11 Reasons to Divest from the Fossil Fuel Industry

ORIGINAL: Common Dreams
by Chuck Collins. Common Dreams 

July 23, 2013

A future without oil, coal, and gas companies is being forged by individual, institutional and religious investors

Image via Stefan Bumbeck/7dvt.com)There is a robust debate happening in university halls, around religious congregations, and at individual kitchen tables nationwide. The driving question: Should we divest from the fossil fuel industry?

Whether you are a college student, a trustee of a religious or educational institution, or an individual with a retirement fund, this is a relevant question for you.

Earlier this year, several community organizations in Boston, including the Institute for Policy Studies’ Jamaica Plain Forum, held a community forum in Boston to discuss the moral and practical issues of divesting from fossil fuel companies as a strategy to combat climate change.

The forum, viewable here, brought together those with expertise in 

• finance, 
• community organizing, 
• social justice, and 
• policy 

to address questions surrounding the basic nature of fossil fuel divestment as well as its implications for our investments and our world. Some of the questions we debated were: 

• Is divestment meaningful? 
• Can we exert leverage over energy companies by retaining the leverage of ownership? 
• Would divestment reduce the investment returns required to sustain our institutions and income needs?

Our view is that our current economy, based on insatiable extraction and consumption, is simply unsustainable – for the planet as well as for us. Powerful fossil fuel corporations exercise an undue influence on environmental and economic policy, thwarting our ability to adopt sane and far-sighted energy policies. Here's what we found:

1. We Did the Climate Change Math: Now We Must Act
We must compel the 200 largest fossil fuel corporations to keep 80% of their carbon assets “in the ground.” Extracting and burning these reserves of oil, coal and gas would raise the earth’s temperature over 2 degrees centigrade, unleashing climate catastrophe. [Read: Rolling Stone, Bill McKibben, “Global Warming's Terrifying New Math”]

2. Time to Choose Sides: We Must Raise the Cost of Extracting and Burning Carbon

If we succeed in averting climate catastrophe, it will be because we have succeeded in raising the cost of fossil fuels and forcing the industry to internalize its real costs to society and the environment. This will lower the profitability of the sector – and lower returns for investors. Our cities, congregations, and universities should not be in a position where we are rooting for the fossil fuel industry to win. It isn’t right that the value of a sector doesn’t reflect its impact on the earth and society. In the long-term, destroying the planet doesn’t help us boost our investment returns.

Additional Reading:

Bill McKibben: Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math

Dirty Energy Money: Challenging Dirty Energy's Dominance Of Our Democracy

Carbon Tracker: Unburnable Carbon: Are global financial markets carrying a carbon bubble?

Naomi Klein: Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free

Northstar Asset Management: The Cost of Fossil Fuel Divestment Has Been Greatly Exaggerated

Aperio Group: Do the Investment Math: Building a Carbon-Free Portfolio

Jamaica Plain Forum: May 13th Boston panel on divestment

Price of Oil: Exposing the True Costs of Fossil Fuels

New York Times: Room for Debate: Is Divestment an Effective Means of Protest?

It will take more than just divestment: Does Divestment Work? - Harvard Institute of Politics

Cities divesting: San Fransisco, Seattle … & Boston?

ACTIVIST ORGANIZATIONS

As You Sow - Environmental and Social Corporate Responsibility

Community-based and socially- responsible investing:
Sprout Lenders & Common Capital:

350.org

Oil Change International

Responsible Endowments Coalition


3. We Are All Responsible for Carbon Pollution, But the Fossil Fuel Industry Has a Disproportionate Responsibility for Climate Change

While each of us should take personal responsibility for reducing our individual carbon usage, the fossil fuel industry has disproportionate responsibility for climate change. Many of us would like to have lower carbon lifestyles, but we’re systemically blocked from doing so via the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry. The fossil fuel industry uses their considerable financial and political power to rig the rules to block regulation, block sane energy policy, extract taxpayer subsidies, thwart renewables, and limit consumer choice. They are writing government policies and fundamentally distorting our democracy. The industry is institutionally caught in a short-term system, where their economic interests are aligned with destroying the planet. If we had a carbon tax, innovation and development would be pushed towards energy efficiency. [See: Oil Change International's Dirty Energy Money index.]

