The land of the Somali people, much of it arid and inhospitable, has been close to civilization and international trade for thousands of years.

Situated on the Horn of Africa, jutting out into the India Ocean, Somalia’s harbors are natural ports of call for traders sailing to and from India. Somalia’s coastline is frequented by many foreigners, in particular Arabs and Persians. But, in Somalia’s interior, the Somali are on their own.

Most urban households use charcoal for everyday cooking. It has been estimated that some families use a full sack of charcoal every four days due to their large family size. And, with this exacerbated charcoal use comes a significant amount of environmental fallout.

Because of an insufficient and cheaper alternative to charcoal and a large former refugee population, tree felling and a great dependence on charcoal in the self-declared republic of Somaliland are adversely affecting the environment. A 2007 study by the Academy for Peace and Development reports that greater than 2.5 million trees are felled each year and burned for charcoal in Somaliland. The report further stated that each household in Somaliland consumes an average of 10 trees a month.

Considering this extensive use of trees, the serious affects of deforestation should be noted. Deforestation not only exacerbates soil erosion, it also reduces rainfall availability. In addition, trees are a vital component in carbon fixing, which is the natural process of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Interestingly, the demand for charcoal remains very high, despite charcoal prices going up since 1991 with the resettlement of former refugees. Roughly 10 years ago, one sack of charcoal cost Somalis only about 5,000 Somaliland shillings, or 0.76 US dollars, but now the price is about 30,000 Somaliland shillings, or 5 US dollars. And, this price is only aggravated by rainfall, because when it rains, the trees become wet and the charcoal becomes more expensive.

It is not difficult to see that the ever rising gas prices have helped to encourage charcoal use. In past years, gas was actually cheaper than charcoal, but the price has increased dramatically. Now, one liter of gas costs approximately 4,000 Somaliland shillings or 0.61 US dollars, which is up from 1,500 Somaliland shillings or 0.23 US dollars.

Nowadays, charcoal is even the preferred fuel in hotels, which obviously consume even larger quantities of this valuable and environmentally important commodity. It has been estimated that some hotel chefs even use a full sack of charcoal for a single day’s cooking.

It is no wonder that researchers have determined that one of the main driving forces of African deforestation is the need for fuel.

It is also estimated that in sub-Saharan Africa, only 7.5 percent of the rural population has access to electricity. A 2009 report on the state of the world’s forests reports that “as household incomes and investment in appropriate alternatives remain low, wood is likely to remain an important energy source in Africa in the coming decades.”

Going back as far as forecasts made in 2001, it was suggested that there will be a 34 percent increase in wood fuel consumption from 2000 to 2020. However, as the price for fuel continues to rise, this increase is likely to be even greater. In other words, the share of wood fuel in the total energy supply is likely to decline, while the number of people dependent on wood for fuel and energy is likely to grow.

The report goes on to say that “the forest situation in Africa presents enormous challenges, reflecting the larger constraints of low income, weak policies and inadequately developed institutions.”

With this ever-increasing demand for fuel, many environmentalists are concerned that the trade in charcoal will eventually wipe out some species of trees. For example, one species of trees used for charcoal production is the Acacia bussei tree, which can produce between eight to 10 sacks of charcoal per tree. Researches are worried because the Acacia is the most preferred tree specie for charcoal production, timber and fencing, and its extensive use could force it to the brink of extinction in the Somaliland territories.

Efforts are being made, however, to stop or slow down the felling of Somaliland trees. On April 30, 2009, concerned with the impact of charcoal burning on the environment, Maroodi Jeeh, regional governor of Hargeisa (a city in the northwestern Somaliland region of Somalia), banned trade in charcoal as well as the burning of trees. Other attempts at protecting the environment have included the introduction of gas stoves and solar cookers in the main urban centers of Burou, Las-anod, Gabiley, Wajalea and Borama.

Since January, Somgas Company has been supplying gas to residents. A typical household uses an 11-kilogram cylinder for approximately six weeks. Although initial gas and cylinder prices remain high, an 11-kilogram gas cylinder plus gas costs $44.50 and is recharged at just $19.
This is certainly not expensive compared with the monthly charcoal consumption of about $15 for three 20-kilogram sacks of charcoal per household. (The gas cylinders range from two to 22 kilograms.)

According to Somaliland’s Ministry of Pastoral Development and Environment, there is still great cause for concern, even though charcoal consumption fell in 2008 compared with 2007.

Mohamoud Ibrahim Mohamoud currently heads the forestry section in the ministry. He says he is concerned about environmental degradation caused by the charcoal trade, and is working with several organizations to search for alternatives to charcoal energy. The problem that seems to drive the tree felling and forest burning for charcoal is the poverty throughout the countryside and the high demand for charcoal energy in the urban areas.

Overall, the demand for charcoal appears to be increasing daily and the burning of trees is also increasing. But, many leaders and environmentalists are now trying to encourage awareness and education among the people of Somalia and give them other sources of income, such as helping young people become involved in alternative activities such as bee-keeping.

It is obvious that other sources of income and further education and research are needed if the problem of deforestation and charcoal burning will be successfully addressed and redirected in Somalia.

The Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL), a premier nuclear weapons research facility, is unique among America’s national labs in that it is in an urban area. It is in Livermore, California, cheek-by-jowl to homes built across the street. Moreover, Livermore itself is part of San Francisco’s East Bay region. Seven million people, including this writer, live within a 50-mile radius of the city. Airplanes heading in and out of San Francisco International, Oakland International, and Minetta International (San Jose) fly over it daily.

