Counterpunch Clinkers: The Republic of Science Denial

The glaciers are fast vanishing from the ecosphere.

The glaciers are fast vanishing from their traditional ecosystems.

By Daniel Wirt

The material published on Counterpunch is often commendable, almost always of pressing political value, but sometimes there are outliers and clinkers, and Paul Craig Roberts’ recent piece, The Republic of Denial (1) is a prime example.

Paul Craig Roberts: Brave, often brilliant opinions punctuated with surprising blind spots.

Paul Craig Roberts: Brave, often brilliant opinions sometimes punctuated with surprising blind spots.

In The Republic of Denial, Paul Craig Roberts leaves out consideration of greenhouse gas-induced anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as the proximate cause of the climate disruption and instability described in this rambling piece. Instead, he invokes consideration of common conspiracy theories (DARPA, HAARP, Chemtrails), thoroughly devoid of scientific legitimacy, complete with citations to dodgy internet sites. Perhaps this piece would have been more appropriately titled, “The Republic of Science Denial”. How did this embarrassing nonsense get past the Counterpunch editors? Besides a lapse in attention, the only other explanation I can think of is that The Republic of Denial was edited from the grave by Alexander Cockburn, who was hostile to AGW, viewing it as a ruse to promote nuclear power and Malthusianism (2).

Were he alive, Cockburn’s ideation might be reinforced by recent events, namely the endorsement of nuclear power by prominent climate scientists as a means of mitigating the greenhouse gas-induced hell that is confronting the biosphere. This, however, is just an example of how human beings can be terribly inconsistent and contradictory, brilliant and inspired in one area and deluded and out of touch with reality in another. That inconsistency is on prominent display with Paul Craig Roberts (as it was with Alexander Cockburn — brilliant and inspired in many areas and completely wrong on the most important issue in human history:  AGW and the anthropogenic destruction of the biosphere).

The poor all over the world are bound to suffer disproportionality, although eventually everyone will pay.

The poor all over the world are bound to suffer disproportionality, although eventually everyone will pay.

It is tempting to put on blinders and view Mr. Roberts in terms of important single issues, for example, his support for single-payer health care reform, and ignore other facets. However, my glasses will always be colored with the blood of Victor Jara and Charles Horman, because of Mr. Roberts’ overt apologetics for Augusto Pinochet (3, 4, 5 ). And the blood of the victims of Ronald Reagan’s [numerous and ghastly] crimes in Central America, because of Mr. Roberts’ apologetics for Reagan administration policies (6, 7, 8).

The Counterpunch editors are obviously usually paying attention. The editors prefaced a 2012 piece by Paul Craig Roberts on 9/11 with a disclaimer (9). Thankfully the Counterpunch editors are skeptical about that “Fatima of the 21st century, the controlled demolition of the World Trade Towers” (as my friend, the physicist, Dr. Manuel Garcia quips). And in a 2006 piece by Paul Craig Roberts, the Counterpunch editors excised a bit of Pinochet apologetics (10). How is that known? The piece was published simultaneously elsewhere, identical except for the inclusion of the factually deficient 4th paragraph (11).

Scientific illiteracy and ignorance are epidemic in the United States, and the afflicted are vulnerable to whambo conspiracy theories. In the particular case of climate disruption and instability, we don’t need conspiracy theories and non-fact-based ideation as explanations. To a scientific certainty, greenhouse gas-induced anthropogenic global warming is the proximate cause of the rapidly worsening climate disruption and instability.

Moral cost: We're dragging untold millions of non-human creatures to death and extinction.

Moral cost: We’re dragging untold millions of non-human creatures to unnecessary suffering, death and extinction.

