EDA News SUMMER EDITION 2023

THIS MONTH IN EDA

Time to read: 14:00

Welcome to the extended Summer Edition
Education seminar series: Principles of Local Economic Democracy
Community action opportunities coming this fall
Children, climate change and eco-anxiety
How Ohio citizens ended a toxic dust and de-icing practice
Up in smoke! Wildfire health risks
Food loss and waste - a global issue
Colorado Compact - getting past the impasse
Worth Noting

Back issues of EDA News can be found here on the EDA website

EDA’s Education team launched its new free seminar series, Principles of Local Economic Democracy, on May 17 and 24. The first two presentations covered the fundamental principles of economics, use value and exchange value.

These distinctions, first explained by Aristotle 2400 years ago, later became the basis of modern economics through the writings of Adam Smith.

Use value applies to the things that have personal value because you like or enjoy their practicality. Examples include chairs, appliances, tools or public land. Apart from this, exchange value is the price at which you buy or sell things — for example, the dollar value of chairs, appliances, tools or public land in the marketplace.

Without realizing this distinction, people cannot grasp the meaning of economic freedom and economic equality. Nor can we understand why it is so difficult for these basic principles to work together in society.

Resolving the paradox between use value and exchange value requires cooperation, which was the theme of the third session.

Click on the links below to see the recordings of these three presentations and audience discussions. Please note that you will need to enter different passcodes for each seminar.

Use Value
Enter the passcode DGRx1%2!

Exchange Value
Enter the passcode u!!9^V$F

Decentralized production and distribution

Enter the passcode: 4i=m&r6?

We will be building on these essential themes as we explore further dimensions of local economic democracy over the coming weeks.

There's still time to register for the remaining seminars every Wednesday at 7pm ET / 4pm PT.

June 7

Harmonious design of regional communities: helping citizens adapt to social and environmental changes in their development and use of common resources.

June 14
Managing complexity: providing education and technology for the management of common resources to build communities and advance regional society.

June 21
The story of self-sufficiency: organizing citizens to participate in decision-making for the generation, distribution and protection of their regional commons.

June 28
Sustainable use of resources: governing renewable and non-renewable resources to ensure they are plentiful and equitable for people in the future.

July 5
What kind of world are we inhabiting next: transforming our regional systems of economics and governance for the benefit of everyone.

EDA's Education and Advocacy Teams are creating a new Community Action Program that will take the conversation of participatory democracy beyond your immediate circle of friends and neighbors out into the larger community where you live. It will expand your outreach from the Statehouse where legislation takes form, to your local YMCA, library, community center, and anywhere you find people who are willing to hear your message. This is an opportunity to do some good work, and to have fun in the process.

Coming in September

We’ll be launching the Community Action Plan in September, so be sure to check out that month's newsletter for information on how you can make a difference – right where you live! We'll provide the basic materials for your project, and help you each step of the way. In the meantime, if you haven’t already done so, check out “Our programs” on our website for background and to help you get started. You can also contact us through the emails listed at the bottom of this newsletter with any questions that come up. We’re here to help.

Statistics like that made quite an impact on John Whidden. He’s an educator with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) in Alberta. He designed an education program for children in grades 5 and 6.

When he goes into the classroom, he starts by asking the children how worried they are about the climate change, ranging from “not worried at all” to “losing sleep.” Many children were so focused on the doom and gloom that they felt hopeless about their own future. Some worried if there was going to be enough water for them when they grow up. Others felt helpless and didn't know why people weren't doing anything about it.

Whidden then explains that they need to learn about the science behind climate change and not rely on hearsay. He asks the children to find out what the real issues are and what people are doing about it now. He says, "Learn what other children your age doing. Each one of you has the power to inspire others by your actions. As you grow older you will become leaders, and the little actions you take now will eventually become big actions that can make a difference."

The children were then asked to work together in groups and present their climate action ideas to the class. Whidden was surprised and quite inspired by their creativity. One girl interviewed teachers and staff at the school to find out what they were personally doing towards helping solve climate change in their own environment.

Whidden has tested the program in three classrooms over the past year and is considering how to make it more widely available. Alberta’s current science curriculum has been in use since the 1990s, but the provincial Ministry of Education is working to bring in a new one with more climate change related content for grades 4 to 6.

Whidden’s message to adults

In 2017, for the first time, testing was performed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR). Testing was done to verify the radium levels in a product consisting of oil and gas production waste brines. For years, an Ohio entrepreneur had been selling this product to spread on state roads for dust and ice control. He lobbied the statehouse to deregulate the product, so that he could sell it to the general public in gallon-sized jugs. The average radium reading from samples taken of the product exceeded the EPA’s radium environmental discharge level by a factor of more than 27.

