Home
Overtime--2004 and 2003 issues
Overtime
OVERTIME--June 2003 issue
timeovertimeovertimeovertimeovertime
Dedicated to reflecting the collective wisdom of enlightened workers.
Linda Featheringill
4651 West 41st Street, Down
Cleveland, OH 44109
(216) 661-0794
lfeatheringill@hotmail.com
June 2003
Volume 4, Number 1
Greetings!
The US is certainly doing a very bad job of running post-war Iraq. Whispers are coming out of Afghanistan that the occupying forces aren’t doing very well there, either. What’s the story here? If you have any comments, I’d love to read them. In the meantime, enjoy the lovely month of June in the Northern Hemisphere, and keep your feet warm in the Southern Hemisphere.-- Linda Featheringill
Neither Bush nor Saddam
All too often one hears the anti-war movement characterized as "sympathetic to Saddam," as if protesters against this war were morally relativistic and absolutely blind to the nature of the Hussein regime.
All along, we Marxist-Humanists have condemned the Hussein regime for its crimes against humanity and yet do not believe that the current war is at all justified for many reasons. Specifically, we single out the regime for its genocidal use of poison gas against Iraq’s Kurdish minority. This took place in 1988, at a time when Iraq was a quasi-ally of the US. Recently, as the regime crumbled, the Iraqi people have come out into the streets, attacking symbols of the dictatorship and revealing as never before the full story of its foul prisons and torture chambers. We support the aspirations of the Iraqi to be free of all forms of oppression, whether from the Saddam Hussein regime, from other internal conservative forces such as religious fundamentalism, or from the attempt by the US and Britain in incorporate Iraq into their version of global capitalism.
World opinion is against this US-led invasion because the world sees that the current administration is driven by a desire for unchecked American power around the globe. The world sees that the Bush administration has defined so-called threats to America under the guise of fighting terrorism and launching pre-emptive strikes, bringing terror in the form of "collateral damage" to innocent Iraqi civilians."
The Bush administration has provided no viable evidence of a link between the Hussein regime and Al-Qaeda. In fact, they fabricated evidence and lied directly to the UN and the world. Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN outlining the "threat" posed by Iraq contained British intelligence that had been plagiarized, forged documents seeking to establish that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Niger, and much other information that had been denounced by Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix as untrue. Such supposed links between Hussein and Osama bin Laden contradict the reality of the relationship between Hussein and Islamic fundamentalism.
The claim that the Iraqi people will experience democracy and liberty as a result of this war is dubious. It seems contradictory to impose democracy from outside. Democracy is not forced - it is chosen.
[Flyer by the Marxist-Humanist Network at Purdue University, April 12, 2003. In News & Letters (Chicago), May 2003.]
Who Benefits?
To determine the reason for political decisions made by our "leaders," we need to look at the benefits to be gained by the capitalists of the countries concerned, the same people the political leaders serve.
Piecing together various news items and other information, a picture can be formed, almost like constructing a jigsaw puzzle.
US/UK. Britain and the USA have always had Middle East oil interests and they are intent on remaining "main lackey" and "top dog," respectively, by having direct control of as much of the world’s reserves of oil as possible. The American economy depends more and more on oil imports and the colossal military machine, which enforces the "superpower" status, cannot function without it. So, the US will grab control of the bulk of the oil while their military occupies Iraq prior to the "setting up" of a bribed, "Pro-American" puppet government. The UK will be allowed a "cut" of this oil, depending on the amount of assistance they give to this American conquest.
Australia. What is the benefit for the third "willing" active partner? Let us look at the recent history of this region. Timor "liberation" occurred after 24 years of brutal Indonesian occupation, which was recognized and supported by Australia in return for sharing the spoils thought to exist in the Timor Sea. More recent exploration indicates massive oil and gas riches under this seabed, and this suddenly prompted "human rights" concerns and the "freeing" of the Timorese from Indonesian control. Australia, USA, and UK have now excluded Indonesia from this wealth. Timor has been "fobbed off," pressured to accept 90% of the royalties from a minor gas field while Australia takes the remaining 10% and assumes the management and control, PLUS the acquisition of everything from a much larger and richer petroleum field nearby. Could it be that all this was agreed to previously in return for Australia actively supporting the American/UK grab for Iraqi oil reserves?