I realize that the concept of scientific certainty is often opaque for people not trained in scientific methodology. A good place for people to start is skepticalscience.com, where you can read science-based refutations to the 174 most common climate myths of the merchants of doubt and science deniers, in both basic and intermediate versions, and download it all to a smartphone app for handy reference.Remember those dicey, problematic dinner conversations with your visiting relatives this last holiday season?  The Skeptical Science app will likely come in handy next holiday season.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Notes

1) http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/10/29/the-republic-of-denial/  (Paul Craig Roberts:  The Republic of Denial.  Accessed 01-07-2014)
2) http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/4357#.UswRwijEPFJ  (Alexander Cockburn:  I am an intellectual blasphemer.  Accessed 01-07-2014)

3) http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=6254  (Paul Craig Roberts:  If Pinochet Is Guilty, so Is Bush.  Accessed 01-07-2014)

4) http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/pinochet-s-demonization-exemplifies-propaganda-s-power.html  (Paul Craig Roberts:  Pinochet’s Demonization Exemplifies Propaganda’s Power.  Accessed 01-07-2014)

5) http://www.policyofliberty.net/HPdA/RobertsAraujo.html (Chile:  Two Visions, The Allende-Pinochet Era by Karen Araujo and Paul Craig Roberts – Home page of  Hermógenes Pérez de Arce.  Accessed 01-07-2014)

6) http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/24/rotten-ronnie/  (Manuel Garcia Jr.:  Rotten Ronnie.  Accessed 01-07-2014)

7) http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/23/the-left-reagan-and-cockburn/  (Paul Craig Roberts:  The Left, Reagan and Cockburn.  Accessed 01-07-2014)

8) http://www.markdanner.com/articles/127?class=related_content_link  (Mark Danner:  The Truth of El Mozote.  Accessed 01-07-2014)

9) http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary–  (Paul Craig Roberts:  The 11th Anniversary of 9/11.  Accessed 01-07-2014)

http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/11/28/debunking-the-myths-of-9-11/  (Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair:  Debunking the Myths of 9/11.  Accessed 01-07-2014)

10) http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/12/30/the-new-dark-age/  (Paul Craig Roberts:  The New Dark Age.  Accessed 01-07-2014)

11) http://antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=10239  (Paul Craig Roberts:  The Disrespect for Truth has Brought a New Dark Age.  Accessed 01-07-2014)




Ecology above economics

Рейтинг@Mail.ru

climate-bear-sustainability_2009_climate_change1
By Marcus Eduardo de Oliveira (*), pravda.ru

One of the most urgent and pressing needs in terms of organizing productive society is to reconcile economic development with the promotion of social development and ecological balance, respecting and protecting before anything, the environment , biodiversity and ecosystem services – the base and support of economic activity.
The central notion around that idea is very simple: it is to seek to reconcile economic, social and environmental dimensions. This is the starting point to try to overcome, in the foreground, the dichotomous dilemma taking place in nations that follow the [unexamined compulsion] inherent in the modern policy of [constant] “growth” and the need to “preserve the eco-balance”, in other words,  “prospering” (economically and socially), but “Without destroying” (environmentally).

In essence, we seek to achieve this and meet three basic principles that are referenced in the famous Brundtland Report, also called “Our Common Future”, namely: 1) economic development (immanent aspiration of humanity); 2) environmental protection (care for our common home, Mother Earth, Gaia for the Greeks and Pachamama for the Andean indigenous); and 3) social equity (inclusion of the excluded).

To overcome this dichotomy , there is an obvious question of environmentalism over economic rationality, given that the latter, by lens of neoclassical thought (Traditional) – which in general is the way that many economists think – gives little importance to the consequences (degradation of natural capital) arising from environmental stimulus to intense and frantic economic growth.

By the way, achieving economic growth at any “cost” has become a kind of obsession of conventional macroeconomics, disregarding with that serious disturbances generated in the biosphere, endangering the basis of sustaining life, since, due to the productive economic expansion biophysical limits shall be disregarded. It is the economic activity squandering natural capital.

In this detail, it should be noted that given the important passage in the Global Ecology Manual (1993): “The production of food, energy and industrial articles is strongly related to the deterioration of the system that sustains life on Earth. Between 1950 and 1986, when the population of the world doubled, grain consumption increased 2.6 times, energy use increased by 3.2 times, the effective power economy quadrupled, and the production of manufactured goods grew seven times. ( … )

Currently, humans consume in foods, directly or indirectly, approximately 40% of the total cultivated land in the world. It is exactly this kind of “invasive action” that economic growth cannot continue its “journey” of deterioration of natural resources, greatly squandering the major ecosystems.

To continue promoting the acceleration in productive growth is in practice to substantially increase the loss of biological diversity and the ecosystem. Increasing economic output, among many other possible environmental damages, is also synonymous with further polluting the atmosphere.

