There are many issues on the minds of US voters these days, but according to national polls, the environment ranks …um… somewhere above hemp policy and just below humane treatment for Teletubbies.
People are, of course, justly concerned about top issues such as health care, terrorism, and jobs. But the environment actually has a role to play in all of those areas. Below are some examples of how this is so.
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTING CAN MEAN BETTER HEALTH
“If you have your health, you have everything”–so goes the old cliche. We usually don’t think too much about our health until we have a problem. Diseases usually creep in on us slowly. They’re very patient, waiting until our defenses are down far enough for us to be susceptible.
The health of the environment–the quality of the air we breathe, the purity of the water we drink, the condition of the land we grow our food on–are prime factors in the health of our bodies. We protect the health of our families by reducing pollution, by encouraging better farming practices that result in more nutritious agricultural products, and by getting the toxic chemicals out of the products we use every day.
Politicians are busy jousting about who has the better plan for improving health care, but they’re mostly silent on the most basic health issue–keeping disease-causing pollutants out of the environment and out of us.
ENVIRONMENTAL VOTING CAN MEAN BETTER SAFETY
What are the terrorist targets that have the most potential for causing problems? Here are three.
* Ports — We’re still inspecting only a fraction of the more 6 million containers arriving in US coastal cities each year. Many security experts think it’s just a matter of time before terrorists sneak a nuclear, chemical or biological device into one of them. By supporting the concept of “buying local,” our leaders could begin reducing the traffic in our ports and thus make the problem more manageable. This would also reduce the huge level of pollution associated with product transport. Instead, our leaders pursue ever-grander “free trade” schemes that will INCREASE port security problems.
* Chemical Plants and Other Facilities That Use Chemicals — A terrorist strike at a facility that manufactures or uses toxic substances could release clouds of poisonous chemicals. And we’re not only talking about heavy-duty chemical and industrial plants; many water-treatment facilities, for instance, still use toxic forms of chlorine for disinfection, even though safer alternatives are available. Those who currently control our federal government have been far too passive in addressing problems with high-chemical-use industries.
* Nuclear Power Plants — Although most nuclear facilities are hardened against airplane strikes, many are vulnerable to direct terrorist takeover. Because there are only 103 nuclear power plants in the US and because they do get a fair degree of attention when it comes to security, this is probably the least likely of the three disaster scenarios presented here. But it’s still a possibility, and instead of trying to reduce the level of the vulnerability by diverting investment resources to development of wind, solar, wave, and other clean, safe forms of electricity generation, some politicians are pushing plans to build MORE nuclear power plants. Egad.
Read more