Wisdom Magazine's Monthly Webzine Skip Navigation Links
Wisdom is a web compendium of information with articles, services and products and resources related to holistic health, spirituality and metaphysics.
Home  About  This Month's Articles  Calendar of Events  Classified Listings
 Educational Programs  Sacred Journeys & Retreats  Holistic Resource Directory
 Article Archives  Wisdom Marketplace  Web Partner Links
 Advertising Information
Sue Miller
Karen Clickner
Dancing Heart
Lou Valentino
Elizabeth Joyce
Sue Miller Art
Nancy Johansen
Light Healing
Wisdom Magazine
Alternatives For Healing


by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss

E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What caused Solyndra, a leading American solar panel maker, to fail last fall and what are the implications for U.S. alternative energy industries? -- Walt Bottone, Englewood, NJ

Solyndra was a California-based maker of thin-film solar cells affixed to cylindrical panels that could deliver more energy than conventional flat photovoltaic panels. The company’s novel system mounted these flexible cells, made of copper, indium, gallium and diselenide (so-called CIGS), onto cylindrical tubes where they could absorb energy from any direction, including from indirect and reflected light.

Solyndra’s technology was so promising that the U.S. government provided $535 million in loan guarantees—whereby taxpayers foot the payback bill to lenders if a borrower fails. And fail Solyndra did: In September 2011 the company ceased operations, laid off all employees, and filed for bankruptcy.

What caused this shooting star of alternative energy to burn out so spectacularly after just six years in business and such a large investment? Part of what made Solyndra’s technology so promising was its low cost compared to traditional photovoltaic panels that relied on once costlier silicon. “When Solyndra launched, processed silicon was selling at historic highs, which made CIGS a cheaper option,” reports Rachel Swaby in Wired Magazine. “But silicon producers overreacted to the price run-up and flooded the market.” The result was that silicon prices dropped 90 percent, eliminating CIGS’ initial price advantage.

Another problem for Solyndra was the falling price of natural gas—the cleanest of the readily available fossil fuels—as extractors implemented new technologies including horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing to get at formerly inaccessible domestic reserves in shale rock. In 2001 shale gas accounted for two percent of
natural gas output, while today that number is closer to 30 percent. The result of this increased supply is that the price of natural gas has fallen by some 77 percent since 2008, meaning utilities can produce electricity from it much cheaper as well. “Renewables simply can’t compete,” adds Swaby.

The final blow to Solyndra was
China’s creation of a $30 billion credit line for its nascent solar industry. “The result: Chinese firms went from making just six percent of the world’s solar cells in 2005 to manufacturing more than half of them today,” says Swaby. U.S.
market share is now just seven percent.

Low natural gas prices have also hurt other renewables, especially given the slow economy and its stifling effect on innovation. To wit, the rate of new wind-turbine installations in the
has declined by more than half since 2008. “The fossil fuel industry and its allies in Congress clearly see the solar and wind industries as a threat and will try to kill [them],” says Representative Edward Markey, a top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Regardless of the challenges in furthering renewables, the White House remains committed to the greener path. In his recent State of the
, President Obama renewed the call for a federal Renewable Energy Standard that would force utilities to derive significant percentages of their power from cleaner, greener sources. This would provide much-needed regulatory uniformity and a more robust and consistent market for renewable power, wherever solar panels, wind turbines or other equipment happen to be manufactured.

CONTACTS: Solyndra,
www.solyndra.com ; Wired, www.wired.com .

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I was in
Los Angeles recently and the smog was not nearly as bad as when I visited 15 years ago. Is it really better now, and if so, how did it get that way? Or did I just happen to visit on a good day? -- Marjorie Hicke, Atlanta, GA

Los Angeles is almost as famous for its choking smog—a haze of ground-level ozone and particulate pollution that can aggravate asthma and other respiratory problems—as for its Hollywood stars. The reason so much smog forms there is because the city is in a low basin surrounded by mountains, with millions of cars and industrial sites spewing emissions into the air.

