Rachel's News #868: Business as Usual, Pt. 1

[Guest guest]

rachel

Rachel's News #868: Business as Usual, Pt. 1

Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:16:52 -0400

 

 

 

..

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #868

" Environment, health, jobs and justice--Who gets to decide? "

Thursday, August 17, 2006...............Printer-friendly version

www.rachel.org -- To make a secure donation,

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Featured stories in this issue...

 

Business as Usual, Part 1

" Species-area relationships lead to projections of the loss of

fully two-thirds of all species on Earth by the end of this

century.... And these projections do not include the inevitably

negative effects of climate change, widespread pollution, and the

destruction caused by alien species worldwide, among other factors. "

Study: People Near Dow Chemical Plant Have Higher Dioxin Levels

A new study shows that people living near Dow Chemical's

headquarters in Midland, Michigan are contaminated with dioxin, one of

the two or three most potent poisons known to science.

What Will It Take to Make 'Green Chemistry' Real?

" The U.S. private sector is simply not investing vigorously enough

in cleaner technologies, such as green chemistry, that are likely to

mark the next era of innovation and growth in the global chemicals

market. With very few exceptions one can still earn a Ph.D. in

chemistry at U.S. universities without demonstrating even a

rudimentary understanding of how chemicals affect human health and the

environment. "

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Comes Under Threat

The Bush administration has awarded $1 million for a study aimed at

limiting information available to the public via the Freedom of

Information Act. Those of us who value freedom of information had

better take steps to defend it.

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Rachel's Democracy & Health News #868, Aug. 16, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

BUSINESS AS USUAL, PART 1

 

By Peter Montague

 

Peter H. Raven, a well-known biologist, was president of the American

Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) during 2002. With 10

million members and affiliates, the AAAS is the largest scientific

organization in the U.S.; it publishes Science magazine.

 

Dr. Raven's presidential address to the academy in 2002 is a

succinct statement of where business as usual has carried us. In 2003,

Dr. Raven presented a companion paper to the Natural History Museum

in London, England. Here we summarize what he had to say in those two

papers. [i have added a few comments in the text, inside square

brackets. --P.M.]

 

[As you read through this description of the world we are handing to

our children, ask yourself, " If the environmental movement got

everything it is seeking, would it make a real difference in the

problems described here? Have we set our sights high enough? Have we

focused our minds on the real root causes? " ]

 

Human Population

 

In 1950, the human population of Earth was 2.5 billion. A mere 50

years later it had grown to 6 billion. The human population is

expected to level off at 9 billion some time during this century.

[This will require 50% more of everything that we enjoy today -- 50%

more cities, hospitals, roads, parks, prisons, parking lots, trucks,

sewage treatment plants, farms and factories. If the human standard of

living rises during that time, even more will be needed.]

 

[How will things look when the human population has grown 50% larger?]

 

To support 6 billion people, each year we are dousing our crops with 3

million metric tonnes (6.6 billion pounds) of pesticidal chemicals

(1.1 billion pounds in the U.S. alone). Another byproduct of our

industrial agricultural system, Dr. Raven says, is that " We also are

poisoning the environment with the nitrogen we fix, our output now

exceeding the total derived from natural processes. " [This deserves a

brief explanation: We " fix " nitrogen gas from the atmosphere, turning

it into a solid, and mix it into soils as fertilizer to stimulate

plant growth. Much of this nitrogen washes out of the soil and enters

streams, eventually reaching the oceans, where it stimulates growth of

algae, disrupting near-shore ecosystems with " red tides " and " brown

tides, " and contributes to the death of corals, among other

disruptions. Humans are now putting more nitrogen into soils and water

than all non-human natural processes combined. By this measure we

humans are now more powerful than all the rest of nature -- quite an

astonishing accomplishment for a single species among the 10 million

(or more) species on earth.]

 

The Land

 

Human crops now require cultivated lands the size of South America.