Scientists at the lab perform experiments with plutonium, highly-enriched uranium, and tritium (radioactive hydrogen) in an earthquake zone. There are three major seismic faults in the region: the Calaveras, the Hayward, on which thousands of homes and businesses sit — this fault bisects the Cal Berkeley football stadium — and the famous San Andreas Fault, which is west of the San Francisco Bay, but still capable of causing tremendous damage to the East Bay region if it quakes in the “right” place.

LLNL is the rectangular area between S. Vasco Rd. and Greenville Rd (upper right of this image).¹

Closer to home, the Las Positas fault zone is less than 200 feet from the Livermore Lab site boundary. The Greenville fault caused a quake in 1980 that created a 120-meter discontinuous crack in the earth near Livermore Lab’s Hazardous and Radioactive Waste Storage yard. A laser slipped off its supports during the quake, triggering an internal tritium leak². Up until that time, the Greenville fault was not listed as an active fault, which goes to show that a future catastrophe could come from a heretofore unrecognized source.

Likelihood of intense shaking³

Marylia Kelley, executive director of Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)⁴, a local organization that has been monitoring the lab’s activities for more than 20 years, says this:

“The Department of Energy has done a very inadequate job of the addressing the earthquake risks. They’ve postulated a ground motion that is less than what earthquake experts believe is possible. So we’re in a situation where if an earthquake cooperates with the Department of Energy’s analysis and doesn’t go outside the boundaries the Department of Energy has looked at, then the results will likely be no catastrophic accident. However, Nature being Nature and doing what she will and not necessarily paying any attention to the Department of Energy’s calculations, if there’s a ground motion that’s greater than or different than what the Department of Energy has calculated, there is the possibility for a very serious accident and a large release of radioactive material.” ⁵

Probability of Big Quake⁶

LLNL’s neighbors are adamantly against the lab’s proposal to build a BSL-3 high-security biotechnology facility on the property. BSL stands for biohazard safety level. There are four biohazard safety levels: 1-4. The number refers to the types of procedures, precautions, and equipment that laboratory personnel must use when working on organisms at the lab. By extension, the number also refers to the types of bioagents that can be present in the lab. BSL-3 is a high-containment level, where scientists work with potentially life-threatening microorganisms such as live anthrax and bubonic plague. BSL-4 facilities harbor microorganisms that cause diseases for which there is no known cure, such as the Ebola and Marburg viruses.⁷ So one can readily see why a community would not be eager to have a BSL-3 or BSL-4 facility in its midst.

In addition to the obvious concerns about accidental or deliberate discharge of dangerous microorganisms into the community, people against the BSL-3 lab at Lawrence Livermore cite additional threats posed to world peace by experimenting with potentially deadly organisms in a facility that also conducts classified nuclear weapons research.

The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention⁸ (BWC), to which the United States is a party, permits biological research that is prophylactic or defensive in nature, e.g., research to develop vaccines and antidotes. The trouble is, to develop these vaccines and antidotes, one must first to discover how the bioagents work. That knowledge opens up the realm of illegal offensive research.

Moreover, research is more likely to be deemed suspicious when it is done under the auspices of a military agency such as the Department of Defense, or an agency with heavy military connections, such as the Department of Energy or the Department of Homeland Security, than when it is done by an agency such as the Department of Health and Human Services or the Environmental Protection Agency. Openness to inspection is a confidence-building measure that supports the BWC. But inspections are not likely to be allowed if the biological research is on the same premises as classified nuclear weapons research. The suspicion such research, and the refusal to permit inspection, creates in other countries could lead to the proliferation of bioweapons, and thus threaten not only US national security but the security of the entire human race.

The thought that the United States could be pursuing illegal bioweapons, in the name of needing to know what the terrorists might do, is not idle speculation. Dr. Robert Gould, M.D., a past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility⁹, has expressed concern that the US government wants to genetically modify anthrax. “This is a threat of developing offensive capabilities,” he said, “because you’re modifying an organism to be resistant to antibiotics and therefore increasing its capability to be a weapon.”¹⁰ The lab already works with dead anthrax in its BSL-2 facility.

For the time being, the Department of Energy’s plans for a BSL-3 lab at Lawrence Livermore have been halted. On October 16, 2006, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of environmentalists in a three-year-old lawsuit filed by Tri-Valley CAREs and Nuclear Watch New Mexico. The court held that the Energy Department’s environmental impact study was inadequate because it omitted any study of security risks and terrorist threats to the facility on the basis that such an analysis was not required under the National Environmental Policy Act. The 9th Circuit remanded the environmental review back to the Department of Energy for further analysis on terrorist risks.¹¹

In a press release announcing the decision, Tri-Valley CAREs staff attorney Loulena Miles said, “Now the agency can not merely cry national security and avoid hard questions concerning environmental impacts and terrorist risks.”¹²

But the victory may be only temporary. The decision was marked “Not for Publication” and a footnote states, “This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.¹³ It, therefore, cannot be used as precedent in other lawsuits.

Secondly, in its six-page decision, the Court stated that, “[r]eview of agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. section 706(2), is ‘highly deferential.’ Although Tri-Valley raised some substantial questions about the validity of DOE’s substantive conclusions, this Court may not substitute its judgment for the reviewing agency’s. NEPA is a procedural statute that does not mandate particular results, but simply provides the necessary process to ensure that federal agencies take a hard look at the environmental consequences of their actions.”¹⁴

DOE, undaunted by this temporary setback in Livermore, is pushing its plans to build a BSL-4 lab in the nearby city of Tracy, on the northern edge of the San Joaquin Valley, some of the best farmland on earth.