But thanks to tougher state and federal air quality standards,
L.A. residents can breathe easier than they’ve been able to for decades. According to the non-profit Environment California, air pollution from cars and trucks across the state has decreased since the 1970s by more than 85 percent, with peak smog levels in the city of Los Angeles itself dropping some 70 percent. Meanwhile, California
’s South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) has been tracking smog levels in the area since 1976, and reports the number of ozone advisories—where residents are advised to stay indoors due to unhealthy local accumulations of smog—fell from a high of 184 days in 1977 to between zero and a few days a year now.

California’s efforts to reduce air pollution from cars and trucks have made the state’s air cleaner than it has been in decades and Californians are healthier as a result,” says Bernadette Del Chiaro, Environment California’s clean energy advocate.
This is especially notable because the number of miles driven in California doubled since the 1970s even though emissions significantly dropped—meaning that vehicles have gotten considerably more fuel efficient over the years. “The technologies found on new car lots today were practically unimaginable even 20 years ago, much less 40 years ago,” adds Del Chiaro. “Yet thanks to strong policies, California has pushed the auto industry to innovate and engineer a greener, cleaner car.”

According to Environment California’s research, a typical new car today is more than 99 percent cleaner burning than its 1960s counterpart. An older car produces about a ton of smog-forming pollution every 100,000 miles; a new car generates only 10 pounds over the same distance. This improvement saves consumers money at the pump as well as health care expenses and lives due to reduced pollution loads. And a new generation of hybrid and electric cars is driving automotive efficiency to even newer heights.

Updated federal air quality standards implemented in 2008 have also helped reduce ozone alert days in California and elsewhere.
But despite this progress, environmental and public health advocates are urging federal lawmakers to raise air quality standards even higher. The goal is to get ground level ozone, a chief contributor to smog, no more prevalent than the range of 60-70 parts per billion averaged over eight hours, as unanimously recommended by an independent board of air experts and scientists created under the Clean Air Act to provide periodic review and recommendations on air quality standards.

The Obama administration reportedly considered updating the 2008 standard last summer but decided to table the decision until 2013 given economic priorities. Let’s hope that the economy turns around enough in the meantime so that industry won’t push back too hard against raising the federal standards.

CONTACTS: Environment
California, www.environmentcalifornia.org; AQMD, www.aqmd.gov.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I heard the term “underwater wilderness” recently. What does it refer to?
-- Melissa Cook, via e-mail

“Underwater wilderness” is a term sometimes used to describe so-called Marine Reserves, a type of Marine Protected Area (MPA) where offshore drilling and mining are not allowed and fishing is either heavily restricted or banned altogether. Marine Reserves, which occur in both tropical and temperate waters, typically have large amounts of biodiversity and are important to protect because they play a key role in rebuilding depleted fish populations and revitalizing wider ocean ecosystems.

“Research shows that protected ocean areas harbor more fish, bigger fish, healthier habitat and more diverse life than unprotected areas,” reports the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). “And these safe havens have a spillover effect, as abundant marine life begins to populate waters beyond the borders of the reserve.” NRDC adds that Marine Reserves will become even more important as the ocean is stressed by both climate change and ocean acidification, an ongoing lowering of the ph of the seas caused by absorption of carbon dioxide emissions.

While the actual area covered by Marine Reserves is small, their contribution to marine biodiversity is important. The
U.S.’s 223 Marine Reserves make up just 3.1 percent of its waters and only eight percent of the world’s MPAs. Some 95 percent of U.S. Marine Reserves are located in the 140,000 square mile Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in Hawaii—established in 2006 by President George W. Bush—with the rest spread out across many smaller ocean, estuarine and Great Lakes

“Although rare, no take areas, also called marine reserves, are sometimes used to protect spawning or nursery grounds, or to protect ecologically important deep-water habitats,” reports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which administers the U.S. National Marine Protected Areas program. “Some are used as research and monitoring zones to serve as a baseline that allows comparisons by managers and scientists of undisturbed control areas to those impacted by human activities.”