4. Fossil Fuel Profitability is Based on Rigging Our Political Systems

The profitability of the fossil fuel sector is based on their ability to politically influence and rig the system and shift the real costs associated with their industry onto society. The externalities that they shift include:

• environmental pollution, 
• worker health and safety, 
• cost of military deployment in oil-producing regions, 
• negative health impacts, 
• global climate change, and 
• political corruption. 

 If fossil fuel companies had to absorb the true costs of these externalities, the industry would be transformed—and would probably likely focus first on energy conservation and sustainable energy sourcing before further extraction. Their dependence on political rules makes them a risky and volatile sector as investments. When their political clout diminishes, as we hope it will, they will become less profitable. [See: Oil Change International]
5. Investment Returns in Fossil Fuels Will Inevitably Decline

Over the last 20 years, the fossil fuel energy sector has been among the most profitable of all sectors. For a variety of reasons, including those described above, this will not remain true. As policy makers start pushing back, they will eliminate government subsidies for fossil fuel, as President Obama has proposed. They will pass laws requiring fossil fuel producers to be more responsible for their negative environmental and social impacts. There is also growing evidence that the assets of fossil fuel industries are greatly over-valued. And, if we are successful, many fossil fuel companies will have “stranded assets,” reserves that will not be tapped. When the real value of carbon holdings is adjusted downward, billions in shareholder wealth will evaporate. [See: Carbon Tracker]

6. Divesting from Fossil Fuels Will Not Negatively Impact Return

Investors are understandably concerned that their investments will earn less money if they eliminate profitable fossil fuel corporations. It may not be prudent to sell off securities with large capital gains all at once; individuals and investors should get professional advice on the best divestment strategy. Some institutions have long-term relationships with trusted investment advisors who have helped their investments grown. It is not ungrateful or unprofessional to direct these advisors to gradually divest from dirty energy and reinvest in socially responsible alternatives. Beware, however, of advisors who tell you it can’t be done or predict huge losses overtime.

It is conventional investment wisdom that if you narrow the breadth of your investments—and fossil fuel securities are approximately 10 percent of the public equities market—that you increase risk. But there is plenty of expertise in the “socially responsible investment” field as to how to divest and design an investment portfolio that will still earn comparable returns. Industry professionals are working now to design “fossil fuel free” investment portfolios and mutual funds.

7. The Fossil Fuel Sector Will Not Reform Itself

The fossil fuel industry will only reform when we change the rules that shape their marketplace and operations. This can be accomplished through regulation and taxation. Instituting a robust carbon tax, phased in over several years and with offsets to address its regressivity, would signal huge market shifts. Many thoughtful people believe we should stay invested in fossil fuel corporations to have leverage with them and engage with them. This has not worked.

8. Support the Movement and an 'Outside Strategy'

Selling stocks in fossil fuel companies may not drive down stock prices or even devalue the industry since other buyers will purchase those stocks. Regardless, the goal of the dirty energy divestment fight is to change public dialogue and society’s lifestyle, not stock prices. A traditional approach has been inside: engaging with the company and using our ownership stake to press the company to reform. This hasn’t worked. To send a strong message, we need to sever our ties to this sector and make these companies moral pariahs, similar to how the public treated tobacco companies.

