Environmentalism without Economic Change

I finished Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things recently. The book presents a lot of great ideas about how to rethink the way we approach things like manufacturing and housing. These are areas that definitely need to be approached differently.

One thing the authors have a track record on is analyzing the various chemicals available for different industrial processes and eliminating known problems. More of this cannot be bad. Most importantly, they lay a groundwork upon which more research needs to be done for there to be real human-centric progress.

There’s a limitation to their approach, however, and it was clarified for me by a simple comparison between what’s presented in the book and how things played out. A chapter late in the book talks about the Ford Rouge plants and lists a long number of design changes there when they rebuilt some of the facility. If you drive past the Rouge now, there is certainly a lot of greenery filling much of the open space. They also implemented the pressurized air approach to atmospheric control within the plant. Problem is, since they were put into place a few years ago, half the blowers stopped working and there has been no maintenance done on them. Then there’s the “living roof.” This caused a number of “problems” – the most prominent being that it attracted “unwanted” gulls and pigeons. To counterbalance this, you now have at the Rouge what is called the “roof of death.” This is where poisons have been laid to kill all those birds (bit of contradiction to the principles here, I think). And when the wind blows, the decayed carcasses and other detritus come to earth and create a health hazard for the workers there.

The failing, like with books such as Fast Food Nation, is that their final proposals lie within the capitalist system and its reliance upon profit. The core proposals and ideas are good, and I recommend the books, but they always hit the wall of this economic system. Certainly, a niche can be carved out wherein the dwindling “middle class” can feast on safer food, enjoy safer products, and live healthier lifestyles, but without changing the economic system, these kinds of changes will be more about PR than human lives.

No Man is an Island

"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

— Eugene V. Debs

There's more to this than simple solidarity with the oppressed. There is the very real consequence that while one people oppresses another, they cannot be free. There is no choice in this, for no man is an island but a part of the whole.

There are consequences to the oppression of other people, and it has only been the high level of wealth extracted from these people that had allowed the U.S. to have a period of seeming calm. But we've been seeing our freedoms erode for a while now, accelerating more after 9/11. These are not freedoms we can simply gain back by marching for a right here or there. The natural tendency of our system is toward one that is more and more overtly oppressive.

Why Lieberman Matters

There's been all this talk recently about Lieberman. My first impression was something along the lines of "who cares?" There is one issue to bring up here, though.

Lieberman is like Dean and Kucinich in the last presidential election. They never really had the full support of the Democratic Party, but they were very useful in bringing in votes. Lieberman is actually the reverse of this, in that his defeat by another rich man whose only difference is that he's opposed to the war in Iraq. Will this make a difference in how the Democrats support the war? Not really. But it will have the effect of pulling people into the Democrat fold when they should rightfully toss the Democrats on the trash heap where they belong. It helps create the illusion that the Democrats might actually oppose the war.

Better Late Than Never?

The California Labor Federation has voted to oppose Proposition 85, set to appear on this fall's ballot (article). It's about time. Actually, it was time decades ago.

This is really a no-brainer, but also a sign of where labor unions are and have been. The fact that this comes up as a "controversial" decision makes it clear that labor has not taken the leadership role that it should. The group most harmed by abortion restrictions are working women. It is working women who must lead a fight for abortion rights, since they are the ones that face it not simply as a moral issue but as an economic issue.

The article brings up a notion that should be laughed at: the idea that such a decision isn't necessarily representing all of the members. The role of leadership is to lead, and more so in a labor organization. Leaders should represent the interests of workers, but as leaders they should realize the need to fight greater problems in society which are in the interest of all workers. This would be a much more fruitful investment of their resources than dumping money down the Democrat hole.

The reasoning behind this vote which the article points to, and doubtlessly is a major factor, is that unions are relying more and more on "liberal" elements to man their campaigns and work as allies in various fights. One downside to this is that it appeals more to the morals of these outsiders. A robust movement would pull these people in without effort, instead gaining its strength from individual workers who see real possibility in fighting as workers. And that should be the morality of a labor organization.

PATCO and the Decline of U.S. Workers

It's the 25th anniversary of the crushing of the PATCO strike. The strike was so significant and successful in the destruction of working-class organization and standard of living that they decided to name an airport after the leader of that attack (Reagan).

Although the media plays up the cockiness of the union, they really don't get at the story of what really happened. The union was set up for the fall, so that the ruling class could make a demonstration to the rest of the working class. Well before the strike, Carter had already helped push worse working conditions on the air traffic controllers. This lead the union to back Reagan for president, with Reagan making all sorts of promises to the union.

When the FAA presented a concession-heavy contract, the union went on strike. Reagan then proceeded to fire all the controller, bringing in scabs. The plan of attack was already laid, the FAA setting up a "Strike Force" from the year before.

Now working conditions are even worse, and NATCO (PATCO's replacement) is looking at a situation where new hires will be trained at the busiest airports – obviously the worst idea if your concern is safety. But that's just it, they're concern isn't our safety.

The PATCO strike, since they were privileged compared to other workers and expected to win, had an incredibly demoralizing effect on the working class. Combined with unions who were already in bed with management, it sped up the degenerative process that leaves us with the working conditions we see today.

Ghouls' Night Out

The media this week had plenty of photos of Cuban-Americans celebrating the ill health of Fidel Castro. I was in a restaurant Monday night when the news was depicting the same scenes. How ghoulish. If Bush died and people throughout the world began to celebrate, the media would be condemning them as savages.

It was refreshing talking to my aunt last night, though. Her news is limited to what's on TV, and she couldn't understand at all the animosity against Castro. Unlike this country and its leaders, Castro has shown a real concern for the welfare of his people. My aunt had learned enough about Cuban education to see this demonstrated.

Of course, Castro's health has also spawned talk of post-Castro Cuba and the embargos. They always claim that these embargoes are because of Cuba's treatment of dissidents, as if the U.S. has some sort of humanely-based morality to its foreign policy. What I'd like to see is a break down of how few countries we would maintain economic relationships with if we applied these standards to everyone.

A Little More Insight

I was pointed at a useful Hezbollah Primer. It contains a lot of good historical information, regardless of any opinions that might come through.

For me, one interesting note is that the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel has (up until recently) taken place in the Golan Heights, which Israel is illegally occupying. Not that there's any reason to give any merit to Israel's claims in this war, anyway, but this means that Israel launched its latest war because of an attack that took place in territory they shouldn't be in. It's like WMDs, though ... simply an excuse that allows it to rally popular support for its massacre of Lebanese civilians.

The code words that Israel (and in turn the U.S. government and press) use also becomes clearer from reading this Primer. To make a goal of eliminating Hezbollah is to state a desire to commit genocide. And for what? I can only guess, Lebensraum?

The downside of the article is that while it does present clearly why people in Lebanon support Hezbollah, it doesn't address the organization's policies. As much as they provide support to the local population, they are still a backwards-looking organization that is looking to control that population. They are a dead end for the population, Shi'i or not.