Currently 54 Marine Reserves are federally managed as part of national park, national wildlife refuge or national marine sanctuary systems. Another 141 are managed by state agencies, 19 are managed at the territorial level, and nine are managed by public/private partnerships. NOAA reports that efforts to incorporate Marine Reserves into existing coastal and ocean management plans are occurring in many states, including in the Florida Keys, where the Tortugas Ecological Reserve prohibits the taking of marine life and prohibits vessel discharges, and in California’s Channel Islands and along parts of the Oregon coast, where Marine Reserve designations have been effective in bringing back fish stocks.

Marine Reserve designation may be a U.S. term, but Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. all have their own form of Marine Reserves, and countries in Southeast Asia, Africa and Europe are working to establish similarly protections. Meanwhile, the international environmental group Greenpeace wants to establish marine reserves in international waters not subject to any one country’s rules and regulations.

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org; NOAA’s
National Marine Protected Areas Center, www.mpa.gov; Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine ( www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I’m in the market for a new pair of skis. Are there skis being made today that are made with materials and processes that are kinder to the environment? -- Scott Paxton, Rutland, VT

Yes, in fact ski (and snowboard) manufacturers may be among the greenest sporting goods industries out there today, given the importance to practitioners of keeping our carbon emissions down—global warming is bad for skiing and boarding—and our alpine backcountry preserved.

Perhaps the biggest green change in the industry is the adoption of bamboo as a core material for both skis and snowboards. Bamboo is fast growing and doesn’t require much if any fertilizers or pesticides, so it can be produced sustainably. It is also rigid and hard to break. While most skis and snowboards on the market today still use more traditional hardwoods like beech, birch or aspen in their cores, bamboo is definitely coming on strong. Some of the leading ski makers leading the bamboo charge include
K2, Salomon, Kingswood, High Society, Boomtown, Obsidian, Locomotiv, Liberty, and Blue House.

Bamboo isn’t the only green innovation in skis today. Switzerland-based Movement Skis uses wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). And Germany’s Grown Skis will recycle your old skis to make furniture and use remaining wood scraps in making new pairs of sustainably-sourced wood skis.

Another German manufacturer, Völkl, eschews fiberglass entirely in its Amaruq Eco skis. The wood core is wrapped instead with wood sidewalls and topsheet. And instead of using epoxy to bind things together, Völkl uses all-organic wood resin and then protects the skis’ wood surfaces with an application of linseed oil. The metal edges employ 60 percent recycled steel.

Sustainability is also the new normal in snowboards. California-based Arbor Collective uses sustainably sourced bamboo, natural wood veneer and poplar, respectively, in its three lines. Protective top layers are made from a 30 percent castor bean-based bioplastic and the edges are made of 60 percent recycled steel.

Salomon, one of the industry’s leaders, has pioneered using bamboo in its snowboard cores as part of its Green Initiatives for Tomorrow program. The company’s embrace of bamboo has helped it cut down significantly on toxic fiberglass resins while reducing the plastic content of its boards by some 25 percent.

Burton’s Eco Nico snowboard uses FSC-certified wood for its core, a lacquer-free top sheet, 90 percent recycled steel edges, 100 percent recycled sidewalls and a 50 percent recycled base. K2 Sports Fastplant snowboard uses bamboo for its core, and is deemed virtually unbreakable by the company. Another manufacturer, Washington-based Gnu, uses sustainably harvested Aspen trees for their snowboard cores.

Many other ski and snowboard makers have jumped on the green bandwagon as well. Indeed, there’s never been a better time to do the right thing by your snowsports equipment purchasing.