About this, it is reiterated that the high levels of pollution and air pollution leave no doubt as to the response that such “expansive economic practice” provides the environment. Nowadays, more than two million people die each year worldwide by “breathing pollution”, small particles staying in lungs (PM10) generated by burning fossil fuels, apart from pollution of ozone (O3). In Latin America and the Caribbean, each year, approximately 35,000 people die due to air pollution; in Europe, the figure is more than 150, 000, and in East Asia, more than 1 million lives are snuffed out for the same reason.

Therefore, the ecological positioning, making it clear that there are restrictive limits and measures for increasing economic production, must be above traditional economic thought, attacking in this way, to the despair of traditional economists, the dogma of economic growth, wrongly seen and defended wrongly as an important factor for enhancing the prosperity of a society.

With an overwhelming pattern of consumption, fueled by consumerist greed 20 % of the world population (1.4 billion people) live in affluent societies, Planet Earth shows signs of complete depletion, indicating that it does not support expansive production.

Not surprisingly, 10% of fertile land on the planet has now turned into desert. Every year 7 million hectares are lost. Put simply, 60% of the principal ecosystem services are deteriorated. It is also not by chance that over the last 50 years there has been a loss of 35% of mangroves, 40% of forests, 50 % of wetlands. Currently, fish stocks are 80% smaller and the cultivated area of ​​the planet covers 25% of the Earth.

Unfortunately, these data show that the economic position lies above the environmental issue. We must reverse it, and soon.

Ecology above economics. 51888.jpeg

(*) Professor of economics. Master in Integration of Latin America (USP).

prof.marcuseduardo@bol.com.br

Translated from the Portuguese version by Olga Santos

 

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey

Copyright © 1999-2014, «PRAVDA.Ru». When reproducing our materials in whole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru should be made. The opinions and views of the authors do not always coincide with the point of view of PRAVDA.Ru’s editors.




Walking in an Anthropocene Wonderland: “But I’ll know my song well before I start singing”

Phil Rockstroh
extremeIceCanyon
According to a recent, exhaustive study commissioned by the US Department of Energy and headed by a scientific team from the U.S. navy, by the summer of 2015, the Arctic Ocean could be bereft of ice, a phenomenon that will engender devastating consequences for the earth’s environment and every living creature on the planet.

Hagel:  This corporatized idiot was opposed by conservatives because he sounded too liberal. Further proof the entire political establishment is rotten and dangerous to all life on this planet.

Hagel: This corporatized idiot’s appointment was opposed by conservatives because he was seen as too liberal. Further proof the entire political establishment is rotten and dangerous to all life on this planet.

Yet, recently, Chuck Hagel, US Defense Secretary, said (in defiance of common sense and even a modicum of sanity) that the US military will escalate its presence in the Arctic, due to the fact that “[the] potential for tapping what may be as much as a quarter of the planet’s undiscovered oil and gas.”
Secretary of Defense? More like Commissar of Mass Suicide.
This situation is like a family of self-destructive drunks inheriting a brewery.
Sans hyperbole, it is exactly like making the choice to exist as fatally self-involved consumers as opposed to multidimensional human beings possessed of heart, mind and soul.
[pullquote]Wedded to short-term thinking and rooted in selfishness, late capitalism’s putrefying paradigm±especially the sort advanced by the United States—has but one remedy for the devastation reaped by the system…insanely, more production and more consumerism.—Eds[/pullquote]
I mean, just what kind of suicidal clowns flounce through life gibbering on about bacon straws, cupcakes, online images of kitty cats, and the latest Playstation model when the specter of extinction looms and their psychotic leaders are doubling down on the criteria of doom?
This is like giving Charles Manson the codes to nuclear missile silos.
In the Anthropocene Epoch, in our manic flight from consequence and accountability and our attendant estrangement from empathic imagination, we have come to regard all the things of the world as fodder for our empty appetites, as commodified, meretricious objects that exist to distract us and then be discarded. By our actions, we are destroying the living things of the world by caprice. The fetishization of mechanization and its concomitant soulless and habitual reductionism has mortified our psyches inflicting alienation that we attempt to remedy with the palliative of perpetual media distraction.
Devoid of the musk and fury of true communal engagement, this communion with electronic phantoms only exacerbates our alienation and decimates one’s ability to evince empathy, when, conversely, empathy is the quality required to feel the suffering that hyper-capitalist industrialization has wrought. If we are to pull back from the brink of extinction, we must lament what has been lost to cupidity.
Yet, one must resist the temptation to become intoxicated by grim prophesy. It is possession of the qualities of sadness and gravitas that separates an individual bearing accurate augury from false prophets. The tears of the world will saturate the soul of an individual who lives in the truth of our era of Climate Chaos and global-wide ecocide.
Phil Rockstroh is a poet, lyricist and philosopher bard living in New York City. He may be contacted at: philrockstroh.scribe@gmail.com / And at FaceBook: http://www.facebook.com/phil.rockstroh