Spain. Why would Spain be such an ardent supporter of the "coalition of the willing?" Prime Minister Blair was desperate for some form of European support for this venture against Iraq. Is it possible that he has traded Gibraltar for Spanish support? Watch this and observe if, down the track and with British "success" over Iraq, Gibraltarians will forcibly become Spanish, against their obvious wishes.
Russia, France, Germany. These countries were the most vehement in opposing a war on Iraq. Their record, however, would indicate that they have no more concern about the mass of innocent lives lost in such conflicts than the much-publicised Christian Bible-bashers who lead the "willing" coalition. All three nations had existing lucrative contracts with the Hussein regime for exploration and development of oil. French and Russian arms dealers have made vast fortunes by supplying Saddam with most of his weaponry. These countries feared these contracts would be cancelled in the event of an American takeover of the country. [It really is a lovely world in which we can surely have only the greatest respect and faith in our political leaders, who all demonstrate exactly how sacred human lives are when compared to the profits to be creamed from such enterprises.]
In conclusion. With a military victory in Iraq, it is quite possible for such acts of aggression to be a regular feature of American capitalism during this century.
Such ventures could become ongoing and lucrative activities, as profit from shares in the vast armaments industry are then compounded by profit from shares in the reconstruction business. Already, extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq has been contracted to the Halliburton Oil Equipment Company, of which US Vice President Dick Cheney was chief executive. This is in spite of the fact that Halliburton was recently accused of falsifying their accounts for stock market benefits.
There is no shortage of targets to destroy, plunder, and then rebuild. One profitable activity builds another. Manipulated wars of indiscriminate "collateral damage and civilian casualties could now be the new order in direct exploitation of workers for profit.
Continuous wars of expansion and plunder was that base on which the Roman Empire thrived as a super power" for centuries. Perhaps we are witnessing the start of a new era of similar world domination.>BR>
[Gogglesworth, West Australia, Australia.]
The Ecology
One Generation
The human race has only one or perhaps two generations to rescue itself, according to the 2003 State of the World report by the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute. The longer that no remedial action is taken, the greater the degree of misery and biological impoverishment that humankind must be prepared to accept, the institute says in its 20th annual report.
Overuse of resources, pollution and destruction of natural areas continue to threaten life on the planet. Conditions continue to deteriorate rapidly, the report says, although there are some hopeful signs in that technical solutions to the problems have been found and - where there is political will - adopted. In most cases, though, nothing is being done.
Among the worst trends worldwide is that 420 million people live in countries that no longer have enough cropland to grow their own food and have to rely on imports. Around 1.2 billion people, or about a fifth of the world's population, live in absolute poverty - defined as surviving on the equivalent of less than $1 (62p) a day.
About one quarter of the developing world's cropland is being degraded, and the rate is increasing. The greatest threat is not a shortage of land, says the report, but a shortage of water, with more than 500 million people living in regions prone to chronic drought.
By 2025 that number is likely to have increased at least fivefold, to between 2.4bn and 3.4bn. A probable world population increase of 27% over the same period will create social and ecological instability.
Global warming is accelerating, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached 370.9 parts per million, the highest level for at least 420,000 years and probably for 20m years.
Toxic chemicals are being released in ever-increasing quantities, and global production of hazardous waste has reached more than 300m tonnes a year. There is only a vague idea of what damage this does to humans and natural systems.
Another threat is the movement of highly invasive species to regions where they may pose problems to native species.