" Most of the land used for agriculture and grazing, especially in the

tropics and subtropics, is being degraded by these activities and is

therefore becoming less sustainable and productive in the face of

increasing worldwide demand for high-quality food. " Furthermore, " only

limited potential remains for expanding the area of land under

cultivation. "

 

And, says Dr. Raven, " The rangelands on which some 180 million of us

graze 3.3 billion cattle, sheep, and goats occupy about a fifth of the

world's land surface; although there is a rapidly increasing demand

for animal protein, " in almost every case, the lands on which they are

being grazed are being progressively degraded to such an extent that

they are unlikely to be able to maintain their present levels of

productivity, much less of biodiversity, in the future, " says Dr.

Raven.

 

....[A]bout 20% of the arable land in 1950 has been lost subsequently,

to salinization [from salt left in the soil by irrigation],

desertification, urban sprawl, erosion, and other factors, so that we

are feeding 6.3 billion people today on about four-fifths of the land

on which we were feeding 2.5 billion people in 1950....

 

In sum, says Dr. Raven, " Over the past half century, we have lost

about a fifth of the world's topsoil, a fifth of its agricultural

land, and a third of its forests. " By the middle of the present

century, 95% of tropical moist forests are expected to be lost.

Furthermore, " habitats throughout the world have [already] been

decimated, with populations of alien plants and animals exploding and

causing enormous damage throughout the world. "

 

The Oceans

 

" About two-thirds of the world's fisheries are being harvested beyond

sustainability, " says Dr. Raven. And, " Almost all major fisheries are

under severe pressure.... "

 

The Atmosphere

 

" We have changed the composition of the atmosphere profoundly, first

by adding about one sixth to the carbon dioxide that is contributing

substantially to driving global temperatures upward and second, by

depleting the stratospheric ozone layer by about 8 per cent. "

 

Fresh Water

 

....[W]e [humans] are consuming more than half of the total renewable

supplies of fresh water in the world, our use of water growing at

about twice the rate of our population growth. Our demands for water

are growing rapidly, while water tables across north China, India, and

other critical, densely populated regions are dropping rapidly.

 

Agriculture accounts for about 90% of the total water actually

consumed for human purposes, and it is not clear how we shall be able

to find water for a human population 50% larger than at present, one

with greatly increased demands for affluence. As it is, about half the

human population, some 3.5 billion people, will be living in regions

facing severe water shortages by 2025.

 

Biodiversity

 

" The most troublesome environmental change of all, in that it is

irreversible, is the loss of biodiversity. " Historically, extinction

has occurred naturally at the rate of about one species lost per

million species each year. " Historical records over the past few

centuries demonstrate that it has now risen by approximately three

orders of magnitude, to perhaps 1,000 species per million per year

(0.1 per cent of all species per year), and it continues to rise

sharply, with the accelerating destruction of habitats throughout the

world, " Dr. Raven says.

 

" Species-area relationships, taken worldwide, lead to projections of

the loss of fully two-thirds of all species on Earth by the end of

this century.... And these projections do not include the inevitably

negative effects of climate change, widespread pollution, and the

destruction caused by alien species worldwide, among other factors. "

 

[Did you get that? Two-thirds of all species on Earth may disappear

during this century -- and this projection does not take into

consideration the effects of climate change, widespread pollution, and

the destruction caused by alient species worldwide.]

 

" The significance of such a loss for global stability as well as human

progress is staggering, " says Dr. Raven.

 

He goes on: " Striking is the fact that we are likely never to have

seen, or to be aware of, the existence of most of the species we are

driving to extinction. In tropical moist forest, we have catalogued so

far probably fewer than one in twenty of the species present -- which

is one reason that the losses are so tragic. The loss of so many

species clearly will have a negative impact on future human prospects.

We derive all of our food; most of our medicines; a major proportion

of our building materials, clothing, chemical feedstocks; and other

useful products from the living world. "

 

In addition, the communities and ecosystems that it comprises protect

our watersheds, stabilize our soils, determine our climates and

provide the insects that pollinate our crops, among many other

ecosystem services.

 

And finally, says Dr. Raven, these organisms are simply beautiful,

enriching our lives in many ways and inspiring us every day. By any

moral or ethical standard, we simply do not have the right to destroy

them, and yet we are doing it savagely, relentlessly, and at a rapidly

increasing rate, every day. Many believe, and I agree with them, that

we simply do not have the right to destroy what is such a high

proportion of the species on Earth. They are, as far as we know, our

only living companions in the universe, Dr. Raven says.

 

Summary

 

" Summarizing, we can see that the world has been converted in an

instant of time from a wild, natural one to one in which human beings,

one of an estimated 10 million species of organisms (possibly many

more), are consuming, wasting, or diverting an estimated 45 percent of

the total net biological productivity on land and using more than half

of the renewable fresh water. "

 

Dr. Raven says, " The scales and kinds of changes in the Earth's life

support systems are so different from what they have ever been before

that we cannot base our predictions of the future, much less chart our

future courses of action, on the basis of what has happened in the

past. "

 

[Continued next week.]

 

=====================================================

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

The Associated Press State & Local Wire, Aug. 15, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

STUDY: PEOPLE NEAR DOW CHEMICAL PLANT HAVE HIGHER DIOXIN LEVELS

 

By John Flesher, AP Environmental Writer

 

Residents of some areas near the Dow Chemical Co. plant in Midland,

Mich., have higher levels of dioxins in their bodies than people

studied elsewhere, a University of Michigan study found [13 Mbytes

PDF]. [The study has its own web site.]

 

The report, released Tuesday, is " the first major study to show

exactly how much exposure to dioxin people have in this area and how

the dioxins get into their bodies, " said David Garabrant, an

epidemiologist and specialist in occupational and emergency medicine,

who led the inquiry.

 

Dow funded the study, which focused on sections of Midland and Saginaw

counties near its plant. Dioxins, a group of toxins, were generated by

company processes over several decades. One of the chemicals is known

to cause cancer.

 

The study found that people in one of the areas studied, the

Tittabawassee River floodplain, had 28 percent higher median levels of

" dioxin-like chemicals " in their blood than members of a comparison

group in Jackson and Calhoun counties.

 

Those counties were chosen because they are near the Midland-Saginaw

area but more than 100 miles from the plant.

 

Older people tended to have higher dioxin levels, the study found.

 

It also linked the elevated levels with eating foods such as fish from

tainted waters and living where the soil is contaminated.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

Congressional Quarterly, Aug. 2, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

EPA CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

 

Testimony before U.S. Senate Committee on Senate Environment and

Public Works

 

By Michael P. Wilson

 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you very much for

inviting me to the hearing today on chemicals policy and the Toxic

Substances Control Act. I am Michael Wilson, an assistant research

scientist with the Center for Occupational and Environmental Health at

the University of California (UC), Berkeley and the lead author of a

report regarding chemical problems in California and the steps the

California Legislature can take to respond to those problems.

 

I will speak briefly about the report, entitled Green Chemistry in

California: A Framework for Leadership in Chemicals Policy and

Innovation, which was published by the University of California in

March of this year. I would like to acknowledge co-authors Daniel Chia

and Bryan Ehlers and the Advisory Committee of experts that provided

technical guidance and rigorous review of the document over a two-year

period.

 

The report responds to three questions posed to the University by the

California Legislature:

 

--What are the key chemical challenges facing California?

 

--What are the causes of those challenges?

 

--How might the Legislature respond to those challenges?

 

In answering these questions, we found that California, like other

U.S. states, is facing an array of problems with chemicals. These

problems are experienced in different ways by the businesses in our

state that purchase and use chemicals, by our government agencies, and

by consumers and workers. But three themes emerged out of our

investigation. First, there is insufficient information in the

marketplace to make informed decisions abut chemicals.

 

Second, government is overly constrained in its capacity to protect

public and environmental health from chemicals.

