Greening The Globe: Earth News

[Jim Finnel]

WASHINGTON - September 13 - Consumption of energy and many other critical resources is consistently breaking records, disrupting the climate and undermining life on the planet, according to the latest Worldwatch Institute report, Vital Signs 2007-2008.

The 44 trends tracked in Vital Signs illustrate the urgent need to check consumption of energy and other resources that are contributing to the climate crisis, starting with the largest polluter, the United States, which accounted for over 21 percent of global carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning in 2005. Europe, already feeling the effects of climate change, should pressure the U.S. to join international climate negotiations, according to Erik Assadourian, Vital Signs Project Director.

“The world is running out of time to head off catastrophic climate change, and it is essential that Europe and the rest of the international community bring pressure to bear on U.S. policy makers to address the climate crisis,” said Assadourian, who spoke at the Barcelona launch of Vital Signs. “The United States must be held accountable for its emissions, double the per capita level in Europe, and should follow the EU lead by committing to reducing its total greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.”

This summer, the European Union has become a showcase for how the world will be transformed by climate change, including tragic fires in Greece and the Canary Islands, dramatic floods in England, and heat waves across the Continent. Assadourian urged European leaders to push the U.S. to engage more constructively with the international community on climate change, starting at the United Nations late this month and in the Bali Climate negotiations at the end of the year.

With a global population of 6.6 billion and growing, the ecosystem services upon which life depends are being stretched to the limit due to record levels of consumption:
In 2006, the world used 3.9 billion tons of oil. Fossil fuel usage in 2005 produced 7.6 billion tons of carbon emissions, and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide reached 380 parts per million.
More wood was removed from forests in 2005 than ever before.
Steel production grew 10 percent to a record 1.24 billion tons in 2006, while primary aluminum output increased to a record 33 million tons. Aluminum production accounted for roughly 3 percent of global electricity use.
Meat production hit a record 276 million tons (43 kg per person) in 2006.
Meat consumption is one of several factors driving soybean demand. Rapid South American expansion of soybean plantations could displace 22 million hectares of tropical forest and savanna in the next 20 years.
The rise in global seafood consumption comes even as many fish species become scarcer: in 2004, 156 million tons of seafood was eaten, an average of three times as much seafood per person than in 1950.

The expanding world population’s appetite for everything from everyday items such as eggs to major consumer goods such as automobiles is helping to drive climate change, which is endangering organisms on the land and in the sea:
The warming climate is undermining biodiversity by accelerating habitat loss, altering the timing of animal migrations and plant flowerings, and shifting some species towards the poles and to higher altitudes.
The oceans have absorbed about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans in the last 200 years. Climate change is altering fish migration routes, pushing up sea levels, intensifying coastal erosion, raising ocean acidity, and interfering with currents that move vital nutrients upward from the deep sea.
Despite a relatively calm hurricane season in the U.S. in 2006, the world experienced more weather-related disasters than in any of the previous three years. Nearly 100 million people were affected.

While U.S. carbon emissions continue to grow, the fastest growth is occurring in Asia, particularly China and India. But without a U.S. commitment to emissions constraints, persuading China and India to commit to reductions is unlikely. “The only hope for reducing the world’s carbon emissions is for the U.S. to begin reducing its emissions and cooperating with other nations immediately. The EU may be the only entity that can make that happen,” said Assadourian.

“With the U.S. Congress preparing to take up far-ranging climate legislation this fall, and with President Bush planning to hold an international climate change summit in Washington, now is the time to act. If the U.S. and other nations walk away without concrete plans to implement a binding agreement, the EU should not hesitate to use its diplomatic clout to press the issue,” suggested Assadourian.

Already, the window to prevent catastrophic climate change appears to be closing. Some governments are starting to redirect their attention away from climate change mitigation and towards staking their claims in a warming world. “Canada is spending $3 billion to build eight new patrol boats to reinforce its claim over the Arctic waterways. Denmark and Russia are starting to vie for control over the Lomonosov Ridge, where new sources of oil and natural gas could be accessed if the Arctic Circle becomes ice free—fossil fuels that will further exacerbate climate change. These actions assume that a warming world is here,” said Assadourian.

Hemp Fuel

One of the main causes of global warming is the carbon dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels such as petroleum and coal. Oil from hemp seeds and the cellulose of the hemp stem can produce methanol, ethanol and other kinds of fuel that have the same ignition temperature as diesel oil. Hemp fuel does not produce heavy metals or sulfur, so it does not cause acid rain or air pollution. As hemp is a plant, it reduces carbon dioxide to oxygen as it grows. It has three to four times the reducing power as a deciduous tree. If hemp is cultivated on only 6% of the North American landmass, it can meet all the fuel demand in the U.S.

Read More:
Hemp Will Save The Earth
Hemp Fueled Car

 

[zolar]

Re: Window to Prevent Catastrophic Climate Change Closing

how about more info on that hemp fueled car?

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Window to Prevent Catastrophic Climate Change Closing

/\ just click the link under the picture of it

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

Pollution Killing Kids in China, India
Global environment watchdog blames unregulated factories, mining as major health threat to children

NEW YORK - Poisonous industrial sites in India, China and the former Soviet Union top a new ranking of the world’s most polluted places, where millions of people are threatened by toxic chemicals, an environment watchdog says.