References
¹ Map Image: Livermore, CA. Google Earth.
² Phone interview with Marylia Kelley, executive director of Tri-Valley CAREs for R.I.S.E. Program: Livermore: More Nuclear Bombs. The final program is available here
³ Image: Likelihood of intense shaking. Source: Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country: Your Handbook for the San Francisco Bay Region / U.S. Geological Survey General Information Product 15, 2005
⁴ Tri-Valley CAREs
⁵ Phone interview with Marylia Kelley
⁶ Image: Probability of Big Quake. Source: Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country: Your Handbook for the San Francisco Bay Region / U.S. Geological Survey General Information Product 15, 2005
⁷ Marylia Kelley & Jay Coghlan, “Mixing bugs and bombs.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September/October 2003, p 26.
⁸ The text of the BWC is here
⁹ Physicians for Social Responsibility
¹⁰ Kellia Ramares, “As Bush threatens Iraq with Nukes, U.S. ramps up its own biowarfare research.” Originally published in Online Journal, January, 2003. Now available here
¹¹ Press Release: “Community Groups Hail Victory, Court Grants Demand For Environmental Review Before Bio-Warfare Agent Research Facility Opens At Livermore Lab,” October 16, 2006.
¹² Ibid., p 1.
¹³ Tri-Valley CAREs, et al. v. Department of Energy, et al., p 1. link
¹⁴ Ibid., p 4.

Each year, during the annual New York City marathon, approximately 30,000 athletes cross the Pulaski Bridge. The Pulaski Bridge not only marks the halfway point of the marathon, it is also the most polluted and noxious waterway in the United States. The marathon walkers and runners will most likely notice the smell radiating up from the waters below, most will not know the name of the tributary they cross. In fact, many people do not realize that this waterway even exists.

This is Newton Creek – A murky estuary stretching some three and a half industrialized miles, which borders Greenpoint, Brooklyn and Maspeth, Queens. The shoreline of Newton Creek was once decorated with the mansions of the area’s wealthiest and was considered the perfect spot for shipbuilders. After the mansions came industries and refineries. What’s left over is now a toxic mix of raw sewage, floating oil from the nearby refineries as well as other noxious contaminates that bubble to the surface each time it rains.

For Newton Creek, February 12, 1933 marked the final voyage of the ferry that connected Greenpoint to Manhattan. With this last voyage went what many call the “glory days” of Newton Creek. While the ferry did not survive the Great Depression, the oil refineries continued to thrive.

Riverkeeper, an advocacy group that monitors the Hudson River, its tributaries as well as the watershed of New York City, is a watchdog group focused on tracking down and stopping polluters. Beginning in 1966, Riverkeeper has been working to improve, preserve and protect the waterways in and around New York.

According to one of Riverkeeper’s environmental reports, Newton Creek “fails to meet even the most basic goals of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Nearly the entire stretch of the Creek is heavily industrialized, there is virtually no public access and water-dependent industries have stagnated. A boat trip up the creek is a journey into the heart of darkness, with the backdrop of the Manhattan skyline as a reminder of its real world locale.”

Photo Credit: Santino DR

About every two weeks, Riverkeeper conducts river patrols, including the Hudson and East Rivers. During these patrols, workers take samples from the murky water. Samples taken from the waters around the ExxonMobil refinery have been determined to be almost pure oil. Riverkeeper takes samples from various places along Newton Creek – by the Pulaski, Greenpoint Avenue and Kosciuszko bridges as well as by the Peerless refinery.

Although samples taken from the East River, at the point where Newton Creek and the river meet, are considered the cleanest, layers of floating oil can still be found. At this point in the river, there is still enough life-sustaining oxygen, which allows fish to survive. Like us, fish require sufficient oxygen to thrive, and, it is important to note, that at various spots along New York’s Newton Creek, there is zero oxygen.

The reason there is no oxygen present at different locations along the Creek is that there is no source of fresh, oxygenated water. No exchange of water can take place because Newton Creek is simply too far away from East River. In fact, the only watery substance that flows into the Creek originates from sewage pipes. In other words, the water of Newton Creek is overrun with toxic bacteria.

At some point in the future, the State Department of Environmental Conservation plans to create a system that will oxygenate the Creek’s water. With those plans still in the very distant future, some of New York City’s municipal raw sewage also seeps into Newton Creek. Combine this sewage with the already highly contaminated and impure water and you will find no place capable of sustaining life.

Occasionally and as expected, fish are pushed up stream by strong waves and powerful winds. They do not survive long. When birds land on the water and attempt to drink or feed, they swallow the tainted water, which poisons the birds. The birds, in turn, innocently spread the contamination. With the toxic waste adhering to their bodies and wings, wherever the birds fly next will receive a dose of the same contamination found in Newton Creek.

TOXIC FUMES AT GREENPOINT

Polluted water is not the only health hazard found at Newton Creek. When the rain comes, water is absorbed deep into the already tainted ground. As it seeps deeper and deeper, it eventually reaches and further contaminates the groundwater. The groundwater in Greenpoint, Brooklyn is deemed useless.