CONTACTS: Grown Skis,
www.grownskis.com; Movement Skis, www.movementskis.com; Lucky Snowboards, www.luckysnowboards.com; Gnu Snowboards, www.gnu.com; Burton Snowboards, www.burton.com; K2 Sports, www.k2.com; Arbor Collective, www.arborcollective.com; Salomon, www.salomon.com.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine ( www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Can you fill me in on what the “Just Label It” campaign is and what it is trying to accomplish? -- Eric Altieri, Columbus, OH

Just Label It is an effort spearheaded by organic farmers and food producers, consumer and public health advocates and environmentalists to persuade the federal government to require that foods with genetically engineered (GE) ingredients be labeled accordingly. Consumers have a right, they believe, to be able to make informed choices about which foods they put into their bodies and support with their pocketbooks.

Most Americans aren’t aware that some 80 percent of processed foods at grocery stores contain GE (also known as “genetically modified,” or GM) ingredients—yet in polls 93 percent of us support the notion of mandatory labeling of such foods. At present the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn't require labels for foods with GE ingredients.

Proponents of Just Label It worry that genetically engineered plants (and animals) could wreak havoc on human health and natural ecosystems, given how little we know about them and their ability to proliferate beyond our control. Among the concerns: There has been no long-term health safety testing on GE ingredients because they are so new; unexpected mutations can occur which can introduce unknown toxins into the food supply; the increasing use of herbicide-resistant genes in crops is leading to the overuse of herbicides in general; and the planting of GE crops that are programmed to generate their own pesticides means that more pesticides are in our farms and fields than ever before. Perhaps most worrisome of all is that, unlike chemical pollution or even nuclear contamination, so-called “genetic pollution” (as some critics refer to GE) cannot be cleaned up after the fact once the proverbial genie is out of the bottle.

“What unifies many of us is the belief that it’s our right to know,” Just Label It organizers report. The idea for the campaign grew out of a 2011 meeting of organic stakeholders organized by Organic Voices, a project that documents the oral history of organic farming and sustainable agriculture.

The first order of business for the “Just Label It” campaign was to submit a legal petition—written by attorneys at the non-profit Center for Food Safety—to the FDA in September 2011 calling for the mandatory labeling of GE foods for sale in the United States. At this point, FDA is taking public comments on the petition and will issue a final ruling on it later in 2012.

Consumers can make their opinions on the topic heard by FDA regulators by customizing and submitting the form letter available at the JustLabelIt.org home page. To date some 600,000 people have sent along comments to the FDA due to the campaign's outreach efforts. Just Label It aims to get that number to one million by the end of spring 2012, and is now working with 450 different partner groups to help spread the word. Campaign organizers are hoping that this outpouring of support will resonate with FDA regulators when it comes time for them to decide whether or not the
U.S. should join almost 50 other countries--including South Korea, Brazil, China
, and the European Union—in requiring GE labeling across the board.

CONTACTS: Just Label It,
www.justlabelit.org; FDA, www.fda.gov; Center for Food Safety, www.centerforfoodsafety.org; Organic Voices, www.organicvoices.com.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine ( www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk:
Cuba just began drilling for oil not far from U.S. shores and hopes to become a major exporter. What ramifications does this have for the environment? -- NEED NAME

Cuba recently began drilling exploratory oil wells 30 miles off of its northern coast—and just 60 miles south of the Florida Keys. Earlier this year the Scarabeo 9 oil rig finished up a long slow journey by sea from the shipyard that birthed it in
China to Cuba’s territorial waters off the capital city of Havana (the 50-year-old U.S. trade embargo on Cuba forbids such equipment going from or through the United States).

Geologists estimate that the rock formations off Cuba’s northern coast could yield anywhere from five to 20 billion barrels of oil. American foreign policy experts are concerned that Cuba’s inexperience with off-shore drilling could lead to a spill in sensitive waters not unlike the 2010 BP oil disaster. They’re also worried that Cuba could yield more political and economic power if it becomes a net exporter of oil.