The lead production base of Tianying, eastern China, and the industrial town of Vapi, India, were among new additions to the Top 10 list of “worst polluted places” by the Blacksmith Institute in New York and the environmental cleanup group Green Cross Switzerland.

“Mining, Cold War-era legacy pollution and unregulated industrial production are the major culprits behind the pollution identified by the Blacksmith Institute report,” the group said in a statement.

Vapi “exemplifies a region overwhelmed by industrial estates - more than 50 poison the local soils and groundwater with pesticides, PCBs (carcinogenic chemicals), chromium, mercury, lead and cadmium.”

The study ranked places based on the scale of the pollution and the number of people at risk.

“Children are sick and dying in these polluted places, and it’s not rocket science to fix them,” the institute’s director Richard Fuller said in the statement.

Also new since last year in the polluted Top 10 is Sumgayit, Azerbaijan - “a former Soviet industrial base polluting the area with industrial chemicals and heavy metals,” the report said.

“Cancer rates in Sumgayit are 22 to 51 per cent higher than the national average; genetic mutations and birth defects are commonplace.”

Chernobyl, site of a devastating nuclear reactor explosion in Ukraine in 1986, is listed ninth.

Some 12 million people were affected in these top 10 places, according to the report. The institute highlights the health threats to children from industrial pollution, such as the stunting effect of lead poisoning on intellectual development.

Places on the Top 10 list are not ranked relative to one another for more or less severe pollution.

The institute also compiled a “dirty 30″ list of other places it described as “very toxic and dangerous to human health,” including sites in Kyrgyzstan and the Dominican Republic.

The only North American city on the institute’s Dirty 30 list was Mexico City.

© Toronto Star 1996-2007

Pollution Killing Kids in China, IndiaGlobal environment watchdog blames unregulated factories, mining as major health threat to children - CommonDreams.org

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

Published on Monday, September 17, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Greenspan Misses Cheney’s Memo: Spills the Beans on Oil
by Ray McGovern

For those still wondering why President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney sent our young men and women into Iraq, the secret is now “largely” out.

No, not from the lips of former secretary of state Colin Powell. It appears we shall have to wait until the disgraced general/diplomat draws nearer to meeting his maker before he gets concerned over anything more than the “blot” that Iraq has put on his reputation.

Rather, the uncommon candor comes from a highly respected Republican doyen, economist Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006, whom the president has praised for his “wise policies and prudent judgment.” Sadly for Bush and Cheney, Greenspan decided to put prudence aside in his new book, The Age of Turbulence, and answer the most neuralgic issue of our times-why the United States invaded Iraq.

Greenspan writes:

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.”

Everyone knows? Would that it were so. But it’s hardly everyone. Sometimes I think it’s hardly anyone.

There are so many, still, who “can’t handle the truth,” and that is all too understandable. I have found it a wrenching experience to be forced to conclude that the America I love would deliberately launch what the Nuremburg Tribunal called the “supreme international crime”-a war of aggression-largely for oil. For those who are able to overcome the very common, instinctive denial, for those who can handle the truth, it really helps to turn off the Sunday football games early enough to catch up on what’s going on.

60 Minutes

On January 11, 2004, viewers of CBS’ 60 Minutes saw another of Bush’s senior economic advisers, former treasury secretary Paul O’Neill discussing The Price of Loyalty, his memoir about his two years inside the Bush administration. O’Neill, a plain speaker, likened the president’s behavior at cabinet meetings to that of “a blind man in a roomful of deaf people.” How does he manage? Cheney and “a praetorian guard that encircled the president” help Bush make decisions off-line, blocking contrary views.

Cheney has a Rumsfeldian knack for aphorisms that don’t parse in the real world- like “deficits don’t matter.” To his credit, O’Neill picked a fight with that and ended up being fired personally by Cheney. In his book, Greenspan heaps scorn on that same Cheneyesque insight.

O’Neill made no bones about his befuddlement over the president’s diffident disengagement from discussions on policy-except, that is, for Bush’s remarks betraying a pep-rally-cheerleader fixation with removing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq.

Why Iraq? “Largely Oil”

O’Neill began to understand better after Bush’s inauguration when the discussion among his top advisers abruptly moved to how to divvy up Iraq’s oil wealth. Just days into the job, President Bush created the Cheney energy task force with the stated aim of developing “a national energy policy designed to help the private sector.” Typically, Cheney has been able to keep secret its deliberations and even the names of its members.

But a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit forced the Commerce Department to turn over task force documents, including a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries, terminals, and potential areas for exploration; a Pentagon chart “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts;” and another chart detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects-all dated March 2001.

On the 60 Minutes, program on December 15, 2002, Steve Croft asked then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “What do you say to people who think this [the coming invasion of Iraq] is about oil?” Rumsfeld replied:

“Nonsense. It just isn’t. There-there-there are certain…………. things like that, myths that are floating around. I’m glad you asked. I-it has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil.”

Au Contraire

Greenspan’s indiscreet remark adds to the abundant evidence that Iraq oil, and not weapons of mass destruction, was the priority target long before the Bush administration invoked WMD as a pretext to invade Iraq. In the heady days of “Mission Accomplished,” a week after the president landed on the aircraft carrier, then-deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz virtually bragged about the deceit during an interview. On May 9, 2003, Wolfowitz told Vanity Fair:

“The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason…”

That was seven weeks after the invasion; no weapons of mass destruction had been found; and Americans were growing tired of being told that this was because Iraq was the size of California. Eventually, of course, Wolfowitz’ boss Rumsfeld was forced to concede, as he did to me during our impromptu TV debate on May 4, 2006: “It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.”

