The Economics of Happiness (2011)

Film Review

The term “economic relocalization,” which has been around about four years, describes the global movement of loosely knit Transition Towns and other grassroots networks working to strengthen local and regional economies and systems of food and energy production. I myself was unacquainted with the term until I came across it in the promotional materials for the Economics of Happiness. Most of the last six years of my life have been focused on grassroots relocalization activities. For four years, I helped run a local mutual credit system (an alternative monetary system allowing people on a fixed income to purchase goods and services from each other). During the same period, I have been a strong and vocal supporter of New Plymouth’s farmers market, as well helping to start a local community garden. Along with a group of local energy engineers and other members of Grey Power, I also (successfully) lobbied New Plymouth District Council to promote and support locally produced “distributed” energy (for example local wind farms and grid-connect solar electricity) systems.

What I like best about Economics of Happiness is learning I am part of a global movement to strengthen local communities economically and politically. The 2011 film, narrated by Helena Norberg Hodge, is based on her 1991 book Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh and her 1993 film by the same name. The book and both films draw their inspiration from the nearly forty years Norberg-Hodge has spent living and working in Ladakh, a small Himalayan region in the India-controlled (and disputed) state of Jammu and Kashmir. The beginning of Economics of Happiness includes footage from the 1993 film. It also includes substantial documentary footage on the global economic crisis and the impending global ecological crisis, a consequence of runaway climate change and mass species extinction.

In addition to examining extreme weather events, mass unemployment, extreme income inequality and skyrocketing energy and food costs, the Economics of Happiness also explores “the crisis of the human spirit.” As evidence of this “spiritual” crisis, Norberg-Hodge examines the epidemic level of loneliness, alienation and demoralization that seems to accompany wholesale industrial globalization.

The Psychological Devastation of Globalization

The film opens with the same narrative Norberg-Hodge recounts in her earlier Ancient Futures film. We are shown the “before” image of Ladakh, a rich thriving culture in which residents live in large spacious homes, enjoy respectable amounts of leisure time and have no concept of unemployment. Then we have the “after” image where, thanks to globalization, cheap (government subsidized) food, fuel and consumer goods have flooded the region and destroyed most residents’ traditional livelihoods. Previously pristine communities face rising levels of air and water pollution, while Ladakhi teenagers are continuously bombarded with consumerist messages.

It’s heartbreaking to see the psychological effect of all this. Most young Ladakhi have come to regard themselves as backwards and poor, while the communities they live in face rising racial tensions, juvenile delinquency and epidemic levels of psychological depression.

The Destructive Nature of Urbanization

The film goes on to sketch the mechanics of globalization, stressing the deregulation that forces small self-contained regions like Ladakh to open their markets to foreign goods, which quickly supplant higher priced local products. Norberg-Hodge paints an even uglier picture of urbanization, an inevitable result of forcing millions of small formers off their land. In discussing the growing global scarcity of fossil fuels, water and food, she stresses that city life is vastly more resource intensive than rural living. All urban residents rely on food, energy and water transported from some distant source, while they burn up massive fossil fuel transporting their waste products to the remote countryside. Most city residents go along with the massive ecological and social devastation their lifestyle produces because they don’t see it. Most of the damage occurs somewhere else.

Rebuilding Local Communities and Economies

The solutions Norberg-Hodge offers for all these problems are similar to those proposed by an increasing number of “latter day” economists. First and foremost we must acknowledge that humankind has exceeded the earth’s carrying capacity – that the corporate drive for continual economic growth must end. Secondly people of conscience need to opt out of corporate economy to facilitate the creation of more efficient and environmentally accountable regional and local economies. In addition to transitioning to local energy and food production, people need to exert collective pressure to break up large investment banks and replace them with local retail banks and credit unions. State and local governments need to stop giving subsidies and tax breaks to large corporations and start supporting their own local businesses. Not only do small businesses create the vast majority of jobs, but they don’t pack up after a few years to move to overseas.

Norberg-Hodge sees this process of rebuilding local communities as the only way to address the “crisis of the human spirit.” The breakdown of community engagement that occurred in Ladakh is very striking because it occurred so suddenly. Yet no region of the developed or developing world has escaped it.

The film ends on an extremely optimistic note, with numerous examples of international and community organizations working at the local level to support people as they reclaim their lives from multinational corporations.

***

Dr Stuart Jeanne Bramhall is a 64 year old American child and adolescent psychiatrist and political refugee in New Zealand. She has just published a free non-fiction ebook 21^st Century Revolution, which can be downloaded at http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/120942. Her first book The Most Revolutionary Act: Memoir of an American Refugee describes the circumstances that led her to leave the US in 2002. Her website is www.stuartbramhall.com. Email her at stuartbramhall@yahoo.co.nz

A new film produced by Darryl Cherney that white washes the entire Judi Bari saga is out and is being shown next weekend in Sonoma County. Darryl is claiming that he wants an investigation of the 22 year old bombing when in fact he is someone who has worked hard to prevent that from happening.  With the money he got from the FBI settlement he could have made it happen years ago but he didn’t.  Some of you will remember all the controversy after the bombing when some of us who actually knew Judi and the back story of her marriage to Mike Sweeney tried to get a real investigation going.

I remember it all too well for I worked with Judi Bari and Mike Sweeney, her husband, for two years in the early 1980’s before Earth First and before the meteoric fame and rise of Judi.  We were both plaintiffs in a large environmental law suit we brought against the city of Rohnert Park and Hewlett Packard that lasted three years.  We lost the case but Mike and Judi settled out of court with HP for an undisclosed sum.  At that time it was Mike that was “calling the shots” for when we met Mike did all the talking and Judi remained mute.  It was Mike who agreed to settle with HP after he and Judi had promised they would not. 

It was on the basis of their promise that my co-litigant and I released the volumes of lower trial transcripts that allowed Bari and Sweeney to make a deal with the corporation not to appeal our loss in lower court for an undisclosed sum of money.

For readers who have perhaps grown up hearing that Judi was bombed by the government, they might be surprised to find that amongst many ‘radicals’ and progressives this is not ecumenically shared.  In fact, many of us like myself who have followed this case for many decades, know this is not true.  We believe, and the evidence supports, the claim that Judi was bombed by her husband, Mike Sweeney.  Many readers will no doubt be shocked!

I am not alone.  You will read about Irv Sutley, a Sonoma County resident and long time member of the Peace and Freedom Party.  I have known Irv Sutley for close to 40 years and have worked with him on Peace and Freedom presidential campaigns (Benjamin Spock).  Sutley worked closely with Judi and knows much more than the left media, or Daryl Cherney, will tell.  I worked with Irv Sutley on this case briefly close to a decade ago when I was an attorney.

Journalists like Steve Talbot (Frontline) made a film (Who Bombed Judi Bari) in 1991 that was as close to a real investigation as we’ve had where he looked at four different theories about her bombing including Mike.  He was just one of several people that Judi shared her suspicions with about her ex being the bomber.

Ed Gehrman (see interview below) was another who tried to piece it all together after endless interviews with some of us who knew her well. There is way too much info to impart here but below is some of it. Some of us have spent endless hours on this over the years and my office is full of files about it as is Bruce Anderson’s AVA. There is also an article coming out this Wednesday in the BOHEMIAN (Santa Rosa, California) that is giving it another try so
try to get a copy of it before you go to see this film.  Also, you can read Kate Coleman’s book on Judi Bari for a comprehensive look at the bombing and other issues.

