The Struggle for Sustainable Development

Concerns over industrial pollution and environmental degradation have received more attention in the national and international arena over the last half-century. Many activists and public interest groups are concerned with the need for sustainable development and the utilization of renewable energy resources. They realize that in order for the Earth to provide for future generations, the pollution caused by economic and industrial development needs to be addressed head on.

The corporate conglomerates that dominate energy production (groups like Bechtel, GE, and Westinghouse) have traditionally relied on public ignorance and marginalization in order to exploit non-renewable fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) in their quest for unending profits. What the corporate elite truly fear though is that one day a democratically informed citizenry may encroach upon their decision-making powers and restore these powers to their proper owner: the public. But in order for this reality to materialize, individual citizens must educate themselves about the dangers of environmental pollution and the negative effects that non-renewable fossil fuels have on the environment.

An in-depth analysis of the current symptoms shows a recurring trend of environmental degradation. One symptom of possible environmental destruction is documented in Walter Rosembaum's book Environmental Politics and Policy: "since 1972, municipal sludge has doubled in volume to about 7 million dry metric tons annually, and this volume is expected to double again within a decade." The storage and disposal of toxic sludge is a problem that confronts the American public, and which very often holds no easy answers. Rosembaum explains, "Over 70 million people live in urban areas in which smog levels exceeding national standards and more than 20 million people live in urban areas violating national carbon monoxide standards."

Global warning is another crisis we must face. The Nation noted in December, "Scientists expect four to eleven degrees of additional global warming by 2100, bringing more violent weather, flooded coastlines and social havoc. New research released by the U.N. Environmental Program warns that global crop yields could fall 30 percent over the 21st century." According to Project Censored, "Biologists at Cornell University found that rain and snow throughout the eastern U.S. falls with 100 times more acidity today than it did a generation ago."

Most of these environmental problems are caused by the use of non-renewable fossil fuels. Non-renewable fossil fuels comprise about 81 percent of the world's commercial energy production, and about 91 percent of that in the United States. The world's dependence on fossil fuels is the primary factor in the increase of greenhouse gas emissions and the largest contributor to air and water pollution. Many people conveniently forget that the fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) so instrumental in fueling the industrial economies are very limited resources. Oil supplies do not last forever, and the stubborn attempts by corporations and the politicians they control to maintain their monopolies on environmentally destructive technologies (like oil production) do nothing to promote sustainable development. In his book Sustaining the Earth, Tyler Miller Jr. notes: "Identified global reserves of oil should last about 53 years at the current usage rate and 42 years if usage increases as projected by about 2 percent a year."

At this point, the economic depletion of oil reserves may make oil a non-factor in the international economy. The day is soon coming when Americans will realize that renewable energy sources must be utilized in order to sustain their way of life. Americans have a responsibility to support alternative, renewable energy resources and to fight for a cleaner environment, if not for themselves, then for future generations.

How big of a role do we as Americans play in contributing to environmental destruction? It is important to remember that we live in a country that accounts for only 4% of the According to Miller in "Sustaining the Earth," the U.S. only possesses about 2.3% of the world's oil reserves, but it uses around 30% of the oil extracted through out the world. The U.S. is also the leading producer of carbon dioxide emissions, which are believed to be the most significant factor in contributing to global warming. In "Environmental Politics and Policy," Rosembaum states that auto emissions, coal burning, and oil consumption are the worst sources of air pollution, which in turn may create acid rain, greenhouse gases, and ozone depletion: "The most common precursors of acid rain are sulfur and nitrogen oxides emissions from fossil fuel combustion and metal smelting-particularly in electric and utility industries. The U.S. currently discharging about 41 metric tons of nitrogen and sulfur oxides annually is the global leader."

With such an intense concentration of fossil fuels used by the U.S., one would hope that this fuel is at least utilized in an efficient manner. But as Harvey Wasserman points out in his book, The Last Energy War: "our centralized system wastes some 70 percent of the energy inherent in the fossil fuel it burns."

The ugly truth is that Americans, rich and poor have all played roles (although rather unequal roles) in environmental destruction by contributing to global warming, ozone depletion, and the pollution of air and water. We Americans have a correlative duty to sustain the earth we inherited, and provide for the growth and progress of the human race. President Bush claims that we have already done enough to protect the environment, and that we should put more pressure on other countries.

