Justmeans

Death by Disease, Blamed on the Recession

Reynard Loki — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:00:59 GMT

"It is deeply worrisome that inadvertently, the millions of people fighting with deadly diseases are in danger of paying the price for the global financial crisis." -- Michel Kazatchkine, executive director, The Global Fund[1]In 2010, 1.8 million people died from AIDS, 1.4 million from tuberculosis and 655,000 from malaria. The malaria deaths are mostly of African children, although there is a current debate about the total number, which could be actually 1.2 million according to a study in the Lancet that says the smaller figure, an estimate of the World Health Organization, is incorrect.[2][3][4][5]One organization that is combating these three killers is the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, a public-private partnership (PPP) and international financing institution (IFI) that was founded in 2002 to "dramatically increase resources to fight three of the world's most devastating diseases, and to direct those resources to areas of greatest need." With USD 22.4 billion of approved funding, the Global Fund is the world's primary financier of projects that combat the three epidemics. According to their website, the fund has given 3.3 million people with AIDS antiretroviral treatment, detected and treated 8.6 million new cases of tuberculosis and distributed 230 million insecticide-treated nets to protect families from malaria.[6]DONORS WITHDRAW AMIDST FINANCIAL CRISISBut the financial crisis has hampered the fund's ability to issue new grants. In 2010, its fundraising goal was USD 20 billion, but it was only able to raise USD 11.5 billion, which was still below the mininum USD 13 billion required to maintain its current programs. Then, in November 2011, the board of directors announced a change in strategy that was the result of "substantial budget challenges in some donor countries, compounded by low interest rates [that] have significantly affected the resources available for new grant funding." Under the new directive, which covers 2012 through 2016, the fund will not issue new grants until 2014 and "will only be able to finance essential services for on-going programs that come to their conclusion before 2014 by making savings in the existing grant portfolio." Essentially, the fund's 11th round of funding has been scrapped.[7]Last month at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Bill Gates announced a USD 750 million contribution from the Gates Foundation to the Global Fund. But while welcome news, the donation will not affect the board's decision to cancel the current financing round, as they knew about it when the strategic change was made.[8]Even as the board has "urgently requested donors to consider measures to increase and accelerate funding, and implementing country governments, especially those from middle-income countries, to increase funding for the three diseases and related health investments," board chair Simon Bland tried to soften the blow. He said that with the new funding model, which "focuses on investing strategically in countries, populations and interventions with high potential for impact and strong value for money," the fund will shift "from an institution that has successfully provided emergency funding to allow countries to cope with the runaway pandemics, to become a sustainable, efficient funder of the global efforts to control them."[9]A TURNING POINT?The Global Fund is not alone. The international fight against disease in general has taken a hit because of the financial crisis. According to a report by the Sydney-based non-profit disease research group Policy Cures, global public funding to fight neglected diseases -- which include malaria, TB, HIV, pneumonia, sleeping sickness and helminth infections -- dropped by USD 136 million in 2010 due to cutbacks from governments and philanthropic organizations.[10]"This is a turning point where we decide whether our response to the global financial crisis is going to include letting neglected disease R&D be wiped out or not," says Policy Cures executive director Mary Moran. "Because you can't cut product-development funding midstream and expect that everything will just start up again when you're ready. She notes that this is "the first time since World War II where we've suddenly had this revitalization, saying that patients in the developing world deserve, need and must have better medicines. It would really turn back the clock to see that commitment disappear down the hole of the financial crisis."