The Crisis of the Anthropocene: Part 2

Continued from The Crisis of the Anthropocene: Part 1.

by Dr. Sherman Lewis, Professor Emeritus Political Science, California State University East Bay

Cheap fossils

Peak oil refers to the gradual increase in the cost of extracting fossil fuels causing higher prices, decreasing demand, and declining production. As peak oil is reached, the volume of extraction declines. Peak oil was reached years ago in the US. In 2010 the International Energy Association announced that peak oil may have occurred internationally in 2006. The price of gasoline has been erratically ratcheting up. Conventional petroleum is probably less available at the same time that rapidly growing economies demand more oil. Most Americans are likely to continue to buy gas as if there were no tomorrow and blame politics, oil companies, and speculators for a problem inherent in the earth’s crust. The timing of the ratchet is unpredictable. Crudeoilpeak.info/global-peak has excellent data on the past, but less certain projections for the future.

Credit: theresilientearth.com

Unfortunately, the benefit peak oil might provide to reduce global warming is being more than offset by other fossils, which seem well short of any peak. Higher oil prices so far only serve to stimulate more extraction of oil from risky deep ocean platforms, coal, dirty oil from shale and sand, and natural gas from fracking, which pollutes huge volumes of clean water. Fossil fuels are still in under-priced over-abundance and consumption is even increasing. The earth’s crust appears sufficiently generous in fossils to assure the demise of the climate that supported human development. However great for the money economy, it is not sustainable in the whole economy.

Under-pricing reduces the viability of non-fossil alternatives—solar wind, photovoltaic and thermal energy, energy efficiency, conservation, non-auto modes, and efficient land use.

Water

Humans appropriate more than half the world’s fresh water. Ancient aquifers in the world’s bread baskets, including the Ogallala in the Great Plains, are being drained. California has diverted so much water from the Bay Delta system that its historic ecology has collapsed. The salmon, steelhead, and striped bass are mostly gone, leaving the tiny Delta Smelt as the remaining indicator species. Water shortages are increasing. A federal court recently ordered water released into the Klamath River to prevent fish kills, at the expense of farmers who wanted the water. The San Joaquin Valley has sunk many feet in some places due to over-pumping of ground water.

In December 2012, the Interior Department said by mid-century the Colorado River will not support demand from the seven states it supplies, including California. The main reason is expected population growth in the region from 40 million to as many as 76 million people. “Phoenix continues to grow at one of the highest rates in the country,” said Jerry Karnas, population and sustainability director of the Center for Biological Diversity. “There is no discussion about what the future Phoenix is going to do when the Colorado River is done.”

As rains diminish and the climate dries in some areas, increased pumping from falling aquifers becomes more expensive due to the cost of electricity, itself dependent on water supplies and fossils. As diets improve, demand for food higher up the food chain requires more water. Only 2 percent of major U.S. rivers run unimpeded to the sea. California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta has been entirely re-engineered. The last time the Colorado River reached the Sea of Cortez was in 1998. The Nile, Indus and Ganges rivers have been reduced to a trickle. (See chellaney.net for information on the most pertinent international water issue.)

Credit: thelivingocean.net

 

Pollution

Pollution of water, air, and land comes from burning fossils, hazardous chemicals, excess nutrients, and solid waste. Small amounts of a chemical can devastate amphibians and bees. Residues from 100 million tons of synthetic chemical compounds produced each year commonly appear in polar bear tissues, whale blubber, and human breast milk and umbilical cords. Nitrogen can be a fertilizer; the excess is a problem. Human activity surpasses nature as a source of nitrogen emissions, altering the planet’s nitrogen cycle.

Radioactivity has been an evolutionary background reality and a minor pollutant since the Strontium 90 scares of the 1950s, but is now looming much larger as radioactivity from the Japanese Fukushima Daiichi Reactor melt-down drifts across the Pacific Ocean to the West Coast of North America. Radioactivity has proven deadly from the earliest research to the bombing of two Japanese cities. In theory and most practice radioactivity is one of the most strictly regulated pollutants, but the difficulty of failsafe nuclear energy and the possibility of nuclear war and nuclear terrorism are still there.