However, we should examine some of the American environmental laws more closely before putting the blame solely on others. Rosembaum argues that the Safe Drinking Water Act passed by Congress has been weakened by a lack of enforcement capabilities (specifically a lack of funding). He also attacks the Clean Air Act's effectiveness. While "the automobile emissions controls and reduced lead levels in gasoline required by the Clean Air Act lowered the average new cars hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions by over 50 percent and nitrogen oxide emissions by 75 percent since 1970, the number of automobiles in the U.S. has increased more than 53 percent from 80.4 million to 123.3 million, and more than 42 million new trucks are on the road since 1970. This vehicle population explosion counteracts the emission reductions achieved for individual vehicles and leads eventually to widespread urban violations of federal air quality standards."

There are many alternatives to environmental destruction and the exhaustion of non-renewable resources, and fortunately, many Americans seem to agree with the need for safer energy sources. The Roper Organization polled Americans in 1990 and determined that many share the same views on the importance of environmental conservation: "Concerns over hazardous waste and industrial chemicals dominated public apprehensions."

What types of solutions exist that may effectively stop further environmental destruction? First, Americans need to demand increased efficiency in already existing fossil fuel use, whether it be in the heating of homes through reduced fuel consumptions or increased fuel efficiency in automobiles. The hybrid car has shown that it may be a viable short term alternative for increasing gas mileage. Car companies have developed prototype fuel cells for cars, some fueled by Methanol, which burns much cleaner than gasoline. Harvey Wasserman states, "Methane is already the least expensive, most versatile fuel for electricity generation... It could force a closing of every coal, oil, and nuclear generator now operating."

Coal and oil need to be phased out, and the ratification of the Kyoto protocol (which was rejected by Bush) can play a crucial role in achieving this goal. The protocol mandates that developed countries agree to cut 5% of their greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, which according to the Nation is "a very modest target, considering that scientists say global emissions must eventually be cut 60 percent anyways". But what other renewable resources should we support in order to promote environmental conservation?

The main renewable energy source that could play an instrumental role in reducing reliance on fossil fuels is Cannabis Hemp. The legalization of Cannabis Hemp would provide an alternative to our current environmentally destructive energy production methods. Industrial Hemp poses a very real threat to the paper, petroleum, and chemical industries. The oil companies first realized this in the 1920's, when tycoons like Rockefeller of Standard Oil and Rothschild of Shell dropped oil prices to artificially low levels in order to eliminate any competition between gasoline and methanol. Oil prices would remain so low that no other energy sources were able to compete. With Cannabis Hemp successfully written off as a viable fuel source, oil companies were then free to charge any price they wanted for oil.

The energy and oil companies are afraid of Industrial Hemp for good reason. First off, Marijuana Hemp is the strongest natural soft-fiber in the world. Before the 20th century, the Marijuana plant provided almost all of the world's paper, clothing, and textiles. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, it is possible to make four times the paper from one acre of Marijuana Hemp plants than from one acre of trees, with only one fifth the pollution level. However, if Industrial Hemp is used for paper production, it would infringe upon the patents of corporations like Hearst Paper, which made its fortune selling paper made from wood pulp. Multinationals like DuPont would also suffer tremendously if their wood pulp chemical processing gave way to more natural, renewable energy sources (Hemp processing uses only one-fifth the chemicals needed to process wood pulp).

It is also possible to get four times the amount of cellulose to make gasohol or methanol from hemp stems then from corn stalks (Most race cars today still have the option of running on methanol). If Hemp stems were used for methane production, it would most certainly undermine world dependency on crude oil, in turn dooming the oil multinationals.

In 1936, Popular Mechanics predicted Marijuana Hemp would become the world's largest cash crop, but due to government subservience to multinationals like Shell, Texaco, and Dupont, marijuana was outlawed only one year later. The question must then be asked, if the marijuana plant provided almost all the world's paper, clothing, and textiles before the 20th century, could it do so again?

In his book The Emperor Wears No Clothes, Jack Herer states: "If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse effect, and stop deforestation, then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles, meeting all the world's transportation, industrial, and home energy needs, simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil, and cleaning the atmosphere at the same time: Cannabis Hemp."

Anyone truly interested in an honest and realistic alternative to environmental destruction will have a difficult time discounting Cannabis Hemp. We need to look at alternatives to current energy sources and strive for more sustainable, economically viable solutions. Unfortunately, the propaganda of large corporations has been successful in slandering industrial hemp and has hindered the progress of societal and environmental justice. The American public needs to become more informed about this issue, in order to determine what is best for our Earth and for future generations.