Photo Credit: Santino DR

The fumes and vapors from raw sewage and oil spills are not only horrible to smell, they also present another potential health hazard. Those who work in local factories as well as area residents and business owners must inhale the potentially dangerous fumes. Interestingly, no research has been done to determine the composition of the fumes at Newton Creek.

It appears that nobody in authority wants to reveal what contaminates are really in the water and the vapors that engulf the Creek. Newton Creek’s pollution problems, and there are many, fall under the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Apparently, either they don’t know or they aren’t talking.

The problem will likely remain until there are more defined answers and until the nature of all contaminates, including their irresponsible sources, are revealed.

A WORM IN THE BIG APPLE

It seems odd that the most highly contaminated tributary in the United States is in the heart of New York City. Newton Creek’s dirty little secret remained undetected for so long because not many people actually knew about it. In fact, even Riverkeeper found out about the Creek by accident.

Many lower income families rely on fish taken from the East River for food. In an attempt to find the most popular fishing spot and get the City Council to erect warning signs, Riverkeeper workers were patrolling the shore of East River. The goal was to stop people from eating the tainted fish, which are full of poisonous contaminates. It was during this patrol that the Riverkeeper patrol stumbled onto Newton Creek.

A LESSON IN HISTORY

Big industries have long been blamed for the pollution of Newton Creek. Government regulations prohibiting companies along Newton Creek from ignorantly dumping vast amounts of industrial wastes right in the Creek were not implemented until 1972.

The pollution of Newton Creek actually commenced some 150 years after the first European settlers reached Maspeth, New York in 1642. The eastern edge of Maspeth abuts Newton Creek and was developed into a highly industrial and commercial area. After the Revolutionary War, New York was developing economically and the business of trade was gaining strength along Newton Creek. There were agriculture fields, residential homes and a growing number of factories and shops where rope and various chemical products were manufactured.

The start of the 19th century marked a high point in the shipbuilding industry. Beginning in the 1840s and continuing throughout the Civil War, hundreds of ships were brought to life on Newton Creek. It was not until the Industrial Revolution that the shipbuilding industry began to slow down.

Shipbuilding was replaced by new oil refineries and various textile industries. The new booming industries made barge and ship traffic on Newton Creek extremely heavy. The only other river in America more congested and busy was the Mississippi.

As early as 1889, the New York Times began writing of Newton Creek’s squalor. A committee of concerned New Yorkers created the Brooklyn’s Smelling Committee in 1891. They called the Creek the most foul-smelling area in the entire city. Brooklyn’s Smelling Committee recorded that there were “piles of rotten meat from local butchers.” This was just the beginning.

Newton Creek’s pollution crisis intensified with the increasing number of refineries. The first kerosene refinery was started in 1854, and, by the end of the 19th century, the country’s highest concentration of industrial factories could be found in Long Island City. The state’s population boomed as thousands moved to communities along Newton Creek to find jobs. They found work in sugar mills, cooperages, textile factories and, of course, the refineries.

By 1880, there were already 50 refineries on Long Island City’s side of Newton Creek. Each of these refineries only compounded the already declining condition of the water. Each refinery is said to have poured roughly 30,000 gallons of toxic material in the Creek. Disaster was imminent.

Starting at some point in the 1940s, oil began spilling into the sewage pipes along Newton Creek. Eventually, the spilled covered a span of nine acres. On October 5, 1950, an explosion was prompted by the oily mess. Windows of at least 500 area residents and businesses were shattered and some 25 sewer covers flew as high as three stories in the air.

The massive explosion caused 17 million gallons of oil to spill into the earth. This enlarged the size of the entire spill to cover 55 acres. The size of Newton Creek’s spill continued to grow and is now said to be six times larger than that of Alaska’s legendary Exxon Valdez disaster of 1989.

Oil first started leaking into ground water in the Greenpoint area during the beginning of the 20th century. This began after, and as a result of, the arrival of Standard Oil, ExxonMobil and BP Amoco to Newton Creek. Of course, the explosion intensified the already toxic situation.

Amazingly, there has been very little effective cleanup action. Even with the obvious floating oil covering the Creek’s surface and black, shiny grease along the shoreline, nothing substantial was ever done to remedy the problem. However, from the beginning of this sickening problem, the undisputable stench of oil permeated Newton Creek’s neighborhoods giving little question about the murky substance in the water and along the shoreline.

City officials first learned of the oil spill in 1950, when the powerful Greenpoint explosion erupted. As it happened, gasoline seeped into a sewer and somehow was ignited. It took almost 30 additional years for the problem to be rediscovered.

It was in 1978. A Coast Guard pilot on a routine patrol just happened to notice the vast oil spill. Further investigation revealed that this spill was actually part of a massive oil spill, which originated from oil tanks coming directly from an Exxon facility.

According to Riverkeeper, because ExxonMobil ignored the oil spill, the Creek’s environmental problems aggressively expanded. To date, the Newton Creek spill extends from Greenpoint Avenue to beyond the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. The oily slime that plagues the Creek measures anywhere between 30 centimeters to 3 meters thick.

TOO LITTLE TOO LATE

Finally, in 1990, the corporations responsible for and that owned the polluted sites were ordered to start the cleanup process. The cleanup process, however, was and still is not very successful. If clean up would have been ordered shortly after the explosion in 1950, maybe Newton Creek could have been salvaged. But, as it turned out, very little was done to improve the Creek’s condition for 40 years.