Bioengineering is not usually thought of as a pollutant, but at the micro-scale of DNA it could be considered to be one, much like an invasive species in a habitat. So far, research and industry safeguards have prevented acute problems, but secrecy about Genetically Modified Organisms, lack of consumer choice, and industry assurances motivated in part by profit-seeking do not inspire confidence. Wind-blown GMO seeds have already contaminated some organic crops. We are still learning the most basic things about DNA, let alone how it can safely be manipulated.

California has eight of the 10 most air-polluted cities in the country and 725 metric tons of solid waste are washing up on our coast each year.

Higher, higher still Credit: InternationalComparisons.org

Credit: InternationalComparisons.org

Land

Humans have converted more than 40 percent of the earth’s land, usually the most biologically productive land, to cities and farms. Urbanization often destroys prime farmland. Roads and structures fragment the habitat of much of the rest. The increasing need for food and decreasing yields due to climate change, salinization, soil erosion, soil depletion, and conversion to other uses have led to converting more marginal, unfarmed land to crops. Farms and logging are big sources of deforestation and also causes greenhouse gases and loss of sequestration of atmospheric carbon.

Oceans

A third of world fisheries are exhausted or degraded. Forty percent of coral reefs and a third of mangroves have been destroyed or degraded. Most species of the great predator fish are in decline. Ocean acidification, a product of fossil fuel burning, is dissolving calcifying plankton at the base of the food chain. Coral reefs are disappearing as warming, over-fishing, and pollutants cause massive bleaching, i.e., the ejection by the coral of the algae it needs to grow. Less life in the oceans reduces sequestration of carbon. A garbage gyre at least twice the size of Texas swirls in the Pacific Ocean. “We can’t just continue dumping nitrogen into the ocean at the same rate and expect everything to be fine,” Santa Clara University’s Marvier said.

Auto-dependency

The world is rapidly increasing the number and use of cars, while other, healthier, modes of transportation, especially walking, are shrinking in proportion. Underpricing of fossil fuel drives land use dispersion, resulting in a suburban system which makes other modes uneconomic and unavailable. Californians own 32 million registered vehicles for 29 million people aged 16 and older.

Misconceptions

The problem is not consumption as understood by economists, but rather the over-consumption of some things due to their under-pricing which fails to consider full economic cost and allows externalization of costs, degrading the whole economy: “problem consumption.” The whole economy includes values of obvious economic worth that are not reflected in prices. We cannot conceive a sustainable economy because it is too complex, but we can have policies which push us towards one, with sustainable consumption replacing the unsustainable over time, and an improving status of women reducing population growth.

There is no “birth dearth,” at least, not yet. World fertility rates have fallen from 4.9 births per woman in the 1960s to the current 2.6, still too high. The rate in about half the world—Japan, Western Europe, China, Vietnam, Brazil, Iran, Thailand, and other emerging economies—is below the 2.1 births per woman needed for zero growth. The United States, the world’s third-largest country behind China and India, and the only rich country still growing, nevertheless recently saw its birth rate fall to 1.9.

The improvement in the status of women has driven birth rates down through education, economic opportunity, legal protections, family planning, and, to a small extent, therapeutic abortion. Across cultures, women choose to provide a better life for fewer children.

The revolution, however, is incomplete because high economic costs are still imposed on most women who choose to have children. Historically, the duties of child-rearing have been assumed by women, but, with improved status and given a choice, women reduce the burden. Once a developed country chooses to tax itself to ease the cost, women, if need be, are ready, willing, and able to have more children, because few things in life are more fulfilling.