Thankfully, there is a radical edge emerging to avert climate catastrophe. The “inside” strategy of working with the fossil fuel industry to reform itself is not moving fast enough. The new “outside strategy” activists are calling out the historic environmental groups who have compromised themselves into irrelevance. They are calling out Wall Street—those interested in only their own private gain at the expense of society and the earth. They are upping the ante in terms of direct action, civil disobedience along with traditional organizing and electoral politics. The call for divestment is part of this movement. [See: 350.org]

9. Engaged Shareholder: You Can Still Work the "Inside Strategy" If You Want

Some institutional investors argue that they can change the behavior of the fossil fuel industry by retaining ownership of corporate shares and being engaged investors. Institutions or individuals that want to actively engage in shareholder activism—introducing social issue resolutions— should retain the $2,000 of stock that enables them to introduce resolutions, as Greenpeace and the Institute for Policy Studies do. Ownership is only one source of leverage, however. We should engage as full stakeholders—citizens, employees, consumers, communities, and moral actors.

10. The Moral Question Is Why Should Any Institution or Individual Stay Invested: This Is an Abolitionist Cause

Divestment is not primarily simply an economic strategy, but also a moral and political one. If slavery is wrong, is it wrong to make a profit from it? If Apartheid is wrong, is it wrong to make a profit from it? “If it is wrong to wreck the planet, then it is wrong to profit from it.” [See: The Boston Phoenix, Wen Stephenson, “The New Abolitionists”]

11. We Can Divest from Fossil Fuels and Invest in the New Economy

The next 20 years will be unlike the last 50 years. We are entering a stage of discontinuity thanks to ecological and economic change. We are in a transition to a new economy—based on an entirely different set of assumptions about energy and the future source of livelihoods. We need to shift capital investment away from the dinosaur economy and towards the sustainable and just new economy. Compared to the limited, risky, corrupt and unethical fossil fuel sector, there is a wide range of socially responsible investment opportunities with comparable returns for individuals, religious institutions, and other institutions. [See: New Economy Working Group]

Conclusion: We Should Divest from Fossil Fuels and Invest in the New Economy

There is no good reason why we should remain invested in the fossil fuel industries, not when we can continue to powerfully advocate with corporations and maintain sufficient returns. We can and should find ways to shift our investment capital to the socially and environmentally attuned institutions and enterprises of the new economy.

Written with assistance from Jonah Reider.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License



Chuck Collins is a senior scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies where he directs the Program on Inequality and the Common Good (www.inequality.org), and the author of the new book, 99 to 1: How Wealth Inequality Is Wrecking the World and What We Can Do about It. Chuck is also a co-founder of Wealth for the Common Good, a network of business leaders, high-income households and partners working together to promote shared prosperity and fair taxation.He is co-author of The Moral Measure of the Economy and with Bill Gates Sr. of Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes

Diving bell spiders use bubble webs 'like gills'

ORIGINAL: BBC
By Ella Davies Reporter, BBC Nature
9 June 2011

Dinner time in the diving bell

Diving bell spiders only need to come up for air once a day, according to researchers. The spiders are named for their sub-aqua webs which they fill with air in order to breathe underwater. Scientists studying the European arachnids measured oxygen levels inside and around an air bubble web. They found that the bubble acted like a gill, extracting dissolved oxygen from the water and dispersing carbon dioxide. The study is published in the Journal of Experimental Biology.

Argyroneta aquatica live in ponds, pools and slow-moving streams across Europe and northern Asia.

They are the only spiders that live their entire lives underwater, mating, laying eggs and catching prey from their webs.

The silk webs are constructed among vegetation beneath the surface of the water.

WATER SPIDER FACTS 

The Latin genus name Argyroneta means "silvery net" because of the shining appearance of the spiders' bubble webs underwater.

It is one of few spider species where the male is larger than the female In Germany, A. aquatica are rare and require a permit for collection

Spiders videos, news and facts

To fill the "diving-bell" webs with air so they can breathe, the spiders use fine hairs on their abdomen to transport bubbles from above the water surface.

Scientists previously debated whether the spiders had to return to the surface regularly to replenish their air supply.

To settle the argument, invertebrate experts Professor Roger Seymour and Dr Stefan Hetz collected specimens from Germany's Eider River.

In the lab they simulated a stagnant, weedy pond on a hot summer day and tested how the spiders fared in the challenging conditions with a device called an optode.