While not everyone knew about the spill, those who did know about the disaster seemed not to care. The huge corporations responsible were in the business of making money by selling millions of gallons of oil yearly. They showed little concern for the poor, immigrant neighborhoods along Newton Creek.

To date, among the companies deemed responsible for the cleanup are PB Products North America (previously Amoco Oil Company) and ExxonMobil. These corporations were ordered to use pumping stations, which collect water and separate out the oil. The oil is then placed in barrels and the supposed “free” product is eventually sent to refineries in New Jersey. This is a very slow-moving process.

It was not until 1990 that ExxonMobil signed a consent order from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to clean up the mess. Unfortunately, ExxonMobil repeatedly made and broke promises and ignored legal orders to clean up their mess at Newton Creek.

Riverkeeper continues a legal battle with ExxonMobil and the other responsible corporations. Along with Exxon and PB Products North America (previously Amoco Oil Company) are Texaco (previously Paragon Oil) and Peerless Importers. Each corporation is accused of negligently storing, transporting and/or disposing of oil, petroleum, petroleum products, oil additives, petroleum additives, petroleum product additives, gasoline, gasoline additives, such as lead, benzene, toluene, xylene, kerosene, refinery oil, solvents, and other hazardous chemicals.

As a result of their actions (or inactions), these corporations have caused devastating pollution along the Newton Creek shoreline. They have also caused damage to an estimated 230 homes and 80 businesses. Local Newton Creek residents and business owners are still being affected by contaminated soil, water pollution and air pollutants.

Riverkeeper still patrols Newton Creek by helicopter and by boat. Even now, with the level of the Creek’s contamination well known and more highly publicized, many companies still blatantly dump hazardous, toxic chemicals into Newton Creek.

In addition to the oil spill, Empire Transit Mix, a concrete manufacturer in Brooklyn, pleaded guilty in federal court to illegally dumping concrete slurry into the creek. Riverkeeper also sued Maspeth Concrete Loading for similarly dumping concrete, which changes the pH balance of water and kills fish.

Riverkeeper continues to fight big corporations who pollute Newton Creek. As recently as January 25, 2007, they began a new legal fight with ExxonMobil. This most recent case of blatant pollution alleges that ExxonMobil is discharging toxic chemicals into Newtown Creek from two pipes without required federal Clean Water Act permits.

It is obvious that much more needs to be done to prevent big companies from polluting the environment time and time again.

For almost 40 years, beginning in the late 1940s, large quantities of uranium were mined on their land. Many Navajo still suffer related physical ailments. They are none too eager to open up their land to an industry they have been ravaged by, however safe and efficient they are told it will be. Unfortunately, they may have no choice. HRI has been working in conjunction with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to get a license to mine the land since the late 1990s, and it looks like they’re about to make a move.

The Navajo Nation covers a big piece of land, about 27,000 square miles, and stretches over parts of three states: Arizona, Utah and New Mexico. It is estimated to contain one of the largest uranium ore deposits in the world. That’s why, back in 1948, when the demand for uranium was high, the Navajo Nation seemed like a good place to get it. In addition to large deposits, the uranium in Navajo country is found in sandstone, making it ideal for the less invasive in situ method of extraction. Even this method is likely to create problems, however, according to the WISE Uranium Project. Among them: “the risk of spreading of leaching liquid outside of the uranium deposit, involving subsequent groundwater contamination; the unpredictable impact of the leaching liquid on the rock of the deposit; the impossibility of restoring natural groundwater conditions after completion of the leaching operations.” The report goes on to say “in-situ leaching releases considerable amounts of radon, and produces certain amounts of waste slurries and waste water during recovery of the uranium from the liquid.” No wonder the Navajo are worried. The land HRI plans to mine supplies the only source of drinking water for some 15,000 residents, many living below poverty level.

When HRI began their campaign to mine in Indian country they sent a request to the NRC. The NRC responded in March of 1997. Their response refers to an evaluation process that included a review of the environmental impact of the proposed mining project. The content of the review or Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is not included as part of the docket entry, nor is it accessible online. Based on the FEIS, the NRC granted HRI a license to mine uranium, in situ, in McKinley County, New Mexico (aka: Indian country).

Interestingly, the Navajo people requested a complete study of the impact of uranium mining on the same stretch of land that they own. The study was never conducted. The rationale was that since uranium mining was not then taking place, there was no need to conduct such a study. This is despite the fact that “. . . Navajos have suffered from high cancer rates and respiratory problems. One study found that cancer rates among Navajo teenagers living near mine tailings are 17 times the national average. ”

The suffering of the Navajo due to uranium mining was so extreme it prompted Harry Tome, a Dineh activist, to work tirelessly throughout the 1980s to force the U.S. government to provide relief to minors and their families, who suffered as a result of the exposure to radiation. His efforts were long and arduous, largely because there were no extensive studies to document the full effects of the mining industry on the Indian nation. Still, in 1990, with the help of Stewart Udall (former U.S. Secretary of the Interior), the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was passed. Remediation programs covered in that act have still not been fully implemented. When HRI wanted to start mining again, they got their special study, and pronto. They even got the NRC to approve a mining license, and all without consulting the Navajo Nation Council.

HRI, a subsidiary of Uranium Resources, Inc. (URI) estimates that the area in question, which is located near two Navajo communities, Church Rock and Crownpoint, contains close to 100 million pounds of uranium. One can only imagine the kind of money that’s worth. So, in addition to working with the NRC, the folks at HRI have been actively recruiting Navajo residents to support their mining plan by offering large sums of money.

