Y2K and Environmentalism
A very confronting article about the environmental implications
of the Y2K problem, with additional commments by Tom Atlee, the
author of Y2K: Green Crisis and
Opportunity, listed below. One way or
another, the Y2K crisis will be a pivotal point in the history of
the environmental movement. Are we prepared? -- JR
By Jim Lord
Jim Lord's Y2K Challenge to the Environmental Movement
Because of its embedded processor aspect [the microchips in
diverse equipment, which may fail in January 2000], the Year
2000 Computer Crisis poses what is likely the greatest
environmental threat in history. Embedded processors control
countless
industrial processes that produce or use pollutants, poisons, or
toxic substances. The facilities in which these processes are
common include,
Manufacturing plants
Chemical plants
Pharmaceutical plants
Mines
Oil and gas wells, pipelines and tankers
Oil, gas and ore refineries
Nuclear and fossil fuel power plants
Nuclear waste treatment facilities
Nuclear weapon facilities
Sewage treatment plants
Water treatment facilities
And many others
The April 1998 issue of World Oil Magazine says [in describing
Y2K problem correction efforts],
"It is estimated that the average oil and gas firm, starting
today,
can expect to remediate less than 30% of the overall potential
failure points in the production environment. This reality shifts
the focus of the solution away from trying to fix the problem,
to planning strategies that would minimize potential damage and
mitigate potential safety hazards."
This statement implies that:
The oil and gas industry won't finish in time.
There will be environmental damage and personal safety hazards.
The cold, clammy realization that we're not going to fix the
embedded processor problem is sinking in. No matter how well we
do in the United States, much of the world has little chance of
fixing the embedded processor component of Y2K. The
environmental implications are nothing short of staggering.
A critical question - where's the environmental movement. The
answer is - nowhere to be found. At this point, they don't have a
Y2K clue but that won't last long. Awareness of the Year 2000
Crisis is growing dramatically. Before long, the
environmentalists will realize what's happening and when they do,
They're going to go stark, raving nuts.
They're going to want to shut down everything and here's the
great irony - they're probably right. We probably can't take the
chance of massive, simultaneous, global failures in
environmentally sensitive systems. At a minimum, we need to start
testing
these facilities by turning the computers ahead to the Year 2000
in a carefully controlled and isolated fashion.
When the environmentalists finally get up to speed on Y2K, they
will play an immensely important role in the public discourse.
Theirs will be one of the loudest voices on the scene. With their
potent, international political clout and their superb, global
organization, their Luddite tendencies will rise to the surface.
The drama of this confrontation will be compelling and political
leaders all over the world will be trapped in a fascinating
corner.
Save the world by shutting it down and ruining the global
economy. Meanwhile, all those tens of billions of clock chips
keep
ticking, ticking, ticking.
(Just a passing thought - consider poor Al Gore. Both ends of his
stick, technology and the environment are about to turn
malodorous. It'll be fascinating to watch him as well.)
My Tip of the Week is to watch the environmental movement like a
hawk. When they become fully engaged in this issue, they
will put immense pressure on the politicians and could very well
determine the nature of the broad political response to Y2K.
Good Luck!
September 8, 1998 - Westergaard Year 2000 Y2K Tip of the Week #54
http://www.y2ktimebomb.com/Tip/Lord/lord9836.htm
Notes from Tom Atlee:
I find the above article on the environmental movement
provocative in more ways than one. For example, although Jim Lord
and I hold quite different political views, we're standing in the
same spot on this issue.
A retired naval officer, Lord is an electronics and software
professional and one of America's leading experts on Y2K. His
writings laud technology, free markets and community
self-reliance. He has obvious distaste for our large federal
government
and clearly doesn't think of himself as an environmentalist.
While I share his dreams of self-reliant communities, I favor
democratic constraints on both technological development and
corporate power, and I believe the federal government has a role
to play in these things. I am also a passionate
environmentalist.