 

And third, more needs to be done to motivate investment in safer

chemical technologies, known as " green chemistry. " While the focus of

the report is on the challenges that exist in California, the report

finds that the root cause of these challenges can be traced to

longstanding deficiencies in federal regulation, particularly with the

Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA. The report illustrates that the

weaknesses of TSCA have produced a Data Gap, a Safety Gap, and a

Technology Gap in the U.S. chemicals market. I would like to briefly

explain these three Gaps and their relevance to chemicals policy in

the U.S.

 

The first of these, the Data Gap, is perhaps the most fundamental. As

you have heard from other witnesses, TSCA does not require chemical

producers (U.S. or foreign) to generate and disclose robust

information on the toxicity of the vast majority of chemicals in

commercial circulation. Markets cannot function without good

information, and the chemicals market is no different. We found that

California businesses that use chemicals are unable to identify and

choose the safest chemicals for their needs. This leaves them with

uncertainties and liabilities arising from the potential effects of

these chemicals on their workers, on their customers, and in the

environment. Even large firms, such as those in California's

electronics industry, are finding it very difficult and expensive to

identify and replace hazardous chemicals in their supply chains. These

firms simply do not have the right kind information to identify safer

chemical alternatives. Of course, small business owners, workers, and

consumers are affected even more acutely by the lack of appropriate

information in the chemicals market.

 

This pervasive lack of information also poses a barrier to the

competitive advantage of innovative companies that are investing in

green chemistry. In the current chemicals market, customers, investors

and others are unable to efficiently differentiate between

conventional chemicals and safer alternatives. The report finds that

green chemistry will become commercially viable only when the market

allows these entities to make informed purchasing decisions. It is one

of the proper roles of government to ensure that the market has

sufficient information to function properly, and in this regard, TSCA

has come up short.

 

The second challenge recognized in the report is the Safety Gap. It is

also a proper function of government to ensure that the production and

use of goods does not come at the expense of public and environmental

health. Here again, TSCA has fallen short. It is well recognized that

U.S. EPA has been greatly constrained in it ability to assess the

hazards of chemicals in commercial circulation and to control those of

greatest concern. This has allowed hazardous chemicals to remain

competitive in the market, and it has unnecessarily put the public at

risk. It is also costly. For example, the EPA expects that if

production and regulatory practices remain the same, 600 new hazardous

waste sites will appear in the U.S. each month of every year over the

next 25 years; clean-up costs are estimated at over $250 billion. The

CDC reports that about half of the top 50 chemicals at existing waste

sites can cause birth defects; others are toxic to the human nervous

system.

 

Other social costs of chemical exposures are more subtle. There is

evidence that hundreds of chemicals are accumulating in the human

body. Some of these -- including flame retardants, wood preservatives,

and stain repellants -- have been identified in the umbilical cord

blood of newborn babies. Of course, the effects of chemical exposures

during the uniquely sensitive period of human development are of great

concern. Furthermore, chemical exposures in the workplace continue to

produce a substantial burden of occupational disease in the U.S. In

California, about 23,000 workers each year are diagnosed with chronic

diseases that are attributable to chemical exposures on the job. The

Safety Gap created by TSCA is allowing real problems to continue

unchecked, problems that will likely expand as global chemical

production doubles over the next 25 years.

 

Together, the Data Gap and Safety Gap are contributing to stagnant

conditions in the U.S. chemicals market. This is producing what we

characterize in the report as a U.S. chemical Technology Gap. Only 248

new chemicals introduced since 1979 have reached High Production

Volume status in the U.S., about 8% of the High Production Volume

chemicals in commercial circulation today. In its 1996 Vision 2020

report, the U.S.-based Council for Chemical Research, together with

the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Chemical

Engineers, the American Chemistry Council, and the Synthetic Organic

Chemical Manufacturers Association, wrote that the vast majority of

chemical products are manufactured in the U.S. using technologies

developed 40 to 50 years ago and that new technologies are needed that

incorporate economical and environmentally safer processes, use less

energy, and produce fewer harmful byproducts. Ten years after the

Vision 2020 report, the websites of the 50 largest U.S. chemical

companies all contain a statement of commitment to achieving

sustainability goals, but their spending on research and development

has decreased or remained flat since 2000, according to the National

Science Foundation.

