War's environmental impact

War changes our priorities. Things which once seemed of utmost importance, like the sanctity of an individual human life, become secondary to nationalistic and political values. Meanwhile, our communal fear and hostility heightens the meaning of things many people never seriously considered before. How many of us living in industrialized countries ever worried about anthrax before?

Civilian deaths are given the euphamism "collateral damage" to soften the brunt of their emotional and moral impact. But another form of collateral damage which seems to be almost universally ignored is damage to the environment.

In the current world crisis, environmental issues seem to have vanished from our collective psyche. Last December this column reviewed the "Top 10 nature news sites" on the Web. Some of them display an environmentalist perspective; others are more purely scientific. Disappointingly, they offer little news or commentary about bioterrorism or the current War on Terrorism.

World Environment the highest-rated website, shows no current related articles (on Nov. 30). World Scientist is a little better, with headlines like "NASA tries to inform Station crew," and "Terrorism eclipses e-revolution as main threat to Postal Service," but what stands out about these articles is how trivial they are. CNN has replaced its nature news site with a "Sci-Tech" site, and it has little to offer. Meanwhile, a search of the Amazing Environmental Organization WebDirectory on topics including bioterrorism, anthrax and biological warfare yields nothing.

The most relevant stories come from highly respected Science journals which are making current findings from current anthrax research freely available. New Scientist has published a special focus on the issue, and Nature offers a special report. Adobe Acrobat Reader software may be required to view some of these documents. The National Geographic news website also carries a current article.

Even these sites offer no information or commentary about the impact and potential threats to the environment posed by this current war.

A visit to political and activist organization websites is no more enlightening. Greenpeace USA has nothing to say. Neither does the David Suzuki Foundation. The US Green Party presents an international response to the crisis and an ongoing series of press releases. But still there is nothing about collateral damage to the environment, from a political organization which should have something to say.

What is the cause of this silence? It appears that the environmental movement itself has failed to revise its agenda at a time when meaningful commentary and educational material are crucial. Perhaps it is because the movement itself originated and is deeply entrenched in America, a nation reeling from unforeseen threats to its security and values. But is it considered unpatriotic to raise the question of what this war is doing to the Earth itself?

Go To Page: 1 2