So it intrigues me that -- unbeknownst to each other -- we were
both working on major, remarkably similar
Y2K-environmental articles at exactly the same time, almost down
to the day. My article -- far more comprehensive but less
focused and dynamic than Lord's -- can be found at
http://www.co-intelligence.org/y2k_asenvirnmtalissue.html
For those who may doubt Mr. Lord's motives or evidence, I want to
stress that he is not talking through his hat. Here is a
recent statement from Senator Robert Bennett, chair of the Senate
Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem,
about problems with embedded chips (microprocessors) in large
toxic facilities:
"I read a story recently about a major oil company that
tested one of its oil refineries. They found that the refinery
had 90
separate systems that somehow used a microprocessor. Many of
these were key systems. Of the 90 systems, they were able
to come up with detailed documentation on 70. Of these 70, they
determined that twelve had date dependent embedded chips.
Of the twelve, four failed a Y2K test and will have to be
replaced. Had any of the four failed on January 1, 2000, they
would
either have completely shut down the plant or would have caused a
high level safety hazard which would have caused other
systems to shut it down. What is really worrying the company's
experts now is the other 20 systems. They don't know what
functions the chips in these systems have and are leaning towards
replacing them all. This happens to be a relatively modern
plant."
http://www.senate.gov/~y2k/statements/61298bennett.html
Stories like this are beginning to crop up in many places. The
respected environmental research journal RACHEL'S
ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY, in an article "THE Y2K
PROBLEM, PART 1" in their issue #604 of June 25,
1998, cited ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH columnist Virginia Hick's
interview* of well-known Y2K industrial consultant
Peter de Jager (http://www.year2000.com):
".... De Jager talked recently with an executive of a
company that makes a volatile gas --he would not identify the
company
more specifically --who told de Jager how his plant discovered
the seriousness of faulty embedded chips.
"The plant found a chip that failed when the date was moved
forward. When the chip failed, it shut off a valve that would
have
shut down the cooling system. A cooling system shutdown, the
executive said, would have caused an explosion.
"That was great news," de Jager said. "Because
they checked--there will be no explosion. They're replacing the
chips."
"De Jager worries about the companies that are not
checking," Hick wrote.
* Virginia Hick, "Expert Warns Computer World is Running Out
of Time to Meet 2000; Code is Broken and Needs to Be
Fixed Fast, He Says," ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH Nov. 19, 1997,
pg. C8.
RACHEL'S also quotes an April, 1998, FORTUNE report describing
the Y2K vulnerability of chemical systems:
"The precision and interdependence of process controls in
chemical plants, for instance, make a Rube Goldberg fantasy
contraption look simple. Let a single temperature sensor in the
complex chain of measuring instruments go cuckoo because of a
year 2000 problem, and you'll get a product with different
ingredients than you need--if it comes out at all."
Gene Bylinsky, "Industry Wakes Up to the Year 2000
Menace," FORTUNE April 27, 1998, pgs. 163-180. Available on
the
web at http://www.pathfinder.com/fortune/1998/980427/imt.html
RACHEL'S editor, Peter Montague, "worked 5 years in the
Computing Center at Princeton University" and said at the
start of
his article that "We've been hearing about this problem for
some time now, but like most people we have been ignoring it....
[and have been] very suspicious of alarming predictions about the
year 2000." After reviewing the evidence, however, he
concluded that:
"If we lived in a community with one or more chemical
plants, we would be asking our local government to hold public
hearings
on the Y2K problem, seeking public assurances from local plant
managers that they really have this problem under control.
What written plans do they have for assessing these problems, and
how large a budget have they committed to solving them?
What progress can they demonstrate? Does the plant manager have
sufficient confidence in the plant's safety systems to be at
the plant with his or her family at midnight December 31, 1999,
to celebrate the new year?"
Another story comes from Australia. When engineers simulated Y2K
tests of the water storage facility at Coff's Harbour, they
discovered that the system that regulates purification of the
water would have dumped all the purification chemicals into the
water on 1/1/2000 causing a mix toxic enough to kill the entire
population of it's supply area.
http://www.garynorth.com/y2k/detail_.cfm/1452
Although billions of dollars are being spent on Y2K corrections,
there is mounting evidence that many remediation efforts --
even those involving "mission critical systems" -- will
be far from complete when we roll over into the next century.