The following is from the Anderson Valley Advertiser and is an interview with Ed Gehrman

Anderson Valley Advertiser  Special Series: Judi Bari
Maxwell’s Hammer  by Ed Gehrman

Bang! Bang! Maxwell’s silver hammer came down upon her head.
Clang! Clang! Maxwell’s silver hammer made sure that he was dead.
Silver hammer man. ‹Lennon/McCartney, June, 1969

“As long as I’m telling the truth as best I can, I have zero problem with
Pam knowing anything! Š and despite my brags to the contrary, I just might
have a living enemyŠ” ‹Jan Maxwell, June 13, 2005
* * *
(about Ed Gehrman)  I’m a retired teacher and a reporter for the Sonoma
County Free Press and have been investigating the bombing of Judi Bari since
1995. An article covering this investigation was published in Flatland
Magazine and the Sonoma County Free Press. Below, I’ve prepared a summary of
my investigation and a description of some new evidence using a “frequently
asked questions” format. (June 12, 2008.)

How did you get involved with Judi Bari and what led you to investigate her
bombing?
Ed: Judi and I met briefly during the Port Chicago demonstrations in 1986. I
was working with Livermore Action Group at the time. Then I followed her
exploits in the AVA after she moved to Mendocino County. I was teaching in
Sonoma County when the Redwood Summer (May 1990) action began and had
already started working on trying to find property that would be suitable
for a temporary encampment where the out-of-town participants could stay.
After Judi was bombed, I continued working on Redwood Summer logistics until
the last demonstration in September. After the conclusion of Redwood Summer,
I followed the developments in the bombing story and the various
investigations that were being conducted but only at a distance as an
interested observer. Things changed for me when a close friend insisted that
I interview Irv Sutley and arranged a time and place. That was in October of
1995. The story he told was intriguing and after checking it out, I began to
change my mind regarding the truthfulness of the main participants, namely
Judi, Mike Sweeney and Pam Davis.

Who is Irv Sutley?
Ed: Irv is the biggest “red herring” of all time. He played a minor and
forgettable part in this drama until he was accused by Judi and others of
being an FBI agent provocateur and the author of the Argus Letter sent to
the Ukiah Police Department offering to inform on Bari. Some people even
accused him of being the actual bomber. His life was never the same after
being identified as a possible suspect in Steve Talbot’s KQED documentary
film about the Bari bombing, which was screened exactly one year after the
event. After Judi’s accusations against him, the entire investigation was
centered on Irv, and on making him the main suspect and behind-the-scenes
manipulator.

What is the Argus Letter?
Ed: On January 17, 1989, Ukiah Police Chief Fred Keplinger received a letter
signed by “Argus.” (In Greek legend, Argus is a hundred-eyed monster, a
watchful guardian). It was postmarked January 6, 1989, with information
detrimental to Bari; the writer offered to inform on her. Also enclosed was
a photograph of Bari holding a look-a-like Uzi. Steve Talbot uncovered these
“Argus” documents by chance during the course of his investigation. Bari has
argued that, because Sutley knew some of the facts contained in the “Argus”
letter, and since he had access to (Pam) Davis’ photos, he must have written
the “Argus” letter and sent the photo with it. It’s more likely that Mike
Sweeney, Judi’s ex-husband, wrote the Argus letter and another called the
“Second Warning” letter. They were probably both written by the same person
because there was identical DNA found on both envelopes. Irv’s DNA does not
match this sample. Mike Sweeney refuses to submit a sample of his DNA for
testing, even though I’ve offered to pay all expenses. He also refuses to
take a polygraph for which Alexander Cockburn offered to pay. Irv did
volunteer to take a polygraph and it confirmed that he was not the author of
the Argus letter, had nothing to do with bombing Judi and was solicited by
Pam Davis to murder Mike Sweeney.

Who is Pam Davis?
Ed: Pam and Judi were very good friends during the time period between 1987
and 1990 and they were both active in radical politics. Pam was a member of
the communist party. It was during this time that Irv Sutley, also a party
member, and Pam, became friends. Irv was present when Judi and Pam took some
photographs of Judi holding one of Irv’s guns, his main connection to the
bombing story. This incident was blown out of proportion by Judi and others,
and has confused and distorted the true story. I met Pam during the summer
of 1990. We were both working as a support group for Ron Green, AKA Global
Deforestation, who was camping on the Forest Service lawn in downtown Santa
Rosa. I visited her home several times and even took care of her boys one
afternoon. Ron and I also became friends. He was staying with Pam and would
visit me during the times that Pam and Judi and their other women friends
would secretly meet at Pam’s house to discuss whatever they discussed. No
men were allowed.

What else did you learn from your interview with Irv?
Ed: Sometime in 1989 Pam and Irv were having a conversation when out of the
blue Pam asked Irv if he would kill Mike Sweeney for five thousand dollars.
She said that Judi was terrified of Mike who was abusive and trying to take
the kids from her. (Judi’s abuse claims were verified by Mary Moore’s
extensive research) Irv angrily refused but Pam made the request on two
other occasions. He again refused, but felt exposed and consulted with
friends about what he should do. They told him that Judi and Mike had
serious problems. Irv decided to let it slide and didn’t contact the police
about the offer. He couldn’t do that to a friend. Bari herself, asked on-air
about the murder solicitations on Mendocino County Public Radio KZYX twice
dismissed her murder-for-hire solicitations as “jokes.” One wonders who was
supposed to be amused? However, by describing her attempts to hire someone
to kill Sweeney as jokes reveals that Bari made them; it also strongly
suggests that the feeble characterization of them as jokes is a belated
strategy to pretend they weren’t serious. If Sutley said yes, would they
still be jokes?

Could you briefly describe what your investigation into Judi’s bombing has
uncovered?
Ed: Yes. Mike Sweeney bombed Judi Bari, but Judi was also trying her best to
kill Mike. Mike placed a time sensitive bomb underneath the driver’s seat of
Judi’s Subaru Station wagon during a press conference in Ukiah, Wednesday,
May 23, 1990, about two o’clock in the afternoon. Judi drove to Oakland but
the bomb was not active. Mike wanted it to explode as far away as possible.
She arrived in Oakland about four-thirty PM and stayed at the Seeds Of Peace
house until around eleven PM, then drove to the house where she was spending
the night. The bomb was still not active or she would have triggered it at
that time. She parked and locked the car and didn’t drive it again until the
next morning. The next morning, the car’s first lurch set off the bomb and
the rest is history. Judi was trying to kill Mike and Mike was trying to
kill Judi. That’s what I’ve concluded from my research.

Why were Judi and Mike trying to kill one another?

Ed: They had committed arson together and other crimes against the
community. There is evidence that the mysterious fellerbuncher fire and the
Cloverdale bomb at L-P’s offices were joint endeavors. Both had evidence of
the other’s involvement. It was hanging over their heads. They could both do
real jail time. Mike Sweeney still could. In 1980, they burned down the old
Santa Rosa airport hanger together, nearly killing the caretaker and costing
millions in damage. And they didn’t care who they hurt. Those lines from The
Great Gatsby always come to mind while I’m thinking about Mike and Judi as
partners: “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy ‹ they smashed up things
and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast
carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other
people clean up the mess they had made.”

Where do we go from here?
Ed: There are satisfactory answers, but few questioners. We are at the
point, almost thirteen years later, where all of us should be able to begin
to understand the dynamics between Judi and Mike, and the FBI. There is
enough information available from reliable sources to begin to put the
pieces together in a comprehensive gestalt.

