Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and truly clean energy

Posted on Nov 11, 2008 by Susie Collins in Blog, Environment, MCS, Research, Susie Collins

The development of truly clean, green energy is an important issue for people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. While those of us with MCS are forced to eliminate the toxicity of our immediate surroundings and of our basic consumer products as best we can in order to function and be productive, there are people out in the big bad world who are just as dedicated to eliminating toxicity of the larger environment. While the environmental activity of previous decades was more focused on the direct polluting of our air, waterways and soil (and therefore our bodies), the threat of climate change has shifted the focus to a much larger problem. And that larger problem is triggering greener critical mass thinking, finally.

It’s important for those of us with MCS to understand and support the efforts of people like Al Gore, because the environmental trends that are taking root in response to climate change are going to help us in our cause of MCS awareness. As more people become educated and aware of the differences between dirty, polluting energy (the “drill-baby-drill” mind set) vs truly clean, green energy (wind, solar, geothermal), I believe more people will also begin to take a look at the toxicity in their own immediate environment: their homes and places of work, and the food, air, and water they consume. This is all good news for those of us with MCS.

People usually do not change habits without a strong motivation. In the case of those of us with MCS, myself included, we are motivated by health issues to turn toward an organic, nontoxic lifestyle. We have no choice. Because of our health issue, most of us were way ahead of the greenie curve. We all have adjusted our lifestyle, which has by default lessened our foot print, and we have heralded the call for others to do the same. Of course, those at the front edge of a movement are often seen as the “fringe” element, kooky people not in step with the norm. Well, guess what? The world is catching up with us. Why? Because the toxic paradigm has hit critical mass and is now hitting everyone where it counts: in the pocketbook.

So, what I see happening is the perfect storm, the convergence of several strong micro and macro environmental and social movements, all of which just culminated in the election of a U.S. president who promises Change. Environmentalists, scientists, consumers (especially parents), politicians, and the global marketplace are now pretty much all on the same page, even if for different reasons. And they, along with a growing consensus in the general population, are demanding truly clean, green energy, and along with it, I believe, the elimination of toxic products in the marketplace and thus in our environment and in our bodies.

For those of you who are not already, I’d like to get you in the mood for fully participating in the discussion on alternative energy. To start us off here on The Canary Report, I’d like to share with you a publication from Environment America, a federation of state-based, citizen-funded environmental advocacy organizations. It’s called “Renewing America: A Blueprint for Economic Recovery.” Here’s the Executive Summary below, and here’s where you wonky types can download the full report.

Across the country, Americans are hurting. From the big cities of the coasts to the industrial heartland to our rural communities, the slumping economy is taking its toll in shuttered businesses, disappearing jobs, bankruptcies, foreclosures and an increased sense of anxiety about our collective future.

To revive the American dream, we need to rebuild our economy on a sound foundation—one that puts people back to work, contributes to long-term prosperity, rebuilds our communities, and protects our environment.

There is one path to a renewed economy that achieves all of those goals—one that is increasingly recognized by opinion leaders, politicians, investors and workers as our best chance to work our way out of our current economic troubles, while building a stronger, more self-reliant and environmentally responsible America.

It is the path to a clean energy future.

Clean energy in America is not some distant dream. We have the technology, the tools and the know-how to use energy more wisely and to get more of our energy from clean, renewable sources. What’s more, clean energy can be produced right here at home, creating new jobs in all sectors of the nation’s economy—including many jobs that can never be outsourced.

Americans are already beginning to see the benefits of clean energy in their local economies. Laid-off workers in the nation’s “Rust Belt” are getting back to work building wind turbines and solar cells; farmers in the Midwest are supplementing their incomes with royalties from wind farms; residents of economically distressed inner cities are learning how to install solar panels and weatherize homes for greater energy efficiency. Every part of the country has the opportunity to benefit from a transition to a new energy future.

But to turn this trickle of green jobs into a torrent of new economic opportunities, we need to act boldly—and fast. With a strong policy commitment to clean energy and the investment to match, we can:

• Embrace a future of clean power by making our economy more energy-efficient and getting 100 percent of our electricity from clean, renewable sources.

• Achieve energy independence, by cutting our consumption of oil in half—nearly as much as we currently import from all other nations.

• Speed economic recovery and create millions of new jobs in dozens of different occupations in every part of the country.