"The previous literature suggested they had to come to the surface as often as every 20 to 40 minutes throughout the day," said Prof Seymour.

"It required the tiny, oxygen-sensitive optodes to do what we did. These have only been available during the last five to 10 years," he said.

By measuring the differences in oxygen levels inside the bubble and in the surrounding water, the scientists identified a gas exchange similar to that performed by the gills of animals that breathe underwater.

The spiders even maintain cocoons underwater

"As the spider consumes oxygen from the air in the bell, it lowers the oxygen concentration inside. The oxygen can decrease below the level of dissolved oxygen in the water, and when this happens, oxygen can be driven into the bubble from the water," said Prof Seymour.

"The carbon dioxide that the spider produces is not a problem at all, because it is readily dissolved in the water and it never builds up."

Unlike animals that exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide across gills however, the spiders have to contend with the other gases in the air they transport.

"If you absorb one gas from a gas mixture in a collapsible bubble, the remaining gases must increase in concentration," explained Prof Seymour.

"Because oxygen is taken from the bubble air, and CO2 does not build up, it causes the nitrogen in the bubble to rise in concentration," he said.

As the nitrogen disperses from the bubble, the bubble collapses but it does so slowly, roughly over the course of a day according to the scientists' results.

"The spider is able to remain in the diving bell on very hot days, when its metabolic rate is higher than normal, if the water is well oxygenated," said Prof Seymour.

This means the spiders can return to the surface infrequently, avoiding the risk of being caught by predators such as birds.

The extended dive times also allow the spiders to wait undisturbed for prey to pass.

Can luxury resorts solve the global water crisis?

ORIGINAL: Smart Planet

By Mary Catherine O'Connor

March 28, 2013

According to the World Travel & Tourism Council, there are around 12.7 million hotel rooms around the world, and another 1.3 million are in development, half of them being built in the Middle East and Africa. These days, bottled water is as common a sight in hotel rooms as thin-screen televisions and mass-produced art. In most developing parts of the world, bottled water is increasingly sought after, both by locals and visitors.

WWW Bottle

Given that hotels generally charge for bottled water, this represents an important revenue stream. But there is a negative side: hotels must deal with a flood of empty single-use plastic bottles. In coastal areas, some plastic bottles invariably end up at sea, where they contribute to a marine pollution problem that is turning into a catastrophe for sea life. Shipping water also is costly, generates carbon emissions and most plastic bottles are made using virgin resin, derived from oil.

In 2008, a forward-thinking hospitality executive decided to rectify the wastefulness of single-use plastic bottles at his luxury hotel properties. Sonu Shivdasani banned the import and sale of the bottles at his Soneva resorts. Instead, the company filters, bottles and sells its own water onsite, in bottles that are then collected and reused. This eliminates the emissions associated with transporting bottled water into the resorts, located in the Maldives and Thailand.

Now, a startup is tapping into this same well of thinking. Whole World Water, which officially launched on World Water Day, March 22, is hoping to bring the practice of onsite water treatment and bottling to the wider hospitality industry.

The effort is the work of Karena Albers and Jenifer Willig, a pair of environmentalists and entrepreneurs who count Shivdasani, entrepreneur Richard Branson, industrial designer Yves Behar, actor Edward Norton and environmentalist David de Rothschild among the influential supporters and trustees of their effort.

While Whole World Water is being established as a for-profit, member-based venture for resorts, it has also created the Whole World Water Fund, a charitable organization, through which all participating resorts contribute 10 percent of their proceeds from the water sales. The fund, administered by ClimateCare, will then use the funds to develop water treatment infrastructures in communities around participating resorts. (This model is similar to one used by Shivdasani, who also donates proceeds from water sales to clean water projects –- albeit he contributes a larger share, at 50 percent.)

Turning tides

Albers and Willig acknowledge that packaging waste and emissions generated from food transport are major issues that defy easy solutions, but they see the hospitality industry –- particularly luxury resorts –- as agents for change.