 

It is not surprising, therefore, that the Committee on Grand

Challenges for Sustainability in the Chemical Industry, convened by

the National Academy of Sciences, concluded in its December 2005

report that in " going forward, the chemical industry is faced with a

major conundrum the need to be sustainable (balanced economically,

environmentally, and socially in order to not undermine the natural

systems on which it depends) and a lack of a more coordinated effort

to generate the science and technology to make it all possible. " The

committee included academic scientists as well as representatives of

Dow, PPG Industries, ConocoPhillips, and Agraquest.

 

The U.S. private sector is simply not investing vigorously enough in

cleaner technologies, such as green chemistry, that are likely to mark

the next era of innovation and growth in the global chemicals market.

It is a reflection of the current state of the chemicals market (and

the Technology Gap in particular) that with very few exceptions one

can still earn a Ph.D. in chemistry at U.S. universities without

demonstrating even a rudimentary understanding of how chemicals affect

human health and the environment. U.S. chemistry graduate students are

not required to gain an understanding of the principles of toxicology.

This is a serious problem not only for public and environmental health

but for the long-term competitiveness of the U.S. chemical industry

itself, as noted last year by the NAS Grand Challenges committee.

 

So what is to be done? First, our report acknowledges that the U.S.

chemical industry generates important benefits for society in the form

of an extraordinary array of substances serving all sectors of the

economy. At the same time, our report finds increasing evidence that

many of these substances can adversely affect human health and disrupt

the biological systems on which life itself depends. This is precisely

what makes chemicals policy so difficult. Some of the properties that

make chemicals useful to society also make them hazardous to people.

Once we acknowledge this paradox, however, we can begin to think about

how to re-design the production and regulatory systems so that they

amplify the positive contributions of chemicals to society while

steadily reducing their negative impacts. This represents a system

that is founded on the principles of green chemistry. It essentially

introduces the toxicity of chemicals into the market on an equal

footing with price and function, and in doing so it moves the market

steadily toward the design, production, and use of chemicals that are

inherently safer for people and ecological systems.

 

In short, a fundamental overhaul of the federal Toxic Substances

Control Act is needed. A modern U.S. chemicals policy will need to put

in place the market conditions that advance the technical and

commercial viability of green chemistry. These new market conditions

will begin to motivate the chemical industry to focus its enormous

talent and technical capacity on innovating green chemistry at a level

commensurate with the scale and pace of chemical production. It will

open new market opportunities for green chemistry entrepreneurs. It

will not, however, be achieved through voluntary initiatives by the

industry, nor will it be achieved by piecemeal approaches to chemicals

policy, or by providing occasional funding to universities to conduct

green chemistry research. While these can help identify best

practices, for example, they are not sufficient -- even collectively

-- to correct the uneven playing field in the chemicals market that

has been engendered by TSCA.

 

The UC report recommends that correcting these market flaws will

require a comprehensive approach to chemicals policy that closes the

Data Gap, the Safety Gap and the Technology Gap. This is the key

challenge of chemicals policy for California and the nation, and I

think it is reasonable to conclude that it is a fairly formidable

challenge. Meeting this challenge, however, will deliver real value to

the American people. It will build the foundation for an economically

and environmentally sustainable chemical industry in the U.S; it will

solve a host of costly chemical problems that are affecting public

health, businesses, and government; and it will support our industry

leaders in becoming globally competitive in green chemistry and other

cleaner technologies. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank

you very much for your attention today, and thank you again for

inviting me to this important hearing. I would be pleased to answer

any question you might have.

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::

 

WorkingForChange, Aug. 10, 2006

[Printer-friendly version]

 

FOIA AT FORTY: PUBLIC SERVICE OR POTENTIAL THREAT?

 

By Bill Berkowitz

 

Although the Air Force Research Laboratory million dollar grant given

to Jeffrey Addicott, a professor at St. Mary's University School of

Law in San Antonio, to devise new ways to limit making information

available to the public via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), is

not likely to destroy the act completely, if adopted it could further

weaken the forty year-old act.