While the population gets older, the ratio of dependent seniors on younger workers does not tell us what we need to know. The ratio is less relevant, possibly irrelevant, because health is increasing faster than age, and many older people want to work at work they choose. Also, if there are tax penalties, like loss of retirement income if one works, people will work less for money and more at other things. I retired to avoid tax penalties and to work voluntarily on sustainability analysis and advocacy. My wife retired and is almost fulltime at granddaughter care so that our kids can work for money. Rebalancing incentives for having children and for older working can solve problems, if they occur.

Major source: Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle Washington correspondent, SF Chronicle, Sept. 3, 2013.

Advertisements

The Crisis of the Anthropocene: Part 1

by Dr. Sherman Lewis, Professor Emeritus Political Science, California State University East Bay

Overview

Science, though often behind the actual pace of change, is still our best source of information. For the first time in the history of the earth, a species by its own conscious decisions is ending one geological epoch, the Holocene, and starting another, the Anthropocene.

credit: Planet Under Pressure

For decades, scientists have been discovering and warning about a series of interconnected threats to human welfare. In May 2013, the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere, consisting of more than 1,000 scientists, signed a consensus report at Stanford University that “Earth is reaching a tipping point.” “The evidence that humans are damaging their ecological life-support system is overwhelming,” said the report. “By the time today’s children reach middle age, it is extremely likely that the Earth’s life-support systems, critical for human prosperity and existence, will be irretrievably damaged.” Michele Marvier, chair of environmental studies at Santa Clara University, says that “humans dominate every flux and cycle of the planet’s ecology and geochemistry.”

A recent article in Nature stated “Localized ecological systems are known to shift abruptly and irreversibly, from one state to another when they are forced across critical thresholds. Here we review evidence that the global ecosystem as a whole can react in the same way and is approaching a planetary critical transition as a result of human influence.” Human “ ‘forcings’ far exceed, in both rate and magnitude, the forcing evident at the most recent global scale state shift, the last glacial-interglacial transition.” (Be sure to read the David Roberts and David Perlman articles from which the above quotes have been taken.)

Population

From 1950 to 2012 world population tripled, to 7.1 billion, and continues to climb by more than 1.5 million people a week. The world population is expected to reach 9.6 billion by 2050. Joseph Speidel, a professor at UCSF’s Bixby Center on Global Reproductive Health, says, “The annual increment is rising quite dramatically. …We are still adding about 84 million people a year to the planet.” The addition in just 62 years will be greater than the human population growth for thousands of years to 1950. The World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank, estimates that by mid-century the world will need 70 percent more food, because as people grow wealthier they eat more meat, requiring more grain to feed livestock.

Falling birth rates do not quickly translate into falling growth rates because of “demographic momentum.” The absolute numbers keep rising for decades due to births to the large number of people in their child-bearing years. It took 12 years to add the last billion by 2011 and will take 14 more years to add the next billion, a slow decline in rate allowing a huge increase in numbers.

In developed countries falling birthrates are outweighed by the impacts of increased “problem consumption” per capita. Problem consumption refers to consumption which places the most stress on the earth. The United States is expected to grow from 313 million people to 400 million. California has 38 million people, including 10 million immigrants, and has grown 10 percent in the last decade. By 2050, projections show 51 million people living in the state, more than twice as many as in 1980.

In many less developed countries high population growth is being reduced somewhat by famine, hunger, disease, civil violence, and war. At least 2 billion people are malnourished, which increases death rates and reduces birth rates. Also, given lack of family planning, about half of unplanned pregnancies end in unsafe abortion. Nevertheless, in sub-Saharan Africa, Afghanistan and Yemen birth rates are exceptionally high. In 2012 U.N. demographers sharply raised their population projections, adding another billion people by 2100, reaching nearly 11 billion. African fertility rates have peaked at more than five births per woman. From now until 2050, poor countries will add the equivalent of a city of 1 million people every five days, said a report last year by the Royal Society, a top British scientific organization.

