ifling

The title of the movie “Blood Diamonds,” refers to the diamond trade in South Africa, one of the leading exporters of diamonds worldwide, and the extent to which trade in these diamonds funds guerilla warfare, the destruction of villages, and kidnapping of children who are forced to serve in these armies. For more information: http://www.un.org/peace/africa/Diamond.html

Leonardo DiCaprio starred in “Blood Diamonds,” and is an activist for global change both environmental and economic, and I applaud him for his efforts when it is so easy for the privileged in any country to live their life free of other people’s worry. And in his effort he has now lent his name and his wrist wear to an auction of unique, and expensive watches from which all proceeds will benefit The Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation. http://www.leonardodicaprio.org/aboutus
http://hauteconcept.com/2008/07/09/leonardo-dicaprio-teams-up-with-watchmaker-jaeger-lecoultre/

One of these watches, the Reverso Gyrotourbillon 2, is described as “made out of Platinum” and valued at $400,000. The other, Titanium and Carbon Fiber and valued at $300,000 was worn by Leo himself to the opening of the documentary “The 11th Hour.”

Platinum is a rare precious metal, more expensive than gold and one of the leading producers of the metal? South Africa. Below is an excerpt from the IRIN report found here: http://www.irinnews.org/PrintReport.aspx?ReportId=77533

“JOHANNESBURG, 31 March 2008 (IRIN) - Alleged human rights abuses by Anglo Platinum (AP), the worlds leading producer of platinum, could spark investigations through-out South Africa’s mining industry.

“The South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) said it would probe accusations by international rights watchdog, ActionAid, of forced resettlement and contamination of water supplies in communities surrounding AP’s Limpopo province mines in the north of the country.

“‘Some of the poorest people on earth are paying a heavy price for the global platinum boom,’ according to Zanele Twala, ActionAid’s country director in South Africa. ‘Communities, especially women, have lost their main means of survival – access to land and water. We believe this constitutes a violation of their basic human rights.’ “

Platinum is valued in the vicinity of $2000US an ounce.

So consider that for a mere $300,000, or however much the auction should take in, you can be the proud owner of a Titanium, carbon fiber time piece worn by and engraved with the signature of Leonardo Dicaprio.

Leading Titanium producers worldwide? 2002-2005: South Africa, 48%; Australia, 34%; Canada, 10%; Ukraine, 4%; and other, 4%.

And the impact, both environmental and humanitarian?

* Destruction of the local landscape,
* Exposure to radio-active radiation (titanium-related minerals like rutile, ilmenite and zircon contain inert quantities of uranium and thorium which are potential radio-active emitters which could be activated during mineral processing) and
*Alteration the area’s soil chemical conditions.

“Other negative effects that would result from the project, the report said, are that it would contaminate ground water bodies, increase competition for water resources, degrade the water quality, and lead to gaseous emissions (sulphur dioxide) emitted into the air from combustion of heavy oils”

“Sea pollution, they noted, now constituted a real hazard in the island largely due to the mining of titanium there. (Madagascar)”

http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/corporates/news/mining_madagascar.html
http://www.g21.net/africa2.html

I do not accuse Mr. DiCaprio or Jaeger-LeCoultre, the manufacturer of the watch of supporting any of the aforementioned activities, in fact I will stipulate that I presume they are sorely opposed to any environmental or human rights violations. In fact, LeCoultre has undertaken a program to recycle and use recycled paper while undertaking carbon-offsetting procedures. Nor do I suggest they have purchased the precious metals in question from any suppliers that are guilty of these violations. But to what extent does creating such a high profile for these watches generate demand for items made from these metals? In a consumer society such as ours, what price are we willing to pay? What would $400,000 buy for one of those villages?

If there were no link between what we see celebrities wear, and what the public wants, there would be no such thing as product placement in movies. There would be no lucrative endorsement contracts for movie stars and leading sports figures.

I am forced to wonder, what would the reaction be if one of these watches was decorated with a few diamonds? And that is what these watches are. Nothing more or less than decoration for the over privileged in their continued quest for self aggrandizement while they attain a veneer of caring about the world which celebrates them.

Back in the year 2000, there was a crash in stock market. While the internet was a global phenomenon, it’s value was still little understood by many, and it was these people who drove a boom in tech stocks, buying up web-sites that offered little more than the promise of content and paying outrageous prices. They built a castle on a soap bubble and as had to happen there was a collapse that wiped out Five Trillion dollars in market value.

This is what I see happening in the Green/Organic movement. Call it sustainability, or what have you. Too few people understand it, and too many think that buying a ticket to see “An Inconvenient Truth” or “The 11th Hour” constitutes making a contribution. Or that buying locally grown and cutting back on visits to Starbucks, or cell phone minutes is a sacrifice. “Green” and “Organic” have become product, more than practice.

Quoted from:http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/organic.html

Passage of the Organic Foods Production Act forced the USDA to develop an official definition. “On December 16, 1997, the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service proposed rules for a National Organic Program [7]. The proposal applied to all types of agricultural products and all aspects of their production and handling, ranging from soil fertility management to the packaging and labeling of the final product. The proposal included: (a) national standards for production and handling, (b) a National List of approved synthetic substances, (c) a certification program, (d) a program for accrediting certifiers, (e) labeling requirements, (f) enforcement provisions, and (g) rules for importing equivalent products. The proposed rule defined organic farming and handling as:

“A system that is designed and managed to produce agricultural products by the use of methods and substances that maintain the integrity of organic agricultural products until they reach the consumer. This is accomplished by using, where possible, cultural, biological and mechanical methods, as opposed to using substances, to fulfill any specific function within the system so as to: maintain long-term soil fertility; increase soil biological activity; ensure effective pest management; recycle wastes to return nutrients to the land; provide attentive care for farm animals; and handle the agricultural products without the use of extraneous synthetic additives or processing in accordance with the Act and the regulations in this part.

“The weed and pest-control methods to which this refers include crop rotation, hand cultivation, mulching, soil enrichment, and encouraging beneficial predators and microorganisms. If these methods are not sufficient, various listed chemicals can be used. (The list does not include cytotoxic chemicals that are carbon-based.) The proposal did not call for monitoring specific indicators of soil and water quality, but left the selection of monitoring activities to the producer in consultation with the certifying agent.

“For raising animals, antibiotics would not be permitted as growth stimulants but would be permitted to counter infections. The rules permit up to 20% of animal feed to be obtained from non-organic sources. This was done because some nutrients (such as trace minerals) are not always available organically. Irradiation, which can reduce or eliminate certain pests, kill disease-causing bacteria, and prolong food shelf-life, would be permitted during processing. Genetic engineering would also be permissible.

Find out for yourself what it really means.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS