually been closely examined by the EPA--that's one in 400 of about 80,000 chemicals on the market.
This is a very positive move by Europe. Though prices of some items may go up, it moves the market closer to pricing that reflects the true costs of a product by including externalities that otherwise reap their costs on human and environmental health. The patchwork of regulation by U.S. states and municipalities on the issue doesn't really work to anyone's benefit, so kudos to Europe for taking a bold step and upending the status quo on a global scale.
I guess it's about time to start calling environmental leadership through economic power the "Europe Effect."
Via FP Passport, I discovered a fascinating resource in understanding the effects of our changing world climate. It's UNEP's "Atlas of Our Changing Environment." As the FP Passport article points out, the amount of change occurring in Africa is absolutely astounding, especially in the sub-Saharan regions.
Though not all change is due directly or entirely to global warming (some is due to refugee population movements and other unsustainable situations), this atlas makes unmistakably clear the effect humans can have on the planet. After looking at a few examples from the map, the need to move more quickly toward sustainability becomes obvious. I strongly encourage people from every point on the political spectrum to check this out.
Look out hybrid owners, there's a new eco-car in town. This Summer, Honda will release its new "FCX Clarity" hydrogen fuel cell vehicle for lease in parts of Japan and Southern California. It boasts improvements over older models, including a much smaller fuel cell that gives the car ample interior space as well as a lithium ion battery to store excess energy for later use and improve the car's overall efficiency. In case you haven't heard of this technology, the fuel cell basically mixes hydrogen and oxygen to create water and uses the energy from that process to power the vehicle. So the vehicle's byproduct, rather than CO2, is a much friendlier 2-letter 1-number combination: H2O.
The reason the car is being released in such a limited capacity is because the car doesn't use gasoline, so in order to refuel it, you need special refueling station. In parts of Southern California, Honda has created a "home energy station" that would put your gauge back on "F" while the car is in the garage. And though it would be quite cool to always set out on the open road with your car already fueled up, these stations produce hydrogen using natural gas, which is less than ideal. For now, hydrogen refueling stations are not widespread in the United States, but given high gas prices and the fact that the car itself zero emissions and--in my opinion--pretty sporty, maybe they will be soon.
I hope everyone had fun breaking out the organic snacks and the biodegradable party hats for Earth Day yesterday. I noticed that the public sphere was plastered with green-tinted news, content and advertisements. For one day, at least, everything was green, grün, verde, vert, or even lu se.
But in the green hangover following the ephemeral appreciation of that infinitely complex and awe-inspiring system that is our planet, I am reminded of something I read in the Economist back in December of 2007.
"Whilst chlorophyll is, without doubt, hugely significant to life on this planet, the anthropocentric, terrestrialist view of the world that dubs those that care as "green" needs to be challenged."Indeed, this is referred to as "The Blue Planet" and not the green one. The Economist goes on to explain that we have consumed 90% of the world's large fish, destroyed much of the coral and created state-sized blooms of algae. There is also an ocean warming problem that will have numerous effects that we have not even begun to think about yet. Even beyond the obvious scale of any ocean-related disasters that are brewing are the disturbing implications of problems associated with fresh water. Fresh water disasters will lead to even further complications with our beloved green-scape. So, this year, as you put away your bright green organic hair dye and face paint, remember that being "green" is really less than 30% of a commitment to the planet. Because yesterday was "Earth Day" and not "Land Day", I want to remind everyone that going green is great, but without adding a lot of blue, blau, azul, bleu or lan se to our palette of awareness and activity, we could be destined to serve the agenda of less favorable colors.
I hope everyone had fun breaking out the organic snacks and the biodegradable party hats for Earth Day yesterday. I noticed that the public sphere was plastered with green-tinted news, content and advertisements. For one day, at least, everything was green, grün, verde, vert, or even lu se.
But in the green hangover following the ephemeral appreciation of that infinitely complex and awe-inspiring system that is our planet, I am reminded of something I read in the Economist back in December of 2007.
"Whilst chlorophyll is, without doubt, hugely significant to life on this planet, the anthropocentric, terrestrialist view of the world that dubs those that care as "green" needs to be challenged."Indeed, this is referred to as "The Blue Planet" and not the green one. The Economist goes on to explain that we have consumed 90% of the world's large fish, destroyed much of the coral and created state-sized blooms of algae. There is also an ocean warming problem that will have numerous effects that we have not even begun to think about yet. Even beyond the obvious scale of any ocean-related disasters that are brewing are the disturbing implications of problems associated with fresh water. Fresh water disasters will lead to even further complications with our beloved green-scape. So, this year, as you put away your bright green organic hair dye and face paint, remember that being "green" is really less than 30% of a commitment to the planet. Because yesterday was "Earth Day" and not "Land Day", I want to remind everyone that going green is great, but without adding a lot of blue, blau, azul, bleu or lan se to our palette of awareness and activity, we could be destined to serve the agenda of less favorable colors.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told participants at the World Economic Forum that the United Nations will take action to address the shortage of water resources in the context of reaching global anti-poverty targets.
"Our experiences tell us that environmental stress, due to lack of water, may lead to conflict, and would be greater in poor nations...Population growth will make the problem worse. So will climate change. As the global economy grows, so will its thirst. Many more conflicts lie just over the horizon."
More
During Ban Ki-moon's visit to Antarctica, the UN Secretary General said warming temperatures on the continent mark dangers of climate change.
"It is here where our work, together, comes into focus...We see Antarctica's beauty – and the danger global warming represents, and the urgency that we do something about it."
More
Al Gore speaks out at a press conference on his recently announced Nobel Prize win.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has hailed the awarding of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore, noting Gore's "exceptional commitment and conviction, as an example of the crucial role that individuals and civil society can play in encouraging multilateral responses to global issues."
More