But three years before, during that heady May of 2003 when all else seemed to be going along swimmingly, the inebriation of apparent success led to another glaring indiscretion by Wolfowitz. During a relaxed moment in Singapore late that month, Wolfowitz reminded the press that Iraq “floats on a sea of oil,” and thus added to the migraine he had already given folks in the White House PR shop.

But wait. For those of us absorbing more than FOX channel news, the primacy of the oil factor was a no-brainer. The limited number of invading troops were ordered to give priority to securing the oil wells and oil industry infrastructure immediately and let looters have their way with just about everything else (including the ammunition storage depots!). Barely three weeks into the war, Rumsfeld famously answered criticism for not stopping the looting: “Stuff happens.” No stuff happened to the Oil Ministry.

Small wonder that, according to O’Neill, Rumsfeld tried hard to dissuade him from writing his book and has avoided all comment on it. As for Greenspan’s book, Rumsfeld will find it easier to dodge questions from the Washington press corps from his sinecure at the Hoover Institute at Stanford.

Eminence Grise…or Oily

The other half of what Col. Larry Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff at the State Department, calls the “Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal” is still lurking in the shadows. What changed Cheney’s mind toward Iraq from his sensible attitude after the Gulf War when, as defense secretary, he defended President George H. W. Bush’s decision not to attempt to oust Saddam Hussein and conquer Iraq? Here is what Cheney said in August 1992:

“…how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth?…not that damned many. So I think we got it right…when the president made the decision that we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.”

Cheney’s rather transparent remarks as CEO of Halliburton in autumn 1999 suggest what lies behind the cynical exploitation of genuine patriotism to recruit throwaway soldiers to trade for the chimera of control over the oil in Iraq:

“Oil companies are expected to keep developing enough oil to offset oil depletion and also to meet new demand…So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously in control of 90 percent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. The Middle East with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies.”

Not only Cheney, but also many of the captains of the oil industry were looking on Iraq with covetous eyes before the war. Most people forget that the Bush/Cheney administration came in on the heels of severe shortages of oil and natural gas in the U.S., and the passing of a milestone at which the United States had just begun importing more than half of the oil it consumes. One oil executive confided to a New York Times reporter a month before the war: “For any oil company, being in Iraq is like being a kid in F.A.O. Schwarz.”

Canadian writer Linda McQuaig, author of It’s the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil, and the Fight for the Planet (2004) , has noted that decades from now it will seem to everyone a real no-brainer. Historians will calmly discuss the war in Iraq and identify oil as one of the key factors in the decision to launch it. They will point to growing US dependence on foreign oil, the competition with China, India, and others for a share of the diminishing world supply of this precious, nonrenewable resource, and the fact that Iraq “floats on a sea of oil.” It will all seem so obvious as to provoke little more than a yawn.

Other Factors Behind the Invasion

There were, to be sure, other factors behind the ill-starred attack on Iraq-the Bush administration’s determination to acquire large, permanent military bases in the area outside of Saudi Arabia, for one. But that factor can be viewed as a subset of the energy motivation-the need to have substantial influence over the extraction and disposition of the oil in Iraq. In other words, the felt need for what the Pentagon prefers to call “enduring” military bases in the Middle East is a function of its strategic importance which, in turn, is a function-you guessed it-of its natural resources. Not only oil, but natural gas and water as well.

I find the evidence persuasive that the other major factor in the Bush/Cheney decision to make war on Iraq was the misguided notion that this would make that part of the world safer for Israel. Indeed, the so-called “neo-conservatives” still running U.S. policy toward the Middle East continue to have great difficulty distinguishing between what they perceive to be the strategic interests of Israel and those of the United States. And in my view, they show themselves extremely myopic on both counts.

Why Are Americans Silent?

Could it be that most of us Americans remain “good Germans” because we are unwilling to recognize the moral implications of starting what is likely to be the first of the resource wars of the 21st century?; because we continue to be comfortable hogging far more than our share of the world’s natural resources?; and because we prefer to look the other way when our leaders tell us that aggressive war is necessary to protect that siren-call, “our way of life,” from attack by those who are just plain “jealous?”

Perhaps a clue can be found in the remarkable reaction I received after a lecture I gave two and a half years ago in a very affluent suburb of Milwaukee. I had devoted much of my talk to the implications of what I consider the most important factoid of this century: the world is running out of oil.

Afterwards some twenty folks lingered in a small circle to ask follow-up questions. A persistent, elegantly dressed man, who just would not let go, dominated the questioning:

“Surely you agree that we need the oil. Then what’s your problem? Some 1,450 killed thus far are far fewer than the toll in Vietnam where we lost 58,000; it’s a small price to pay… a sustainable rate to bear. What IS your problem?”

I asked the man if he would feel differently if one of the (then) 1,450 already killed were his own son. Judging from his abrupt, incredulous reaction, the suggestion struck him as so farfetched as to be beyond his ken. “It wouldn’t be my son,” he said.

And that, I believe, is a HUGE part of the problem.

