EUtube and the Ardystil disaster

EU has taken the step into Youtube on EUtube. One of the vidoes put out sofar is about REACH - the new chemical legislation REACH. It mentions a Spanish company Ardystil. Six workers died from inhaling toxic fumes from textile dyes, yet 72 more contracted serious lung disease and damage. The idea of the video is to show that REACH will make sure we will avoid any more Ardystil disasters.

I had look on internet about Ardystil. Most of it in Spanish. Not even Greenpeace had information about this disaster. Language barrier? This disaster happened 1in 1992. No mention on Wikipedia either (botn EN and ES).

One site talks about at the Ardystil syndrome. I quote: "In June 2003, a Spanish court issued its judgment on the 'Ardystil syndrome', one of the country's worst occupational health disasters,... The long-awaited ruling found that the employers concerned were clearly responsible, and that the public authorities failed to fulfil their role as a guarantor of safety. ... It is curious that even the Labour Inspectorate (Inspección de Trabajo) showed a scandalous lack of concern about the working conditions in these companies."

No more bacalhau?

The Portuguese still believe that there is endless amounts of cod fish with which they can make bacalhau, or actually the actual bacalhau (dried salted cod fish) is caught in the North Sea and dried and salted in Norway.

Greenpeace and WWF in last December were disappointed with the still large quota of cod fish that the EU fishing ministers agreed upon. The ministers claim that they need to think about both fish stocks and fishers. But Greenpeace and WWF say that the fishing ministers as usual are mocking scientific concerns that the quotas still are way above sustainable levels.

I think the price for bacalhau has gone up in Portugal the last years.

But anyway, the bacalhau is not the most tasty dish on earth. I for one would not be sorry if the Portuguese altogether gave up their bacalhau, and let the cod fish recuperate, at least for a decade or so ...

A reflection over performance and cap-and-trade

In Jornal de Negocios2007-01-05 Franquelim Alves claim that cap and trade of CO2 emission will delay EUs development of alternative energy sources. That is a bit odd because it is aimed at encouraging companies to straighten up their or at least decrease their fossil fuel dependence.

He uses a graph in which the increase in CO2 emissions in the US has increased less in the US than in EU during 2000-2004. Has he missed that the eco-foot print per capita of the US is twice as large as in the EU? Between 1990-1995 there was actually a decrease in CO2 emissions in EU15. I wonder what we did right then? At the same time US increased its emissions by little over 6%.

He continues to say that encouragement rather than restrictions are vital to foster innovations in sustainable energy systems. He is at least half right. I say why not use both?! Cap and trade is an American invention that first was implemented in the EU. Nowadays there also exist voluntary cap and trade in the USA. Also, plenty of states and towns in the US have started to implement their own regulations and laws to meet the requirements in the Kyoto Protocol. Notably, a group of large energy "producers" in the US has recently confronted President Bush to implement the Kyoto Protocol on federal level. I don´t know if if is out of environmental concern or that different rules in all states will make it more difficult to compete on national level in the US (and of course having to comply with up to 50 sets of rules does not anyone happy).

Alves goes on to say that one shouldn´t indiscriminately put up wind power towers or start biofuel plantations everywhere because they may have negative impact on the local environment. I couldn´t agree more. If there are environmental concerns make an Environmental Impact Assessment! If not even those that claim to take environment concerns are able to do just that it would be really tragic ...