The Fascinating Ways the Global Recycling Industry Really Works

By Adam Minster

A new book explains why the world of globalized recycling is the most logical (and greenest) endpoint in a long chain that begins with your home recycling bin.
Junkyard Planet: Travels in the Billion-Dollar Trash Tradeby Adam Minter. Copyright ©2013 by Adam Minter. Published by Bloomsbury Press. Reprinted with permission.

A single strand of burned-out Christmas tree lights weighs almost nothing in the hand. But a hay-bale-sized block? That weighs around 2,200 pounds, according to Raymond Li, the fresh-faced but steely general manager of Yong Chang Processing, a scrap-metal processor in the southern Chinese town of Shijiao.

He would know.

I am standing between him and three such bales, or 6,600 pounds of Christmas tree lights that Americans tossed into recycling bins, or dropped off at the Salvation Army, or sold to someone in a “We Buy Junk” truck. Eventually they found their way to a scrapyard that pressed them into a cube and shipped them off to Raymond Li’s Christmas tree light recycling factory. Raymond is anxious to show me how it works.

But first off, he needs to tell me that, though 6,600 pounds might seem like a large volume of American Christmas tree lights to find in a small Chinese village, it isn’t. Mid-November is actually low season for buying imported old Christmas tree lights. High-season starts after the New Year and reaches its peak in the spring, when Americans in the northern states start to empty their homes and garages of the pesky tangles. Those who take them to the local recycling center or sell them to the local scrapyard most likely have no idea where they’re going next. But I do: right here, to Shijiao, China, population maybe 20,000. Raymond Li tells me that his company recycles around 2.2 million pounds of imported Christmas tree lights per year, and he estimates that Shijiao is home to at least nine other factories that import and process similar volumes. That’s 20 million pounds annually, conservatively estimated.

How did an anonymous village in southern China become the Christmas Tree Light Recycling Capital of the World? Here’s one answer: Shijiao is within driving distance of thousands of factories that need copper to make things like wires, power cords, and smartphones. Those factories have a choice: they can use copper mined in far-off, environmentally-sensitive places like the Brazilian Amazon. Or, alternatively, they can use copper mined from imported Christmas tree lights in Shijiao.

But Raymond’s answer as to how Shijiao achieved its odd status is much simpler: “People wanted to make money,” he says softly, his distant gaze pointed away from me. “That’s all.” Raymond knows the history as well as anyone, and he tells it quickly, with no adornment. In the early 1990s economic opportunities were limited in Shijiao: you either farmed, or you left. The area lacked decent roads, an educated workforce, or raw materials. All it really had was space–vast, remote space. And as it happens, remote space, a box of matches, and some fuel are all you need to extract copper from a pile of old Christmas tree lights. Just douse the wire, set it on fire, and try not to breathe the fumes as the insulation burns off.

Raymond leads me into a cramped office where cloudy windows face Yong Chang Processing’s factory floor. I’m offered a seat on a dusty leather sofa. Taking the seat to my right is Cousin Yao, brother to Raymond’s wife, Yao Yei, who is seated across from me. Low-key Raymond, native of Shijiao, takes a seat beside his wife. It’s a family business, they tell me, and everyone helps out.

I glance out the window at the factory floor, but from the sofa’s low vantage point I can’t see past additional piles of scrap wire (not Christmas tree lights) worth tens of thousands of dollars that Raymond imported a few days ago. If Raymond feels like it, he’s flush enough to buy millions of dollars’ worth of U.S. scrap metal per month. That may seem like a large number. But really, it’s not. The global recycling industry turns over as much as $500 billion annually–roughly equal to the GDP of Norway– and employs more people than any other industry on the planet except agriculture. Raymond Li is big in Shijiao, but here in Guangdong Province, the de facto headquarters of China’s recycling industry, he has many peers.