What has changed about the story that makes you so optimistic at this time?
Ed: A new witness has come forward whose testimony confirms Irv’s account of
the offer by Pam Davis to have Mike Sweeney killed. It’s a strange story,
stranger than any fiction I could create. You’ll say it is too unbelievable
to be true but every word is factual. A little less than three years ago,
June 6th to be exact, I received an email which read: Are you still
investigating the Bari bombing? It was signed “Silverhammer.” I wrote back
and said yes I was and what did Silverhammer want to talk about? She then
wrote and wanted to know if I would protect her as a source and I said I
would.

Then she told me her name, Jan Maxwell, and gave me a telephone number. We
had a long conversation. The main information she wanted to offer was that
she had read my article on the bombing and wanted to confirm that Pam Davis
was trying to find a person to murder Mike Sweeney. How did she know that
was true? Because Pam had begged her to do it. Pam used the same arguments
that she had with Irv. Judi was being abused and Mike was trying to take the
kids. I asked her why Pam would offer her the hit. Jan said she was a good
shot and very familiar with guns and Pam trusted her. She had known Pam
“even before she was born.” Jan and Pam’s mother were good friends. If Jan
had said yes, would that have been a joke?

You’ve had all the new information for almost three years. Why are you just
releasing it now?
Ed: Many folks have asked me these questions in one form or another and I
wanted to set the record straight and at least vindicate Irv Sutley, who was
a totally innocent bystander. Pam Davis has just been appointed to the
Sonoma County Planning Commission, which I find absolutely unbelievable. It
seemed like the right time remind folks of her history and past connections.
There is also a misunderstanding in the community about Judi Bari and her
deeds. Yes, the FBI mishandled her case, but they were confused by their
snitch, who was Mike Sweeney. He had told them that Judi would be carrying a
bomb, so when it exploded in her car in the middle of Oakland, that was all
the proof the FBI needed. Mike Sweeney has had a free pass because of his
FBI snitch status probably all the way back to the 1960s when he was a
member of the Stanford-based radical group, Venceremos.

Now, 19 years later, Sweeney is General Manager of Mendocino County’s Solid
Waste Management Authority, a $100,000 a year functionary, and one of the
more unsettling public bureaucrats on the Northcoast. He struts around as if
nothing has happened, as though he wasn’t being accused of bombing his wife
and ruining several lives by torching the Santa Rosa Airport. He could solve
his problems and clear himself of these accusations by a simple DNA test. He
refuses. Does this seem like the behavior of an innocent man? Why is it
being ignored by the community?

We don’t have a substantial cushion between today’s climate and dangerous warming. James E. Hanson

The head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, James E. Hansen, announced the results of break through global warming research last week. The earth’s temperature is rising at a much quicker pace than previously anticipated according to research by the nation’s preeminent climate scientist. We have little time to reverse the trend. (Image)

An example of the dangerous pace of change is emerging on Russia’s Eastern Siberian Arctic Shelf. Long-frozen permafrost is beginning to melt due to global warming. This threat was identified years ago due to the potential for highly toxic releases of heat-trapping methane gas.  Recent changes are both a surprise and a cause for alarm. There is more methane gas released from the Russian cauldron “than the CH4 emissions estimate for the entire world ocean.” Methane is a “far more potent GHG [greenhouse gas] than CO2″ with a greater potential to cause “abrupt climate change.”

At the same time, researchers at the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Zurich developed a more efficient analysis of contributors to global warming. They found man-made causes can now be linked with at least 75% of global warming.

Hansen’s warning is brought to life by the methane gas event starting in the Arctic. We are in the danger zone. By the time we know it’s too late, it won’t matter. Without prompt, concerted action through readily available technologies and programs, we face increasing calamities through midcentury. After that, the displacement, destruction, and death assume unthinkable proportions.

As these evidence-based warnings were issued, the military effort to seize effective control of oil and natural gas regions of the Middle East and Central Asia continued unabated. Ironically, as our rulers engage in endless military conflicts to secure access to oil, they are delivering a weapon of mass destruction, an oil-based economy that will create massive disasters and dislocations that plunge the world into chaos.

Domestic policies have the same anti life outcome. The Keystone XL pipeline to accommodate tar sands oil production ensures continued CO2 pollution resulting in a collapsing world social and economic structure.

We are headed for a new world disorder of epic proportions. Past performance indicates that the current power structure is unable to handle disasters on a much smaller scale. The August 2003 heat wave in Europe killed 35,000, devastated crops, and sparked massive forest fires. It had never occurred to these nations to plan for or even consider the impact of heat waves. The failed response to the New Orleans disaster in 2005 offers a sneak preview of one hapless response after another to tragedies of ever increasing magnitude. How will we plan for consequences we can’t predict?

What will the rulers do when entire agricultural regions disappear due to accelerating global warming?

How will the planet offset these losses as the world climate system becomes more hostile to agricultural output even in those areas where growing can be sustained?

What will the people do when drinking water becomes scarce due to the evaporation of runoff and water sources? What happens when the glaciers melt down and cease to store fresh water?

How will the world economy function as the flawed the assumption of endless growth becomes painfully apparent?

These were all questions that we were told were a generation or two away. That is no longer the case according to the new evidence, analytic and empirical.

An Example of the New World Disorder

Florida, the coastline of China, the Netherlands, and the entire nation of Bangladesh will be acutely affected by sea level changes should the world slip into Dr. Hansen’s danger zone.

With just a 2 meter rise in sea level around 530 million people around the world will need to find new homes because theirs will be gone. (United States Geological Survey) The impact on Florida is evident in the image. There will be 3.5 million people in need of new homes.

The time between now and midcentury will be marked by ever-increasing devastation and displacement for human beings in coastal areas. About 40% of the earth’s population lives within 60 miles of a coastal area.

Where will the millions left homeless in Florida go?

What’s the response when tens of millions in Bangladesh have no place to go?

What will China do with tens of millions seeking shelter?

It won’t happen all at once. Incremental changes will produce a spectacle of suffering on a daily basis.

The debate on global warming as a factor in all of this should be over as well. Man-made influence and effects account for about 75% of the increases in the earth’s temperature. The mantra of the coming death cycle will be the blinded effort to produce more and more of the very toxins that allow fewer to live.

The Pathetic Response of Those in Charge

If we were grading the current crop of world leaders on any aspect of their records, the result would surely be F, with a recommendation to drop the course of study. The laws required to prevent industry from harming citizens are virtually nonexistent. If U.S. courts took corporate personhood seriously, we’d all have massive law suits and the corporate leaders would be charged with assault with intent to maim and kill.

One hundred and ninety one nations joined the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. The goal of the effort was to avoid global catastrophe through a coordinated effort. Hansen and others tell us that the protocol will have no real effect given the acceleration of changes. But even Kyoto’s inadequate goal was not suitable for the world’s largest polluter, the U.S. Both the Bush and Obama administrations failed to endorse the now-known-to-be-inadequate target. A follow-up conference on Kyoto was held in Durban South Africa recently. It amounted to nothing more than fiddling while Rome burns.

As citizens of the planet, we and our children have the right to expect a rational response by those controlling the levers of power. What is government for, if not for this? Can’t the powers that be stop their triumphal spread of democracy at the barrel of a gun long enough to fix the greatest threat ever to the people of the world? The earth will survive but we may not.

The logical path would be a working group of highly competent engineers and climate scientists tasked to outline a solution, one that could be put in place soon. Instead, morally and criminally negligent inaction is the rule under the cover of nicely named programs of no account with the additional excuse provided by a wink and a nod in the direction of unimaginably cynical or ignorant climate change deniers.

Do these world leaders live on the same planet as the rest of us?

Do they care about their friends and families?

Don’t they worry that there might be a final judgment after their final acts ensuring mass destruction?

Lead or get out of the way should be our message to these authors of our current troubles.

END

This article can be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Special thanks to Jill Hayroot for her input.

The Money Party

Citizens of Michigan and those following the proposed changes in the legal system in the state know that the issue that the state is facing is growing authoritarianism and totalitarianism that strips citizens of decision making and puts control in the hands of corporations and tyrants.  Corporations and their silk-backed thugs are looking to simply take the land they want so that they can displace residents and profit off of capital construction projects in the interest of the few.  The megarich and their political surrogates are using disaster capitalism to asset strip the state, but they are meeting with resistance and one such group offering push-back against the corporate schemers is the Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance.

The Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance (SDCA) was incorporated in the spring of 2007 as a 501c 3 non-profit organization in response to imminent threats to the Saugatuck Dunes—part of the largest and most significant assemblage of freshwater dunes on the planet Earth (http://www.saugatuckdunescoastalalliance.com/news.php?newsid=399).

The SDCA is very proud to include the following member organizations: the Douglas Lakeshore Association, Saugatuck-Douglas Historical Society, Holland League of Women Voters, Laketown Alliance for Neighborly Development, Concerned Citizens for Saugatuck Dunes State Park, the Kalamazoo River Protection Association, and the Lake Michigan Shore Association.

Since our founding, various individuals, philanthropists, organizations, and bodies of government have worked together in order to protect and preserve the 171-acre Saugatuck Dunes Natural Area, the 122-acre Tallmadge Woods, and the 22-acre McEnroe Conservation Easement; however, many threats still exist to rural open space, farmland, and to the very wild heart of Saugatuck—the Saugatuck Dunes.

We invite you to join our organization today and visit this dynamic website often to stay posted on the latest happenings in the Saugatuck Dunes coastal region.

Here is some news from Michigan and the SDCA, by Alison Swan

Sep 16, 2011. 

McClendon’s proposed settlement could change Michigan zoning laws forever

A quirk in Michigan case law makes it possible for a land speculator with deep pockets to force a change in local zoning rules that forever squelches any meaningful public participation.  And it nullifies — again forever — local ordinances.

Yes, “forever” is a strong word. Let me explain why it is so apt.

First, a reminder: Michigan boasts more coastline than any other state besides Alaska and a dramatically friendlier climate. People from places without coastlines or with crowded coastlines see our shorelines as pure gold. People want to enjoy the golden sands and sunsets.

And there are people who want to enjoy the wealth they can generate from those beaches.

Here’s where the case law quirk comes in: A developer doesn’t submit plans or engage with the local government in the usual way, but instead makes a variety of accusations designed to move the matter, as quickly as possible, into court. Local zoning, a legislative matter, is removed from the legislative process and, immediately, things get very expensive. Our small local governments are not equipped to respond effectively to such tactics.

And while the Michigan Supreme Court has not had the opportunity to weigh in on any such cases, some judges have recognized that zoning by consent decree raises an important separation of powers issue.

At the heart of all this are 400 acres of Lake Michigan dune land in Saugatuck Township. This area has been zoned residential for decades. And since 2008, the township, with an annual budget of around $750,000, has spent $400,000 defending the zoning and itself against a landowner, Aubrey McClendon (sole owner of Singapore Dunes LLC), who makes tens of thousands of dollars a day.

Singapore Dunes LLC wants to build a large-scale resort complete with nine-story hotel on the property — an unprecedented structure on the Michigan shore — plus a 66-slip marina and a golf course.

The Saugatuck Dunes (2,500 acres) lie along Lake Michigan and the Kalamazoo River. They hold the outskirts of two historical small towns, at least one ghost town, an internationally renowned art school and a host of ecological wonders. They do not look or feel quite like anywhere else — and they are a day trip away from several major cities. Their endurance in the 21st century is something of a miracle, but it is not an accident.

The communities of Saugatuck and Douglas have a long history of making choices that keep the lakeshore naturally scenic and their downtowns quaint, including the adoption in 2005 of a Tri-Community Master Plan. This proactive document simultaneously recognizes private property rights and encourages the preservation of historic and ecological treasures.

Rather than following the usual local process, which would have included presenting a formal plan to the township Planning Commission, Singapore Dunes LLC filed (among other challenges) a lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Saugatuck Township. Singapore Dunes LLC also threatened the National Trust for Historic Preservation with a lawsuit after it named the Saugatuck Dunes one of America’s 11 Most Endangered Places.

On July 22, 2011, the beleaguered Saugatuck Township Board approved a consent decree, potentially settling the federal lawsuit by agreeing to terms that go beyond what was asked for in the original complaint — and which effectively rezones all township land owned by Singapore Dunes LLC. Further, the settlement would remove any real influence of the township over how that land is used under existing or future owners. The two sides are awaiting the judge’s consent to their deal.

The five Saugatuck commissioners backed this proposed agreement after a four-hour public hearing, during which the majority of citizens spoke in support of finding a more equitable solution. Local attorneys and others have raised serious concerns and questions.

Singapore Dunes LLC v Saugatuck Township is the latest in a troubling string of Michigan cases involving the use of consent decrees (state and federal) to over-ride locally determined zoning. Unless the state of Michigan takes immediate, meaningful action, it will not be the last. The fate of a Pure Michigan treasure is at stake — and so are the fates of other Pure Michigan places, not to mention participatory democracy.

The locals are bearing the immediate financial and emotional burden, but every single citizen of Michigan, especially anyone whose community is small and includes a natural or historical treasure, has a stake in the outcome of this litigation. If Singapore Dunes LLC carries the day, how long before another person with deep pockets decides to transform one of Michigan’s scenic treasures, no matter what the people of the community might have planned and zoned for?

Alison Swan’s book, “Fresh Water: Women Writing on the Great Lakes” was named a Library of Michigan Notable Book. She teaches in the Environmental Studies Program at Western Michigan University.

A few months ago, I was lying in bed enjoying the morning sunrise over the mountain range. Out my winddow I can see the coastal fog had settled upon the open field next to the apple orchard. A gentle breeze was blowing in from the Pacific Ocean. From a distance, I heard an unusual sound. At first it sounded like a giant was on the march. I heard a slow and steady thump, thump, thump. It seemed like it was coming from down the ridge, perhaps in the little town of Sebastopol. For several hours, the distant thumping continued every two or three seconds.

Over the course of the day, this steady thumping gradually turned into a high pitched squeal. The squeaking noise began to grate on my nerves. I became irritable, developed a headache, could feel my blood pressure rise, and even started feeling sick to my stomach. By twilight, I was walking around the property at wits end. As I approached my neighbor’s orchard, the source of the annoyance became clear. The old windmill, which is used to pump water, had falling into disrepair. It desperately needed some WD-40. Unfortunately, the neighbors were away for the weekend and the rhythmic pollution continued on for a second day. I can say conclusively, no one within in a one mile radius of that darn windmill slept soundly that weekend.

Dr. Nina Pierpont, a graduate of Princeton and John Hopkins University School of Medicine, has written a well received peer-review report titled “Wind Turbine Syndrome”. Pierpont’s list of symptoms include “sleep disturbance, headache, ring or buzzing in the ears (tinnitus), ear pressure, dizziness, vertigo, nausea, visual blurring, racing heartbeat (tachycardia) irritability, problems with concentration and memory, and panic episodes with sensations of internal pulsation or quivering which arise while awake or asleep”.