The Guttmacher Institute, a family planning research group, said more than 40 percent of the world’s 208 million pregnancies each year are unplanned. Half of U.S. pregnancies, about 3 million a year, are unintended, according to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, a Washington advocacy group.

Population growth is primarily caused by the low status of poor women, especially in less-developed countries. Low status refers to a number of related problems—poverty, low education, lack of legal protections, lack of jobs, lack of health care and family planning, and abuse by dominant males. Rising status always lowers birth rates, regardless of ethnicity, religion, or culture.

The Guttmacher Institute said it would cost $4.1 billion a year in the $3.8 trillion U.S. budget to provide family planning for the 222 million women in the world who lack access to family health services. Republicans in the US Congress oppose funding that would allow poor women to choose how many children they have. In 2013 a House Appropriations panel again slashed money for family planning aid.

Biodiversity

As human population waxes, the population of species in nature wanes. Scientists have identified the Anthropocene as the sixth mass extinction in the earth’s 540 million-year history. A quarter of known mammal species, 43 percent of amphibians, 29 percent of reptiles and 14 percent of birds are threatened. African elephants may be extinct within a decade.

Biodiversity is collapsing because of appropriation of biomass, habitat fragmentation, dewatering of rivers and wetlands, land conversion, pollution, invasive species, over-hunting, and over-fishing. Each year, humans appropriate up to 40 percent of the earth’s biomass, the product of photosynthesis, earth’s basic energy conversion necessary to all life. “Even in poorer nations that don’t have the impact that the average American has on the planet, population as it grows squeezes out other species because people need space to live, and the other species need space to live,” said Jeffrey McKee, an anthropologist at Ohio State University. Other wealthy countries have similar impacts, but less per capita.

California alone has 157 known endangered or threatened species.

Climate

People have altered the composition of the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and causing emissions of other global warming gases like methane. Atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from about 250 parts per million to about 400, and continues to rise. As the atmosphere holds more heat, temperatures rise, especially at the poles. The seasons move “pole-ward,” with earlier springs and later falls. Increased evaporation leads to more precipitation. On equatorial and temperate land masses, which have little water, droughts are increasing, as in the African Sahel. Increased heat energy in the ocean and atmosphere increases the intensity of extreme weather events. Glaciers, the Greenland Ice Cap, and the poles are melting. The permafrost is melting. More flooding occurs from precipitation, thermal expansion of the ocean, melt water from land-based glaciers, rising oceans, and extreme storms. Many species are affected, moving pole-ward if they can. Some species depend on altitude and run out of up. In the Monteverde Cloud Forest of Costa Rica, the golden toad ran out of mountain and was extirpated. Less sea ice is reducing polar bear population, which depend on it to hunt seals. Climate change reduces yields by decreasing rainfall in many large farming areas. Forest fires are increasing in extent and frequency.

Credit: fasteconomy.com

To be covered in Part 2 on Thursday: Cheap Fossils to Auto-dependency and Misconceptions

US joins 90 other Arms Trade Treaty signatories

Making news last week directly affecting research on internationalcomparisons.org, the U.S. became the 91st signatory of the international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) which regulates illicit arms trade–everything from helicopters and tanks to small and light arms–among countries in order to prevent weapons being sold to countries involved in human rights violations. Secretary of State John Kerry signed the treaty on President Barak Obama’s behalf much to the chagrin of the National Rifle Association and U.S. conservatives. Kerry has assured that “… we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans, the rights of American citizens, to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our Constitution.” The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms already regulates that which is required by the ATT and no supplemental enforcement or legislation is required to support it. Kerry further guaranteed that the treaty still allows “the ability of both individuals and states to obtain, possess, and use arms for legit purposes,” and that their 2nd Amendment rights had no reason for concern.

As extensively reviewed on internationalcomparisons.org, the U.S. has left many forefront international treaties unsigned (official endorsement from the head of state) and still more unratified (official endorsement from the legislature). Many of the snubs are absolutely confounding. Organizations like Amnesty International, who have pushed for such an agreement for the past 20+ years, are rightfully celebrating this achievement as potential progress on cracking down on international arms trade. Since the U.S. signing, 21 more nation states have signed the treaty and ratifications have almost doubled from 4 to 7.