 

According to an early-July report in USA Today, Addicott said he will

use the research grant " to produce a national 'model statute' that

state legislatures and Congress could adopt to ensure that potentially

dangerous information 'stays out of the hands of the bad guys.' "

 

The grant, the USA Today report acknowledged, is for " research aimed

at rolling back the amount of sensitive data available to the press

and public through freedom-of-information requests. "

 

" There's the public's right to know, but how much? " Addicott, a former

legal adviser in the Army's Special Forces, told the newspaper.

" There's a strong feeling that the law needs to balance that with the

need to protect the well-being of the nation.... There's too much

stuff that's easy to get that shouldn't be, " he said.

 

" It's a little peculiar that Jeffrey Addicott received the grant given

that the Air Force has a wide range of urgent needs, " Steven

Aftergood, the Director of the Federation of American Scientists'

Project on Government Secrecy and editor of Secrecy News, told me in a

telephone interview from his Washington D.C. office.

 

" We are after all at war. I would have thought they it had more

compelling uses for a million dollars than an academic study of how to

limit the FOIA. While I'm interested in the fact that the grant was

made, there's a long distance between someone writing a report and

proposing legislation and actually having that legislation enacted.

 

The announcement of the Air Force's grant came around the 40th

anniversary -- July 4, 1966 -- of President Lyndon Johnson's signing

the Freedom of Information Act into law.

 

Documents from that year, discovered at the Lyndon Baines Johnson

Library and Museum in Austin, Texas, by the National Security Archive

at George Washington University -- a group whose researchers make more

than 1,500 requests for government records on U.S. national security

and foreign policy under the FOIA every year -- revealed that

President Johnson had serious doubts about how much and what types of

information should be made available through the FOIA.

 

According to the AP's Ted Bridis, Johnson " submitted a signing

statement [along with the bill] that some researchers believe was

intended to undercut the measure's purpose of forcing government to

disclose records except in narrow cases. Draft language from Johnson's

statement arguing that 'democracy works best when the people know what

their government is doing,' was changed with a handwritten scrawl to

read: 'Democracy works best when the people have all the info that the

security of the nation will permit.'

 

" This sentence was eliminated entirely with the same handwritten

markings: 'Government officials should not be able to pull curtains of

secrecy around decisions which can be revealed without injury to the

public interest.'

 

" Another scratched sentence on the document said the decisions,

policies and mistakes of public officials 'are always subjected to the

scrutiny and judgment of the people.' "

 

" The law's staunchest advocates think its principles are imperiled,

threatened by what they describe as the Bush administration's penchant

for secrecy and concerns about revealing strategies to terrorists, "

the Associated Press recently pointed out.

 

" This is the worst of times for the Freedom of Information Act in many

ways, " Paul McMasters of the First Amendment Center, which studies

issues of free speech, press and religion, told the AP.

 

In an op-ed piece for the Baltimore Sun, David O. Stewart, president

of the Freedom to Write Fund of the Washington Independent Writers,

wrote that " The problems with the FOIA could not be more current as

radio talk shows thump The New York Times for having the temerity to

inform Americans about what their government is doing. "

 

Stewart pointed out how difficult it is to " strike " a " balance between

disclosure and secrecy .¦ particularly when more than 4 million FOIA

requests are submitted every year. The Defense Department alone has

500 FOIA offices. Yet there are many symptoms that the current

policies fundamentally skew toward secrecy in a manner that can only

injure the public interest. "

 

According to Stewart, a " secret " federally-run " program... ha

spirited out of the National Archives more than 25,000 previously

disclosed records and reclassified them as 'secret.' These included a

1951 assessment of agrarian reform in Guatemala and a 1948 memo on

balloon drops of leaflets into Communist countries. "

In addition, " The CIA has demanded that the National Security

Archive... pay the search costs for more than 40 requests, which would

run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. " And, Stewart pointed out,