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. A former CIA analyst, he is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Greenspan Misses Cheney’s Memo: Spills the Beans on Oil - CommonDreams.org

<img src="https://www.420magazine.com/gallery/data/569/buryoil.jpg" border="0" style="margin-right:6px" alt="" width="400" height="300" />​

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

Published on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 by Inter Press Service
Experts Call for Action on Ocean Preserves
by Anuradha Kher

<img align="left" src="https://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0919_02.jpg" border="0" style="margin-right:6px" alt="" width="" height="" />UNITED NATIONS - The report, called “Oceans in Peril: Protecting Marine Biodiversity”, outlines the factors causing damage to the ocean, namely fishing, pollution and climate change, and also suggests a set of solutions.

“Loss of marine diversity will have a disproportionate impact on the poorer nations, where fishing communities will be seriously affected. In the rich countries, people will start to see certain species of fish disappearing from the supermarket,” David Santillo, a senior scientist with the Greenpeace Research Laboratories and one of the authors of the report, told IPS.

While the situation has been getting worse over the last few decades, Santillo said, “We are now at a political crossroads.” The U.N. Division of Sustainable Development implemented a plan to eliminate destructive fishing practices and the establishment of marine protected areas consistent with international law by 2012, “but little has still been done, and there are now only five more years to go until the deadline,” said Santillo.

“But I am an optimist and believe that it’s not too late to do something. We just need the political will of individual countries,” he said.

Christopher Flavin, president of the Worldwatch Institute, said that, “Collective commitments to thriving ecosystems are needed to save overfished species from being systematically depleted from compromised habitats. The oceans cannot save themselves.”

The report cites overfishing, use of bottom trawling and other destructive fishing techniques, unsustainable aquaculture, and illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) fishing as one of the major reasons for the depletion of fish stocks.

Bottom trawling has been likened to forest clearcutting. As fishers drag heavy nets and other gear across the sea floor, this causes massive collateral damage to corals and other features that offer protection and habitat for many creatures.

Bycatch is a growing problem, killing or injuring hundreds of thousands of seabirds, turtles, marine mammals, and other marine species annually. In some cases, industrial fishers discard nearly half their dead or dying catch back into the sea.

IUU fishing accounts for up to 20 percent of the global catch and is worth 4-9 billion dollars a year. As industrial countries see their own fish stocks fall and impose stricter controls, fishers often move to developing-country waters where effective control is absent, jeopardising the livelihoods of fishing communities.

Human-induced climate change, predicted to increase sea-surface temperature, raise sea levels, and reduce sea-ice cover, is also harming the world’s oceans. In one sector of the Southern Ocean, krill densities fell by an estimated 80 percent between 1976 and 2003, correlating with losses in the extent and duration of sea ice the previous winter and leaving penguins, albatrosses, seals, and whales especially vulnerable. In parts of the Arctic, the impacts of climate change on sea ice and snowfall may be affecting the breeding success of ivory gulls, ringed seals, and polar bears.

The third cause, says the report, is pollution from chemical, radioactive, and nutrient sources; oil spills; and marine debris as the third cause that is contaminating the marine environment, killing organisms, and undermining ecosystem integrity. Of particular concern is the effect on marine wildlife of persistent organic pollutants (POPs), especially those chemicals not yet regulated under the 2001 Stockholm Convention.

Marine debris, including plastics and derelict fishing gear, is responsible for causing death and injury to many marine species, among them seabirds, turtles, and marine mammals. Large oxygen-depleted “dead zones,” made worse by excessive nitrogen runoff from fertilisers, sewage discharges, and other sources, are further signs that the oceans are under severe stress.

The authors of the report, Michelle Allsopp, Richard Page, Paul Johnston, and David Santillo, all environmental experts, suggest marine reserves as one of the solutions to this problem. A well-designed global network of marine reserves, covering key ecosystems and habitats, could help reverse the devastating toll human actions are taking on the world’s oceans, note the authors. Marine reserves are a proven method for restoring fish populations:

For example, in the Soufriere Marine Management Area in St. Lucia in the Caribbean, three years of protection tripled the biomass of commercial fish species within the closed reserves. After five years, in areas outside the reserves, biomass doubled and average catches per trip increased 46 to 90 percent depending on the size of trap used. Also, marine reserves established in the Red Sea in 1995 increased the catch per unit of effort in surrounding areas by more than 60 percent after five years of protection.

“There is currently no mechanism under existing international agreements to create a global marine reserve network encompassing the high seas-areas beyond national jurisdiction,” said Santillo.

The authors are also suggesting a new implementation agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) to establish and manage such reserves. They call for an integrated, precautionary, and ecosystem-based approach to the conservation and sustainable management of the marine environment in the high seas.

The authors also recommend moving negotiations on fish and fish products out of the World Trade Organisation and into other multilateral fora where commercial and trade interests do not dominate.

“By synthesising all the research in this report and providing solutions, the report hopes to bring the oceans to people’s minds,” Santillo told IPS.

© 2007 IPS - Inter Press Service

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

New Study: Common Air Fresheners Contain Chemicals That May Affect Human Reproductive Development
Environmental Group Calls for Additional Testing, Consumer Awareness to Prevent Risky Exposure


NEW YORK- September 19 - An analysis of more than a dozen common household air fresheners found that most contain chemicals that may affect hormones and reproductive development, particularly in babies, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) said today. The federal government does not currently test air fresheners for safety or require manufacturers to meet any specific safety standards. The study offers both consumers and officials new information on the risks certain air fresheners pose.