The state of the world's natural life support system is perhaps the most worrying indicator for the future, says the report. About 30% of the world's surviving forests are seriously fragmented or degraded, and they are being cut down at the rate of 50,000 square miles a year, it says.
Wetlands have been reduced by 50% over the last century. Coral reefs, the world's most diverse aquatic systems, are suffering the effects of over-fishing, pollution, epidemic diseases and rising temperatures.
A quarter of the world's mammal species and 12% of the birds are in danger of extinction.
On the hopeful side, the report says that renewable energy technologies have now developed sufficiently to supply the world. They could significantly reduce the threat to the world from pollution - but currently there is a lack of political will to introduce them fast enough.
Another industry that causes widespread destruction, mining for minerals, could be largely replaced by re-use and recycling. Mining consumes 10% of the world's energy, spews out toxic emissions, and threatens 40% of the world's undeveloped forests but these effects could be drastically reduced.
The report also identifies a crisis in the world's cities, where a billion people seek shelter in shanty towns, often on hillsides, flood plains, in rubbish dumps or downstream of industrial polluters. Inhabitants of these settlements live at constant threat of eviction, but also of natural disasters and disease. Urban centres in the south now dominate the ranks of the world's largest cities. One of the great challenges for governments is to help their poorest citizens feel secure in their own homes, make a living and improve their environment.
Worst trends
· Malaria claims 7,000 lives every day
· Bird extinctions running at 50 times natural rate
· Global rate of ice melt more than doubled since 1988; sea levels may rise by as much as 27cm [or over 5 feet] by 2100
· New fishing technologies help to locate and further exploit declining stocks
Reasons for hope
· Populations have stabilised in Europe and much of Southeast Asia
· Organic farming is the fastest-growing sector of world agricultural economy
· Wind and photovoltaic electricity generating capacity to increase 30% a year for five years (1% for fossil fuels)
· Production of ozone-depleting CFCs fell 81% in the 90s, slowing growth in ozone hole
[P. Brown, The Guardian (London), January 9, 2003. Contributed by P.E.N., Colchester, England, UK.]
Invasive Species
Ash trees. Doomed or dying on a vast scale, the massive forests of heartland ash that tiptoe down the Detroit River to Lake Erie’s western shores now have a wan, gangling, skeletal presence. The deathbed scene of 12 million trees reminds one of a ghostly séance with the great woodlands of American elm and chestnut, which have already withered into oblivion.
Stricken branches look arthritis - "witches’ sticks" some call them. Die-back begins in the treetops, when upper limbs become dry and barren.
A newly arrived Asian beetle with an appetite for North American ash has scientists and government officials fearing a blighted future if the scourge gathers force and spreads across the continent.
Earlier this month, Congress appropriated $14.5 million to try to contain the ash tree apocalypse, which has been described as an incident of "bio error."
That’s because no one knows how the invading insects reached the Great Lakes, although scientists speculate they landed aboard cargo packing crates and wooden pallets delivering goods from halfway around the globe.
Billion of native trees have no natural defenses against the invaders, first found 10 months ago in a half dozen Michigan counties encircling Detroit. The area is home to 31 million ash trees.
Already, 6 million ash trees in that hot zone are infested or dead.
Chestnut Trees. Nowadays, hardly anyone remembers America’s chestnut trees that grew up to 100 feet tall and were considered the queens of Eastern forests. From Maine to Michigan and down to the Gulf of Mexico, the trees thrived and probably outnumbered anything else in the native forests.
Chestnut timbers made everything from log cabins to caskets and the trees’ tannin started the nation’s leather industry. The sweet, edible nuts were sold in stores.
In 1904, a fungus from Asia was found on chestnut trees in the New York Zoological garden. Cankers encircled the trees and they soon withered and died. Soon, the cankers began to spread across the countryside. Congress voted millions between 1911 and 1913 in a desperate attempt to halt the advance. North Carolina even tried to save its trees by hacking an isolation strip across the Appalachian Mountains. But the quarantine failed.
Forty years after the blight showed up in New York, most chestnuts had perished.
[B. Sloat, The Plain Dealer (Cleveland), May 25, 2003.]
Newspeak, or A Rose is a Rose
[Why didn’t I find this in my local newspaper? Why do I have to rely on foreign newspapers to tell me what my government is doing? - L.F.]
The US Republican party is changing tactics on the environment, avoiding "frightening" phrases such as global warming, after a confidential party memo warned that it is the domestic issue on which George Bush is most vulnerable. The memo, by the leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz, concedes the party has "lost the environmental communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.
"The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science," Mr. Luntz writes in the memo, obtained by the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based campaigning organisation.
"Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate."
The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr. Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist", because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters". Words such as "common sense" should be used, with pro-business arguments avoided wherever possible.
The environment, the memo says, "is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable".
An anonymous Republican source said party strategists agreed with Mr. Luntz's conclusion that "many Americans believe Republicans do not care about the environment".
The popular image is that they are "in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle manically [sic] as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit", Mr. Luntz adds.
The phrase "global warming" appeared frequently in President Bush's speeches in 2001, but decreased to almost nothing during 2002, when the memo was produced.
Environmentalists have accused the party and oil companies of helping to promulgate the view that serious doubt remains about the effects of global warming.
Last week, a panel of experts appointed at the Bush administration's request to analyse the president's climate change strategy found that it lacked "vision, executable goals, clear timetables and criteria for measuring progress".
"Rather than focusing on the things we don't know, it's almost as if parts of the plan were written by people who are totally unfamiliar with where ecosystems science is coming from," panel member William Schlesinger told the Guardian.
Mr. Luntz urges Republicans to "emphasise the importance of 'acting only with all the facts in hand'", in line with the White House position that mandatory restrictions on emissions, as required by the Kyoto protocol, should not be countenanced until further research is undertaken.
The memo singles out as a major strategic failure the incoming Bush administration's response to Bill Clinton's last-minute executive order reducing the permitted level of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. The new administration put the plan on hold, prompting "the biggest public relations misfire of President Bush's first year in office", Mr. Luntz writes. The perception was that Mr. Bush "was actively putting in more arsenic in the water".
"A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr. Luntz notes in the memo.
[O. Burkeman, The Guardian (London), March 4, 2003.]
This and that
NAFTA blues [NAFTA = North American Free Trade Agreement]
"Free trade" between the US and Canada hasn’t made much difference in the lives of US workers, although Canadian workers have voiced complaints.
US workers complain the loudest about the effects of the NAFTA agreement between US and Mexico. Most of these complaints are about production jobs moved to Mexico because of lower wages and relaxed environmental controls. Labor unions refer to NAFTA as part of "the race to the bottom," with a reduced standard of living of US workers as the final goal.
One issue for US workers is the recent use of Mexican trucks to ship goods from Mexico to their final destination in the US. Other complaints include:
--Fewer than 1% of Mexican trucks entering the US are inspected for safety violations.
--Mexico does not limit the number of consecutive hours that truck drivers can work. Mexican drivers may already be tired when they enter the US.
--Mexican trucks routinely carry up to twice the legal US limit, causing more wear and tear on US roads.
--Less than 5% of Mexican trucks in operation have adequate (or adequately maintained) equipment. Poor brakes, shocks, tires, and steering mechanisms are common.
--These vehicles could easily carry chemicals, explosives, illegal drugs, toxic wastes, poisons, or anything else. Some drug control agents refer to NAFTA as the North American Free Trafficking Agreement.
[Information taken from a report by Peoples Network. Contributed by S.B., Maine, USA.]
On aging successfully
The difference between being "young old" and "old old" probably depends on our ability to sustain the dynamism of human relationships beyond immediate family. How we decide to keep connected to the outside world as age advances presents a challenge. But then, so does aging. The more the challenge is embraced, though, the greater the likelihood of living the full, multi-dimensional life that keeps at bay the creeping ravages of old age as a state of mind.
