Environmental Justice/Biodiversity

[Tom Chao <tchao@mail.arc.nasa.gov>]

   Being a member of the public, I realize how ubiquitous the problems that the EPA address are.  I see the community environmental activist groups such as the Communities for a Better Environment (labor, community 'EJ'), the Tri-Valley CAREs (no-nukes, radwaste cleanup, international peace), the Endangered Species Coalition (biodiversity), the Pesticide Action Network (agriculture, pollution prevention, biodiversity), the Rainforests Action Network ('EJ,' international biodiversity) working at the 'proactive level.'  Since the mandates are pollution prevention rather than just controlling pollution, taking into consideration multiple and cumulative effects, high public reciprocity systems, and 'environmental justice/biodiversity laws; I think that realistically that these groups are what a concerned citizen needs to follow.

   Michael Shuman, 'Going Local,' wrote that money tends to fall into conservative hands, and that liberal venturism is usually met with either 'belly laughs' or 'raised eyebrows.'  So, he suggests that local 'constitutions' be written to empower the communities, and that different 'localized currencies' be formed also. Again, with land not being capitolizable--as modern theory has it--Perhaps, a separate exchange [stewardship] for biodiversity [mitigation & development] banking could be devised.
  
   The 'environmental justice/biodiversity' community already has a concept of this, I think.  Perhaps, you see it in the societal folklore. At this time I am browsing through Sanford Lewis et al, 'The Good Neighbor Handbook, 1993, which provides insight on how to forge an environmental-economic strategy with collaborations between the local community, environmental activists, labor and corporations.  Put together, it is very similar to 'EJ,' as sustainable and environmental justice are subject and predicate.

  Being not here then, I am quite impressed by the Constitutional history of this Country.  Naively, the importance of 'EJ/biodiversity' is clear in that the law of the land does not exist without the 'pristine ecosystem.' So these are considered essential freedoms. The popular themes such as the 'law of the eagle' and 'the deer, the bear, and the great eagle are my brothers' would suggest that law is also derived the indigenous peoples.

  Again, the California Agreement on Biological Diversity is there and can be improved upon and carried out, I think.  It already includes the elements of landscaping, natural communities and ecosystem management with adaptive management, regional planning, and biodiversity banking.  There are problems with maximum entropy such as with nuclear proliferation, conflict and population entropy.  The 'virtual' international corporations and governing bodies, in an age with nuclear technology, have tremendous potential to damage the earth's biosphere, and the monitoring of geospheric-biospheric problems is required.  There are the critical elements of the problems--Extinction debt phenomena, and human nature ref:  'The Selfish Gene).

  The environmentalists have argued that the NEPA is too broad in scope to be effective, and that the ESA is too unitary and that it is a reactive law.  I think they've implied that for 'the viability and sustained presence' of the Earth's ecosystems 'EJ/biodiveristy' laws are a necessary development for the near future.