We chat more about the history of Shijiao, its wire recyclers, and how it’s changed the lives of thousands of former farmers. Then, abruptly, Cousin Yao announces that he received a degree in engineering from a top university. Rather than join a traditional manufacturer, he says, he returned to Shijiao to join Raymond’s scrap business. He could have gone anywhere, he could have done other things. China, after all, doesn’t lack opportunities for engineers. But Cousin Yao knows a better opportunity when he sees one, and scrap metal was that opportunity. As he and Raymond see it, China’s economy is expanding quickly, and its government planners and businessmen are desperate to find copper, steel, paper pulp, and other raw materials to feed the factories that drive the growth. Copper mines are great, but Raymond and his family don’t have the money or connections to open a copper mine. Then again, why would they want to do that, when there’s an endless supply of perfectly recyclable and reusable copper–worth billions!–available in the junk-yards and recycling bins of America?

Raymond lights a cigarette and explains that he didn’t have Cousin Yao’s choices. Fifteen years ago he was twenty-seven and working as a laborer in a dead-end job at a paint and chemical factory. “I wanted to be rich and successful,” he explains softly. “So I joined the scrap business.” His wife’s family was already engaged in scrapping on a small scale. They knew how and where to get recyclable scrap, and better yet, they knew the potential that foreign throwaways have to make a family rich–much richer than rice farmers, storekeepers, and office workers. Since Raymond’s fateful decision, China’s raw material needs have only grown, and so has Raymond’s business. Take, for example, China’s demand for oil. As late as 2009 visitors to Shijiao were confronted with clouds of black smoke churning off giant piles of burning wire (not just Christmas tree wire, either). The rubber insulation was worthless; back then it was the copper that everyone wanted, and burning was the quickest way to liberate it. Then something important happened. Chinese started buying cars, driving up the price of oil and things made from oil–like the plastic used to insulate Christmas tree lights. As the price of plastic rose, Chinese manufacturers started looking for alternatives to “virgin” plastic made from oil. The most obvious solution was the cheapest: instead of burning plastic off copper wire, figure out a way to strip and recover it for reuse. Wire insulation isn’t the highest quality plastic, but it’s good enough to make simple products like . . . slipper soles! These days, the biggest customers for Raymond’s Christmas tree insulation are slipper sole manufacturers.

Of course, getting from Christmas lights to slipper soles isn’t easy or obvious. It took Cousin Yao more than a year of tinkering and testing to get Yong Chang’s Christmas tree light recycling system right. I look around the room and ask whether I might see it. Raymond nods, and we walk out to the factory floor.

The process begins with workers paid as much as $500 per month to toss handfuls of Christmas tree lights into small shredders (they look like wood chippers). With thunderous groans, the shredders pulverize the tangles into millimeter-sized bits of plastic and metal and then spit them out as a mudlike goop. Next to those shredders are three vibrating ten-foot-long tables. As workers shovel the goopy shredded lights onto their surface, a thin film of water washes over them, bleeding out very distinct green and gold streaks. I step closer: the green streak is plastic, and it washes off the table’s edge; the gold streak is copper, and it slowly moves down the length of the table until it falls off the end, into a basket, 95 percent pure and ready for remelting. The principle at work is simple: think of a streambed covered in gravel. A flowing current will pick up the smaller pieces and carry them down- stream quickly, while the bigger piece, the rocks, will stay in place, only occasionally moving. The same physics is at work on Raymond’s tables, only it’s not gravel that’s carried away, it’s Christmas tree light insulation.

Recycling. A generation of Americans defines it as: the act of sorting cans from bottles from cardboard from newspapers and setting them out on the curbside, or down in the trash room, for somebody to pick up. It’s an act of faith, a bet that the local recycling company or trash collector is as committed to doing the environmentally sound thing as the person who sorted the recyclables in the first place. But what is that right thing? And is it really recycling if your carefully sorted newspapers, cans, and bottles are shipped off to Asia?