“More than anything, our research highlights cracks in our safety system,” said Dr. Gina Solomon, NRDC senior scientist.

“Consumers have a right to know what is put into air fresheners and other everyday products they bring into their homes,” Solomon added. “There are too many products on the shelves that we assume are safe, but have never even been tested. The government should be keeping a watchful eye on these household items and the manufacturers who produce them.”

NRDC tested 14 different brands of common household air fresheners and found that 12 contained the hormone-disrupting chemicals known as phthalates. Only two, Febreze Air Effects and Renuzit Subtle Effects, contained no detectable levels of phthalates. The products that tested positive included ones marketed as “all-natural” and “unscented.” None had phthalates in the list of ingredients or anywhere else on the label. The three with the highest level of phthalates were Walgreens Air Freshener, Walgreens Scented Bouquet, and Ozium Glycolized Air Sanitizer.

While consumers should be concerned about the chemicals, NRDC stressed that there is no cause for panic. The chemicals pose their greatest risk over long term repeated exposure.

In conjunction with the study, NRDC, along with the Sierra Club, Alliance for Healthy Homes and the National Center for Healthy Housing, are filing a petition to the EPA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) today. The petition calls for the EPA and CPSC to start assessing the risk air fresheners pose to consumers by comprehensively testing all air freshener products on the market.
NRDC said it also looking forward to working with the air freshener industry to find ways to eliminate phthalates from their products.

Air fresheners are now a $1.72 billion industry in the United States – a 50 percent increase from 2003 – with an estimated 75 percent of households using air fresheners. Despite the industry’s size, it is minimallyregulated, not having to meet any standards specific to their products. Air fresheners are not tested for a variety of chemicals, including phthalates, because the government does not require it.

“Manufacturers are getting away with marketing products as ‘natural’ when they’re not, and that’s because no one is stopping them,” said Mae Wu, an attorney in NRDC’s health program. “Our research suggests this could be a widespread problem in a booming industry that – so far – has been allowed to do what it wants.”

The tests, believed to be the first in the United States, cover only a fraction of the air freshener market. Tests included aerosol sprays, liquids that emit a continuous scent and a solid. The phthalates in the air fresheners may be inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

“There are plenty of good alternatives,” Dr. Solomon said. “The best way to avoid the problem is to simply open a window instead of reaching for one of these cans.”

Phthalates are hormone-disrupting chemicals that can be particularly dangerous for young children and unborn babies. Exposure to phthalates can affect testosterone levels and lead to reproductive abnormalities, including abnormal genitalia and reduced sperm production. The State of California notes that five types of phthalates—including one that we found in air freshener products—are “known to cause birth defects or reproductive harm.” Young children and pregnant women should be especially careful to avoid contact with these chemicals.

NRDC recommends that consumers who purchase air fresheners be selective and purchase those that have the least amount of phthalates.

NRDC also suggests consumers first try to reduce home odors by improving home ventilation. Since fresheners only mask odors rather than address them, tending to the root cause of the odor is a first step to tackling the problem.

The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has 1.2 million members and online activists, served from offices in New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Beijing.

NRDC: New Study: Common Air Fresheners Contain Chemicals That May Affect Human Reproductive Development

 

[Respect]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

I watched these two videos on weather.com last year that scared the hell out of me. I couldn't find them but they stated and showed how by the year 2050, 75% of the world will be without drinkable water, and the population will reach 10billion people. Scientists agree that the natural resources of earth cannot support more than 10billion people. When this happens in nature, the inhabitants either move or die out due to lack of food, etc.

Most importantly by the year 2050 the entire population of the human race will be what we consider today to be "homeless" and "hungry."

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

ha ha...

i'll be dead by then suckers

 

[JMo15]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

Want to hear some crazy shit, guys? My friend works as a biology assistant in the lab here at UK and she told me they are working on studying cancer carcinogens right now. And what have they concluded? The corn being fed to animals is causing cancer because realistically they should be eating grass, not corn, and something about how the corn in mass quantities affects them. They are coming *this close* to pinpointing just how.

 

[Damagoman]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

Yeapper, It all Comes Full circle.
Only the Farmers/Gathers will survive.

But I'll be gone

Free the Weed,
And I tell Ya' We may have a chance to
Save the World

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

Only the Farmers/Gathers will survive.

& hunters

 

[Damagoman]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

what can I say,
my anthroplogy is rusty

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

there are still native peoples doing the ghost dance. maybe its working.

 

[Damagoman]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

Oh Dude , your spookier than Me.

my TxCommanche relatives have forgetin'





ya' know,
I have virtualy met a couple in the last few weeks

Spooky stuff Man

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

some people i've met in cali & nevada haven't forgotten.

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

Published on Thursday, September 20, 2007 by OneWorld.net
Groups Urge New Drive to Fight Oil-Climate Crisis

<img align="left" src="https://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0920_04.jpg" border="0" style="margin-right:6px" alt="" width="" height="" />WASHINGTON - Activists and foreign policy experts held a public forum this weekend to launch what they hope will be “a combined international movement” to respond to the threats of climate change and the depletion of oil and other cheap energy sources.

They said no less than “planetary survival” is at stake.

“Confronting the Triple Crisis” brought 60 speakers from 16 countries to Washington, DC, the capital of a nation “whose way of life is one of the key drivers behind the global crises we face,” according to a statement from conference organizer International Forum on Globalization (IFG).

