| Sajha.com Archives | |
| Username | Post |
| paramendra | Posted
on 20-Oct-02 04:10 PM
War On The Environment Jason Fults October 17, 2002 http://www.geocities.com/jason2fults/iraq.html |
| kalankisthan | Posted
on 20-Oct-02 04:36 PM
Environment bhanyo ki tension huncha!! Tora Bora najik toribaari ko ke kura!! |
| paramendra | Posted
on 21-Oct-02 04:04 PM
War On The Environment Jason Fults October 17, 2002 "Unfortunately, too often our standards for evaluating social movements pivot around whether or not they 'succeeded' in realizing their visions rather than on the merits or power of the visions themselves. By such a measure, virtually every radical movement failed because the basic power structure relations they sought to change remain pretty much intact. And yet it is precisely these alternative visions and dreams that inspire new generations to continue to struggle for change." --Robin Kelley "Freedom Dreams" "War on the Environment" Many people associate warfare with the immediate loss of life that occurs as a consequence. What is more often overlooked is the long-term damage to our ecological infrastructure that results from war and preparations for war. The destruction of an enemy’s natural resource base (e.g., agricultural and forest land, access to clean water) has been a tactic of conquering militaries since at least ancient Rome. Yet just as modern military technology has allowed for increased efficiency with regards to killing the enemy, it has also elevated the achievable degree of environmental destruction to levels unseen in human history. While the official death tolls of the U.S.’s most extensive military campaigns in recent decades—Vietnam and the Gulf War—have long been tallied and filed away, researchers are still uncovering what the long-term effects of those conflicts will be on the civilian populations that were affected. The environmental destruction and resulting human health effects that come about through modern warfare should not be viewed as unintentional “collateral damage,” but recognized for what they are—deliberate attacks on the civilian populace with the intention of crippling the ability of “the enemy” to fight back, as well as increasing their post-war dependence upon the conflict’s victors. Such ecological genocide occurs as a direct result of:
There are numerous examples that we could look to, but perhaps the most relevant one these days is Iraq. The 1991 Gulf War has been referred to as one of the most ecologically destructive events in human history. While the official Iraqi death toll from that war remains somewhere around 150,000 people, the number of casualties that have occurred and will continue to occur since ’91 is several times that. While these deaths are largely attributable to U.N. sanctions that have denied Iraqis access to adequate food and medical supplies, the tragedy has been greatly compounded by the sheer brutality of the U.S.’s Gulf War assault on the civilian and environmental infrastructure of Iraq. While the civilian infrastructure remains in tatters even today—more than 10 years later—much of the damage that was done to the environment of Iraq may take decades, if not longer, to heal. |
| protean | Posted
on 22-Oct-02 12:44 AM
These effects of war do have wider ramifications in the future. One can only look at examples of invasion of Japan, war in Afghanistan (the validty of which can be debated), and several others of great magnitudes. Besides the envrionmental damage and the economic deteiroration that results due to war, the psychological trauma, any form of war brings about, is simply tremendous. What good is waging a war based entirely on someone's (or some small group's) ego, for economic gains & the means for acheiving political clout ,really good for, when a vast majoirty of human populatuion in another part of the wordl end up suffering by this action? This is more of a crime against humanity! It isn't simply acceptable. This kind of decision to go to war " in the name of fighting terrrorism" shouldn't be allowed to thrive. Got some info on the benefits (due to oil control) to the current adminisration on the proposed war. http://www.war-times.org/pdf/Oil%20leaflet.pdf If the 1991 war caused so much damage to the environement, what do you think a strike against Iraq-- for which a blanc carte has been received for the current adminstration--would result in? On a similar note, the current King G. and his team shouldn't be entrusted entirely to resolve the current impasse in our country. Being watchful of his moves would be critical at such times. I opine that resorting to peaceful means is the best way towards resolving such matters. |
| hehe | Posted
on 22-Oct-02 08:13 AM
This is really an interesting issue. If the negative effect of war on the environment and ecology were to be analysed, it would have very long-term effect. At a global level, look at the tragic events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How much year does/will it take to revive the nature fully there? In the same way, the armed conflict between the army and Maoists have not only affected the socio-economic conditions of the country but also the environment. The community forestry in Nepal, which is considered to be one of the successful forest management programme has come to a jeopardy due to the ongoing war. The maoists have been using the forests as main area of their operation and for hiding. They are destroying the forests in a massive rate, and causing the locals who once were managers of the forest to flee from there, and disrupting the functioning of the forest groups. The migration of the locals from the hilly areas due to maoist violence has also serious implications on soil management as our fragile fields in the hills need frequent and heavy terracing. In a more or less indirect way, the maoist violence is also responsible for causing the managemnet of national parks and protected areas to a standstill. As they are able to divert the army, who once look after the national parks against them, illegal poaching has increased in Chitwan and Barddia. In summary, what I would like to say is that the war and violence in the global scale and in a local scale has very negative impact in the wider environment. We should pay attention in that side of the coin too. |
| protean | Posted
on 22-Oct-02 12:41 PM
The destruction of the chaar khose jhaadi during the heydays of panchayat era was a serious one that went unchallenged. Now, with the war being waged in our country--which is not addressing issues ,but encumebring people with additinal problems-- the amount of damage to the environment that could arise isn't being accounted for. In years to come, we and our future generations would have to be dealing with the consequences. Can we do anything about this situation? Protean.... |
| paramendra | Posted
on 22-Oct-02 01:35 PM
On a side note, does anyone here know of a site like Sajha (discussion oriented) that fuctions at a US/global level for activist politics? I have been searching. Have not found any yet. |
| paramendra | Posted
on 22-Oct-02 01:57 PM
Which would you pick?
