“And we must ask ourselves, who profits from all this?”  – Audre Lorde


2 thoughts on “Quote

  1. Hello. I just found your site. I’ve enjoyed following so far. Anyway, I just read this piece http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WOOD_STOVE_REGULATIONS_MOOL-?SITE=MOCAP&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT and then read this quote. I’m glad you posted it, because I am struggling a bit this Monday morning to put the EPA’s woodburning rules into a larger context, and the quote reminds me that someone is profiting. Or maybe in the case of these rules, I wonder whose pollution is being ignored or glossed over in order for them to profit while the average person takes the brunt of the consequences (in proportion) for a warming planet.

    First of all, do you think these rules are draconian given so many depend on woodburning stoves for heat? The rules focus on new stoves and not old, and it supposedly does not address fireplaces, fire pits and such (http://www.airqualitynews.com/2014/01/09/epa-proposes-rules-on-wood-burning/), so it could be worse. But still….

    If this proposal is draconian on its face – and then to clarify my context question in the first graf – how do you see it fitting in with climate change, industrial pollutants’ impact on public health and how the US government treats those large, industrial polluters? These large-scale actors are doing the real damage, to overall human and environmental health. While older woodburning stoves are polluting – or could be more efficient – and have some ill effects on human health, especially in more densely-populated areas, it seems to be an EPA proposal here is a mere band-aid that doesn’t really mean much in the larger scheme of mitigating public health concerns associated with pollutants. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    So rather than address the real perpetrators, the EPA tosses out another low-level regulation against those who don’t have much say, i.e. those without “corporate personhood.” To be clear, I think, sure, the woodburning stove rules could be good overall for our health. That’s great, but, more importantly is it a laughable set of rules to enforce while industry is allowed to poison air/water/soil to the extent that it can? Is this another case of asymmetric warfare, so to speak, against non-industrial-level polluters?

    I’m interested in your thoughts based on the (limited amount of) material I’ve read here. Thank you.

  2. I think you’re on the right track with your analysis. The first question is “Who’s in the EPA?” As you can see from the following links, it’s mostly former corporate executives from places like Monsanto, Exxon, and Dupont—and even if they’re not members of the agency, they have ways of removing obstacles:

    1. http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm
    2. http://news.yahoo.com/epa-changed-course-oil-company-protested-082012084.html
    3. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/spc/multimedia/epa-corporate/

    Now, every once in a while the EPA takes a step in the right direction, like when the head of the EPA’s office in Dallas said in 2010 that the agency’s energy policy was to “crucify” non-compliant oil and gas companies—but then that person was forced to resign over the comment: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/30/us/epa-crucify/

    So there you go.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s