FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

One of the world's most effective environmental groups is San francisco-basd FRIENDS OF EARTH. Although FOE publishes Not Man Apart - a monthly tabloid magazine packed with authenticated, hard-to-find facts that every concerned citizen needs - far too few of MOTHER's readers regularyly see a copy of NMA. We are therefore quite pleased that FOE's staff has agreed to write a regular FRIENDS OF THE EARTH column for THE MOTHER EARTH NEWS.

PASS THE POLLUTION, PLEASE

Have you ever heard of "exporting" pollution? Well, it's a fact: To get around their own nations' clean air and water regulations, some businesses move factories and operations to countries where labor is cheaper and governments are less cautious about environmental protection. We're glad to report, however, that a recent United States court decision on the proposed Darien Gap highwaya U.S.-funded roadbuilding project that would cut through the jungles of Panama and Colombia-may help put an end to some of this particular brand of international finagling.

The ruling (which marks the first time a domestic court has considered the effects of a U.S. enterprise overseas) says that the Darien Gap project must conform to United States regulations, even though the highway will not be built in this country. In other words, the road has been stopped until a required environmental impact report is prepared, filed, and approved.

And once that statement is compiled, it will (or at least it should) point out a factor that may be the project's final undoing: Road construction in the area planned will cause the cultural extinction of that region's nomadic Choco and Cuna Indians.

For centuries, as you're probably aware, the Chocos and Cunas have coaxed a bare existence from the jungle by clearing a patch of land, planting mixed crops there for a season or two, and then moving on (which allows the depleted soil to "rest"). The highway would bring in new people and more development, which would limit both the availability of potential cropland and the Indians' necessary freedom to move around. The result of the new "stability"? Bye-bye Indians. Goodbye soil.

As it stands today, the court's decision applies only to federally funded projects but it's a step in the right direction. Friends of the Earth is working toward the day when no industry will be allowed to rip off another culture or country for the sake of profit.

NUCLEAR NEWS:
THE HOT ATOMIC CONTROVERSY

The "nuke" battle is heating up as quickly as a runaway reactor especially in California, where voters will decide in June on a nuclear safeguards initiative. If passed, the measure won't necessarily ban atomic-based power (even though industry spokesmen are making claims to the contrary), but it will require that the state legislature determine ( whether or not nuclear plants are safe, and ( if the existing limits on liability insurance should be continued or abolished. (If a serious reactor accident were to occur today, victims would recover only pennies on every dollar's worth of loss and a good many people want that situation changed.) Petition drives for similar nuclear postponement measures are now underway in the states of Maine and Oregon.

San Diego's General Atomic (a reactor manufacturing subsidiary of Gulf Oil) recently bowed out of the nuclear picture "for the time being". The corporation's ill-fated business ventures have apparently lost around $500 million most of which was spent on the company's commercially unsuccessful HTGR's (high-temperature gas-cooled reactors). The power plants GA did manage to buildPeach Bottom 1 (in Peach Bottom. Pennsylvania and Fort St. Vrain (in Platteville, Colorado) have been plagued with costly delays and pesky operation troubles. Adios, General Atomic.

The utilities industry is beginning to realize that uraniumwhich is the fuel that feeds all nuclear reactors today-is a very limited resource. Ralph Lapp, a well-known spokesman for the corporate "powers that be", recently warned that no new ore-producing areas have been discovered in the past 17 years which means, in effect, that we'll soon be running out of the radioactive material. One consulting geologist has said that "potential supply from known reserves of uranium is insufficient to satisfy project demand in the Western world as a whole beyond 1979", and that " very large shortfalls in supply may be anticipated in the first half of the 1980's". From all indications, electric power companies aren't going to be able to keep their reactors running unless they find nine new producing regions equal in size to the entire Colorado Plateau (which occupies an area of several thousand miles).

Nuclear supporters, of course, say the obvious way out of the bind is to push development of the breeder reactor, which makes its own "fuel" as it operates. Trouble is, that particular power producer is years away from design completion no one is sure if it will "breed" fuel fast enough anyway and it presents safety problems of a magnitude that makes an ordinary reactor look as harmless as a wood stove.

