Monday, April 18, 2011

Thoughts While Walking to Dyer Pond

Sven and I are fortunate to be able to walk through the woods to Dyer Pond, deep in the National Seashore. The walk only takes a dozen minutes or so. Every time we go, I'm struck by the magnificence of Nature. How almighty she is, how precious. I think of my children, my grandchildren. Why allow pollution? Why destroy the planet? What are Tea Partiers thinking in trying to dismantle the EPA? Since I've been doing a lot of reading prior to Earth Day, I looked at the blue, blue water of Dyer Pond and railed against the world greed has created.

My latest read, Pollution: The Making of Our Chemically Altered Environment by Benjamin Ross and Steven Amter. The book is not on our blue bookshelf because the text is too darn technical and rather depressing. Pollution recounts the conscious choices made right before, and right after, World War II, ie. how polluters went about ducking regulation and "corrupting democracy," in the words of Robert Kennedy, Jr..

It was Rachel Carson who turned the tide. Then, environmental crises at the end of the 1960s drew the attention of the public, and the EPA was created. I graduated from college in 1969 and remember how eagerly a friend's husband joined after law school. It only took a couple years for him to lament the limited purview of this environmental institution and leave government service.

Earth Day was proclaimed April 22, 1970, one day after my son's birth. I would love to say how far we have come, but we haven't. The chemical industry has us in a stranglehold and has no intention of letting go.

But, but, but, people like you and me can change that.

Yesterday I read an article in Salon about how a young writer's fear of having gotten cancer led him to realize the toxic chemical stew we live in may be making us sick.

I got an email this week from Breast Cancer Action, "the first national breast cancer organization to refuse funding from corporations that contribute to or profit from breast cancer so that our work remains uncompromised." BCA works to:

"Eliminate toxins that permeate our everyday lives and increase breast cancer rates.

Build national collaborations with under-served communities to overcome health inequity.

Put patients’ interests before corporate profits through legal and drug approval processes."

Wait. Read those statements again. BCA is targeting toxic chemicals in the environment and putting our interests ahead of corporate profits. We need more organizations like this one. That's where I will be sending a contribution this Earth Day.

I'm waiting for the tipping point, where people catch on, where toxic chemicals will be acknowledged as one cause of cancer, where politicians are brave enough to stand up to corporate interests.

Do you think that day will ever come?

Comments (6)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
What you write about post WWII, co-relates with the profiteer's need to dispose of weapon-grade chemicals, once they no longer had a war to unload them on. This is what led to our current system of unloading war chemicals onto our crops and into 'products' we unwittingly bring into our homes. In the name of feeding the country, or "progress" ,..or whatever other excuse they gave. I bet if anyone looked seriously enough, they may find a co-relation between the dumping of war chemicals into our food and soil, and the rise in cancers. They simply switched from fighting an enemy to fighting nature. A breed of farmer rose that attacked the soil as if it were inert and threatening, then forced a plant mono-culture that typified a dull understanding of pollinator and human needs, then bombed the crops with weapon-grade poisons. This hateful approach to living from the land has lasted far too long. Those Egyptian mummies, who recently made news, were cancer free, imagine!.... I don't even think we have to go that far back to realize a connection between cancer and a hazardous nutritional imbalance in our day to day life.
The funny thing about "pollution" is that we've gotten to a point where we have definitional problems due to politicization. For instance, under the EPA's proposed rules, our very grandchildren are all "polluters" in that they exhale "pollution" - you know, that horrible natural stuff that plants and trees breathe to be healthy and which they use to produce oxygen for us to live. Thus, in that case, "allowing" pollution is preferable to most to holding one's breath or Chinese-style authoritarian one-child policies.

Then there's the EPA. Your friend was frustrated with their limited purview and quit. Lots of folks are understandably frustrated with their relative lack of efficacy regulating the toxic stew we are to live in. The question, then, is why? Will piles of more cash make them more efficient or effective? (History says no, especially when they are beholden to corporate lobbyists!). Will carbon taxes, which severely limit consumers' economic liberty, magically remove existing "pollutants" from the air?

In light of the unprecedented, unsustainable spending, deficits, and debts we and our grandchildren must now pay, should we really BORROW money from China (which builds a new coal-fired power plant EVERY WEEK - *without* pollution controls) - to cleanse our consciences? Or should we take a different tack and not expect bureaucrats to solve all the issues? Are the solutions to this problem really political?

Personal responsibility is in play here. We all vote every time we spend a dollar. How and where one invests and spends makes the greatest impact on the communities we live in. I'm not convinced that vilifying groups advocating limited government is the way to clean up this mess. Environmentalism is a non-partisan, trans-national issue that has unfortunately been hijacked for political purposes (just ask the founder of Greenpeace!). IMO Politicizing these struggles is extremely counter-productive.

I agree with you : "People like you and me can change that. " It starts with individual choices and setting an example - this is why watching the likes of Al Gore and Laurie David alternate between lecturing the public and flying private jets and living in vast oceanfront estates is so jarring and so corrosive to the cause they champion.

Life = Choices !!
1 reply · active less than 1 minute ago
Thanks for thinking about this, Stan. I think setting an example is a good first step, and that can take whatever form works for the individual. I think we should all try and set an example, including President Obama. I would really like to see him turn down the heat at the White House, for instance, and show up on TV wearing a sweater, urging the country to conserve energy. Such a big issue to cover! Small steps. Simply starting the conversation is one.
Last week, I heard a politician/author on The Daily Show say that "government" is simply the word we use when we choose to do things together. I like to think protecting ourselves and each other from pollution is one of those things. Maybe I'm wrong
My recent post Support Animal Welfare Crusaders in Missouri
I wrote about this same topic today. It may all seem hopeless, but I think when we gather together as a society and say, "Enough," things will change. I can feel that day coming.
Dyer Pond is very beautiful. Hopefully enough of us will try to prevent pollution that something will tip the scale. Too many people just don't think about their actions.
My recent post Ukulele Teacher Works Out of Consignment Shop

Post a new comment

Comments by