The solution to Syria; looking beyond the U.S. and the U.N.

Guest editor: Dr. Sherman Lewis, Professor Emeritus Political Science, California State University East Bay

U.S. policy toward Syria has, from the start, been too simplistic and short term. It has been too highly influenced by domestic politics and U.S. exceptionalism. President Obama’s latest proposal, a limited cruise missile strike on chemical weapons, is like a scalpel without an operating room. The Russian initiative, while better than a U.S. strike and helpful, deals with too little of the problem. Syria certainly has crossed a red line against chemical weapons, evidently more than once, but there should also be action in response to another red line that was crossed, war crimes against civilians.

We need a long term, multilateral strategy to overcome two powerful networks, the secular Baathist Alawite regime under Assad, and the Jihadists. Our previous blog reviewed policy from a U.S. perspective. Here, we present a complex policy in which the U.S. plays an important but limited, less visible role.

Credit: truthdig.com

In wake of the UN’s “indesputable” and “thoroughly objective” report that Syria did use chemical weapons,

most eyes are fixed on the U.S., Russia, and Syria for the next step, but they will not affect the larger, more important problem that has caused many more deaths: the Syrian Civil War. Stopping Assad’s use of chemical weapons is impotent unless it’s part of a larger strategy.

The primary requisite is cooperation among critical anti-Assad stakeholders: the U.S., NATO, the European Union, the Arab League, the gulf states, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), Syrian civilian leaders with their various interests, ethnicities and sects, and Turkey. The stakeholders would commit a process taking five to ten years.

First, the Arab League would establish a Task Force with Turkey as its Secretariat. The Task Force, in consultation with Western powers, makes policy decisions. The Secretariat serves as the exclusive spokesperson to the media for the multilateral effort. All other stakeholders and actors take a step back from the media for the sake of multilateral functionality. When asked what the U.S. strategy is, President Obama defers to the Arab League saying that the U.S. will work through the Task Force, and that as conditions change and news develops, the Secretariat will keep everyone updated. The U.S. is a superpower, but must act like it is not. Syrian and Arab national interests need to be the major driving force.

Secondarily, the Secretariat establishes an area in the Hatay area of Turkey north and west of Syria for greater refugee capacity and for political and military operations. The Hatay area is about 20 to 30 miles (30 to 50 kilometers)  wide and seems to have room for a sizable, temporary new town. This area of Turkey has access to the Mediterranean at Iskenderun, and has small airports. The flat areas are farmed, to be avoided, and the barren hills are difficult to use, but still feasible.  The area would be a capital in exile for the FSA and Syrian civilian leaders for political, diplomatic, military, and educational purposes.

Every Syrian who wants to be a part of a post-Assad regime is required to spend most of the year there to begin the networking necessary for a functional post-Assad regime. The fractious leadership has to work out its differences and find a way to work together. The FSA and Syrian civilians lack political and diplomatic cohesion and need a place for extended discussion to coordinate civil and military leaderships. They need to agree on who will hold what positions in a post-Assad regime, on what the major policies will be, and on some process for making decisions. This can be developed only over a long period of time. FSA commanders are required to rotate out of Syria for political education and networking. Upon return, they educate their troops about the discipline necessary to get the arms and training they want. Part of that education includes how to relate to the Jihadists, the danger they pose to Syria and Islam, and why the West is so sensitive about them.

With outside military support, the FSA would be able to gradually liberate and secure more nearby areas of Syria. The strategy assumes that military action is necessary to create the conditions for a cease fire and negotiations. When the FSA agrees to critical conditions, the West and gulf states assist it. The Turkish Secretariat manages military assistance from all stakeholders. A select few and trusted FSA fighters receive training and the arms necessary to take out Syrian airplanes, tanks, and heavy artillery. If there are no Assad airplanes, there is no need for the West to have a no-fly zone. The Syrian army will still be strong, but the FSA will have a better chance, and fewer civilians will be slaughtered.