Definitions are important, and from the standpoint of the recycling industry, what most Americans think of as “recycling” is actually more akin to harvesting. That is, a home recycler harvests cardboard from trash and other recyclables, and a paper mill recycles that used cardboard into new cardboard. Recycling is what happens after the recycling bin leaves your curb. Home recycling–what you most likely do–is just the first step. Nonetheless, it’s the key step: no machine can harvest recyclables from your trash as cheaply and efficiently as you can. In fact, compared to harvesting, the actual recycling is often the easy part. After all, the process by which old paper is transformed into new paper is centuries old; turning old computers into new ones is more dif- ficult, but only because the machines are complicated to pull apart. But harvesting enough paper to make a paper mill run? That’s difficult. Finding enough computers to justify opening a computer reuse or recycling business? That might even be harder.

This book aims to explain why the hidden world of globalized recycling and reclamation is the most logical (and greenest) endpoint in a long chain that begins with the harvest in your home recycling bin, or down at the local junkyard. There are few moral certainties here, but there is a guarantee: if what you toss into your recycling bin can be used in some way, the international scrap recycling business will manage to deliver it to the person or company who can do so most profitably. Usually, but not always, that profitable option is going to be the most sustainable one. To be sure, not every recycler is an environmentalist, and not every recycling facility is the sort of place you’d want to take kindergartners for a field trip. But in an age of conspicuous consumption, the global recycling business has taken on the burden of cleaning up what you don’t want, and turning it into something you can’t wait to buy. In the pages to follow I’ll tell the story of how the very simplest of human activities–reusing an object–evolved into an international business that has played a key role in the globalization of the world economy over the last three decades. It’s a murky story, obscure even to those who care very much about what happens to what they toss in their recycling bins. Like most stories that are at least partly hidden from view, the story of globalized recycling reveals uncomfortable truths and the singular, sometimes brilliant, characters who grapple with them on our behalf.

Most of those characters, like Raymond Li, share a talent for spotting value in what others throw away. In colonial-era America, Paul Revere demonstrated that talent, smartly buying scrap metal from his neighbors for remelting in his blacksmith shop. In late 1950s America, that talent was applied to finding a way to make a living by recycling the tens of millions of automobiles abandoned across the American country-side. Today, it’s a talent being applied to recycling the rare and valuable elements buried inside the smartphones, computers, and other high-tech devices that middle-class people throw away like candy wrappers. More often than not, though, the genius is commercial, not technical. Today recycling is as risky and rewarding as any global business, if not more so. Huge, mind-bending, Silicon Valley-scale fortunes have been built by figuring out how to move the scrap newspapers in your recycling bin to the country where they’re most in demand.

Of course, for most Americans and other people living in wealthy developed countries, recycling is an environmental imperative, not a business. From that perspective, recycling consumes fewer trees, digs fewer holes, and consumes less energy than manufacturing from virgin mate- rials (a recycled beer can requires 92 percent less energy to manufacture than one made from virgin ore). But without financial incentives, no ethical system is going to transform an old beer can into a new one.

The global recycling business, no matter how sustainable or green, is 100 percent dependent upon consumers consuming goods made from other goods. This unbreakable bond–between raw material demand, consumption, and recycling–is one of the dominant themes of the pages to follow. The calculus is simple: the only reason you can recycle is because you’ve consumed, and the only reason you can consume certain products is because somebody else recycled. Around the world, we recycle what we buy, and we buy a lot. Nonetheless, despite what some recycling companies will tell you, many goods–such as smartphones–are only partially recyclable, and some–like paper–can only be recycled a finite number of times. In that sense, recycling is just a means to stave off the trash man for a little longer. If your first priority is the environment, recycling is merely the third-best option in the well-known pyramid that every American schoolchild learns: reduce, reuse, recycle. Alas, most people have very little interest in reducing their consumption or reusing their goods. So recycling, all things considered, is the worst best solution.