[11]THE GLOBAL RECESSION IS NOT AN EXCUSEIn an opinion piece last week in The New York Times, Paul Farmer, chairman of the department of global health and social medicine at Harvard Medical School and a cofounder of Partners in Health, which has received support from the Global Fund in Haiti, Lesotho and Russia, said that "a recession is a lousy excuse to starve one of the best (and only) instruments we have for helping people who live on a few dollars a day. Most marginalized populations around the globe have always faced economic contraction; 'financial crisis' has been ongoing for them since the day they were born."[12]"Simply put, if we allow the fund to fail, many people will die, and we will forfeit the chance at the 'AIDS-free generation' that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for in November," Farmer said. "This is no time to step back."[13]###NOTES[1] The Global Fund. "The Global Fund Adopts New Strategy to Save 10 Million Lives by 2016." November 23, 2011. Accessed February 7, 2012.[2] Avert.org. Global HIV and AIDS estimates, 2009 and 2010. Accessed February 7, 2012.[3] Centers for Disease Control. Tuberculosis - Data and Statistics. Accessed February 7, 2012.[4] World Health Organization. Malaria Fact sheet N94. December 2011. Accessed February 7, 2012.[5] McNeil, Donald G., Jr. "Malaria: Specialists Duel Over Death Toll in 2011: Was It 655,000 People or Twice as Many?" New York Times. February 6, 2012. Accessed February 7, 2012.[6] The Global Fund. About. Accessed February 7, 2012.[7] The Global Fund. "The Global Fund Adopts New Strategy to Save 10 Million Lives by 2016." November 23, 2011. Accessed February 7, 2012.[8]Friends of the Global Fight Against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. "The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Celebrates 10th Anniversary of Lifesaving Work." PR Newswire. January 26, 2012. Accessed February 7, 2012.[9] Ibid., 1.[10] Policy Cures. Global Funding of Innovation for Neglected Diseases: G-FINDER. December 8, 2011. Accessed February 7, 2012.[11] Wadman, Meredith. "Financial crisis hits developing world disease research." Nature. December 7, 2011. Accessed February 7, 2012.[12] Farmer, Paul. "Why the Global Fund Matters." The New York Times. February 1, 2012. Accessed February 7, 2012.[13] Ibid.image: An Anopheles stephensi mosquito is obtaining a blood meal from a human host through its pointed proboscis. Note the droplet of blood being expelled from the abdomen after having engorged itself on its host's blood. This mosquito is a known malarial vector with a distribution that ranges from Egypt all the way to China. Source: CDC (credit: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Wikimedia Commons)

Leave the Corn, Take the Algae: Time to Say Buona Notte to Food-Based Biofuels

Reynard Loki — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:00:41 GMT

You have a bushel of corn. You can either produce 2.7 gallons of ethanol or feed 50 people. Which would you choose?On December 31, 2011, America's three-decade-old federal tax credit for ethanol expired, ending a government subsidy that poured more than USD 20 billion into an industry that the New York Times called one of Congress's "most resilient boondogles." Oil companies received a 45-cent-per-gallon tax credit to blend ethanol into gasoline, costing American taxpayers between USD 5-6 billion a year.[1]THE PROS AND CONS OF BIOFUELSOf course, there are many environmental benefits of biofuels, including reductions in particulate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions (they are inherently carbon-neutral because burning them simply releases back into the atmosphere the same amount of carbon that was initially absorbed by the plant matter) and a move toward local production, which is not only less transport-heavy than importing fuel, but also reduces dependency on unreliable foreign resources. Overall, advocates stress the energy security to be found in biofuel production.But while biofuels are inherently carbon-neutral, growing biofuel crops like corn, oil palms and sugar cane means the creation of vast plantations -- and that means massive deforestation, which is responsible for up to 30 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, about 1.6 billion tonnes, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).[2]"[Ethanol's] environmental virtues were less than advertised," according to the New York Times. "Billed as a lower-carbon replacement for fossil fuels, corn ethanol generated more carbon dioxide than gasoline after taking into account the emissions caused when new land was cleared to replace the food lost to fuel production."