According to a recent airing of Democracy Now, HRI has coupled offers of big pay-outs with misleading propaganda campaigns designed to convince residents who live on the reservation there are no serious health risks to minors or their families. With no formal studies to prove HRI’s claims of safety suspect, those who stand to make a great deal of money are naturally leaning toward supporting the deal. This has, apparently, created a huge rift between those who fear the ultimate cost of allowing uranium mining and those who seek immediate compensation for the use of their land. Still, despite the contention among the Navajo, the Navajo Nation Council managed to pass a law banning uranium mining. One would think that would be the end of that. It is their country, after all. Or is it?

In January 2006, HRI submitted a request to the NRC suggesting that the land HRI wishes to mine be reclassified as “not Indian country under 18 U.S.C.§ 1151(b)…”. If the NRC grants the request, the land in Church Rock (referenced in the letter as “HRI’s Church Rock”) would be under the jurisdiction of the State of New Mexico, making any laws passed by the Navajo Nation, regarding the use of the land, inapplicable. And once again uranium mining will take place in Indian country.
Check-mate.

Like so many African cities, Brazzaville’s history is one of imperialism and being dominated by European culture. The Portugese controlled the area as part of the slave trade until the late nineteenth century. The area then came under the influence of the French, who made it a protectorate and renamed it Middle Congo. Pierre Savorgnan de Brazza negotiated a treaty with King Teke on behalf of the French and the village of Nkuna was re-named in Brazza’s honour. It became the capital and the central city in French Equatorial Africa.

In 1944, as French influence in the region ebbed and Free French forces defeated the forces from France, Charles DeGaulle agreed to a meeting between leaders of French colonies in Africa, Free French political leaders, and French colonialists. The meeting, known as the Brazzaville Conference, resulted in the Brazzaville Declaration.

That declaration granted unprecedented rights to Africans living in French Equatorial Africa, including a statement that the French Empire would remain united; semi-autonomous assemblies, a form of self-government, would represent each colony; citizens colonies would have the same rights as French citizens. And be allowed to vote in French parliamentary elections; and the native population would be eligible for employment in the French colonial public service. The Brazzaville Declaration also began the establishment of economic reforms to reduce the worst effects of the exploitative system that had developed along with French colonialism.

While the results of the Brazzaville Declaration are not as positive as the declaration makes them sound, and western paternalism continues in the region to this day, they marked a major turning point in both French imperialism in Africa and African history.

In 1946, DeGaulle granted full French citizenship to the members of all colonies in French Equatorial Africa as recognition of the important role the area had played during World War Two. In 1959 Congo became fully autonomous and in 1960 it gained full independence. Three years later a period of unrest centred around the labour movement removed the president. A civilian government was then instituted and lasted until 1968.

In 1968 a military coup overthrew the government and over two decades of one-party rule, leaning heavily to Marxist-Leninist policy followed. The Soviet Union played heavily in the politics of the region until its collapse.

In the early 1990′s multi-party rule was established, but the 1993 elections were marked by violence and the 1997 elections brought a four month civil conflict that destroyed much of the capital of Brazzaville. In 1998, unrest broke out again and the Brazzaville-Pointe Noire railroad, which was economically crucial to the country and especially to the capital of Brazzaville. Many civilians were killed during the unrest and refugees from the fighting reached crisis levels. In 1999 the Congolese government began meeting with several rebel groups that had formed.

In the early 2000′s, former president Lissouba and ex-Prime Minister Kolelas were tried for treason in absentia. In 2002 the people of Congo ratified a new constitution and the country began repairing itself. In 2003, southern rebel groups agreed to a final peace accord.

Brazzaville, and the rest of the Republic of Congo, has been relatively peaceful since the ratification of the constitution, but the peace is tenuous at best. The problem of un-repatriated refugees represents a humanitarian crisis and is the source of some unrest.

In 2003, a survey found Brazzaville the worst city in the world in which to live. It finished 215 out of 215 candidate cities, below Baghdad which placed 213. Nearby Pointe Noire finished 212 in the survey which, according to the BBC, “was based on an evaluation of 39 quality of life criteria for each city including political, social, economic and environmental factors, personal safety and health, education, transport and other public services.”

Parasol in Pointe Noire. Photo credit: FredR

A related survey done around the same time found Brazzaville to be the sixth most dangerous city, which is not surprising since it is the capital of a country that has an estimated 40,000 weapons in the hands of civilians. The population of the country is under 4 million and half of that population is under 15 years of age, making that amount of weaponry in the hands of civilians a major threat to stability.

AIDS is a major killer in Africa, and the Republic of Congo is no exception. The pandemic has had devastating effects on young adults, reducing the median age of the population to 16 years old. Because it affects the immune system, those suffering from AIDS are more likely to contract and be unable to fight off other diseases. Malaria and tuberculosis are rampant in and around Brazzaville.

A lack of proper infrastructure for sewage and trash removal has left Brazzaville with some serious health issues. Water borne diseases are common in children and among adults. Diarrheal disease are common and fresh drinking water is often unavailable, which further spreads the illness.

AIDS and other illness has lead to a shortage of people of working age. In a major city like Brazzaville, that leaves infrastructure crumbling, schools and hospitals short-staffed. It has greatly increased the stresses on systems that were already struggling from years of internal strife. Children are often orphaned and in the poorest sections of the city, it is not unusual to see children as young as eight trying to raise their younger siblings or look after their sick parents.