This report lays out a blueprint for how we can repower America for the 21st century, cleaning our environment while revitalizing our economy. A new president and a new Congress create a golden opportunity to chart a new future for America. The time to begin is now.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: Air, Chemicals, Children's Health, Environment, Environmental Illness, Healthy Living, Home, Indoor Pollution, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. MCS, Policy, Pollution, Work

10 Responses to “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and truly clean energy”

Adonya Wong

11. Nov, 2008

I think it is important for ALL of us, regardless of whether we’re living with MCS or not, to be compassionate and supportive of any person that is making great strides for environmental accountability.

Al Gore’s efforts are admirable to say the least, and I’m grateful people are listening to what he has to say and are taking the necessary steps towards a healthier tomorrow.

Great post.

Adonya Wong
Author | Autism Activist | Blogger | Mom

Reply to this comment
mac

15. Nov, 2008

Hello Susie,

I’m sorry, as this is going to go against the grain of most people aroung here, but I wish people would keep the subject of MCS seperate from Al Gore and global warming (before they changed the name to “climate change”). Al Gore is not the altruistic, Ghandi-like savior that people make him out to be. And while I agree with the concept of cleaning up our environmental ways, the issue of anthropogenetic global warming is not only not backed up by unmanipulated evidence, it’s far less likely than its proponents claim. To lump real, devastating environmental concerns with this issue is setting ourselves up for huge setbacks in the future: I say it’s inevitable, but for the sake of argument, I’ll just say it’s possible for Gore et al to be proven wrong on man-made global warming. If this happens, then the opponents of environmental responsibility will view any associated issues as suspect as well.

Reply to this comment
Susie Collins

15. Nov, 2008

Oh I’m sorry mac, I meant Al Gore and THOUSANDS of scientists, the findings of which have been accumulated and analyzed by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC at http://www.ipcc.ch/ ), a scientific body charged with evaluating the risk of climate change caused by human activity. You know, the group that received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with Gore.

IPCC’s 2007 Working Group dealt with the “Physical Science Basis of Climate Change,” report here http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm . The Working Group’s summary for policymakers includes this:

1. Warming of the climate system is UNEQUIVOCAL.

2. Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.

3. Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized, although the likely amount of temperature and sea level rise varies greatly depending on the fossil intensity of human activity during the next century.

4. The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

This analysis is based on SCIENCE. I know it’s been eight years since our country’s highest leadership has been focused on scientifically-based policy, mac, but try to keep up.

By the way, the name change from Global Warming to Climate Change is b/c no one is quite sure what will happen if left unabated: heat or cold or combination.

The tie to MCS? Human made pollution is responsible for climate change and human made pollution (indoor and outdoor) is the cause of MCS. Get it? Get out of your retro box, mac, and start thinking holistically. You are the one who is not helping anyone with your unfounded claims, except perhaps the corporate interests creating this mess.

Reply to this comment
linda

15. Nov, 2008

Petrochemicals… fossil fools, oops, fossil fuels… synthetic substances our planet and bodies were not designed to handle… It’s all connected.

If we spew out pollutants they cause damage. Cause and effect.

If the Climate Change doesn’t get us, the endocrine disruptors will. Men are becoming less masculine because of the phthalates. Sperm levels are plummetting.

So, if anyone doesn’t want to “believe” in climate change being caused by MAN… they can go for a quick epidemiological lesson on the human path to extinction due to endocrine and reproductive disrupting synthetic petochemicals found in virtually all of our personal care, cleaning and laundry products, food supply, plastics, water… need I go on?

It is all connected.

Reply to this comment
mac

16. Nov, 2008

Susie,

1. The number of scientists who disagree vastly outnumber the ones who agree.

2. Many scientists have tried (to no avail) to have their names removed from the IPCC summary because it simply disagrees with their findings. “Science” should be above computer program manipulation. There’s a reason why global warming scientists did not want their code divulged (withholding it is unscientific): it’s been found that regardless of what data was input, the result would always show warming.

3. These and many other scientists have switched from being anthropogenetic global warming believers to skeptics and/or disbelievers.

4. The evidence linking cosmic rays in relation to the sun’s magnetism is DIRECTLY linked to changes in earth temperature, where the relation to CO2 is not.