[3]LOWER BIODIVERSITY, HIGHER FOOD PRICESAnd all that clearcutting of forests means the destruction of natural habitat and loss of biodiversity. The endangered orangutan, for example, is rapidly losing its habitat in Indonesia due to the conversion of tropical forests to palm oil plantations.[4]Also, biofuels have been criticized for pushing up the price of corn and food in general as farmers replaced other crops with corn. In the United States, government-mandated ethanol production has represented around 27 percent of the corn crop (net of the by-product credit; i.e., the leftover plant materials that is then processed to produce livestock feed), according to a 2011 study by economists at Purdue University. Considering that amount, the report, requested by Farm Foundation NFP, a not-for-profit non-partisan agribusiness policy think tank based in Oak Brook, Illinois, concludes that "there is little doubt that biofuels play a role in the corn price level and variability, and this has spilled over into other commodity markets."[5]EUROPE'S BIOFUEL GAMBLEIn April 2009, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union passed a directive requiring all EU member nations to derive 20 percent of their total energy and 10 percent of transport fuels from renewable sources by 2020. Now, three years since it passed and eight years left until the deadline, pressure is rising, and so are concerns, as "[m]ember states are placing large bets on biofuels to meet that target," according to a recent press release issued by the Geneva-based International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).[6]Two recent reports -- one by the FiFo Institute for Public Economics at the University of Cologne and another by the Global Subsidies Initiative (GSI) of the IISD -- look at the economic costs of using biofuels to achieve the EU's renewable transport fuel targets. The researchers found that by the target year of 2020, consumers in the United Kingdom will be expected to pay between GBP 1-2 billion (USD 1.6-3.2 billion) every year in higher transport fuel prices, while German consumers will face EUR 1.4-2.2 billion (USD 1.8-2.9 billion) more annually.[7][8]The Renewables Energy Directive (RED) asserts that a "framework that includes mandatory targets should provide the business community with the long-term stability it needs to make rational, sustainable investments in the renewable energy sector which are capable of reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels and boosting the use of new energy technologies." But considering all the cons, how rational are biofuels, especially those derived from food sources? Can EU states rely on the future of biofuels to achieve their green energy portfolio goals?[9]FIDEL CASTRO WAS RIGHTThat biofuels -- and in particular, ethanol -- have become such a hotly debated issue was on marked display in 2007 when The Economist -- the pro-globalism bastion of classic liberalism and free market capitalism -- actually sided against a U.S. president and with a Marxist revolutionary who spent decades at the top of America's most wanted list:"It is not often that this newspaper finds itself in agreement with Fidel Castro, Cuba's tottering Communist dictator. But when he roused himself from his sickbed last week to write an article criticising George Bush's unhealthy enthusiasm for ethanol, he had a point. Along with other critics of America's ethanol drive, Mr Castro warned against the 'sinister idea of converting food into fuel.' America's use of corn (maize) to make ethanol biofuel, which can then be blended with petrol to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, has already driven up the price of corn. As more land is used to grow corn rather than other food crops, such as soy, their prices also rise. And since corn is used as animal feed, the price of meat goes up, too. The food supply, in other words, is being diverted to feed America's hungry cars."[10]For EU states looking to meet the 2020 renewable energy mandate and a United States that has finally let go of pricey ethanol subsidies, algae fuel should be on the top of the biofuel list. Algae fuel doesn't compete with farmland or food crops. Plus, it's biodegradable and virtually harmless to the environment if spilled. The Energy Department estimates that if algae fuel replaced America's total petroleum fuel requirement, it would require only 15,000 square miles -- less than one half of one percent of the entire area of the United States.[11]To paraphrase Clemenza from "The Godfather": Leave the corn. Take the algae.