Nor is the AIDs pandemic the only major issue facing the population of Brazzaville. The Republic of Congo depends heavily on oil money to keep its economy rolling. It took out massive loans in the past, using oil production as collateral, to back the loans. While the current high oil prices are providing somewhat of an economic boom, Congolese oil fields are beginning to run out. When the oil ceases to flow the economy will be cut by more than half.

Next to oil, logging is the second largest portion on the economy. That is threatened both by global warming which, combined with wood used for cooking fuel, and tracts of land being cleared for agriculture, is causing desertification. The excess heat now related to climate change by many experts has caused a seasonal shift that has changed the timing and amount of rains, making agriculture difficult. The agricultural subsidy regimes of the US and European Union have also made it uneconomical for farmers to grow food crops while pushing the price of food up for those living in cities such as Brazzaville.

The poverty, disease and hunger, combined with the easy availability of weapons, a history soaked in the blood of colonialism and unrest in neighbouring countries, could easily lead to further political instability. That would drag the Republic of Congo and the city of Brazzaville back into the cycle of violence that it has tried for so long to escape.

Karimov’s human rights record is abysmal. He has been known to boil political dissenters alive. He has repressed religious rights, ostensibly as part of the war on terror. When it comes to human rights in Uzbekistan, there aren’t any. Karimov has detained human rights workers and ordered his troops to fire into crowds of demonstrators. Political opponents end up in prison and are tortured or killed.

The violent restriction of human rights grows from the paranoia so commonly seen among totalitarian dictators. Karimov even banned the playing of billiards because he was afraid that people would talk about politics while playing. While that may sound humourous, it goes a long way towards demonstrating the depth of Karimov’s paranoia.

Despite all of the well-documented problems in Uzbekistan over a decade of Karimov’s rule, the United States and allies such as Britain welcomed Karimov into the war against terror. In exchange for military aid, the US received the use of the Karshi-Khanabad air base and facilities for 800 US troops. The Bush administration ignored criticism of having such a brutal regime as an ally until last year.

Even with the criticism of their relationship with Karimov, a relationship that echoed the Reagan administration’s relationship with Saddam Hussein, The US maintained a relationship with Uzbekistan while choosing to ignore Karimov’s abuses in exchange for his cooperation. While the need for an ally in the war on terror is often cited, Uzbekistan is strategically located between Russia and China and has sizable natural gas reserves, estimated in 2005 to be 1.875 trillion cubic meters, and a small amount of oil. Considering the strategic importance of energy in the area, relations with Uzbekistan could have more to do with natural gas reserves than the war on terror.

The relationship between Uzbekistan and the US, as well the European Union did finally begin to sour in 2005, however. A small armed uprising in the province of Andizhan was followed by a large, peaceful demonstration. Reports vary, and there may or may not have been a few armed militants among the protestors, but the Uzbek military responded to the demonstration by firing into the crowd. The true extent of the casualties is not known, but human rights experts have responded to the incident as being on a par with the Tiananmen Square massacre. The government crackdown on political opponents and human rights advocates since the massacre is brutal and repressive, with torture, disappearances, and politically-motivated murder becoming commonplace.

After the incident in Andizhan, pressure began to grow in the EU for sanctions to be put in place against Uzbekistan and the accounts of officials in the Karimov regime frozen, although no comprehensive action was taken. There was little reaction in the United States, with aid ( $91.6 million in 2005) continuing to flow, but some harsh words about human rights from the Bush administration caused Karimov to kick the US military out of the Karshi-Khanabad air base. Since that time, both Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and Congressman Christopher Smith (R-New Jersey) have introduced bills calling for an end to all aid to Uzbekistan and the freezing of foreign accounts and travel restrictions for Uzbek officials.

Karimov is now currying favour with Russia and China, who have far less interest in human rights abuses than western countries claim to have, and are even more likely to ignore, or partake in, gross abuses to gain access to energy reserves or strategic military advantage.

The spectre of further human rights abuses and the poverty that is so pervasive under totalitarian regimes points to an unhappy future for the people of Uzbekistan, but making things worse is trying to eke out a living in a country that has suffered serious environmental damage.

During the Soviet era the excessive use herbicides, pesticides, defoliants, and other chemicals combined with the diversion of water for irrigation from two major rivers devastated the environment. The diversion of the Amu Darya and Syrdariya Rivers has caused the Aral Sea, once the world’s fourth largest inland body of fresh water, to shrink in size. The Aral Sea is now less than half the size it was in the 1960s, holding only about one third of the water it once did.

Widespread irrigation has contaminated what water still exists with agricultural chemicals. Naturally occurring soil salt, has become concentrated from excessive irrigation. The dried lake bed where large portions of the Aral Sea used to be now produces dust storms full of agricultural and industrial chemicals which, combined with the salt, blow for up to 800 miles. The contaminated dust in these storms kills plant life, causing desrtification.

The environmental devastation continues. Although Uzbekistan is a signatory to several environmental treaties, including clean air and water agreements and the Kyoto protocol, less than half of the smokestacks in the country have filtration devices. The most common method of chemical disposal remains dumping it into a rudimentary sewer system if one exists in the area.. Only about 50% of urban areas and 25% of rural villages have sewers in Afghanistan, so chemicals are often just dumped in the nearest ditch or river.

The result is that most of the underground water supplies are contaminated and the rivers and ditches are basically open sewers. Water-borne illness is common and chemical-related disease is not unusual. Respiratory illness is common in both rural and urban areas.