[J. Heaster, Kansas City Star (Missouri), May 25, 2003.]
World Socialism
Most people throughout the world believe that socialism has been tried and failed. They refer to the former USSR, China and Cuba. These were/are capitalistic states.
So what is socialism? It is a world where goods are produced to satisfy social needs and not for profit; a democratic world system in which each person contributes their abilities to society and takes what they need to live in comfort. No borders or frontiers; no social classes or leaders. No buying or selling, no money or wages. A world of free access.
The cynic and reformer will think socialism is a utopian dream. However, it’s those who believe the manifold problems we face today can be solved under the auspices of capitalism, whatever cloak it wears, who are the utopian dreamers.
Why are thousands living on the streets when there’s a glut of empty houses and thousands of unemployed building workers? Why are people allowed to suffer and die waiting for hospital treatment while there’s no shortage of resources being allocated to the armed forces, which exist to kill people, not to cure them. Why is food locked away in cold storage or dumped as garbage while around the world over 40,000 children under five-die daily of hunger and disease?
The U.N. and W.H.O. have both reported that food; clean water and medicine could be easily available
Total world military spending, as always, is increasing. At present it stands at British Pounds 750 billion; equivalent to the annual incomes of the world’s poorest people. Wars have causes-power struggle, trade routes, markets and spheres of influences. Alienation, environmental and ecological destruction are all effects with a capitalistic cause.
Is capitalism the social system that you want to live under? That you want your children to inherit? That you think cannot be changed and is the best that there is or can ever be? Socialists do not.
In many countries throughout the world, ordinary people have formed the World Socialist Movement. There are no leaders, and decisions are arrived at through fully democratic means, rather than the sham that all capitalist politicians call democracy today.
If you know a better alternative than this, please tell us. If not, join us!
[Weijagye Justus, Uganda, who can be reached at jkweijagye@yahoo.com]
Fear
I've thought a lot about greed, and have concluded that underneath it is always, always, always FEAR.
I'm thinking of two examples from my own life: my maternal grandmother was a classic glutton: she was 5ft. tall and weighed 235 lbs. (And still lived to be 78!) She was literally born on the boat on the way to the USA, and in her childhood had been hungry--not just ready to eat, but HUNGRY. That craving, that fear, never left her.
My paternal grandfather was a classic miser, like a character out of Moliere. He went to work at age 14, heaving coal in the Bessemer furnaces in Gary, Indiana. He worked up to a successful small businessman, lost it all in 1929, and then worked back up to a small factory (making that tubular chrome kitchen furniture that's now in museums.) He had been POOR.
As for people like Twig [George Bush] -- what are they afraid of? They already own/control the world! I think the thing they fear most is that we'll WAKE UP and cop to their racket. If people like Twig were private citizens, one could (almost) pity them: I think they live in constant fear. But! Their ability to do harm makes it a different story.
[Joanne Forman, New Mexico, USA.]
When Push Comes to Shove [Digital TV]
Are the American people going to sit on their duffs and meekly accept another dictate from the federal government? Citizens seldom have. Only time will tell.
Digital TV is a marvelous invention. Its picture and sound, according to electronics experts, are much better than that provided by the current analog TVs. Bully for that. Congress, however, has ordered all Americans to, over the next decade or so, junk their analog TVs and buy new, terribly expensive digital TVs as replacements. Many households have two, three, or more sets that would have to be replaced.
Alternately, a converter box could be used on an analog TV to get the digital picture. But these boxes may cost more than TV sets cost today. The old analog VCRs will probably have to be pitched out also and new DVD players will be required to watch movies on the new or converted sets.
Well, it might surprise US congresspersons and senators to learn that many of their constituents can’t afford to toss out perfectly good appliances just to purchase newer, more costly versions thereof or to buy converter boxes. And that’s a fact no matter how good the new picture might be.