The 3-day summit was the first of its kind to examine climate change, peak oil, and the extinction of species as one interconnected problem with common solutions, according to the IFG and co-sponsor Institute for Policy Studies (IPS).

“We hope that this diversity [of speakers] and cross-fertilization will help build a really strong movement,” said IFG co-director Jerry Mander, addressing the opening session.

Speakers urged attendees to lobby their governments for more proactive climate change and energy policies and to make specific adjustments in their own lives to help mitigate the challenges the world faces. Among other personal initiatives, they suggested using more public transportation and consuming fewer — not just “greener” — products.

The Forum, which the organizers called a “Teach-In” to emphasize the activism they hoped it would inspire, coincided with the IPS and IFG’s joint release of a major scientific report critiquing biofuels like ethanol, the plant-based fuel that has become the centerpiece of energy proposals from U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

“The False Promises of Industrial Biofuel Production” addresses the positioning of biofuels as a panacea for the imminent emergency of global fuel deficiency, which is being propelled by “diminishing access to oil reserves and geopolitical conflicts.” Corn ethanol, in particular, was singled out by experts at the forum as a counterproductive use of resources that is exacerbating hunger in poorer areas of the world.

The same amount of corn needed to fill a Sport Utility Vehicle tank one time could feed a person for a whole year, Mander emphasized.

The Teach-In also coincided with the publication of the “Manifesto on Global Economic Transitions,” an international call to action that upholds the idea of “less and local” — buying fewer things and those that are produced nearby — as a way to ensure a global transition towards a safer, more equitable, and sustainable world.

The speakers included leaders of human rights, indigenous rights, and anti-war movements, as well as economists, scientists, and agricultural activists searching for alternative solutions to climate change.

Their efforts to reform global economic and climate change policies is “a marathon, not a race,” said Mander, counseling persistence to the opening-day crowd of about 500 activists and other interested Washingtonians.

Piling a host of disheartening statistics on the audience about the state of today’s planet, Mander added that “with great crisis also comes great opportunities,” and contemporary generations hold the potential to accelerate transitions to more sustainable standards of living.

According to Mander, the “Triple Crisis” is rooted in a globalized economic system that prioritizes exponential growth, which is in turn dependent on the unrestrained use of natural resources. This growth is also propelled by a near-universal culture of consumerism and the destruction of societies that are sustainable, such as indigenous and agricultural communities. Finally, Mander added, population pressures, which continue to intensify, exacerbate all these realities.

Vandana Shiva, and Indian activist and director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology, emphasized that “we must reclaim the generative concept of energy” and bring people back into the process of generating energy, not just consuming it.

Similarly, American David Korten of the Positive Futures Network advocated for a new economy based on healthy communities, families, and living systems.

“[We must strive] to live well because we do not aspire to live better than others,” said Council of Canadians chair Maude Barlow, summing up the central message of the forum and echoing the words of Bolivia’s president and indigenous rights leader Evo Morales.

“Confronting the Triple Crisis” was held at the George Washington University Lisner Auditorium and co-sponsored by the Progressive Student Union of George Washington University, Greenpeace-USA, the Nation Institute, the Sierra Club, Pacifica Radio Station WPFW/89.3, and SALSA, the Social Action and Leadership School for Activists of the Institute for Policy Studies.

© 2007 OneWorld. net

Groups Urge New Drive to Fight Oil-Climate Crisis - CommonDreams.org

Read More:
Energy Crisis: Ford And Diesel Never Intended Cars To Use Gasoline
The Crude Truth

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

Published on Thursday, September 20, 2007 by Inter Press Service
‘Incentives Offered to Destroy Forests’

<img align="left" src="https://www.commondreams.org/archive/wp-content/photos/0920_01.jpg" border="0" style="margin-right:6px" alt="" width="" height="" />Instead of providing positive incentives to tropical nations to conserve their rainforests and so reduce greenhouse gases emissions, the world indirectly gives “perverse incentives” to destroy them by demanding goods produced by intensive logging, a leading environmental activist says.
by Julio Godoy

VIENNA - “The Kyoto protocol does not give incentives to rainforest nations to protect their forests,” Kevin Conrad, special envoy of the environment and climate change permanent mission of Papua New Guinea to the United Nations told IPS.

The Kyoto protocol is the international agreement that establishes how industrialised countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by an average of five percent relative to 1990 levels. The treaty does not assign targets to developing nations.

One of the instruments of the Kyoto protocol is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), an arrangement that allows industrialised countries with a GHG reduction commitment to invest in projects in developing countries that reduce emissions. This then counts towards their domestic ‘clean’ record. Conservation of rainforests is not included in such projects.

Between 1989 and 1995, global emissions as a result of deforestation amounted to 5,000 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide, studies show.

“Instead of giving us incentives to protect our forests, the world gives countries like mine incentives to destroy them,” Conrad said. Coffee, soy beans, sugar, flowers and wood furniture, he said, can only be produced in developing countries through systematic deforestation.

“Tropical rainforest nations deserve to be treated equally,” Conrad said. “If we reduce deforestation, we must receive fair compensation for reductions. A tonne (of carbon dioxide) is a tonne is a tonne.”

Conrad is also executive director of the Coalition of Rainforest Nations (CRN), a worldwide coalition of developing countries with significant rainforests cover. The coalition has a secretariat at Columbia University in New York, and facilitates development of proactive strategies towards environmentally sustainable economic growth.