As a result, Pierpont recommends wind turbines be sited no closer than 1-1/4 miles from a home. Dr. Robert McMurtry, a Canadian physician and special advisor to the Canadian Royal Commission on the Future of Health Care, agrees with Dr. Pierpont’s recommendations. In this brief video, Dr. McMurtry gives personal accounts from patients having suffered from “wind turbine syndrome”. One story of a young blind boy is particularly disturbing.  The child relied heavily on his ears and as he got closer to the wind turbines the poor child would go into a panic, because his world was being drowned out by noise. Pierpont explains the “turbine infrasound and low frequency noise (ILFN) create the seemingly incongruous constellation of symptoms”.

In Marin California, Dillon Beach is a quaint little surfer town. In August of last year, the Marin Country Deputy Zoning Administrator issued a routine permit to NextEra Energy Resources to erect two 197 feet tall towers to gather data regarding a potential wind farm site. Ever since, more an more environmentalist and community members from both Marin and Sonoma counties have been divided over any and all proposed wind farm projects.

A group of nine people, including leaders from the Marin Audubon Society, have come out against the wind towers. This has caused a bit of a riff between environmental groups. For the most part, the opponents of wind farms bring five main concerns to the debate. First, there is the noise pollution concern. “wind turbine syndrome” is a serious concern. Second, there are concerns about the effects on birds and bats. Third, the opponents point to big businesses, often out of state companies, pocketing large government subsidies and sending much of the money out of state. Fourth, there is the concern over blight, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And finally, opponents have called into question wind power claims of being a carbon neutral, clean source of energy.

I emailed Woody Hastings, the Renewable Energy Implementation Manager for the Climate Protection Campaign, a non-profit organization located in Sonoma county, and asked him to address some of the biggest concerns brought up from wind power opposition groups. Hastings made it clear that the Climate Protection Campaign is not interested in pitting its organization against other legitimate environmental organizations. Hastings also wishes to make clear, “I am not an advocate of utility-scale wind projects installed against the will of the surrounding community.” However, he agreed to address the five major concerns. The following is a short interview I conducted with Mr. Hastings:

D.W.: I have been reading a bit about “wind turbine syndrome? It has been suggested that the set-back for such projects should be no less than 1.25 miles from a wind farm. Some folks living in Dillon Beach believe they can be physically harmed by wind turbines. What is your take on this issue?

W.H.: “I happen to be highly sensitive to noise so I understand and respect the concern. I can’t address specifics of what an appropriate set-back would be since we are not engaged in that kind of work. I am aware that the wind industry is constantly working to improve the technology to reduce impacts, including noise”.

D.W.: Christopher Barnes writes in the West Marin Citizen, “The wind-farm business is an immense folly inflicted on a gullible public by big business, with the collusion of big government, at enormous expense to the environment, with shockingly little energy benefit.”  Certainly NextEra is a Florida based company with little connection to the North Bay area. What is your take on Barnes’ assertions?

W.H.: “Developing wind power is inherently capital intensive, so it necessarily involves larger entities, usually already involved in energy project development, that have the capacity to capitalize a wind project. Regarding the general characterization of windpower as an “immense folly” I would just have to respectfully disagree. The rapid growth of the wind industry worldwide belies the assertion. The problem of intermittency does not render wind, or solar for that matter, useless in developing a diverse clean energy generation portfolio. Storage technologies are improving rapidly (visit the California Energy Storage Alliance cesa.org) and other baseload options including biogas and geothermal can displace fossil and nuclear.”

D.W.: There are many that oppose wind turbines because they have been known to harm birds. Recently I have read that the average turbine kills approximately three birds a year. Is that a number you would agree with and what do you think the long term impart to bird populations will be?

W.H.: “I think that a lot of care needs to go into the siting of wind turbines with respect to bird and bat populations and for plenty of other reasons. That said, I do believe that appropriate sites for wind power exist and should be investigated for that purpose. Regarding a specific number for bird deaths, I do know that it is something relatively low – on the order of what you stated – and that the numbers killed by many other human activity-related causes far exceeds kills from wind power. I think it says a lot that the National Audubon Society generally supports appropriately sited wind power as a mitigation to climate change, which poses a catastrophic threat to bird and all species.”

D.W.: Another concern from the opposition group has to do with the blight. As you know, people that live in Sonoma and Marin counties are blessed with some of the most beautiful landscape anywhere in the world. Opponents point to other large scale wind farm sites and suggest the natural beauty of the area can be seriously scared by the proposed project. Can you please address this issue?

W.H.: “I think mountains and coastal scenes are beautiful. I also think wind turbines are beautiful. My hope is that most people will come to an understanding and acceptance of a need to transition to forms of energy generation like wind and solar, that do involve visual impacts. On a long term scale a thought I will offer is that wind turbines, as currently designed, will probably not be around forever. As other energy technologies are developed they will probably become obsolete. The fact that they require a very small amount of land to be disturbed renders their sites good candidates for future remediation – unlike large hydro dams, strip mines, mountain tops that have been removed, uranium mines, nuclear facilities, aquifers that have been destroyed by hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas, etc.”

D.W.: Some people dispute the carbon neutral clams from supporters of wind power. Opponents often point to the construction and maintenance concerns to back up their assertions. Can you please help break down some of those concerns?

W.H.: “I worked in the solar industry for a while and we would get that question, or challenge from time to time. For photovoltaic solar power it takes somewhere between two to eight years depending on a number of factors to break even with the amount of energy that went in to making the panel. Since they produce electricity for decades, and are typically warranted for 25 years, they are worth the investment from an energy return on investment perspective. Once that two or eight year mark is passed, they effectively become carbon neutral and theoretically begin displacing carbon emitting or otherwise damaging power. In the case of wind my understanding is that it’s a matter of months. Let’s also remember to stack this up against coal, natural gas, nuclear.”

Hastings makes a persuasive argument for wind power. I’m certain many people will agree with his comments. Nonetheless, the derision over wind power between environmentalists and the community in general is becoming perfectly clear. On the one hand, wind power is one of the cleanest forms of energy available. Within a relatively short time, wind power brakes even in the amount of energy it took to make the turbine. That’s a huge plus for wind power.

One the other hand, live within a mile range of a large wind turbine and you can be subjected to “wind turbine syndrome”, a debilitating illness. Whole communities have found themselves moving out of their homes as a result of “wind turbine syndrome.” The people of Dillon Beach may have a legitimate health and environmental concern.

Hastings is also correct the number of birds and bats killed each year is relatively low. The number I suggested of three a year is actually on the high side. For example, older turbines have the highest bird kill. In California, NextEra, the same company exploring wind power near Dillon Beach, is a major operator of the Altamont Pass wind farm, located about 50 miles east of San Francisco. According to a 2004 study commissioned by the California Energy Commission, and estimated 1,766 to 4,700 birds die annually from the 5,400 turbines operating at Altamont Pass. The number included between 881 and 1330 raptors, such as golden eagles, which are protected under federal law.

Last year, then California Attorney General, Jerry Brown brokered a deal with NextEra to replace the aging turbines by 2015 or close them down. Regardless, simply doing the math we find the kill ratio not at three percent but more like .5 percent. That said, build thousands of wind turbines and you will have thousands of dead birds. It’s all relative.

While Mr. Hastings may find wind turbines “beautiful”, for many, an Altamont Pass like site sprawling over the picturesque cliffs of Marin and Sonoma is nothing more than unwanted blight. Some might argue, environmentalists taking a “not in my backyard” attitude toward alternative energy is hypocritical. On the other hand, environmentalists can counter wind turbines are just another form of pollution, junking up the wilderness.

One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Last month, Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation which requires California’s utilities to get 33 percent of their electricity from renewable power by 2020. Both Marin and Sonoma counties have set their sights on over 40 percent. California’s goals are the most ambitious goals in the country. Hastings point about large scale energy development projects inherently requiring substantial capital investments is certainly fair enough. However, are there no local Marin and Sonoma companies that can do this work?