Cuba is reportedly using state-of-the-art equipment and is working with experienced international drilling contractors, some U.S.
environmental groups are still troubled: “A major oil spill in Cuban waters could devastate both coastal Cuba and the United States,” reports the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). “Florida’s $60 billion tourism and fishing industries—as well as the Dry Tortugas marine sanctuary and deepwater corals in the Southeast Atlantic—are at stake.”

Cuba imports half of the 200,000 barrels of oil it consumes each day from its friendly neighbor to the south, Venezuela. The other half of Cuba’s oil comes from its own two existing on-shore oil facilities. Finding significant off-shore reserves could end its dependency on Venezuela and turn Cuba into an oil exporter, possibly even thawing relations with a still oil-hungry U.S. Indeed, if the find is big enough, U.S.-based oil firms may want in, and who knows how that will affect the U.S. embargo on trade with Cuba.

Given the environmental and political implications of
’s foray into offshore drilling, EDF led a delegation to the island nation in September 2011. The goal of the delegation, which included co-chair of the BP oil spill commission and former EPA Administrator William Reilly, was to assess Cuba’s plans and to share lessons learned about the risks of offshore drilling with officials there. “The trip put the spotlight on the lack of dialogue between the United States and Cuba on how to prepare and respond to an oil spill in Cuban waters,” says Lee Hunt of the International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC), one of the trip’s organizers. EDF, IADC and others would like to see the Obama administration initiate direct negotiations with Cuba to ensure that sufficient environmental and safety standards are in place.

“It’s a sensitive political issue because if there were a spill, U.S. technology might be prevented from being quickly deployed due to the long-running U.S. embargo of Cuba,” reports EDF. “The United States has more than 5,000 wells in its territorial waters in the Gulf. But none are nearly as close to the Florida coast as the proposed sites off Havana.”

But with the test drilling already underway, Cuba isn’t waiting around for U.S. input. No doubt, if the exploratory wells are a success, Cuban oil will become a huge political issue.

CONTACTS: EDF, www.edf.org; International Association of Drilling Contractors, www.iadc.org.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Are all the commercial messages kids are bombarded with today having any noticeable negative effects? And if so what can a concerned parent like me do to limit my own kids’ exposure to so much advertising and marketing?
-- Jason Baldino, Somerset, NJ

No doubt, marketers are hard at work targeting our children with their messages and creating young demand for their products. Companies in the U.S. today spend some $17 billion yearly advertising to children, a 150-fold increase from just a few decades ago. Some cash-strapped school districts have even started selling ads on and sometimes in their school buses as a way to bolster sagging education budgets. To be an American kid today is to be bombarded with marketing messages and sales pitches. It’s no wonder that, given the amount of advertising and marketing they endure, young people in our society are experiencing record levels of obesity and problems with credit card debt.

According to the non-profit Center for a New American Dream (CNAD), a leading proponent for more ecologically sustainable and community-oriented lifestyles in the United States, this incessant marketing is turning our children “into little consumers, alienating them from nature, getting them used to unhealthy diets filled with junk foods, and making them want ever more stuff.” The group points to several disturbing studies, such as one that showed how U.S. children could recognize more Pokemon characters than common wildlife species, while another found that the average American kid is exposed to more than 25,000 television ads spanning some 10,700 minutes over the course of just one year.

The result of all this aggressive marketing to kids is not just excessive materialism and obesity, but also a host of other problems including depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, eating disorders, increased violence, and family stress. “Economically, societally and ecologically,” CNAD reports, “this is unsustainable and not the best path for children.”

Against this backdrop of media and marketing saturation, what can be done to help steer our kids in a more healthy direction? Given that shielding American kids from these messages would be nearly impossible, the next best thing is teaching them how to parse through the different come-ons and solicitations they are exposed to these days at nearly every turn. CNAD’s free, downloadable 32-page booklet “Tips for Parenting in a Commercial Culture” offers loads of useful information on how to limit kids’ exposure to commercial influences that come via the television, computer or mail slot, and replacing those lost hours with new opportunities for more beneficial activities. Examples abound: playing board or card games, going on a walk or hike, riding bikes, and much more. The booklet also elaborates on how to limit or rid commercial influences in schools and other places where kids spend time away from home.