This includes
manufacturing plants, nuclear facilities, chemical storage
facilities and dozens of other systems, both public and private.
Oddly enough, even the widely advocated focus on "mission
critical systems" may prove problematic. Leading Y2K
consultant
Douglass Carmichael notes that, "There is the danger that
what looks like a trivial program output may in fact be a
critical piece
of another program in another part of the system. The same for
critical systems, where a minor system to some is critical to
others.... We may be at the point where faster work on
remediation, triage and focus on 'critical systems' is leaving
the overall
system of systems in worse shape than if we had done nothing,
with a long legacy in the future of work to be done to fix the
many problems currently being introduced through rapid and
undisciplined or blind work." ("Y2k week - week
66" at
http://tmn.com/y2k)
There is no way to know FOR SURE how bad Y2K problems will be
until the accidents happen. Then, of course, it will be
too late. Will there be numerous major catastrophes, or just a
few minor toxic emissions? We COULD learn more about the
Y2K status of toxic facilities, but NO ONE is currently
monitoring this, worldwide. Without immense public pressure, it
isn't
likely any government will. Any grassroots monitoring that will
be done -- and any pressure that will get official monitoring
done
-- will have to be generated by the environmental movement.
This is not something we have time for. It is disorienting to
contemplate such a gigantic additional responsibility when our
plates
are already overfull with current programs which we have, with
great pains, carefully selected over many other desperately
needed efforts.
Unfortunately, we have to make the time, and soon. This
predicament is faced by EVERYONE who faces Y2K. Y2K
dissolves business as usual. All around us corporations and city
governments are having to transfer millions of dollars from
productive activities to deal with expensive Y2K compliance
operations that don't do anything for them except keep them in
business.
The prospect of dealing with Y2K is not pleasant. But it IS both
necessary and urgent.
I personally don't think there is a higher priority on the
environmental agenda. Furthermore, I think that perhaps 90% of
environmental programs can gain energy by incorporating
Y2K-related issues -- a point I emphasize in my environmental
overview at
http://www.co-intelligence.org/y2k_asenvirnmtalissue.html
But this toxics problem is its own situation. If we don't handle
this one, we may end up in very hot water, indeed.
So I'm going to volunteer as a willing messenger of Jim Lord's
challenge. I'm going to suggest to all my environmental
colleagues, right here and now, that we grab this bull by two
horns... and ride it:
1) We can make sure that any potentially toxic facility that
cannot demonstrate 100% Y2K compliance by November of 1999
is shut down and that contingency plans for public/environmental
safety are in place well before that. Given proper motivation
and guidance from us, we can count on a lot of grassroots
activism to happen in local communities concerned with the threat
of
toxic releases from Y2K breakdowns. AT THE SAME TIME, we can make
LOTS of noise about the need for
environmentally-responsible business practices and technologies.
With Y2K's help, we can point out -- graphically, locally --
just how unwise our toxic economy is, and how obvious the
alternatives are. Thanks to growing awareness of the dangers of
Y2K, the public mind is being prepared to hear our messages. If
Y2K delivers a few Chernobyls and Bhopals (which is highly
likely) -- and IF we have set the stage well -- we can expect
unprecedented and (finally) successful public demand for a
transition to ecologically benign, sustainable economies and
technologies.
2) We can push very strongly for community responsibility,
community empowerment, community resilience, community
preparedness, community economics, community everything. Strong,
sustainable, self-reliant communities are key to making it
through whatever Y2K has to offer us. They are also the keystones
of a sane, sustainable society. Y2K will be making this
clearer than ever before. From community-centered agriculture to
community-friendly corporate charters to the end of
multinational trade empires, Y2K provides every society in the
world with compelling motivation to do the locally-empowering
things we've been advocating for so long.
It seems to me that with Y2K we have more to gain -- and more to
lose -- than at any other time in our history.
Let's choose wisely.
Tom Atlee
September 28, 1998
Source: http://www.co-intelligence.org/
For Personal Use Only. Not to be
reproduced without permission from the source