Recently, Google announced they are partnering with Citibank and pouring $55 million into wind farm project in the Mojave Desert. According to reports, “When complete, the project in the Tehachapi Mountains will generate 1.5 gigawatts, enough to power 450,000 homes. The installation will help boost wind jobs in the state by 20 percent while also feeding more than $1.2 billion into the Kern County economy, according to developers”.

Even before the Google project, the Tehachapi wind farms are the largest wind power project in California. Thousands of turbines, mostly run by Southern Edison Power, are already in operation. The combined new projects will cover over 50 square miles of once scenic mountain ranges.

As the planet heats up, the debate over how to best solve our energy problems is also heating up. In Sonoma and Marin, the debate over wind power has turned into protests. After Marin County Deputy Zoning Administrator issued NextEra their Dillon Beach permit last year, the nine opponents took their case to the Marin Planning Commission and won an appeal by a 5-2 vote. However, in December of 2010, the county supervisors reversed the ruling and the Dillon Beach project got the go ahead. That’s not stopping the opponents of the Dillon Beach turbines. They are monitoring the site for bird kills and attempting to build a coalition of environmentalists and community residents to oppose wind farms in the North Bay area.

Congressional Pugilists

When it comes to state’s rights and the environment, the Right-wing is all over the board on this issue. Two recent events illustrate this point, this month’s Supreme Court American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut decision and the Republican proposed bill HR 2018.

Last week, writing on the citizen journalist website BrooWaha, retired attorney and educator Tiffany Sanders, in an article titled, “Supreme Court Guts Protection for Consumers, Environment”, noted:

“American Electric Power Company v. Connecticut (the “greenhouse gasses” case) has been widely reported as an affirmation of the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And it is—but not in the way most Americans would assume when hearing that phrase. It’s a bit surprising that the “liberal media”, presumably in favor of environmental protections, isn’t telling it like it is on this one.

The case doesn’t affirm the power of the EPA to do anything affirmative, nor does it affirm the power of the EPA vis-à-vis corporations or other entities that might be acting in ways destructive to the environment. No, the power of the EPA that was affirmed in this case is the power to prevent states and environmental organizations from suing under a federal common law theory even though the EPA wasn’t actually acting to address the issue. That’s right; the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the power to set standards regarding carbon dioxide emissions, so a federal common law claim is off the table even though the agency hasn’t actually done so.”

In other words, what the Supreme Court did in the AEPC v. Connecticut case was limit a state’s right to enact laws that would require stricter air quality standards than the EPA requires. I wondered why the Right-wing Supreme Court and so many Right-wing think-tanks would support limiting state’s rights to write laws that would protect the health and the environment of their own citizens. After all, isn’t the Right-wing supposed to be “Federalists”,  or shall I say Federalist Society champions of state’s rights and limited federal government?

A look at the amicus petition by the Cato Institute in the AEPC v. Connecticut case makes it clear why the Right-wing believes the federal government should trump the states when it comes to the Clean Air Act. Here is an excerpt from their amicus petition:

“Cato is concerned that allowing courts to determine policy issues–instead of legal ones—would dramatically expand the role of the federal courts, relieving the legislative and executive branches of political accountability for sweeping changes to national economic and social policy.”

You see, the Right-wing was concerned if states like my California, (where I live), were to require higher air quality standards than those put out by the EPA (which California has done), then the states and individuals would have the right to sue businesses and individuals that were violating the stricter California standards. The Right-wing argued that a state by state patch-work of higher air quality standards would just tie up the courts and lead to federal courts essentially legislating the from bench.

As a result of the recent Supreme Court decision, Sanders concludes, “In short, since the EPA was granted the power to address a problem, no one else is allowed to address it…even if the EPA doesn’t do so. The Clean Air Act, then, has effectively prevented any kind of regulation of carbon dioxide emissions in the United States or any segment thereof, unless and until the EPA decides to act on its authority.”

However, when it comes to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Right-wing has taken on an entirely different approach. The Right-wings plans are to strip away by amendment to the Act the EPA’s authority to regulate water and hand that job over to the states. Is this just another example of Right-wing hypocrisy? Yes and no. Yes if you are an organization like the Cato Institute that usually advocates for state rights and limited federal government. No, if your guiding purpose is to ensuring the least amount of environmental protections possible in the U.S. Essentially, abandoning Federalism for Laissez-Faire capitalism. And who said the Right-wing hates the French?

On June 22, 2011, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee passed the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act, HR 2018. The bill was moved forward by many Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Bill’s stated purpose is to “To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) to preserve the authority of each State to make determinations relating to the State’s water quality standards, and for other purposes.”

According to HR 2018, the federal government, including the EPA, “may not withdraw approval (or object) to a State program” regarding “the implementation of any water quality standard that has been adopted by the State.” The bill further states the EPA will have no authority in “the implementation of any Federal guidance that directs the interpretation of the State’s water quality standards.”

While the Right-wing was secretly rejoicing over the recent Supreme Court ruling prohibiting the state’s the right to regulate air quality, they were working to strip away the federal government’s right to regulate water quality. That is because the federal water quality standards have worked and have shown to have dramatically helped clean up our nation’s waters. Now, many states would like to ease-up on those standards. Predictably, once again we see the Right-wing now calling on their Federalist friends to help gut the EPA’s authority to establish national clean water standards.

In other words, if a state wants to exceed the EPA’s regulations, the Right-wing will side with the federal government over the state. However, if the state wants to ignore the EPA, that’s when the Right-wing puts on their phony Federalist hats and decries state’s rights.

When one looks at the two examples provided in this article, the AEPC v. Connecticut Supreme Court ruling and the Republican sponsored HR 2018 bill, which environmentalist call the Dirty Water Act, what you see is a Right-wing movement in the U.S. that is all about high jinks or hypocrisy. We see a Republican Party that cares more about placating their corporate financiers than the environment, the public’s health, or their proclaimed belief in Federalism. If your sole interest is to protect corporations from lawsuits and regulations that prohibit them from polluting, then the Right-wing strategy has been all about high jinks, and therefore not hypocritical. However, if the Right-wing really believed in what they say, they would either oppose the Supreme Court decision or oppose HR 2018. Yet, they have unequivocally supported both.

In the mean time, HR 2018 has been fast-tracked from congressional committee. The Right-wing is now pushing to “suspend the rules” and let the bill go up for a vote without a debate. This week, after the 4th of July  holiday, the Right-wing plans on forcing HR 2018 to the floor for a vote. If the Democrats let that happen without a debate  they are idiots. And of course, we all know the Democrats of often idiots.

If you are interested in helping stop the Right-wing from fast-tracking HR 2018, The Dirty Water Bill, check out this email petition from the Sierra Club. Write to your congress member and ask them to oppose HR 2018.

While the world has been focused on the unfolding nuclear disaster in Fukushima Japan, here in the U.S. two nuclear power plants situated along the Missouri Rivers have been threatened by flooding.  The Cooper nuclear power plant near Brownville, Nebraska and the Fort Calhoun nuclear power plant near Blair, Nebraska are both scrabbling to take emergency measures to protect the plants.

The A.P. reported today the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Gregory Jaczko and his team arrived today to tour the two plants. At the moment, the Cooper nuclear power plant is still up and running since it remains above the floodwaters. However, the Fort Calhoun plant has remained shut down.

A series of barriers have been built to protect the Fort Calhoun plant from flooding.  An hour ago, the A.P reported a berm helping to hold back the floodwaters at the Fort Calhoun plant collapsed. According to the article, “The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the 2,000-foot (600-meter) berm at the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Station collapsed about 1:30 a.m. Sunday.”