Consider how citizens reacted to the attempted changeover to the metric system for measuring. Americans didn’t just lie down and accept that government edict. After all, this populace learned from its parents how to measure in inches, feet, and yards. So they weren’t about to shift to a foreign way of doing things.
Then there was the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin introduction, made primarily for use in vending machine slots. Preferring the paper dollar bill, few people picked up the new coin except by mistake. Such change isn’t hard on pocketbooks or wallets but it sure wrecks havoc with pants’ pockets. Ten dollars worth of Susan B. Anthony coins could easily rip a hole in your trousers before you knew it. Not only that, but anyone carrying that amount of dollar coins, if able to move at all with the extra weight, is bound to jingle and jangle as he or she walks about.
Next, the US government tried cramming the Sacajawea dollar coin down Americans’ throats. This money was golden in color so as to make sure nobody mistook it for a quarter or a half dollar. Well nobody did. Yet this coin posed the same problems that the Anthony one did. And so, neither of the deserving women’s coins are seen much today outside of the gaming halls of Las Vegas or Atlantic City.
Now along comes this new demand by Congress that Americans must replace all their TV sets, whether they want or need to. That could cost the average citizen well over a thousand dollars. This feels like a new tax.
Americans tend to resist when forced to do something. That’s especially true when it’s going to cost them lots of their hard-earned money. Many folks, therefore, don’t plan on going to digital TV for a long time. And when they do, it will be on their own schedule, not the government’s.
After all, this is a free country - isn’t it?
[James C. Sullivan, Indiana, USA.]
Economics - US
On the economic front, it seems that the US may be entering a phase of deflation. Deflation [the opposite of inflation] may be defined as a time when prices are falling. It is characterized by too few customers with the money to buy the goods produced.
If deflation continues, companies have less money coming in and so spend less on raw materials and wages. Salaries shrink and unemployment rates increase. Bankruptcies multiply. If deflation goes on long enough, a real depression occurs.
A secondary effect is that local governments and social agencies are faced with less money from income taxes and greater demands for welfare and unemployment benefits. All government-sponsored social services will shrink.
A little deflation, though, will make your dollars go further.
Speaking of dollars, US currency has recently become less valuable than other monetary units on the international currency market. Moderate variations in the relative worth of various currencies mainly affect international commerce - import and export. A slightly weaker dollar would make US goods more affordable in other countries and foreign-made goods more expensive in the US.
My local newspaper [The Plain Dealer (Cleveland), May 28, 2003] reports that the countries most harmed by the weakening of the dollar are France and Germany. Apparently, they rely on exports to the US to shore up their economies.
Isn’t that interesting? The two countries that did the most to try to impede the war in Iraq are now being hurt financially. Do you suppose that is a coincidence?
The US federal debt is increasing. The year-to-date deficit this year is slightly over 3 times what it was this time last year. Revenues are down. Individual income tax payments are down 8 percent this year. Corporate taxes, which make up a much smaller portion of federal revenue, are down 28.7 percent. Federal spending, on the other hand, increased 6.5 percent since last year. This year’s deficit is expected to be at least twice what it was last year.
State and local governments are in even worse shape. Most of them are required by law to balance their budgets every year, although they can sell bonds for specific purposes. Basic social services - police, education, and welfare - are being cut in nearly every state in the union. State and local taxes are increasing, as these governments are struggling to remain financially stable.
[L.F., Ohio, USA.]
The recent tax cut
As the effects of the tax cut come into being, it will be great to be an American - if you are very rich.
The train wreck will come after the [2004 presidential] election. The Federal Reserve Bank will turn about and the collapsed dollar will be declared an inflation threat. So much for today’s "deflation" talk, which is mostly nonsense. Interest rates will be raised "in order to defend the dollar."
Households will hit the debt wall. The housing bubble will pop. Household spending will tank. Many people will lose their over-mortgaged homes.