“We all have to ask ourselves, when do we get bamboozled into drinking bottled water? But we did. It became the thing to do, especially at high-end resorts,” Albers says. Whole World Water, she says, is “trying to get people up to speed on what we need to do to protect natural resources.”

Karena Albers

That said, Albers and Willig believe they will be more successful if they give consumers a better option to plastic-bottled water rather than trying to immediately force a change of habit.

“People are buying bottled water [at high-end resorts] more than they are asking for tap” in places such as restaurants, Willig says. “So we said let’s offer a brand that satisfied that request, and this way we can wean them off branded bottled water.”

The hope is that consumers will come to find the Whole World Water option a more chic, appealing one. At the same time, perhaps they’ll start to think differently about single-use plastic bottles. At the same time, Albers and Willig want to provide a new option to travelers who might consider bottled water the only safe option based on the part of the world they’re visiting. On some remote islands or in developing parts of the world, “there are not a lot of options so people are more comfortable with branded bottled water,” Albers sats. “But in urban settings such as New York, there is definitely more demand for tap water.”

Just as local food has captured the attention of travelers, so can water –- as long as it is clean and safe. “We’re in a big movement over local food,” Albers says. “Why did water get taken out of that equation? Why shouldn’t water be local? We will get local water councils cognizant of the fact that municipal water has every right to be as clean as bottled water.”

Jenifer Willig

Business plan

Whole World Water has already engaged nearly 20 high-end resorts, including Banyan Tree Hotels, Branson’s Virgin Hotels, Sovena and three Ritz Carlton properties. These member companies, and others that join in the future, must agree to three basic conditions: 

• paying a $1,000 annual membership fee (this covers marketing and promotional expenses); 
• installing a secondary water filtering system to further purify the hotel’s tap water and then bottle it in the Whole World Water glass bottle, which is later collected and reused; and 
• donating 10 percent of water bottle sales to the Whole World Water Fund.

Banning sales of single-use branded plastic water bottles from third parties is not a membership requirement. “We are not mandating that they can’t sell bottled water in plastic,” Willig says. “We have to walk before we can run.”

It’s up to members to decide whether they’ll continue offering plastic bottles, therefore, but they’ll all likely push the Whole World Water option, and not just because its good for marketing purposes. According to Whole Water World, hotels and resorts can boost their own revenue by becoming their own water vendors. Based on a case study, the company says switching to onsite bottling can increase a hotel’s profits from bottled water by around 22 percent, since the filtration systems are relatively inexpensive. Plus, the resorts can cut shipments of bottled water by using the onsite system, thereby reducing their carbon footprints and waste generated.

The World Travel & Tourism Council estimates that travel and tourism contribute around $6 trillion to the global economy, which is around 9 percent of the global GDP. Albers and Willig believe they can attract enough members to Whole World Water to raise $1 billion each year for the Whole World Water Fund, to help the estimated 1 billion people around the world who lack access to clean, safe water sources.

The pair says their goal is to show that if drinking local water –- even water that is perceived to be very unsafe –- can be shown to be safe at a fancy resort, then it can also be done at the municipal level.

They also hope to expand the Whole World Water model beyond water. Many resorts already grow a portion of their own food. Why not add a program to divert a portion of restaurant profits to support sustainable agriculture outside the walls of the resort?

(Thumbnail image courtesy of Creative Commons)

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

About Mary Catherine O'Connor

Mary Catherine O'Connor is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Americans Eat Their Weight in Genetically Engineered FoodAli

ORIGINAL: Environmental Working Group

by Renee Sharp

October 15, 2012

Americans are eating their weight and more in genetically engineered food every year, a new Environmental Working Group analysis shows. On average, people eat an estimated 193 pounds of genetically engineered food in a 12-month period. The typical American adult weighs 179 pounds.

These figures raise a question: If you were planning on eating your body weight of anything in a year, wouldn’t you want to make sure it was safe to eat?

Shockingly, virtually no long-term health studies have been done on consumption of genetically engineered food.