The NRC has said that since the plant has been shut down and there is currently no water inside, there is no danger. In addition, the A.P. reports the Missouri River Fort Calhoun plant is designed to handle a flood past the level the Missouri River is expected to rise. The A.P. goes on to report, “The NRC says its inspectors were at the plant when the berm failed and have confirmed that the flooding has had no impact on the reactor shutdown cooling or the spent fuel pool cooling. NRC spokesman Victor Dricks says the plant remains safe.”

As more and more governments worldwide begin to come to grips with the untenable costs and unparallel danger nuclear energy presents, the U.S. is still attempting to ramp-up it’s nuclear energy production. As I reported last week in my article “Fukushima Forever” the U.S. is currently considering building a series of new “mini-nuke” plants. At the same time, the A.P. reported a consistent trend by the NRC to loosen-up safety regulations for aging nuclear power plants.

Writing at Truth Dig, Amy Goodman of DemocracyNow! explored the connection between the Obama administration and the nuclear industry:

“Obama established what he called his Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future. One of its 15 members is John Rowe, the chairman and chief executive officer of Exelon Corp. (the same nuclear-energy company that has lavished campaign contributions on Obama). The commission made a fact-finding trip to Japan to see how that country was thriving with nuclear power—one month before the Fukushima disaster. In May, the commission reiterated its position, which is Obama’s position, that nuclear ought to be part of the U.S. energy mix.”

The intimate connection between the Obama administration (and Democrats in general) and corporate interests has always disturbed me. The Democrats claim they are fighting for the little guy, the common man. Yet time and time again they hold hands with The Man. As a result, there is no one in government representing the health and welfare of everyday Americans. We the people have turned over our power to the America’s corporatocracy. As they keep telling us, “there is no danger”.  Oh, and “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”.

　Those who cannot remember the past

are condemned to repeat it!

–George Santayana

Photo by Greenpeace

On Saturday June 18, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPO) which operates the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plants, released a new report admitting the plant was grossly unprepared for the disaster. The report states workers had to borrow air compressors, batteries, and cables from local contractors all the while scavenge for protective gear and emergency manuals from buildings three miles away.

The March 11 earthquake and tsunami crippled four of the six reactors at the site and damaged critical cooling systems. TEPO has also recently admitted meltdowns have occurred in three of the six reactors. Containment pools are still leaking and spilling into the ocean. In addition, the pools in reactor buildings 1, 3 and 4 are still without circulation equipment and are being cooled with outside water injections.

Every day, the media trickles out an article or two on the ongoing nuclear disaster at Fukushima. The steady drip, drip of news stories have been mostly reassuring. For example, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported on Friday June 17, a day before releasing the new TEPO early disaster response report, TEPO executives were expressing confidence in their containment progress. Here is a small excerpt from The Yomiuri Shimbu:

“Tokyo Electric Power Co. executives expressed confidence over containing the crisis at its Fukushima No.  1 nuclear plant as the utility released a revised timetable for stabilizing damaged reactors, but emphasized the situation at the crippled plant remained serious.

…Progress has been made in key areas, such as cooling pools storing spent nuclear fuel rods, including better-than-expected gains in setting up a device to circulate water in a spent fuel pool in the No. 2 reactor building. Executive Vice President Sakae Muto said, “We’ll be able to finish the job on schedule.””

A quick search of Yomiuri Online also finds another recent article on the Fukushima disaster which downplays any global impact on food. In general, TEPO, the IAEA, and other nuclear industry representatives have been releasing a steady trickle of optimistic reports alongside a few confessions in which the Japanese government or TEPO admit to misstatements and mistakes made. Listening to TEPO and the government agencies one might be led to believe the clean-up is on track, everyone is safe, and no one is endangered.

The first thing everyone should remember about the Fukushima disaster is that it is still an ongoing crisis. It’s not over by a long shot. While the executives at TEPO and governments are expressing reassuring statements, three reactors are still in meltdown, the site is running out of space to contain the radioactive water, and there are leaks all over the place that TEPO has been unable to find, let alone fix.

Many people would like to know what will be the global impact from this disaster. The truth is, we will not know for a long time to come, if ever. In spite of the Japanese government’s, the IAEA, and the nuclear regulatory bodies’ reassuring announcements, increased radiation levels have been found in food not only in Japan but the United States as well.

In Japan, it has been widely reported that Iodine has been found in milk with levels five times higher than safely limits. In addition, Iodine and Cesium has been found in spinach, chrysanthemum greens, leeks and a few other foods at 27 times the acceptable limits. Many people might be surprised to learn Japan has yet to officially test the seafood, although they plan on doing so soon.

However, in April, Greenpeace tested the seaweed in the waters around Fukushima and have found contamination levels were 50 times higher than the safety limits. In addition, Greenpeace discovered the contamination was spreading to a much wider area than the Japanese authorities had originally projected.

Earlier this month, leading natural and organic food researcher, writer and marketing consultant  Steven Hoffman wrote a startling article on the contamination in the U.S. Hoffman reports, “In limited testing conducted by states and independent labs since the accident, radioactive iodine and cesium—both toxic to human health—have appeared at elevated levels in milk and vegetables produced in California. Radiation has also been detected in milk sold in Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Vermont and Washington since the accident.”

Hoffman continues,

“…On May 25, the University of California Berkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering (UCB)—one of the few organizations testing food, soil, air and water in the U.S.—reported that it had detected the highest level of radioactive cesium 137 in nearly a month in raw milk samples taken from a dairy in Sonoma County where the cows are grass fed. UCB also reported elevated levels of cesium 134 and cesium 137 in pasteurized, homogenized milk samples with a “best by” date of May 26 from a Bay Area organic dairy “where the farmers are encouraged to feed their cows local grass.”

Holy Cow! I live in Sonoma County and buy local organic milk. Yet, until I started researching this paper, I heard nothing of this study. I went over to the main county newspaper, the Press Democrat, and did a search with the key words “Sonoma, milk, radiation, organic, Berkeley, and a few other words and found no results. Here is the deal, if we know when a minor spike in radiative isotopes is headed our way, we might take not want to  serve out children organic, grass fed milk. This, of course, hurts one of the most important industries Sonoma county relies on, natural and organic dairy.

Hoffman points out that the State of California did a similar study at a CalPoly dairy farm in San Luis Obispo and found trace amounts of radioactive cesium 134 and cesium 137. Yet, the FDA has determined the U.S. food supply is at not risk from radiation,  and therefore no tests or studies are needed. This has led the mainstream media to remain mostly silent about the elevated levels of radiation in our milk and vegetables.

In late March, Physicians for Social Responsibility put out a press release which stated, “There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources.  Period,” said Jeff Patterson, DO, immediate past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility.  “Exposure to radionuclides, such as iodine-131 and cesium-137, increases the incidence of cancer. For this reason, every effort must be taken to minimize the radionuclide content in food and water.”

Aside from the global impact on food, the Fukushima crisis has had a global impact on the way people think about nuclear power. Nations around the world have called for a scaling back or even a complete phasing out of nuclear power. Most notably, German has announced a complete phase out of nuclear power. However, the Obama administration is pushing forward with his plans to build more nuclear reactors, including new mini nuku reactors.

All the while our aging nuclear plants gave been grossly under regulated. Today, June 20, Associated Press published the results of a year-long investigation into the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The investigation concludes “Federal regulators have been working closely with the nuclear power industry to keep the nation’s aging reactors operating within safety standards by repeatedly weakening those standards, or simply failing to enforce them.”

