Amazon.com one-click ordering |
On April 20, 2010, the infamous BP oil rig exploded. Americans and the rest of the world alike were in shock and feared how much oil would be released and how much damage it would do. After three months, the spillage of the oil was stopped and restoration has slowly begun. But what if there was a spill of something invisible and the company responsible wanted to keep it a secret. In the book Currents of Deceit, Professor Ronald Perkins writes about such a situation.
Would a company purposefully and knowingly keep a dangerous environmental and public health threat secret in the name of profit? It's a rhetorical question of course because it happens all the time with pernicious consequences. What happens when the governmental regulatory agency, the EPA, participates in this kind of subterfuge by relying on powerful lobbying groups and industry insiders to be the 'scientific' sources for regulatory mandates?
Now big business has turned its sights on doing away with the only federal regulatory agency that stands between us and a repeat of the flaming rivers of the late 1960s.
The EPA is currently under unprecedented enemy fire from the republicans who are calling for de-funding the agency at minimum, and doing away with it all together at most, describing them as a "loony left-wing job killing organization that's hell bent on an environmentalist whacko vision."
There are problems with the EPA we'll agree, big ones, but to consistently fight against the only agency that we have in place to enforce regulations on corporate America is wrongheaded and dangerous. On the other side of the coin, for the EPA to consistently cave-in to special interests and allow the rules to be written by industry is equally disconcerting.
It's a catch-22 situation that illustrates the pressing need for watchdog journalists, environmental groups and citizen advocates to keep a keen eye on the system and its players. Activism is not a dirty word--apathy and indifference might be.
Winston Churchill warned of the age of indifference (paraphrasing):
'You can only have so many decades and years that are the "last chance" to avoid unalterably horrific effects. We have already passed these points. The age of consequences has begun.'We would be wise to remember that even though Mr. Perkins book is a 'fictional work' in the literal sense, malefic corporate "Currents of Deceit" are always swirling around our communities and it's incumbent upon us to pay attention.
*Recommended reading:
Paving Paradise: Florida's Vanishing Wetlands and the Failure of "No Net Loss"
"The Ripple Effect": The Fate of Fresh Water in the Twenty-first Century
Sounds very intriguing, however, most of the time true life is more horrifying than fiction can be when it comes to the big polluters.
ReplyDeleteThe things they have done are monstrous!
I've been looking for another book to pop onto my green shelf.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
Imagine a world without the EPA? Thank you I would rather not. It's not a perfect system but it's the best we have as a line of defense against corporate Satan who won't behave.
ReplyDeleteThe Solutia (Monsanto) contamination in Anniston would have made one heck of good environmental fiction book.
ReplyDeleteOh waitaminute!
That one was real!
It still is one of the most poisoned places around.
Name one river in Alabama that isn't polluted.
ReplyDeleteThere are none.
Pretty much the same can be said for most of our towns, except the rich ones.
There is not one politician in this state that cares anything about the environment other than how they can destroy it to make the developers give them more campaign money.
Or maybe in the case of Greg Canfield's recent appointment to the ADO you get yourself a fancy new job for the 'right' mindset.
Be sure to let your state representatives know how disgusted you are they voted YES for HR 2018 which will abolish many EPA regulations regarding clean drinking water. All but one voted in favor of this bad bill. Let the SENATE know they should not follow suit and should allow the EPA to continue fighting for clean water, rivers and streams.
ReplyDeleteEarthjustice has great reporting on HR2018 and reveals who voted which way.
ReplyDelete"HR 2018 removes federal oversight and leaves the fate of our waters, which flow between states and know no state boundaries, up to states. Often, states disagree on the importance of clean water. While some states act to keep their waters clean for tourism, economic gain and the health of their people, other states put polluting industries first and allow waters to be dumped in and contaminated at their people's expense. Citizens of states downstream of those industry-beholden states are the one who suffer."
"Many representatives from states that prize clean water cried out against this bill, practically begging their colleagues to oppose it for the sake of the health of their constituents."
http://earthjustice.org/blog/2011-july/obama-promises-veto-of-toxic-and-dirty-water-bill