And there aren’t likely to be any such studies anytime soon. The government isn’t doing this kind of research and is not requiring it of the food industry. It isn’t even making it possible for independent scientists to do it, since under the law, those who hold patents on genetically engineered food get to decide in most cases what testing can – and cannot – be conducted.

As a result, the jury is still out – in fact, it hasn’t even heard the evidence – on whether genetically engineered food might cause health problems. And the answer to this question will likely remain unclear for years.

So what can consumers do in the meantime? Not much – unless they demand that genetically engineered food be labeled. At least then consumers would know whether the food they buy contains genetically engineered ingredients, and could decide for themselves if this is what they want for themselves and their families.

This basic right-to-know issue is only going to become more important in the future, because consumption of genetically engineered food is expected to grow substantially.

193 pounds of genetically engineered food is an underestimate

To calculate how much genetically engineered food people eat each year, EWG researchers started with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2011 data on per capita consumption of four foods commonly derived from genetically engineered crops: sugar, corn-based sweeteners, salad oil and “corn products.”

We estimated how much of each of these foods were likely to be genetically modified. We compared the consumption figures with the latest USDA data showing that

• 95 percent of the sugar beets, 
• 93 percent of the soybeans and 
• 88 percent of the corn grown in the U.S. are genetically engineered. We also applied federal data showing that 
• 79 percent of the salad oil consumed in the U.S. is soybean oil, and 
• 55 percent of the sugar comes from sugar beets.

From these figures, EWG calculated that the average American annually consumes genetically engineered foods in these quantities: 68 pounds of beet sugar, 58 pounds of corn syrup, 38 pounds of soybean oil and 29 pounds of corn-based products, for a total of 193 pounds.

That’s a lot, but it’s likely to be an underestimate, since it does not account for all the genetically engineered foods that people eat. Other foods that commonly come in genetically engineered versions – but are not included in EWG’s calculations – are canola oil, cottonseed oil, papaya, yellow squash and soy products other than soybean oil. (EWG also excluded genetically engineered animal feed that people may consume indirectly by eating meat raised on genetically engineered crops.)

As more genetically engineered crops are approved and grown commercially, the average amount of genetically engineered food consumed would be expected to spike far above 193 pounds a year. EWG considered only three genetically engineered crops, but more than 30 others are currently being tested in field trials, including apples, barley, bell peppers, cabbage, carrots, cauliflower, cherries, chili peppers, coffee, cranberries, cucumber, flax, grapefruit, kiwi, lentils, lettuce, melons, mustard, oats, olives, onions, peanuts, pears, peas, persimmons, pineapple,popcorn, radishes, strawberries, sugar cane, sunflower, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, walnuts and watercress.

While it is unclear how long it may take for these new genetically engineered crops to reach the market, this long list makes it likely that people could be eating two or three times their weight in GE food annually within the next decade.

Children, Hispanics likely eating more genetically engineered food

Some people are likely already eating more than their share of genetically engineered food. Hispanic Americans, for example, who typically eat between 2-to-3 times more corn flour than people of other ethnicities, would be expected to get an extra dose of genetically engineered food in their diet.

Similarly, data show that children eat more corn flour and sweeteners per pound of body weight than adults. Given how much of these ingredients tend to be derived from genetically engineered sources, kids are likely ingesting more genetically engineered food.

Taking a stand for their right to know should be reason enough for people to vote for labeling of genetically engineered foods. Here’s another good reason: Americans are eating their body weight in genetically engineered food every year – and have little idea where it’s coming from. That’s certainly something to chew on.