Any comments? |
| paramendra | Posted
on 22-Oct-02 02:13 PM
CSM ma register garna khojeko ta username not available bhanchha ba. "paramendra" is taken. Looks like I am already registered! |
| paramendra | Posted
on 22-Oct-02 02:18 PM
You are Invited: http://monitortalk.csmonitor.com/cs-politics/messages |
| protean | Posted
on 22-Oct-02 02:46 PM
Paramendra,you might want to try http://www.thenation.com/ It has some links there and generates some rational voice.. and check these related articles in there: http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=040307 Protean |
| pooja | Posted
on 22-Oct-02 02:57 PM
excellent topic...i am an environmental studies major and i have worked for various environamental and human rights organisations...it is very difficult for people to realize how human rights and environmental rights go hand in hand...have you conciously looked around and seen how everywhere poor people live there is mass destruction of environment..the US gov uses the Native American land to dump all its nuclear waste on, the Indian gov builds HUGE dams that displace millions of poor adhivasis, the Oil coprporations dont really give a damn about the millions of tons of toxic chemicals and oil they dump on forests and idegenous land i.e the Uwa people in Columbia and Occidental Petroleum, look around your city that you live in...notice how in the ghettos there are major polluting factories and incenirators...i live in San Fransisco and i see the PG &E factory spewing out hundreds of tons of unbereathable air in the poorest neighbourhood over here....i workd with an organisation and we closed down a Medical incenirator that was in Fruitvale in Oakland..one of the poorest neighbourhoods where they burnt plastic right in the neighbourhood where thousands of people live....war is definalty one of the most harmful to the environment...remember the burning oil feilds in the Middle East after the Gulf War and the bombs used in Afganisthan which were depleted uranium??? |
| paramendra | Posted
on 22-Oct-02 03:26 PM
Pooja. Thanks. Great info and perspective. |
| protean | Posted
on 22-Oct-02 07:50 PM
The warmongers, in this case, the Bush administration, who use the operative word they've coined, "Fighting Terrorism", are well aware that their actions could and would result in environmental damage as well as human suffering , the former leading to more human suffering. As far as the war issue is concerned, there should be no war . Going to war not only exacerbates the suffering, but leads to more hatred and rage. It should be stopped at all costs. Besides, the Bush administration , so self-righteoulsy, claims that they're doing this, i.e .emabarking on "operation enduirng freedom"or something of that sort, to ensure that freedom and democracy is perserved and promoted in parts of the world they're striking at. One only has to look at our neighbor Pakistan -to see who's being supported--to realize that this is such a hypocritical statement. Well, we can go on discussing this in another thread. As far as the environmental damage issue is concerend, I agree that corporations and large governments do abuse our surroundings. The major concern for them is profit. From their perspective ,they're correct. From an environmental perspective, they're not. But, why are they getting by. It's because the decision makers and these large business operators are closely aligned. Cases in point: Enron, Halliburton, which have close ties with the current Bush Administration. Voices can be raised, and awareness can be brought about. This is happening slowly in parts of the world. But, use of technology and project with that provides techologies does reap benefits to any nation . The electricity generating plants, the railway engines, the petroleum exploration does have its gains that we're taking advantage of. We can't just take these progress and achievements made by humans for granted. Ok,let's face it: 1. Does everyone enjoy using the net ? This is made possible by the use of computers that were built , the networking equipment, and by using electricity ( that was generated at some power plant). 2. Does everyone enjoy the use of roads? I, for one ,do enjoy the use of technology, such as at times when I'm on the net,being able to go about places in roads that are built (where some form of damage to the environment did occur while building them). But, at the same time, we can't be blind to serious environmental damage that some of these big projects, entails. So, I feel both sides needs to be considered when dealing with projects of any propotions, and especially those of gargantuan magnitudes. Cost benefit analysis needs to be conducted. Being aware of the damages and having a strong voice against such projects ( that are not eco friendly) is critical, but at the same time looking at how the prospective projects would beehove society in the long run, can't just be overlooked. Protean |
| paramendra | Posted
on 31-Oct-02 09:17 PM
World Plants Near Extinction Close to 50 Pct-Study 1 hour, 6 minutes ago By Christopher Doering WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The percentage of the world's plants threatened with extinction is much larger than commonly believed, and could be as high as 47 percent if tropical species are included, researchers said on Thursday. |
| protean | Posted
on 01-Nov-02 12:04 PM
http://www.thenation.com/failsafe/index.mhtml?bid=2&pid=131 _____________________________________________________ A look at why solar energy is not being pursued with earnest. Nuclear power generation and Oil --though detrimental to the environment--still be considered seriously. A look into why the US Congress still considers nucelar & oil as a means to generate power. 32 times more of the amount of the tax [money] collected in the US is spent on Nuclear power than on solar power. |