Gradually, as Sunni areas are secured by the FSA, Syrian civilian leaders go from the temporary capital to relatively safe areas of Syria. If civilian leaders want to avoid being frozen out of politics by the FSA, they should take some role in the fighting and get to know the fighters. The liberated areas need to be well-administered and have some economic recovery to show that a future under the FSA and civil leadership can work.

Credit: internacional.elpais.com by Enric González

The Secretariat helps train the FSA and civilians for control and civil administration of liberated Sunni areas. The FSA avoids Alawite areas and does everything possible to avoid communal war, which is a goal embedded by their political education.

Assad commanders and leaders increasingly become subject to International Criminal Court (ICC) indictments. The combination of staying out of Alawite areas and indicting Assad officials gradually develops a wedge to break the Alawite allegiance to Assad. This helps to avoid more communal violence but requires discipline and will lead to a more federated, less centralized Syria. Easing of communal tensions also reduces the intensity of fighting where the Syrian army feels it is defending not just Assad, but its community. Local cease-fires allow the FSA more resources to suppress the most dangerous jihadist operations.

A similar strategy is established to persuade the Russians that a post-Assad situation of decentralization with less fighting is not a power gain for the West and can protect Russia’s economic interests. Similarly, the Iranians need to feel confident that Shiite interests are protected and that an FSA victory improves Iranian security.

Having the Arab Task Force as the leading policy maker is important to prevent the West and particularly the U.S. from imposing its version of the Syrian national interest.

Once Syrian civilians and the FSA have a coherent working relationship, essentially a one-party system over an expanding area of Syria, they negotiate with Alawite communities so that Assad and his officials are removed from power. Once a ceasefire is stable, reintegration begins and, eventually, Syria can achieve some degree of democracy.

All feedback is highly welcomed in our comments section, below, or on other social media.

Syria vs Obama: duplicity’s consequences

Simultaneously venerable yet duplicitous. If the US is to use force to respond to the Syrian conflict, the discouragement of chemical weapons is a worthy ends, yet the means are hardly beyond reproach. It is a bit ironic, indeed, that the US is playing the role of the UN (with Russia, of course as Syria’s ally, debilitating any serious action with its veto power in the Security Council) and enforcing the agreements from the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), one of the few major international agreements ratified by the US. For every supposedly venerable reason to make war, there’s two or three more international treaties the US has not ratified or has ratified yet violates.

Still, President Obama’s decision was a cunning one from a domestic policy and an international relations (IR) perspective.

I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress.

Domestically, his decision to welcome the debate and leave it to Congress to have the final say when it’s his authority ultimately as Commander in Chief is a wise one. Not only does this allow Obama to share responsibility should things go awry, he also creates a difference between himself and his predecessor’s assumption of power. Of course it is also placative for the US war-tired public that he has promised the omission of ground troops. Let’s hope this isn’t him leaving the door open for a drone showcase–yet another controversy (note the date of linked article).

Concerning an IR perspective, Obama walks a tight rope of (supposedly) humanitarian interventionism between warmongering and pure-hearted assistance. Again, Obama is clear in claiming that he desires to have no political impact with the strike than to discourage the CWC breach. According to these statements, Obama has no intention in affecting the outcome of the war, lingering in Syria, imposing the Washington Consensus, or meddling in Syria’s politics to influence their resources.

(It should still be said that the US’ decision to dish out the punishment for international treaty violations is controversially overstepping to put it mildly, let alone absolutely hypocritical as far as international agreements are concerned. The US is trying to exemplify Syria, but does this set the precedent for the US’ responsibility to enforce the CWC?)