###NOTES[1] New York Times Editorial Board. "One Bad Energy Subsidy Expires." January 6, 2012. Accessed February 7, 2012.[2] Food and Agriculture Organization. "Deforestation causes global warming." September 4, 2006. Accessed February 7, 2012.[3] Ibid., 1.[4] Smith, David. "Five years to save the orangutan." The Guardian. March 24, 2007. Accessed February 7, 2012.[5] Abbott, Philip C., Christopher Hurt and Wallace E. Tyner. What's Driving Food Prices in 2011?. Farm Foundation NFP. April 2011. Accessed February 7, 2012.[6] International Institute for Sustainable Development. "Biofuels a high-cost means to reach renewable transport fuel targets in Germany and the UK." February 2, 2012. Accessed February 7, 2012.[7] Global Subsidies Initiative. "Biofuels - At What Cost? Mandating ethanol and biodiesel consumption in the United Kingdom." International Institute for Sustainable Development. January 2012. Accessed February 7, 2012.[8] FiFo Institute. "Biofuels - At What Cost? Mandating Ethanol and Biodiesel Consumption in Germany." International Institute for Sustainable Development. January 2012. Accessed February 7, 2012.[9] 2009/28/EC Directive of the European Parliament and the Council of European Union. April 23, 2009. Accessed February 7, 2012.[10] The Economist. "Castro was right: As a green fuel, ethanol is a good idea, but the sort that America produces is bad." April 4, 2007. Accessed February 7, 2012.[11] Hartman, Eviana. "A Promising Oil Alternative: Algae Fuel." The Washington Post. January 6, 2008. Accessed February 7, 2012.image: Loyna, Flickr Creative Commons

Chase Bank: Abusing the Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reynard Loki — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:15:53 GMT

In terms of economic justice, we haven't come very far since Dr. King's famous marches from Selma to Montgomery. Hypocrisy and deception, on the other hand, are as strong as ever.Just a few days before Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, the financial services giant JPMorgan Chase launched a webpage to promote the bank's involvement with the King Center in creating a website preserving King's legacy through "a comprehensive collection of documents, photographs, and audiovisual materials." The initiative is part of JPMorgan Chase's "Technology for Social Good Program."[1]Visitors to the webpage are greeted by a photograph of King and the following text: "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. worked to build and strengthen America's communities through justice, equality, and peace. At JPMorgan Chase, we are proud to play a part in sharing his message and legacy with the world."[2]HOMES FOR SALE, ETHICS SOLD OUTIn fact, the bank has been creating the exact opposite legacy, one based on injustice and inequality. On Friday, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo for misleading homeowners. The suit charges that "the creation and use of a private national mortgage electronic registry system known as MERS has resulted in a wide range of deceptive and fraudulent foreclosure filings in New York state and federal courts, harming homeowners and undermining the integrity of the judicial foreclosure process."[3]"The banks created the MERS system as an end-run around the property recording system, to facilitate the rapid securitization and sale of mortgages," said Schneiderman. "Once the mortgages went sour, these same banks brought foreclosure proceedings en masse based on deceptive and fraudulent court submissions, seeking to take homes away from people with little regard for basic legal requirements or the rule of law."[4]USED AND ABUSED: THE LEGACY OF MLKMillions of Americans have had to foreclose since the start of the financial crisis, and many of them have been forced to do so by the unethical actions of banks. But the current struggle of one homeowner in particular is emblematic of the deep wellspring of Wall Street hypocrisy. In a petition on Change.org, the Occupy Nashville Housing Protection Group says, "Chase misappropriates the memory and image of Martin Luther King this Black History Month." The group says that Chase, the consumer and commercial banking arm of JPMorgan Chase, is about to foreclose on Nashville resident Helen Bailey, a woman they describe as "a 78-year-old grandmother who participated in the civil rights movement, worked as a childcare provider for autistic children, and was a community volunteer." The foreclosure date is set for February 15.