Among the causes of deforestation in developing countries, other than the production of export goods, appear to be the need for cheap energy, and infrastructure projects, such as roads, mining and power lines.

Deforestation is particularly dramatic in Brazil and Indonesia, where some five million hectares of forest are lost every year due to such causes, and more recently, the plantation of palm trees to produce bio-fuels.

Other tropical countries such as Sudan, Burma and Zambia lose more than 400,000 hectares per year of forest. Africa is losing the most forest, with some five million hectares lost every year between 1990 and 2000, according to the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA).

The RFA, produced by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in cooperation with governments and specialists in the field, is a comprehensive assessment of forests.

Conrad told IPS that loss of rainforest has a large environmental impact, from degradation of the quality of water in lakes and rivers to decimation of biological diversity, damage to ecosystems, and prevention of natural processes such as pollination.

According to CRN, deforestation threatens to annihilate some 60 percent of all species.

Conversely, protecting rainforests represents major benefits for the environment, since it is a significant source of carbon emission reductions outside the framework of the Kyoto protocol. In addition, it can create substantial new revenue streams to addresses poverty in rural areas.

Conrad has called for a new approach to conserving rainforests, to be considered in negotiations towards a new international framework on climate change from 2012, when the operative period of the Kyoto protocol ends. The proposal is likely to come up at the conference the United Nations is organising in Bali in Indonesia in December.

According to the CRN, a new approach should begin in 2008. Conrad said new initiatives must consider both aforestation and reforestation. Aforestastion is the artificial establishment of forests in non-forest land, while reforestation is re-establishment of forest in an area previously under forest cover.

© 2007 IPS - Inter Press Service

‘Incentives Offered to Destroy Forests’Instead of providing positive incentives to tropical nations to conserve their rainforests and so reduce greenhouse gases emissions, the world indirectly gives “perverse incentives” to de

Read More:
USDA study: Hemp Makes 4 Times As Much Paper Per Acre Than Trees!

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

Published on Thursday, September 20, 2007 by CommonDreams.org
Oil and Betrayal in Iraq
by George Lakoff

Alan Greenspan should know. It was oil all along. The former head of the Federal Reserve writes in his memoir, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Greenspan even advised Bush that “taking Saddam Hussein out was essential” to protect oil supplies.

Yes, we suspected it. In a deep sense, many of us knew it, just as those in Washington did. But now it’s in our face. Greenspan put the mother of all facts in front of our noses, and we can no longer be in denial. The US invaded Iraq for the oil.

Think about what it means for our troops and for the people of Iraq. Our troops were told, and believed because they trusted their president, that they were in Iraq to protect America, to protect their families, their homes, their friends and neighbors, our democracy. But they were betrayed . Those troops fought and died and were maimed and had their marriages break up for oil company profits. An utter betrayal of our men and women in uniform and their families, a betrayal of their sacrifices, day after day, month after month, year and year - and for some, forever! Children growing up fatherless or motherless. Men and women without legs or arms or faces - for oil company profits.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, more maimed, and millions made refugees. For oil profits.

And what profits they are! Take a look at the study of Iraqi oil contracts by Global Policy Forum, a consultant to the United Nations Security Council. Or read this editorial from The Daily Times in Pakistan.

The contracts that the Bush administration has been pushing the Iraqi government to accept are not just about the distribution of oil among the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. The contracts call for 30-year exclusive rights for British and American oil companies, rights that cannot be revoked by future Iraqi governments. They are called “production sharing agreements” (or “PSA’s”) - a legalistic code word. The Iraqi government would technically own the oil, but could not control it; only the companies could do that. ExxonMobil and others would invest in developing the infrastructure for the oil (drilling, oil rigs, refining) and would get 75% of the “cost oil” profits, until they got their investment back. After that, they would own the infrastructure (paid for by oil profits), and then get 20% of oil profits after that (twice the usual rate). The profits are estimated to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And the Iraqi people would have no democratic control over their own major resource. No other Middle East country has such an arrangement.

Incidentally, polls show the Iraqi people overwhelmingly against “privatization”, but “production sharing agreements” were devised so they are technically not “privatization,” since the government would still own the oil but not control it. The ruse is there so that the government can claim it is not privatizing.

But none of this will work without military protection for the oil companies. That is what would keep us there indefinitely. The name for this is our “vital interests.”

Greenspan’s revelation and the contracts need to be discussed openly. The question must be asked, “Is our military there for the sake of oil?”

I have been struck by the use of the word “victory” by the right wing, especially by its propaganda arm, Freedom’s Watch. Usually, “victory” is used in reference to a war between countries over territory, where there is a definable enemy. That is not the case in Iraq, where we have for four years had an occupation, not a “war,” and there has been no clear enemy. We have mostly been fighting Iraqis we were supposed to be rescuing. “Victory” makes no sense for such an occupation. And even Petraeus has said that only a political, not a military, settlement is possible. In what sense can keeping troops there for 9 or 10 years or longer, as Petraeus has suggested, be a “victory”?