All indications are that the environmental situation will continue to worsen under the reign of Islam Karimov. Those who speak out against it risk imprisonment, torture, and death. Complaints from international agencies have little impact on the Karimov regime and local activists are silenced, so the environmental issues worsen with the human rights abuses.

There is no end in sight to the suffering of the people of Uzbekistan. The west failed to help them for strategic and economic reasons. Russia and China have shown even less of a compunction to use their influence to better human rights or environmental conditions. Unless some way is found to intervene, Uzbekistan will continue to be one of the worst places on earth in the foreseeable future.

Lately the U.S. Federal Government has been making a lot of noise about green fuel. It started with President Bush’s comment about “switch grass” in his State of the Union Address. He got a few chuckles out of that. While we’ve all heard of using corn to make ethanol, and the importance of trading our SUVs for hybrids, I don’t know anybody who is talking about using switch grass.

Since January, the photo-ops broadcast on television networks have been touting Bush’s concern for the environment. Since this is the administration that turned the Clean Air Act into the Clear Skies Initiative, while lowering the standards of environmental safety that energy companies are required to uphold, we should probably ask: how green is green anyway?

Take ethanol, for example. There is a refinery in Goldfield Iowa that has been making ethanol since late last year. It’s been hailed as the “clean, renewable fuel of the future.” But it uses fossil fuel to power the ethanol refinery, so just exactly what are we gaining from this experiment in so-called green energy?

According to a report from the Christian Science Monitor, Carbon Cloud Hangs Over Green Fuel, while other ethanol plants use natural gas, the Goldfield plant burns 300 tons of coal a day to make this clean, renewable fuel. In fact, Goldfield is the first of its kind to use coal. In Nevada, Iowa, just south of Goldfield, another coal-burning ethanol plant is currently under construction and there are, reportedly, plans to build at least three more in the mid-west.

There are now an estimated 200 similar plants under construction. So, environmentalists are getting a little worried. As well they should. According to the climate director for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, the coal producing ethanol plants may undo the environmental benefits of using ethanol in the first place.

So why would the industry deliberately build plants that feed on coal? The answer: the almighty dollar. It costs too much to use natural gas and it’s relatively cheap to retrofit plants to burn coal instead.

They’re calling it “clean coal” technology, but plants using it produce twice the environmental toxins that plants run on natural gas would create. This was substantiated by a group of scientists at the University of California at Berkeley, who concluded that running the almost 200 ethanol plants now under construction on “clean coal” would mean that all the benefits of running vehicles on ethanol would be eliminated by virtue of the CO2 emitted during the ethanol production process.

So what are the alternatives? According to a spokesperson for the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) it is possible to use methane from cattle dung to fire up the ethanol plants. Apparently, it is also possible to use a variety of plant material as well — which is likely where the switch grass reference came from — meaning it is possible to create ethanol without burning either coal or wood. But even if ethanol is produced by boiling switch grass, you can’t run a vehicle on straight ethanol.

Currently, E85, which uses 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, is being touted as the fuel of the future. According to the RFA web site, there is growing interest in E85 and the “flexible fuel vehicles” or FFVs that can run on it. But current ethanol/gasoline mixtures are using a much smaller percentage of ethanol–more like 10%.

Still according to a study done by Smog Reyes in 2004, even a 10% ethanol mix will reduce tailpipe fine particulate matter by 50%, and carbon monoxide emissions by up to 30%. So if we can push the industry to use cleaner fuel for firing up the ethanol plants, rather than relying on coal, as the newest plants appear set to do, we may actually see some progress.

The recently enacted Energy Policy Act (EPACT), which was signed into law by President Bush in August 2005, includes a Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) which some believe will considerably impact our dependence on foreign oil and our ability to create jobs, thus strengthening our economy while simultaneously improving our environment.

In a study conducted by LECG, LLC in May 2005, analysts project that adherence to the RFS will, by the year 2012, allow us to reduce crude oil imports by $2 billion and save $64 billion in payments to foreign oil producers. In addition, they are predicting that ethanol production will add $200 billion to the GDP between 2005 and 2012, create close to $240,000 jobs and increase household income by 43 million. All of which sounds great, but it doesn’t appear as if their study took into account just how the growing number of ethanol plants are going to be fueled. And if coal is used in the majority of the new plants being planned for construction in the coming years, who knows how valid any of these predictions will actually turn out to be?

In the meantime, while we struggle to reduce our dependence on foreign oil for powering cars and other gas guzzling vehicles, we mustn’t fail to consider all the other things we use oil for. Here’s a short list of things you might not think to connect to oil consumption. For the full list you can check out the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) web site:

clothing ink, heart valves, crayons, parachutes, telephones, deodorant, pantyhose, rubbing alcohol, hearing aids, motorcycle helmets, electrical tape, candles, denture adhesive, refrigerator linings, hair coloring, toilet seats, loudspeakers, movie film, tires, floor wax, electric blankets, lipstick, eyeglasses, life jackets, insect repellent. . . and the list goes on

This is not to say we aren’t making progress. After all, we can’t expect to rid ourselves of dependence on foreign oil overnight, despite the newest legislation and increasingly frequent lectures by the President about America’s shameful “addiction” to oil.

But I can’t help but wonder, in all the hoopla over green energy–just how green is green, anyway?

Photography By Bastian, Robenalt, Automatt via Creative Commons