[5]Bailey's lawyer has found an alternate buyer for her home; the sale would allow her to leave her current mortgage and find other housing. The petition urges Chase to cancel any foreclosure action; waive all interest, legal fees and penalties accrued since the initial refinance offer; and accept the buyer's offer of USD 85,000. Occupy Nashville has been occupying Legislative Plaza since October 7, 2011.[6]"[Bailey] has paid her mortgage since 1999, but now she can't keep up the payments," according to Occupy Nashville. "All she wants is to stay in her home until she dies, in the neighborhood where she feels safe and has lived for nearly quarter of a century. She could have refinanced with a company willing to let her live in the house for free until her death, but Chase Bank would not reduce her principal by $9,000. She's been paying 7% interest, well above most rates, so Chase could have decided they had made enough. Instead, they have started foreclosure and Ms. Bailey could end on the street."[7]According to the petition, Chase may lose over $30,000 if they don't accept the settlement offer, "Therefore this option makes the most sense financially for Chase and given Ms. Bailey's specific circumstances, there is little moral hazard in this solution." The petition, which is addressed to JPMorgan Chase president and chief executive Jamie Dimon, among others, is seeking 50,000 signatures. As of February 6, over 35,000 people have signed.[8]GRAPES OF WRATH REDUX: DEPRESSION-ERA HARDSHIP RISES AGAINOf course, we all know that Bailey's plight is not an isolated incident. In November, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof interviewed James Theckston, former regional vice president for Chase Home Finance in southern Florida, writing that the ex-banker "fully acknowledges that he and other bankers are mostly responsible for the country's housing mess." In 2007, Theckston's group wrote $2 billion in mortgages, some of which were "no documentation" mortgages. "On the application, you don't put down a job; you don't show income; you don't show assets," said Theckston. "But you still got a nod..If you had some old bag lady walking down the street and she had a decent credit score, she got a loan."[9]Linking John Steinbeck's 1939 novel The Grapes of Wrath to the Occupy Movement, Kristof notes, "those Depression-era injustices seem so familiar today...That's why the Occupy movement resonates so deeply: When the federal government goes all-out to rescue errant bankers, and stiffs homeowners, that's not just bad economics. It's also wrong."[10]King would have agreed. "Economic war broke out between black and white Montgomery," writes Thomas F. Jackson in his book From Civil Rights to Human Rights. "King learned important lessons about black economic power, economic dependency, and poverty. Though advisors counseled moderation and mainstream press framed his message in moral terms, King's evolving rhetoric richly documents his growing sense linkages between civil rights and economic justice."[11]MONSTERS, INC., WITH PERSONHOOD STATUSThe title of Steinbeck's novel is taken from a line in Julia Ward Howe's 1861 song, "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," the lyrics of which were quoted by King in a public speech he gave on March 25, 1965, on the steps of the State Capitol in Montgomery, Alabama, following the completion of the third march from Selma to Montgomery.In that speech, known as the "How long, Not Long" or "Our God Is Marching On" speech, King posed the question, "How long will justice be crucified, and truth bear it?" He gave the answer: "Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice...Not long, because...His truth is marching on."[12]In The Grapes of Wrath, when the landowners came to evict the sharecroppers after years of poor crops, they blame the bank, saying, "It's not us, it's the bank. A bank isn't like a man...The bank is something more than men...It's the monster. Men made it, but they can't control it." But how can a bank be a monster when the Supreme Court specifically gave corporations the status of personhood, conferring them rights that a human being would have? King was wrong when he said "Not long." The real answer was and still is, "A lot longer."Speaking about the lawsuit, Attorney General Schneiderman said, "Our action demonstrates that there is one set of rules for all -- no matter how big or powerful the institution may be -- and that those rules will be enforced vigorously."