Ra-226 is especially concerning because it has a half-life of 1600 years, is water-soluble and once ingested (generally by drinking water or breathing in dust that contains the radionuclide), the molecules migrate to our bones where they damage nearby cells for the rest of our lives. Radium-226 is a known source of many cancers including leukemia, as well as other numerous health maladies. This isotope degenerates into radon gas, which is the second-leading known cause of lung cancer behind the smoking of tobacco products.

Advocacy in action

During three legislative sessions between 2017 and 2021, oil and gas industry-friendly politicians in the Ohio State Legislature attempted to commoditize oil and gas production (fracking) waste. During each session, Ohio residents gave opposing testimony before the general assembly and senate committees explaining the dangerously high levels of radium and heavy metals that are found in oil and gas waste. The levels of radium-226 that the 2021 proposed bill would have allowed to be discharged into the environment was 333 times the EPA maximum discharge level. This would also have exceeded the EPA drinking water limit for Ra-226 by more than a factor of 4000. Thanks largely to the advocacy of Ohio residents willing to submit verbal and written testimony against these bills, they were not passed.

A deadly de-icer

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) had been spreading this product on state roads in up to 28 counties during frigid conditions since 2013. After the ODNR testing was made public, ODOT stopped using it as a de-icer starting in 2022. Let’s hope that Ohio will not attempt to pass a dangerous law like this again. What’s being put on the roads in your state?

For more information on the radioactive content of oil and gas wastes, you can read a compelling report that Rolling Stone Magazine published in 2020 titled ‘America’s Radioactive Secret’.

In California, fifteen of the largest fires happened in the past two decades, and six of the seven biggest ones have occurred in the last two years. This year, predictions are that there will be less wildfire activity due to the atmospheric rivers that the West Coast experienced since 2020. But more fires are burning elsewhere in the country.

Where there’s fire, there’s smoke and this is a huge problem because smoke doesn’t stop at the borders. Many places in the Northeast also experienced a haze in the sky due to smoke in the upper atmosphere.

In late May, because of heavy smoke from Canadian wildfires, the National Weather Service issued an air quality alert for all of Montana, as well as parts of Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Colorado and Arizona.

The impact of smoke on human health

In the last few years, wildfire smoke accounted for up to half of all air pollution in the American West. More particulate matter from smoke has blown into the sky and people’s lungs than from all other human and industrial activity combined. Here’s why smoke is so dangerous to human health:

Particulate Matter: Wildfire smoke contains a mixture of gases and fine particulate matter (PM), which are tiny particles suspended in the air. These particles can be inhaled deep into the respiratory system and can range in size from larger, visible particles to smaller, microscopic ones. Fine PM, known as PM2.5 (particles with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or smaller), is of particular concern as it can penetrate deep into the lungs and even enter the bloodstream.

Toxic Chemicals: Wildfire smoke contains a complex mixture of pollutants, including toxic chemicals such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). These substances can have harmful effects on the respiratory system, cardiovascular system, and other organs.

Respiratory Issues: Inhaling wildfire smoke can cause a range of respiratory problems, particularly for people with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), or other respiratory illnesses. The fine particles and toxic chemicals in the smoke can irritate the airways, leading to symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, shortness of breath, and chest tightness. It can also exacerbate existing respiratory conditions, making it harder for individuals to breathe.

Cardiovascular Effects: The fine particles and toxic chemicals in wildfire smoke can enter the bloodstream and cause systemic inflammation. This can have adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, increasing the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular problems, especially in individuals with pre-existing heart conditions.

General Health Effects: Prolonged exposure to wildfire smoke can have broader health impacts. It can lead to a range of symptoms such as eye and throat irritation, headaches, fatigue, and reduced lung function. In some cases, it can also contribute to more severe health conditions and even premature death, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, and individuals with compromised immune systems.

The health effects of wildfire smoke can vary depending on the concentration and duration of exposure, as well as individual susceptibility and underlying health conditions. Taking precautions such as staying indoors, using air purifiers, and following local health advisories during wildfire events is crucial to minimize the risks associated with wildfire smoke.

Food loss and waste (FLW) is not just a local or national problem. The World Bank has recognized that FLW poses a challenge to food security, food safety, the economies of nations, and natural environmental sustainability across global food systems. This is roughly 30 percent of all food globally - amounting to 1.3 billion tons per year.

The United Nations has urgently appealed for action to reduce the volume of food being wasted. Food insecurity, hunger and malnutrition are impacting every country in the world and no country is unaffected.

A waste of natural and human resources

FLW has a considerable impact on the land, water, labor, and energy used to produce the wasted food. It’s one of the main contributors to climate change. Greenhouse gases are emitted during food production and distribution, and methane is released during the decay of wasted food in landfills.

Food supply chains are affected at the local level around the world, by lowering income for food producers, increasing the cost for consumers, and even reducing access to food for some. Minimizing FLW would lead to substantial food security as well as environmental gains.

Where it happens

Low-income countries: waste occurs at the production, handling, storage, and processing stages and is caused mostly by managerial and technical inefficiencies.