References:

• Center for Food Safety. 2012. GE Crops: Crops in the pipeline. Available at: http://truefoodnow.org/campaigns/genetically-engineered-foods/ge-crops/
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2012. FastStats: Body Measurements. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/bodymeas.htm
• Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Major crops grown in the United States. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html
• US Department of Agriculture. 2011. Agricultural Statistics Annual. Available at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Ag_Statistics/2011/index.asp
• US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2012. Sugar and Sweeteners. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/sugar-sweeteners/background.aspx
• US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. 2012. Commodity Consumption by Population Characteristics. Available at: http://ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-consumption-by-population-characteristics.aspx

10 Easy Paths to Self Destruction

ORIGINAL: LiveScience

Heather Whipps, LiveScience Contributor

Credit: Morguefile. Self Destruction

Rocker Tommy Lee once said we're not here for a long time, we're here for a good time. Amen, Tommy. Many of us follow his lead every day by shunning the most basic principle of Darwinian evolution — trying to survive — with food, toxins and reckless lifestyles. If you'd like to get in on the act, we present our easiest catalysts to self-destruction.

Eat Junk

Last year, at least 400,000 Americans managed to kill themselves based almost solely on what they ate. Heart disease is the country's number one killer and, while some of that comes from genetics, most of it's due to the fat-laden, sugar-heavy junk we put in our bodies. Looking for the most effective, probably most enjoyable way to do yourself in? Have another doughnut. And make it cream-filled!

Smoke

They don't call them cancer sticks for nothing: Tobacco-related illnesses are America's number two killer, and the most preventable. But if you're bent on putting the kibosh to healthy living, go ahead and light up; just one cigarette will immediately increase your blood pressure and decrease the circulation to your extremities. Imagine what you could do with a pack.

Watch TV

Not only is television entertaining, it can keep us on the couch for hours at a time several days per week. The average American spends a full 9 years of his life glued to the boob tube, years that could otherwise be spent exercising. Resist the urge! Being an obese, sedentary TV-addicted couch potato makes for speedy self-destruction, though you may be a little smarter (if you watch those nerdy science channels).

Stress Out

Creating more stress in your life is a great way to invite all kinds of diseases to attack the body. When you're chronically stressed, the adrenal glands are forced to work overtime and eventually exhaust themselves, inhibiting the immune system. So go ahead and worry about everything from the color of your socks to whether dinner will be ready on time. Your hormones won't know what hit them.

Drink a Lot

The occasional drink of alcohol, especially wine, can be beneficial to your health, many studies suggest. But if you're looking to do yourself in, overdo the two-drink-per-day limit and imbibe heartily. Besides alcoholism of course, too much booze causes liver damage, diabetes and is the root cause of nearly 100,000 deaths per year.

Drive a Lot

If people wanted to increase their chance of surviving 'til a ripe old age, they'd fly everywhere. Driving kills more people aged 1 to 35 than anything else, a statistic that could drop to near zero if everyone just stayed home. But how fun would that be? So hit the road, forget the speed limit, yak on your cell phone?or worse, eat?and don't buckle up if you're anxious to become part of this popular statistic.

Have a Lot of Sex

Most people agree that sex in itself isn't so bad, it's how you do it that could mean life or death. The smart self-destructor doesn't use protection, ignores the partner's sexual history and shuns the annual medical exam. Twelve million Americans contract sexually transmitted diseases every year, many of which can leave the victim infertile. Killing yourself and preventing new births: there?s a two-fer!

Dumb Down Your Brain

Reading, doing crosswords and tackling sudokus are all risky behaviors if you're looking to avoid Alzheimer's. The degenerative brain disease attacks almost everyone who lives long enough, though mind games and puzzles are known to ward off the effects.

Ignore the Doctor

Many Americans agree that their health is hardly worth finding thirty minutes among 526,000 for that once-per-year physical exam. It's a good tactic if early disease detection and important medical consultation are going to get in the way of your Tommy Lee lifestyle. If you don't want to hear the doctor tell you our other tips for self-destruction are unhealthy, just don't go.

Sacrifice Sleep

Inadequate sleep (less than 7 or 8 hours a night) has been tied to many different health problems, including obesity, diabetes and cancer. Mental fatigue is also as big of a risk factor for vehicular accidents as alcohol. And just think of all the time you'd have for destructive behavior if you shunned the zzz's altogether!