[13] If King's vision of equality and justice will ever become a reality, more of these actions must come to bear on these personhood-status-enjoying monsters.That banks are morally challenged is a given. But by connecting its brand to King's message of justice while deceiving its customers -- and foreclosing on a civil rights activist during Black History Month -- JPMorgan Chase has reached a new height of hypocrisy, a height matched only by its monstrous mountain of money. With $2.3 trillion in assets, JPMorgan Chase is America's biggest bank. In 2009, the salary of Jamie Dimon, its chief executive, was $1.3 million. In 2010, his salary jumped to $20.8 million, an increase of almost 1,500 percent. He is currently the highest paid chief executive on Wall Street.[14]###NOTES[1] JPMorgan Chase. "Preserving the inspiration and sharing the passion of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr." January 13, 2012.[2] Ibid.[3] The Office of the Attorney General of New York. "A.G. Schneiderman Annouces Major Lawsuit Against Nation's Largest Banks for Deceptive & Fradulent Use of Electronic Mortgage Resgistry." February 3, 2012.[4] Ibid.[5] Occupy Nashville. "Chase: Don't foreclose on Helen Bailey - Petition." January 9, 2012.[6] Ibid.[7] Ibid.[8] Occupy Nashville Housing Protection. "Chase: Don't foreclose on Helen Bailey." Change.org. January 9, 2012.[9] Kristof, Nicholas D. "A Banker Speaks, With Regret." New York Times. November 30, 2011.[10] Ibid.[11] Jackson, Thomas F. Civil Rights to Human Rights. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. p. 52.[12] King, Martin Luther, Jr. "Our God Is Marching On! The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute. March 25, 1965.[13] Ibid., 3.[14] Baldwin, Clare and Jonathan Stempel. "JPMorgan CEO Dimon's pay jumps to $20.8 million." Reuters. April 7, 2011. image: Martin Luther King, Jr., June 8, 1964. (credit: Walter Albertin, Wikimedia Commons)

Is It Ethical to Invest in Nuclear Power?

Reynard Loki — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:00:06 GMT

"I wish we had found the courage to speak out earlier against nuclear power. -- Masahito Hirose, an 81-year-old survivor of the bombing of Nagasaki, speaking after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster[1]After the Fukushima nuclear disaster in March of last year, the nuclear energy industry took a big hit. By June, the stock price of plant operator TEPCO plunged 91 percent, losing 3.2 trillion yen (USD 40 billion) in market value. Germany and Switzerland both announced plans to phase out nuclear energy.[2]There will be no similar decision made in the United States, where nuclear power supplies almost of a fifth of the nation's energy, generated by over 100 commercial reactors located primarily in the northeast and southeast regions. The US is the world's largest commercial nuclear power supplier.[3]The Atlanta-based utility Southern Company, which serves 4.2 million customers in the southeast with over 42 GW of generating capacity, is constructing two nuclear power plants expected to be online in 2016 and 2017. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the governmental agency that regulates America's nuclear power, is expected to approve the application during a vote scheduled for February 9. They will be the first nuclear units to be built in the United States in over 30 years.[4][5][6]CHEAP POWER TODAY, BIG PROBLEMS TOMORROW"Nuclear power across the world is the only current means of economically generating the enormous demands," writes David Gillies, contributing editor of ETF Digest in a recent commentary on The Street, suggesting the Global X Uranium ETF (URA), which tracks the Solactive Global Uranium Index as "perhaps the best way for investors to have exposure to renewed growth of nuclear power." Gillies asserts, "Safe nuclear power is making a comeback."[7]But ethical investors are likely to pay no mind to such proclamations. The Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment has a very clear position when in comes to investing in nuclear energy. The Washington, DC-based non-profit membership group, which supports socially responsible and sustainable investing, says that one way to engage in ethical investing is to "[d]ivert investments away from institutions or businesses that...produce nuclear weapons or nuclear power."[8]While nuclear power has lower carbon emissions than fossil fuel generation, relatively low operating costs and a large power-generating capacity, the cons loom larger, and are heightened in the aftermath of a disaster like Fukushima. If there is an accident, the damage is extraordinarily high. Nuclear power also contributes to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Another issue that is rarely discussed is the fact that uranium, which is just as finite as other earthbound resources like coal, oil and natural gas, happens to be found primarily under land controlled by tribes and indigenous people.