As economic activity drops, budget deficits will mount. And then our Republican leaders will remember all those hymns to "fiscal responsibility" that they have now so carefully forgotten.
To meet the new "fiscal crisis," Congress will then have to choose between deep cuts in spending, including the privatization of Social Security and Medicare, and allowing the tax breaks just enacted to expire. Of course, they will say that a recession is not a time to "increase taxes."
Unemployment will creep up before the election, attracting little attention if overall growth stays positive. But after the election, joblessness may well get much worse. And if the dollar defense works, the resulting gigantic trade deficit will cause US demand to leak away to imports. That will make it very hard for the economy to grow.
States and localities will continue to cut, until even public schools are no longer viable for the middle class.
Just as New York was the cradle of [Roosevelt’s] New Deal, so Texas today is the model for the new federal economic policies. As governor, Bush did what he now plans for the country. He cut taxes irresponsibly, earned his spurs, and then moved on. Now his Republican successors are out on the battlefield, executing the wounded.
That will be our fate, too, as a nation, if we let this tax bill lead to election victory for Bush and the Republicans next year.
[From an article by James K. Galbraith, Newsday, May 28, 2003.]
A Final Word - Water
The supply of fresh water in a number of areas in the world will become critically low in the coming years.
The areas expected to be worst hit are:
Western US
Northern Mexico
Most of Peru and part of Argentina
The entire northern part of the continent of Africa
The country of South Africa
The Middle East from the Red Sea to the Himalayas
Central China, and
Southeastern Australia.
North America.
The US and Canada are the largest per capita consumers of fresh water, double that of Mexico, for example. Although supply has been abundant in the past, that may change. The High Plains Aquifer in the central US is expected to "decline dramatically." Pollution, invasive species and under-priced water add to the stress in the region.
South America.
Due to fast population growth, the region’s major environmental problem of the next decade is expected to be a shortage of potable water.
Europe.
Western Europe is pricing water at levels that allow for reinvestment and management of an adequate water supply. Eastern Europe and the area of the former Soviet Union are still using more water per capita than Western Europe. In Eastern Europe, a business-as-usual scenario estimates water use will nearly double by 2025. European water issues have more to do with quality and ecosystems than with quantity, which appears to be sufficient.
Africa.
More than half the population has no access to safe water but this is fewer than in 1990. Almost half suffer from water-related diseases. In South Africa, a business-as-usual scenario estimates water use will rise by half by 2025.
Asia.
Nearly a third of the region has no access to safe water. Central Asia is already using 85 percent of available water and southern Asia nearly half. Per capita availability of water has dropped by 70 percent in central and south Asia since 1950. In China, a business-as-usual scenario estimates water use will rise by half by 2025.
Australia.
Water use increased by 25 percent in the mid-1990s, compared with the mid-1980s. At the same time, the water supply has been degraded, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin in the southeast.
[World Commission on Water in the 21st Century. On MSNBC.com.]
Next month: We’d love to know what you think. These are our usual classifications:
-- Open - questions, comments, tirades, etc.
-- RSVP. React to previous statements.
-- The ecology.
-- Clippings from newspapers, etc.
On the Web
Overtime is included in the website of Socialism for a Real Labor Union at:
----------socialismforareallaborunion.org
Money.
Overtime is free, but there are expenses and any help with these would be appreciated. Please make checks payable to Linda Featheringill and mail to me at 4651 West 41st Street, Down, Cleveland, OH 44109. Contributions will be acknowledged in the next issue, or you can remain anonymous if you wish.
Finances at the end of May 2003:
Balance--------------------23.58
Contributions--------------58.99
Supplies and stationary-----8.16
Copying--------------------30.74
Postage--------------------28.97
Total expenses-------------67.87
Balance--------------------14.70
Contributions: C. Harvey 5.00, D.S. 23.49, C.Y. 8.16, Anon. 20.00, Donated postage 2.34.
And, to Everyone, thank you, thank you, thank you. Linda Featheringill.