What is most frightening is that they may mean what they say, that they may have a concept of “victory” that makes sense to them but not to the rest of the country. If the goal of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been to guarantee access to Iraqi oil for the next 30 years, then any result guaranteeing oil profits for American oil companies would count as “victory.” Suppose the present killing and chaos were to continue, forcing us to keep our troops there indefinitely, but allowing the oil companies to prosper under our protection. That would be a “victory.” Or if the Iraqi army and police force were to develop in a few years and keep order there protecting American investments and workers, that too would be “victory.” If the country broke up into three distinct states or autonomous governments, that too would be “victory” as long as oil profits were guaranteed and Americans in the oil industry protected. And it doesn’t matter if a Republican president keeps the troops there or a Democratic president does. It is still an oil company “victory” - and a victory for Bush.

Indeed, Kurdistan’s PSA contract last week with Hunt Oil suggests the latter form of “victory.” As Paul Krugman observed in the New York Times on September 14, “the chief executive and president of Hunt Oil, is a close political ally of Mr. Bush. More than that, Mr. Hunt is a member of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a key oversight body.” Hunt Oil seems to have had the first taste of “victory.”

If that is “victory,” what is “defeat” and who is being “defeated?” The troops who would have to stay to protect the oil investments would, person by person, suffer defeat - a defeat of the spirit and, for too many, of the body. And most of America would suffer a defeat, especially our taxpayers who have paid a trillion dollars that could have gone for health care for all, for excellent schools and college educations, for rebuilding Louisiana and Mississippi, for shoring up our infrastructure and bridges, and for protecting our environment. Victory for the oil companies, defeat for most of America.

Is Greenspan right? Is this what “victory” could possibly mean? I do not want to even think that the answers might be “yes.” The thought itself is too disgusting. But Greenspan has put the questions before us, and we have a duty to pursue the answers. Because, if the answer is even half “yes,” then the troops and most Americans have been, and continue to be, betrayed beyond measure.

Perhaps the most honest and straightforward way to pursue such answers would be for Congress to frame the issue directly in terms of oil, as Greenspan did. Here’s a way to do it: The Constitution gives Congress authority over military matters through its power to fund continued military action. Without such funding, the troops cannot continue. Suppose Congress were to pass a bill saying that no funding would be forthcoming for military action in Iraq unless the Iraqi government drops all provisions for PSA’s - production sharing agreements - in its legislation. This would actually give the Iraqi government sovereignty over its oil indefinitely and take oil control away from Western oil companies. Even proposing such a bill seriously would have two effects: To raise the constitutional issue: the president has been overriding the constitution. And it would bring the oil issue front and center, so we can all see if “victory” is really about oil interests.

Suppose Greenspan is right, that oil was a primary factor in the Iraq invasion, that “victory” means victory for oil companies, and that “sacrifice” means sacrifice for the American oil industry. While I held the very possibility that this might be true, I clicked on the following website. Perhaps you will feel as I felt.

George Lakoff is the author of Moral Politics, Don’t Think of an Elephant!, Whose Freedom?, and Thinking Points (with the Rockridge Institute staff). He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute.

Oil and Betrayal in Iraq - CommonDreams.org

<img src="https://www.420magazine.com/gallery/data/569/buryoil.jpg" border="0" style="margin-right:6px" alt="" width="400" height="300" />​

 

[Jim Finnel]

Re: Its The End Of The World As We Know It

United States Must Reduce Heat Trapping Emissions by at Least 80 Percent by Mid-Century to Avoid Dangerous Warming

WASHINGTON - September 20 - To avoid the most severe effects of climate change, the world must stabilize the concentration of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere at no more than 450 parts per million, according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and scientists at Stanford University and Texas Tech University. (To read the report, go to: A Target for U.S. Emissions Reductions.) This limit aims to avoid exceeding a two degree Celsius increase in a global average temperature above pre-industrial levels (roughly equivalent to a two degree Fahrenheit rise above current temperatures).

Stabilizing above this level would likely lead to severe risks to natural systems and human health. Sustained warming of this magnitude could, for example, result in the extinction of many species and increase the threat of extensive melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets.

"Hitting this target for heat trapping gases would give us a fighting chance to avoid the worst consequences of global warming," said Dr. Amy Luers, UCS California Climate Manager and one of the study authors. "The study assumes both developing and industrialized countries would cut their emissions to avoid such a temperature increase. However, even with other countries taking aggressive action, the United States must make deep cuts."

The study found the United States must cut its emissions by at least 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050 if the world is to stay within the prescribed atmospheric concentration limit. According to the study, cutting emissions soon is essential.

"The cost of delay is high," said Dr. Michael D. Mastrandrea, research associate at the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. "If we wait until 2020 to start emission reductions, we'll have to cut twice as fast than if we start in 2010 to meet the same target."

Policies under consideration in the United States vary in the timing and levels of emissions cuts they call for and many fail to achieve the minimum pollution cuts needed.

"This report makes clear that the United States must make meaningful cuts in global warming pollution, and soon, to reduce the risk of severe climate impacts," said Alden Meyer, UCS Director of Strategy and Policy. "President Bush should drop his opposition to mandatory emissions limits, and put forward a specific proposal to aggressively reduce U.S. emissions at the meeting of major emitting countries that he is hosting next week."

Congress must also act to help the world avoid the worst consequences of global warming. Several pieces of legislation have been introduced that set mandatory reductions, but only two bills would keep U.S. emissions within the overall limits called for in the UCS study. One measure was introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif), and the other by Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and has offices in Berkeley, California, and Washington, D.C. For more information, go to Union of Concerned Scientists.

Union of Concerned Scientists: US Must Reduce Heat Trapping Emissions by at Least 80% by Mid-Century to Avoid Dangerous Warming