Middle-and high-income countries: food loss and waste mostly occur in the distribution and consumption stages, although it can happen in earlier stages such as when agricultural subsidies lead to overproduction of farm crops. Challenges in these countries mostly relate to consumer behavior and to government policies and regulation.

Global solutions need to be addressed at the local level

The African Union is working with 14 governments to reduce food loss, with national policy and strategies in Africa (African Union Commission 2014 )

The Deputy-Secretary General of the United Nations called on all partners to adopt a more holistic approach to food security, one that prioritizes FLW, builds new coalitions, scales up current work, and innovates (Helvetas 2018). The Food and Agriculture Association’s SAVE FOOD Initiative works with civil societies to address the issue (FAO 2018)

The World Food Programme is including food loss as part of some five-year country plans in Africa and promotes loss reduction technologies among smallholder farmers (World Food Program 2017)

The World Bank is tackling the issue through loans, and by coordinated food waste management and the establishment of a cross-sector strategy (World Bank 2015)

All these strategies and more will be needed to tackle the global food waste problem.

The January 1922 meetings of the Colorado River Compact Commission (CRCC) ended in disagreement about how best to distribute water carried by that river. Upper basin states – Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico – wanted unlimited water-use for development purposes in exchange for agreeing that lower basin states – Nevada, Arizona, California – could build dams and reservoirs for flood protection and further development. The three lower states were not in favor of this plan. Representatives of all four upper states believed opportunities for development should be commensurate to what lower basin states had already enjoyed and their votes prevailed. Despite this impasse, all seven commissioners were unanimous about adjourning and coming back together in a few months.

The CRCC then hosted six public hearings during which the Commissioners got to hear new voices speak about water-use. They learned about peoples’ concerns regarding a two-basin solution, hydroelectric power production, existing disunity within some states, diversion (the USGS definition of diversion is the taking of water from a … body of water into a canal, pipe, or other conduit) of water by the upper states such that lower states would have to go without, and upper states prior experience of embargoes imposed by the US government to the point that their growth had been held back. At the final public hearing, the Commissioners decided to draft a compact in preparation for their upcoming closed meetings. The task fell to Delph Carpenter.

On June 5, 1922, as he began working on the draft, a Supreme Court ruling (Wyoming v. Colorado) validated equitable apportionment. This good news immediately faced legal challenges from states that insisted on their first-use rights. Carpenter’s lengthy litigation experience over who owned what convinced him that the Court’s ruling was right - a fixed allocation was the way to go. It was more sensible for states to determine water allocations for themselves rather than the Supreme Court doing it for them.

Included in the draft were three proposals he saw needed to be hashed out when the Commissioners met again.

In August, Carpenter sent the draft to CRCC Chairman Herbert Hoover. Hoover was busy and did not respond for almost two months. When he did, he expressed enthusiasm for what he referred to as the “fifty-fifty plan” and directed that the draft be mailed to the other six Commissioners. On November 11, they met at a lodge outside of Santa Fe. Three compact drafts were presented – one from Arizona’s Commissioner Norviel, another from Commissioner Caldwell of Utah, the 3rd from Colorado’s Commissioner Carpenter. The latter became the primary focus.

It took eighteen long meetings, each representative pointing out weaknesses and strengths of the three proposals as they related to their state. Most favored the two-basin, fifty-fifty plan. However, when results of the 10-year average calculation of water flow between Lees Ferry and Yuma were announced, Arizona’s Commissioner Norviel persistently disagreed with ensuing proposed solutions.

He was suspicious of the fifty-fifty plan. The proposed 10-year rolling average was inadequate and he wanted a specific amount of flow guaranteed to his state. He did not trust that neighboring state California would share fairly. He felt the upper basin could not be depended on to send water down to the lower basin especially during dry periods. He wanted it written into the compact that the lower states would receive a specified minimum annual flow. Carpenter, on the other hand, did not want to obligate upper states to an agreement they might be unable to fulfill when times were dry.

Can we grow enough food?

In the US, we can feed ourselves without destroying our planet and therefore ourselves — but only if we change everything about the ways that we go about feeding ourselves today.

We can’t have most of the people in this country separated from food production, nor living where food production is impossible. We can’t continue to think that our wealth or our cleverness is somehow going to fix these flaws. And we can’t plan on monetary wealth existing in the future at all. We can only plan on gardens and food forests and farms, all full of people who feed themselves.

10 years to transform the future of humanity - or destabilize the planet

"For the first time, we are forced to consider the real risk of destabilizing the entire planet," says climate impact scholar Johan Rockström. In a talk backed by vivid animations of the climate crisis, he shows how nine out of the 15 big biophysical systems that regulate the climate -- from the permafrost of Siberia to the great forests of the North to the Amazon rainforest -- are at risk of reaching tipping points, which could make Earth uninhabitable for humanity. Hear his plan for putting the planet back on the path of sustainability over the next 10 years -- and protecting the future of our children.