[9]And perhaps the fact that looms the largest is that nuclear waste lasts up to 500,000 years. That should be the key factor is determining the ethical basis for continuing nuclear energy generation. This is a persisting and enduring problem that hangs like a radioactive millstone on unborn generations of humans. According to Wim Zweers, author of Participating with Nature: Outline for an Ecologization of Our World View, the nuclear waste issue conflicts with current views on democracy as it forces us to shift the burden to others. The fact that a small minority of humans living today are essentially handing over a huge ecological threat to future generations is ethical reprehenible, Zweers says.[10]RADIOACTIVE REGULATION: SAFETY CONCERNS, INDUSTRY INFLUENCE"There have been enough partial core-melt accidents that we can ask whether the operational nuclear power plants throughout the world are safe enough as a group," said Dr. Thomas B. Cochran, the senior scientist of the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) nuclear program, in Senate testimony following Fukushima. He noted that 12 nuclear power reactors have experienced fuel-damage or partial core-melt accidents and all have been permanently shut down. These include the most famous ones before Fukushima -- Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.[11]Following Fukushima, the NRC launched a review of America's nuclear plants. But in his testimony, Cochran slammed the regulatory agency, saying that "it is woefully inadequate to the larger task of ensuring nuclear safety given the grave concerns raised by the accident. Any review must be an open, transparent process that permits public participation and that creates public trust. It is not credible to expect the NRC staff to perform an unbiased review of its own past failings."[12]The NRC staff "has been largely captive of the industry it regulates," said Cochran. "Moreover, no President has been willing to appoint, and no Senate willing to confirm, NRC commissioners without ensuring that the majority of commissioners are strongly supportive of the use of nuclear power. These two factors have resulted in the NRC taking actions that have placed the economic interest of the industry ahead of safety, and have over the years stripped public participants in the licensing process of adjudicatory rights they were previously afforded."[13]A few days after the Fukushima disaster, NRDC president Frances Beinecke wrote to President Obama: "The administration should appoint a truly independent commission, similar to the Kemeny Commission that investigated the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, that can help to engender public confidence by thoroughly examining nuclear safety issues." There was no response.[14]There is a nuclear energy source that is much safer, virtually infinite and doesn't require mining on tribal land: the Sun. In a single second, the Sun produces enough energy to meet the current needs of human civilization for 500,000 years. Now that's a nuclear option that future generations can handle.###NOTES[1] Fackler, Martin. "Atomic Bomb Survivors Join Nuclear Opposition,." New York Times. August 6, 2011.[2] Hyuga, Takahiko and Tsuyoshi Inajima. "Tokyo Riot Squad to Safeguard Tepco Meeting,." Bloomberg News. June 9, 2011.[3] United States Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review. October 19, 2011.[4] Southern Company. Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Media Guide. November 1, 2011.[5] Southern Company. "Vogtle Units Receive NRC Staff Approval for Final Safety Report." August 9, 2011.[6] Wingfield, Brian. "NRC Advances Souther Co. Bid to Build U.S. Nuclear Units." Bloomberg News. February 2, 2012.[7] Gillies, David. "Is Nuclear Power Safe Yet?" The Street. January 20, 2012.[8] Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment. "Sustainable and Responsible Investing Basics for Individuals." September 30, 2007.[9] Goes, Eva. "Global Justice - Indigenous Peoples and Uranium Mining." Motion No. U412 to the Swedish Parliament. December 3, 1997.[10] Damveld, Herman and Robert Jan van den Berg. "Nuclear Waste and Nuclear Ethics: Social and ethical aspects of retrievable storage of nuclear waste. January 2000.[11] Cochran, Thomas B. Testimony on the Fukushima Nuclear Disaster and Implications for U.S. Nuclear Power Reactors. Joint Hearings of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. April 12, 2011.[12] Ibid.[13] Ibid.[14] Beinecke, Frances. Letter to President Barack Obama. March 25, 2011.image: mbeo, Flickr Creative Commons