But what a solution! According to the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI), a Washington, DC-based trade group, in 2012 the 46.35 million tons of paper and cardboard recycled in the United States saved 1.53 billion cubic yards of landfill space; the 75.19 million tons of recycled iron and steel saved 188 billion pounds of iron ore and 105 billion pounds of coal (roughly 60 percent of American steel comes from scrap metal); the 5.45 million tons of recycled aluminum saved more than 76 million megawatt hours of electricity. In China, where industry is far more polluting than in the United States, the numbers are even more astonishing, and arguably more important. According to the China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association, recycling of metals (not in- cluding iron and steel) between 2001 and 2011 saved China 110 million tons of coal and the need to excavate 9 billion tons of ore. During that same decade, China’s devotion to recycled aluminum prevented 552 million tons of carbon dioxide from being released into the country’s notoriously polluted skies. Today, China is the world’s biggest consumer of copper, and fully 50 percent of its copper needs come from recycling. Wherever there’s a recycling industry–and it’s everywhere–there are examples like these covering every type of recyclable good, clothing to car batteries.

If this book succeeds, it won’t necessarily convince you to embrace the oft-gritty reality of the recycling industry, but it will certainly help you understand why junkyards look like they look, and why that’s not such a bad thing. In my experience, the worst, dirtiest recycling is still better than the very best clear-cut forest or the most up-to-date open-pit mine. Notably, there are no blue or green recycling bins at Raymond Li’s Yong Chang Processing, no posters encouraging people to “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle,” no cardboard boxes filled with used office paper next to the copy machine. It’s a tough factory in a tough industrial town cut from ancient farm fields and staffed by migrant laborers looking for a better life. Superficially, at least, it doesn’t seem to have much to do with the neatly sorted cans, bottles, and newspapers that so many Americans set onto curbsides, or carefully sort in the trash rooms of their apartments, co-ops, and condos.

It’s important to keep in mind that Raymond Li’s success isn’t about exploitation, any more than an American junkyard exploits its employees. Rather, Raymond Li is an opportunist who long ago recognized a simple fact: China’s development into what will soon be the world’s largest economy created an appetite that can only be filled by importing scrap metal, paper, and plastic. If China didn’t import those resources, it’d have to dig and drill for them.

As I stand in Raymond Li’s factory, watching his employees mine copper from Christmas tree lights, the question that immediately comes to mind is: Why can’t somebody recycle Christmas tree lights in the United States?

The reason, as I’ve learned over a decade visiting recycling facilities all over the world, isn’t technology (Raymond Li’s water table is just a fancier version of the pan that gold prospectors once used to separate gold nuggets from gravel). Rather, the issue is business: as of 2012, fast-growing China accounted for 43.1 percent of total global copper demand. Meanwhile, the slow-growth United States accounted for only 8.5 percent. That’s the difference between a country (China) that has a growing middle class and lots of buildings and infrastructure yet to build, and one (the United States) where incomes have stagnated and infrastructure spending peaked decades ago. If you’re building a copper factory somewhere in the world these days, it’s likely in China. If you’re building a recycling plant to feed that copper factory, it might as well be in Shijiao.

But that doesn’t mean there’s no hope for recycling in the United States. In fact, U.S. manufacturers (second only to China in total out- put) still use roughly two-thirds of the recycled materials that are generated within U.S. borders. The problem, if you care to view it as a problem, is that Americans don’t just buy U.S.-made products; they also import vast amounts of manufactured merchandise. The result is an American economy that consumes–and throws away–much more than what is manufactured at home. That excess recyclable waste has to go some- where. Export is one option, the landfill another. Thus it should come as no surprise to anyone that China is both the largest exporter of new goods to the United States and the largest importer of American recycling.

The story told here explains how China became America’s recycling export destination of choice, and why that’s mostly a good thing for the environment. After all, China and other developing countries are willing and able to recycle what the American recycling industry won’t–or can’t–recycle on its own (Christmas tree lights are just one minor example). When China stops buying American recyclables, those recyclables start to flow to landfills; it happened on a large scale in 2008, when Chinese factories shut down in the wake of the global financial crisis.

As a result, much of this book takes place in the United States and China. But not exclusively so: the global recycling industry is truly global, and so the narrative to follow touches on many countries, especially in the developing world.

The recycling and reclamation industry pre-dates globalization; indeed, it’s as old as the first time somebody beat a sword into a plowshare–and then tried to sell the plowshare. One reason is that recycling is easy, a business that anyone can do. In the developing world, recycling a bottle or can from a waste bin is one of the few entrepreneurial opportunities available to people without capital. The negative consequences of that industry–pollution, threats to health and safety–are real, but compared to the alternatives–a return to subsistence farming, an inability to pay school fees–are often accepted as fair if unpleasant trade-offs. For recyclers in the wealthy developed world, these kinds of trade-offs are unimaginable; but in India, in southern China, in the lower-income parts of Los Angeles, they’re far less important than the pursuit of good nutrition, safe food, clean air, and clean water. Under such circumstances, recycling someone else’s garbage isn’t always the worst thing. In the pages to follow, I’ll explore those trade-offs.