" The entire government continues to function under former Attorney

General John Ashcroft's 2001 directive that encouraged agencies to

deny information requested under the FOIA, assuring them of Justice

Department support in defending such denials. "

" The government ignores almost all FOIA requests coming from activists

such as myself, " Scott Silver, the executive director of Wild

Wilderness, an Oregon-based grassroots environmental group, told me in

a recent email. " They do not even acknowledge receipt -- not of the

original request or of follow up requests asking why the first request

was never acted upon. Those who sue the government when it breaks the

law may get a little bit better cooperation --- but even that seems to

be changing. "

A new book by Stephen Gidiere entitled " The Federal Information

Manual: How the Federal Government Collects, Manages and Discloses

Information Under FOIA and other statutes, " published this spring by

the American Bar Association, documented the up-tick in government

secrecy. According to The Birmingham News, " in 2005 alone, the

executive branch decided 14.2 million times to classify information as

secret, nearly double the number of secrets created in 1998. "

Gidiere, an environmental and public records lawyer for Balch &

Bingham, acknowledged that in the post-9/11 climate it is

understandable that the Bush Administration would be more vigilant

about information accessible through the FOIA, but, he told The

Birmingham News, " Good government requires a balance between secrecy

and openness. "

" The federal government spent $7.2 billion on designating and

protecting its secrets in 2004, up from $5.6 billion in 2002. In

contrast, the federal government spent only $300 million on issues

related to the FOIA, " Gidiere said. " Much of this increase can

understandably be attributed to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and our

increased military and intelligence operations since 9/11, " Gidiere

added. " However, Congress and the federal courts should not give the

president an automatic free pass anytime he mentions national

security. "

Gidiere also pointed out that " In 1998, the government classified

information 7.2 million times. By 2005, it was 14.2 million. The war

on terror is about protecting our freedom. But we are giving up some

of our privacy and freedom to win the war -- most notably, the freedom

of information. "

" People want information from the federal government, and they want it

fast -- instantaneously, in some cases, " said Gidiere, who spent years

researching and 18 months writing his book. " But now, there are more

hurdles to cross that prevent or delay local officials, journalists,

corporations and individuals from getting the information they want.

It's easy to understand why the public and many in Congress are

calling for reforms. "

" Overall, the Freedom of Information Act remains a vital tool but a

troubled one: vital because it is not merely a policy, it is a law

that gives individuals access to government information, " Secrecy

News' Steven Aftergood pointed out. " It is troubled because backlogs

are growing, secrecy claims are rising, and response times are getting

longer -- when you can get them. "

The Air Force grant to Jeffrey Addicott " tells us what we essentially

already knew; that at this time, this administration views the FOIA

not as a public service, but as a potential threat. Those of us who

value freedom of information had better take steps to defend it. "

=============

Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement.

His WorkingForChange column Conservative Watch documents the

strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the

American Right.

Copyright 2006 Working Assets.

Return to Table of Contents

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

Rachel's Democracy & Health News (formerly Rachel's Environment &

Health News) highlights the connections between issues that are

often considered separately or not at all.

The natural world is deteriorating and human health is declining

because those who make the important decisions aren't the ones who

bear the brunt. Our purpose is to connect the dots between human

health, the destruction of nature, the decline of community, the

rise of economic insecurity and inequalities, growing stress among

workers and families, and the crippling legacies of patriarchy,

intolerance, and racial injustice that allow us to be divided and

therefore ruled by the few.

In a democracy, there are no more fundamental questions than, " Who

gets to decide? " And, " How do the few control the many, and what

might be done about it? "

As you come across stories that might help people connect the dots,

please Email them to us at dhn.

Rachel's Democracy & Health News is published as often as

necessary to provide readers with up-to-date coverage of the

subject.

Editors:

Peter Montague - peter

Tim Montague - tim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

To start your own free Email subscription to Rachel's Democracy

& Health News send a blank Email to: join-rachel.

In response, you will receive an Email asking you to confirm that

you want to .

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

Environmental Research Foundation

P.O. Box 160, New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

dhn

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\

::::::::::::::::::::

---