5. Global warming will seem evident when the majority of your temperature stations are located near air conditioning exhausts and parking lots after having been in more rural areas in the past.

6. Corporate interests are not only on the side of the oil companies. Al Gore is a major shareholder in the organization that will be selling the carbon credits he’s so fond of, not to mention the millions of dollars he’s making already with his speeches and his easily refutable movie. There’s a reason why companies like Enron were on his side.

7. Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize for economics this year. Enough said.

8. This kind of insult: “I know it’s been eight years since our country’s highest leadership has been focused on scientifically-based policy, mac, but try to keep up,” was completely uncalled for.

I was very excited when I found this site recently. I’ve been poring over the archives and links and enjoying it tremendously. I really thought that you were far above this kind of reactive, degrading type of response. You know how isolating this illness can be and it’s that much worse when certain subjects are not only “off limits” for disussion, but taking them up can result in being ostracized. I’m disappointed to say the least.

Linda: I was talking about CO2. I agree with the other things you mention (which I thought was obvious in my post), except the idea that petrofuels are fossil fuels.

Reply to this comment
Leslie

16. Nov, 2008

Maybe global warming should be a mute point – and we can all go back to calling the fight what it is “pollution” – science will change with the winds (ie susie’s feeling & mac’s feelings reflecting what science says), but it is obvious what pollution does for people with MCS – if there’s any question look at Lou Cheese (from the blog living w/ MCS) and what a chemical injury on the job in combo of living in a grossly polluted city did to a healthy man. I think the major focus should be on getting these chemicals under regulation & scrutiny instead of the tempature. If we do something about pollution and it happens to stop global warming good, and if it doesnt because it is caused by the position of the sun then that’s just evolution. But in the end- the pollution is still killing us- not just literally, but our quality of life. If you look at the statistcs of people who die with asthma each year increasing in polluted areas it’s easy to understand the basic problem at hand.

Reply to this comment
linda

16. Nov, 2008

I love how you put it Leslie.

“Maybe global warming should be a mute point … in the end- the pollution is still killing us…”

Reply to this comment
Max Gladwell

16. Nov, 2008

Framing the climate change/global warming debate as a fundamental health issue that affects all of us and future generations is the only way we’ll get consensus on taking the necessary action. Polar bears and sea levels rising and forests are not palpable enough for most people.

Reply to this comment
linda

16. Nov, 2008

Fossil fuels—coal, crude oil or petroleum, natural gas liquids and natural gas—are the primary sources of basic petrochemicals.

Fossil fuels can be classified according to their respective forms at ambient conditions. Thus, there are solid fuels (coals); liquid fuels (petroleum, heavy oils, bitumens); and gaseous fuels (natural gas, which is usually a mixture of methane, CH4, with lesser amounts of ethane, C2H6, hydrogen sulfide, H2S, and numerous other constituents in small proportions).

Petrochemicals are chemical products made from raw materials of petroleum or other hydrocarbon origin. Although some of the chemical compounds that originate from petroleum may also be derived from coal and natural gas, petroleum is the major source.

Reply to this comment
Susie Collins

17. Nov, 2008

mac, I got snarky with you b/c I thought you were a troll. Really. I did. I thought you were a troll because your comment (and second comment) is based on a combination of politically-driven and oil industry-funded talking points. Exxon and others paid naysayers some very good money to come up with those points. So, if you are truly one of our flock and felt offended by my response, I am sorry. I do welcome other points of view, and am pleased you are finding The Canary Report archives and links useful. But I will still give you a hard time for regurgitating oil industry talking points.

But Leslie and Linda are right, let’s not digress off the point of the main post, which is that we can find common ground in the need for a clean environment, our issue. THAT was the point of the post. And in the same way that diverse groups are finding common ground, all of us here in the flock, who suffer from MCS, can also find common ground in the need for a cleaner, safer environment.

I’m honored that Rob Reed from Max Gladwell chimed in on the discussion. Aloha Rob! Rob has addressed this very topic on his blog, and has written, much more eloquently than I ever could, that the common ground upon which we can build consensus on the climate change debate is the health issue. Here is a link to one of his posts on how to approach the topic so that we can find common ground and thus solutions. The post is followed by an interesting discussion not unlike ours here above http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/07/how-to-debate-climate-change-with-conservative-skeptics-part-2/ .

Reply to this comment