The Associated Press provides several explicit examples,

“When valves leaked, more leakage was allowed – up to 20 times the original limit. When rampant cracking caused radioactive leaks from steam generator tubing, an easier test of the tubes was devised, so plants could meet standards.

Failed cables. Busted seals. Broken nozzles, clogged screens, cracked concrete, dented containers, corroded metals and rusty underground pipes – all of these and thousands of other problems linked to aging were uncovered in the AP’s yearlong investigation. And all of them could escalate dangers in the event of an accident.”

Today’s Associated Press report does not paint a reassuring picture. Especially since the Republicans in Congress intend to eliminate the Environmental Protect Agency and further ease  the regulations and safety standards of all industries, including the nuclear power industry.

From my experience, when it comes to governments and corporations, the unknown is often far more frightening than what is known. It is clear TEPO, the governments in Japan and the U.S., along with the corporate controlled mainstream media are not telling us a great deal about the true global impact of Fukushima disaster. This fact should cause outrage in Americans, considering the fact that this ongoing tragedy could literally impact our lives forever.

Nuclear Skull by Greenpeace

I for one was never like that. I didn’t trust the random donation boxes with pictures of helpless kids on them at the end of the checkout stand, or the handing over of my hard-earned money to an organization that had no accountability to me. These days it’s even easier to see your money sail away with the random non-profit of the hour, or I should say, not see it sail away as by simply clicking the donation box on some sites will let you transfer straight from your bank account. (It is at this point that I would like to note that Project Censored has been around for over 35 years fighting for media freedom and that donations are stretched very far). I would also like to mention that there are many great organizations doing great work out there and donating to them will help in some way.

The reality is that non-profits are shooting up everywhere, and it is hard to actually measure or even find reliable information about them to make an educated donation decision. I have seen first hand non-profits in third-world countries take donations and flush them down the toilet. I’ve seen organizations come into poor indigenous communities, use power tools to build something, take a picture of the natives next to the thing they built, and then leave feeling good about themselves. I’ve then seen these projects fall apart within weeks sometimes with locals having no idea how to repair them, and no means to do it. Fail.

You would think that we would have learned from our mistakes over the times, but it seems that we have not. Even after all these years of doing “Aid Projects” around the world and then watching for the results, many organizations have failed to grasp the simple concept of sustainable development and sustainable projects. What is worse, when these projects fail, not only is the money wasted that could have been used on something sustainable and life saving, but the people the projects were meant for learn to embrace handouts. They learn not to trust people helping them in the future and go back to old and sometimes unhealthy ways of life.

So what does someone do if they really want to help those that are in need? I will tell you right now that donating to new non-profits that claim they are building houses, or handing out food in poor regions of the world, is only making the global hunger and health problem worse. This is called treating the symptom and not the cause. Why not teach these people how to grow their own food to eat and trees to build houses? It’s just not as romantic. Would you rather give money to an organization that is handing out food to starving children today or to an organization that talks about ‘capacity building’ and ‘empowering community members to help themselves and each other’? Most would give money to the organization that seems to be saving the world one bag of subsidized genetically-modified rice at a time.

If you are actually trying to make a decision right now over where to send some of your hard-earned money and save lives, you should stop because you have already made contributions to both if you live in the USA. You have most likely seen the pictures or video somewhere of the US and its partner organizations handing out bags of food, building schools and houses, and doing good will around the world. I’m here to say that we still need these type of handouts because we haven’t put enough money into the organization that is actually making the biggest impact. The Peace Corps.

It is true. Your tax dollars kill a lot of people all around the world and at the same time keep people alive all over the world. We do it because we think the “bad guys” should die and people that have unfortunately grown up in a place with low or no opportunity should be given the chance to help them help themselves. I’m not hear to talk about the killing because I’m not involved nor support it, but I can talk about one of the great things our great country is doing and has continued to do for over 50 years since JFK installed it. The Peace Corps, working off the same budget that some say the marching band of our military works with, really is one of the last great organizations out there that is actually helping. I know because not only am I currently serving, but my family has added it’s fair share of Peace Corps service.

It might sound crazy that a government program could actually be working better than almost all of its competition including private and foreign government, but it is true. I’m only half way through my service and I’ve already realized the difference between the Peace Corps and rest of them is a wider gap than most people know. When another group or government organization comes in and hands something out or builds something that falls down, we see what the actual ramifications are in real time, and we work to make it right if we can. What other organization sends qualified volunteers to live in remote communities for 2 years and only ask that whatever project they start, that it be sustainable? I haven’t seen any yet. And there is that word again. ‘Sustainable’. This might as well be the real Peace Corps tag line. We are dedicated on making sure our projects will empower the people we live and work with so that when we leave they will not only have the know-how to fix any problem that may arise or ideas about where to look for information to help themselves, but they will also learn to rely on themselves instead of the outside world’s handouts.

As Peace Corps volunteers, we come into communities and bring no money and only when we absolutely believe they are ready to receive a grant or a donation, do we bring it in. In my community, we merely started saving a percentage of our cacao sales to invest in other business opportunities and we have snowballed the idea from there. Now, Peace Corps along with the help of other organizations have been in my community for the last 5 years continually building skills in bookkeeping and basic business models among a whole host of other ‘capacity building’ activities, but the point is that it is working. We increased household income for 26 families by 40% a year and the best part is that they are driving the business themselves now using methodologies Peace Corps has developed and implemented throughout the years.

Adam Armstrong Talking to Community Members about Cacao and Chocolate production

We now have funds set aside for health emergencies, buying school books, and trash collection and the best part is that these people helped themselves instead of relying on outside sources. They just needed the know how. I do have to say that my community is a success story and that many other communities are still in the capacity building stages and that measuring any type of outcome in these places could be very difficult. But in that respect, in a world that is constantly focused on instant gratification and results, the Peace Corps gets it right by focusing on community integration, analysis on what is really needed and what can be sustainable, and then implementation with community members taking ownership of these projects and trainings.

Now of course there are cases where Peace Corps does not work efficiently and it can happen from every level, from management all the way down to the volunteer. I have heard that other Peace Corps programs in other countries have been mismanaged or cases of the volunteer just not being the right fit for the location they were stationed at. It happens in every organization and from what I have seen, when these types of things happen, they are fixed quite quickly. I have dealt with an extremely well organized and trained leadership group that is quite surprisingly transparent and open. I can only imagine that our program here in Panama is the norm for how a Peace Corps program works and every time I talk to volunteers in other countries I confirm this theory.

The point is that if you would like real change in this world to happen with the world’s poor and under-served population writing to your local, regional, national representatives to increase the Peace Corps budget will do more good in the long term, than clicking the donate button a non-proven non-profit that may or may not use your money wisely. We don’t get paid for our service in the Peace Corps as we shouldn’t, and you can count on the fact that we make our money stretch. While so much attention is focused on the Military budget, why not start focusing on something that brings peace back to the third-world countries you keep hearing about on the news by using what is great about the USA. Our freedom, education, and ability to work with other nations in a way that pushes no political agenda.

Notes: If you are interested in donating to the community please read a little about our rural chocolate farming and other projects here and if you are still interested in donating to a sustainable project you can contact me at californiaadam[@]yahoo.com (you will have to remove the brackets from the @) and I can connect you with a a community leader who can direct you as to some of the needs. We are currently looking for funding for a small business venture for our Artisan Chocolate group that would bring in solar panels and some small chocolate making machinery. We are also looking to get a couple smart phone donations to be able to check e-mail using a wireless signal we have available in the community.

If you would like to read my blog please click here and also please remember that this post is not officially recognized or endorsed by the Peace Corps. The Peace Corps Disclaimer.