Another great resource for parents and teachers looking to reduce commercial influences on kids is the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, a coalition of more than two dozen other groups started by consumer advocate and author Susan Linn. The coalition advocates for the adoption of government policies that limit corporate marketers’ access to kids and works to mobilize parents, educators and health care providers to stop the commercial exploitation of children. Teachers love the coalition’s free downloadable Guide to Commercial-Free Book Fairs while concerned parents can download the Guide to Commercial-Free Holidays in order to help themselves and their kids resist the hype.

CONTACTS: Center for a New American Dream, www.newdream.org; Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, www.commercialfreechildhood.org.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

E - The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I understand that mining was just banned in the Grand Canyon and environs. Why is that an important victory for the environment? -- Michael McAllister, Reno, NV

Yes, in January 2012 Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar announced that the federal government was prohibiting new mining claims for the next two decades across more than a million acres of public lands surrounding
Grand Canyon National Park.

In the face of increased uranium mining in the area, environmental advocates have been pushing for the prohibition to stave off the industrialization of the iconic wild lands flanking the park, fearing that new roads, mines, exploratory drilling, power lines and truck traffic would compromise the natural experience most visitors seek, let alone directly pollute and alter the region’s fragile ecology. Pre-existing claims can continue to operate in the parcels in question, but they will have only about a tenth of the surface impacts and a third of the water usage of what mining in the area would cause without the ban on new claims.

Grand Canyon’s watershed is a complex groundwater flow system that extends miles north and south of the National Park’s boundary,” reports the non-profit Wilderness Society. “If contaminated by uranium mining, those aquifers would be impossible to clean up—a point acknowledged by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.” The group adds that the aquifers in question feed the Grand Canyon’s springs and creeks, which provide habitat for up to 500 times more species than adjacent uplands, including threatened, endangered and even endemic species found only in the national park.

“By industrializing the Grand Canyon region and risking permanent pollution of its soil and water resources, uranium mining would also threaten the Southwest’s robust tourism economy—for which Grand Canyon National Park is the primary economic engine,” says the Wilderness Society, adding that the outdoor recreation business in Arizona each year supports 82,000 jobs, generates some $350 million in state tax revenue, and stimulates about $5 billion in retail sales and services.

As far as environmentalists are concerned, the Interior Department’s decision couldn’t have come any sooner, with mining companies champing at the bit to open up over 700 new uranium mining sites and exploration projects on the disputed lands. By halting this development, the
U.S. government is effectively protecting more than 1,300 acres from surface disturbance and preventing the diversion and potential pollution of over 300 million gallons of precious fresh water from the region’s aquifers.

“The Interior Department’s decision on this ban reinforces the role the agency should play in managing our public lands by evaluating the various uses in the region and safeguarding fragile lands from permanent damage,” concludes the Wilderness Society.

Of course, the mining and uranium industries in the
U.S. are not lying down so easily. In February the National Mining Association, a trade group representing the interests of the U.S. mining industry, filed suit in federal court to try to overturn the prohibition. While the challenge works its way through the legal system, environmentalists can breathe easy as the ban remains in effect. But only time will tell how long they can keep resource extractors at bay in and around our national parks, especially in light of the lucrative revenues that can be made from uranium mining, logging and other destructive practices.

CONTACTS: Wilderness Society, www.wilderness.org; National Mining Association, www.nma.org.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Add Comment

Article Archives  This Month's Articles  Click Here for more articles by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss
Wisdom Magazine
Nancy Johansen
Light Healing
Elizabeth Joyce
Lou Valentino
Alternatives For Healing
Dancing Heart
Karen Clickner
Sue Miller
Sue Miller Art

Call Us: 413-339-5540 or  |  Email Us  | About Us  | Privacy Policy  | Site Map  | © 2024 Wisdom Magazine