Even after Saturday, we have no idea what cards Obama is keeping close to his chest or to what extent the content he has revealed is intended as a cover for undisclosed incentives. But if Obama doesn’t follow through with what he assured on Saturday, that the “… action will be limited in time and scope,” he will be held responsible by not only the international community, but his own Congress and people. And if Obama means what he says, he’s got a hell of a road ahead of him and obstacles to overcome before he’ll be able to follow through.

The two-edged sword of universal health care

As Dr. Philip Caper has revealed, there’s more at stake concerning health care than whether the U.S. should have free health care for all.

He evaluates the costs offered for medicare services in the U.S. compared to the prices for the same procedures (be it a hip replacement, pregnancycolonoscopy, angiogram, or an M.R.I.) in other advanced democracies. When a surgery would cost someone $100,000 in the States in comparison to $13,660 to have it done in Belgium (airfare included), flaws in the more expensive system become glaring.

Furthermore, concerns are drawn in the United States health care system given the discrepancy among prices for the same medicare procedures when compared within the U.S. For example, procedures to treat heart failure and shock in Modesto, CA average a bill of over $92,000. The exact same category averages $3,334 in Danville, Arkansas. Geographical differences only explain so much. Systemic flaws must be at the root of the 2,700% difference.

Credit: Huck/Konopacki Cartoons

The issue in the U.S. is two-fold; therefore, universal healthcare as a solution is also double-edged. Universal health care would make health care an affordable reality for all. One study reveals that 1 out of every 4 elderly people goes bankrupt as a result of health care expenses. The United States has a broken system in which its government spends more per capita (except for Norway) and more as a percent of GDP than any other advanced democracy studied at internationalcomparisons.org.

A U.S. universal health care system would also eliminate pricing discrepancies, as reviewed above, not only in international comparisons, but interstate as well. No longer would people need to shop international hospitals for a colonoscopy or worry why Medicare has no reasonable explanation for price differences in Danville, Arkansas.

It’s a shame and a quandary: not only the systemic debacles, but also the lack of public outcry.

Health Regulation page goes live!

The Health Regulation page is relevant to internationalcomparisons.org for several reasons. Let’s highlight a couple of the most critical:

This is pretty straight forward. A great example is the link between child advertising and child obesity. U.S. advertisers spend $15-17 billion annually on advertisements targeting children. As a direct result, 35% of U.S. children are obese. Only Italy and the UK have rates over 25% in the EU which restricts advertisement to children by the EU Audiovisual Media Services Directive which mandates that child advertisement:

a. shall not directly exhort minors to buy a product or a service by exploiting their inexperience or credulity;
b. shall not directly encourage minors to persuade their parents or others to purchase the goods or services being advertised;
c. shall not exploit the special trust minors place in parents, teachers or other persons;
d. shall not unreasonably show minors in dangerous situations;
e. Children’s programs may only be interrupted if the scheduled duration is longer than 30 minutes;
f. Product placement is not allowed in children’s programs;
g. The Member States and the Commission should encourage audiovisual media service providers to develop codes of conduct regarding the advertising of certain foods in children’s programs.

  • The U.S. is the most reluctant advanced democracy to apply the precautionary principle.

In spite of pumping out nearly 20 new chemicals per day (according to Craig Collins’ Toxic Loopholes), the U.S. somehow still doesn’t find it necessary to have tighter policy to regulate the safety of those chemicals. The precautionary principle can be described as a method of policy making by which all chemicals are considered dangerous until proven harmless. Instead, U.S. chemical policy treats the unpredictable agents as innocent until proven guilty. Even once harm is associated with the chemical, certain systemic pitfalls have made it almost impossible to get such chemicals banned. The EU has banned over 1,000 chemicals; the U.S., in spite of the prolific rates at which new chemicals are produced, has banned a laughable total of nine chemicals. Wider application of the precautionary principle could have saved us the multifaceted and widespread hazards from PCBs. Without such tests required, who knows what we’re risking with GMOs and U.S. backed Monsanto initiatives.