Back in the late 1960's and early 1970's, Westinghouse Electric a major manufacturer of nuclear power plants-was trying hard to get reactor construction contracts so hard, in fact, that the company "sweetened" its offers by promising potential clients "cheap" uranium. At the time, the ore was relatively inexpensive (about $6.00 a pound), and the company thought costs would eventually go even lower. But something went wrong: The price of uranium has skyrocketed (and will probably continue to do so) and Westinghouse now figures to lose around $127.5 million every year trying to live up to its premature promises. Worse yet, the company projects that if today's trends continue-it will suffer a whopping $1.5 billion loss between 1979 and 1982 alone.

What to do? Well, Westinghouse is looking for a legal way out of its obligations but the utilities (including Wisconsin Electric, Union Electric, and a good many others) have filed suits to force the company to come through with its original offers. Needless to say, Westinghouse is not pleased at the prospect.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions which represents 37 unions and 380,000 Aussie workers-has called for a ban on the mining and exportation of that country's uranium. The resolution (which defied an executive committee recommendation) begins, "In view of the danger of global radioactive pollution, the threat of nuclear proliferation, and the problems of disposing of radioactive waste " and goes on to forbid selling Australian uranium to countries that want to use the material for anything other than medical research and therapy. Since a large chunk of the world's uranium reserves is down under, the ACTU's admirable move should prove to be very significant indeed.

One frequent argument for nuclear power is that building all those reactors, recycling plants, and waste disposal facilities will provide jobs for thousands of unemployed workers but a utility organization's own research suggests otherwise. "In 1971," reports an Edison Electric Institute pamphlet, "the electric industry had an average capital investment of $224,230 behind each of its employees and during the past ten years, average investment has shown an increase of 84 percent, an indication of the increased efficiency in the use of manpower in the industry."

What this statement reveals is that while a significant amount of "new" money has been poured into utility companies to foster growth over the past decade-there has not been a correspondingly large upswing in the number of jobs created as a result of that growth. In fact, it would seem that if you're trying to increase employment-money invested in any other industry but utilities would be considerably more productive. For instance: In 1968 (again according to EEI's own figures) it took an average of $173,370 in capital investment to sustain one job in electric utilities, while only $15,720 were required to keep a person working in the lumber and wood products industry. That's eleven jobs to one, folks for the same amount of money.

As the dream of "cheap", "safe" nuclear energy fades, many companies are finding themselves holding the proverbial bag they've spent huge numbers of bucks for unreliable power plants, and are now shelling out even more to keep the "iffy" facilities running. For the most part, the utilities have simply had to grin and .bear the situation but now the tide is turning.

A landmark suit, asking for $150 million in damages, has been filed by Nebraska Public Power District against General Electric, Westinghouse, and a number of others in the nuclear family. The problem? A series of expensive delays and mishaps have cost NPPD a bundle and the utility blames the vendors and contractors for providing faulty equipment and service. The strange thing is that the plant in question (the 778-megawatt Cooper site, near Brownville, Nebraska) is no worse than most other facilities. If the litigation is successful, a good many more utility companies with similar problems may take their troubles to court, too.

CALIFORNIA'S REDWOODS: DEAD WOODS?

Conservationists have been saying so all along, and now the federal government has officially agreed for the first time: Logging around California's Redwood National Park is wrecking the sanctuary.

A two-year study of the area by a team of United States Geological Survey scientists concluded that increased erosion has toppled 1,000-year-old redwoods and caused the siltation of fishbearing pools. (Private surveys financed by the lumber companies argue that most of the damage is the result of natural forces but frankly, we don't believe them.) Loggers have left piles of litter-tires, heaps of gravel, cut logs, battered culvert pipes, and steel cables all over the park. And what can be done about the damage?

Well, we hope the USGS report will convince California's state board of forestry which has sole regulatory power over the industryto adopt strict guidelines for (or a complete ban on) logging near RNP. But the board seems to be the timber companies bosom buddy, and hasn't really done much in the past in terms of protecting the environment, so it's probably more realistic to consider other possibilities: such as leasing or buying the land surrounding the park, or at least working for more legislative regulation of logging areas and practices.

Our best hope right now is a bill that has been introduced in Congress by Representative Phillip Burton of California. The measure which would provide enough money to purchase the watershed land surrounding vulnerable areas of the preserve-would result in a bigger and more stable Redwood National Park, set aside and protected for all of us to enjoy. A letter in support of the bill, directed at your Congressman, would certainly help.