Reflections on the Corporate Security State

“He’s nuts. Like out there.”

For the corporate whores at Stratfor the destruction of the environment is of no consequence as long as they keep making those big bucks. The epitomize why the corporate way of life has got to go.

For the corporate whores at Stratfor the destruction of the environment is of no consequence as long as they keep making those big bucks. The epitomize why the corporate way of life has got to go.

by SCOTT PARKIN, Counterpunch

“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

I stopped having those “oh shit” moments about state and corporate surveillance of me a few years ago. In fact, while finding the whole thing somewhat amusing, I mostly think it’s a rabbit hole that organizers fall into that distracts us from focusing on the real problems of economic and ecological injustice perpetrated by these security firm’s clients.

stratforBut nonetheless, when those ugly heads pop out from under a rock, it’s always good to shine a light on it. Last year, Wikileaks began releasing millions of emails from anonymous hacks of “geopolitical intelligence firm” Stratfor. Stratfor is a global intelligence provider with clients that includes Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defense Intelligence Agency. Internal documents suggest that the American Petroleum Institute is Stratfor’s biggest client.

______________________
PLEASE BE SURE TO CHECK ALSO HOW TO WIN THE MEDIA WAR AGAINST GRASSROOTS ACTIVISTS: stratfor’s strategies
______________________

In the email release, we’ve discovered that Stratfor staff has much interest in organizations like my employer Rainforest Action Network (RAN) that specialize in market campaigns. They pay a lot of attention to how our social and professional networks work with attention to everything from hiring practices to greater strategies around confronting oil, gas and coal industries. They have some fascinating insights to Michael Brune’s transition as executive director of RAN to the Sierra Club and our campaign holding Wall Street banks accountable for funding the energy sector.

It also turns out that Stratfor goons are avid readers of the RAN blog. My own personal Stratfor anecdote is around two blogs I penned on RAN’s Understory blog back in 2010. “Shades of Al-Qaeda!” and “King Coal’s Top Lobbyist to Meet Obama.”

While reading one of their emails, I’ve discovered that Strafor Vice-President Bartholomew Mongoven has some fairly strong feelings about me. In the leaked Wikileaks emails he describes me as “nuts. Like out there.” Furthermore, he’s concerned that I’m inciting violence when calling for an escalation and nationalization of the anti-extraction movements. (Sorry Bart, as always, I call for a non-violent confrontation of the fossil fuel industry, unlike your bosses in those industries who actually do use violence against people and the planet.) In another communication, Mongoven calls me “Nuts? Paranoid? Dramatic after reading a blog I’d written commenting on corporate surveillance of my employer. The irony of a private security firm calling me “paranoid” while spying on me at the same time is not lost on me.

Maybe I am “nuts” and “out there” like Mongoven suggests, but over a decade ago I chose being part of organizations and movements that use bold and effective organizing as my path in life, in part, because of the injustices perpetrated by Stratfor’s client roster on the rest of us. Corporations hire firms like Stratfor because our bold and effective organizing usurps their power and they need strategies and insight on how to mitigate our effectiveness. In a post-Occupy world, we’re seeing a resurgence of not just grassroots movements targeting corporations, but campaign strategies that combine brand attacks, the shaming of individuals executives, hard-hitting non-violent direct action and mass decentralized action. Protest and campaigning is no longer about holding a sign in front of a faceless office building or marching around the block chanting loudly in an apathetic financial district, it’s about strategic interventions with direct action. Companies like TransCanada Bank of America and Walmart are receiving the sharp tip of this strategy, whether it is tree blockades in the East Texas woods, at corporate recruitment events on college campuses or the biggest shopping day of the year.

We may be crazy, but our brand of crazy is spreading like wildfire. And we’ve got them scared silly.

Scott Parkin is an organizer with Rainforest Action Network, Rising Tide North America and the Ruckus Society.