Greener Pastures
PHOTOS: 12 Of Greenpeace's Summer Protests From Around The World
From Mexico City to Malta, Berlin to Hong Kong, Greenpeace created impressive protests against environmental injustices this summer. Protesters wore hazardous waste uniforms, drenched themselves in mock oil, doused ducks in chocolate syrup and dropped banners from rooftops all in the name of green peace.
Check out our slideshow roundup of this summer's Greenpeace protests. Vote on your favorites and, as always, tell us what you think in the comments.
Check out our slideshow roundup of this summer's Greenpeace protests. Vote on your favorites and, as always, tell us what you think in the comments.
Read more: Greenpeace, Greenpeace International, Green Protests, Activism, Green News, Bp, Oil Kills, Nuclear Power, Genetically Engineered Foods, BP Oil Spill 2010, Green Energy, Food Patents, Blue Fin Tuna, Bp Oil Spill Protests, Fossil Fuels, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, Slidepollajax, Environment, Deepwater Horizon, Our Oceans, BP Oil Spill, Deforestation, Genetically Modified Foods, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
9 Of The Most Valuable Minerals In The World (PHOTOS)
From rubies to painite, coltan to diamonds, nature produces incredible minerals. Whether they are made into dazzling baubles or used in rechargeable batteries, the harvesting of these natural treasures can be damaging to the environment, human health and human rights. Many of these minerals are mined in war zones or seized by militant groups, making them conflict minerals.
Check out our slideshow of a sampling of some of the world's most valuable minerals. As always, we want to hear from you in the comments.
Check out our slideshow of a sampling of some of the world's most valuable minerals. As always, we want to hear from you in the comments.
Read more: Environment, Conflict Minerals, Conflict Stones, Conflict Diamonds, Most Expensive Minerals, Priciest Minerals, Most Expensive Stones, Minerals, Stones, Painite, Coltan, Slidepollajax, Lithium-Ion Battery, Blue Garnet, Blood Diamonds, Lithium, Jadeite, Gold, Jewelry, Diamonds, Ruby, Opals, Black Opal, Jewelry Stones, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Tracy L. Barnett: Paraguay Takes Hard Line on GMOs
ASUNCION, Paraguay - The federal agricultural agency's dramatic destruction of more than 100 acres of transgenic corn a couple of weeks ago has provoked a fiery new round here in the debate about genetically modified crops.
I landed here in Paraguay on the day of that intervention and found myself at the heart of what's been dubbed "The Soy Wars," where transnational giants like Cargill and Monsanto have held virtually unchallenged political influence for years, and vast stretches of the countryside have been bulldozed to create Roundup-ready empires. Those campesinos and indigenous people who have tried to hold out against the pressure to sell their land have found their subsistence lifestyles and even their very lives under attack from aerial sprayings of "agrotoxins," and from roving thugs who have tried to repress dissent by targeting community leaders for harassment and even, in one extreme case, assassination.
That war has taken a new turn with the entrance of the government of Fernando Lugo. The shift has been most visible in the dramatic "intervention" staged recently in which SENAVE officials destroyed 44 hectares of transgenic corn, an act that prompted sharp criticism from the defenders of the agribusiness elite that has controlled national politics over the past two decades.
I had met Miguel Lovera, the controversial head of SENAVE, the Paraguayan equivalent of the U.S. Food and Agriculture Service, at a conference held by local environmental, human rights and campesino groups to lay out their arguments for government leaders. I decided to request an interview with him, and surprisingly, an hour later, I was in his office.
He had just come from meeting with the president - who was sporting a new buzz cut in anticipation of the hair loss his chemotherapy would bring, but who was feeling hale and hearty and in control, Lovera assured me.
He received me warmly in his spacious office on the 15th floor of the Planeta 1 building in downtown Asuncion. The cityscape outside his ample windows was grey with the smoke of a thousand fields burning across the river in the Gran Chaco - fires from agricultural fields being burned to make way for the new crop.
I wanted to ask him about this, and about so many things - among other activities, Lovera was chosen to lead the country's delegation to Copenhagen last year for the climate talks, and his televised interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now reflected a particularly thoughtful approach to the problem of climate change. But his time was short, so we stayed on topic.
"This is not a political action, it's just implementing the legislation," he emphasized. "It's quite simple, actually - transgenic corn is not legal in our environment. I'm just enforcing the legislation - although there's a lot of opposition, because there's a huge economic interest behind the illegal cultivation of transgenic corn."
The only genetically modified crops that are currently authorized in Paraguay for cultivation are several specific varieties of soy.
Unfortunately, he said, previous administrators of SENAVE were "completely oblivious" to this legislation, so its enforcement has come as something of a shock. It has also kicked off a new round of debate over the merits and threats of transgenics in general, a debate that Lovera declines to participate, sticking with the stable ground of legal enforcement.
The decision to destroy the transgenic cornfields dominated the front page of ABC Color, the most conservative newspaper, for most of the week. Héctor Cristaldo, head of the powerful producer's guild, derided Lovera and the entire Lugo administration, saying the country needed this technology in order to grow the economy and meet its obligations.
"That's nonsense, actually," he retorted. "We are reaching the highest levels of agricultural production ever in this country - the only thing we are doing is being legal. If your productivity depends on illegality, then actually you've got it wrong. And I think Crisaldo's got it wrong because he defends an immoral position. We actually do have a legal system in this country; President Lugo's government is working really hard to comply with decency, with legality and applying the rule of law in the country - so we cannot have these mavericks roaming around the country doing whatever they want anymore."
Another opponent, Regis Mereles of the Soy Producers Association, was harsher. He called Lovera "retrograde," and suggested he needed to pay a visit to the countryside to get a better idea of what was happening there.
Lovera shook his head and laughed. "You've just heard what kind of a retrograde I am," he said. "If being against the law of the jungle is being retrograde, well, yes, I welcome that epithet."
He acknowledged that he doesn't get out to the countryside as much as he'd like - "Probably because I'm sitting in this chair most of the time -" but he wondered if Misales had a vision problem.
"Because if you go to the countryside the way I go and see all the abuse - and there still is some - you cannot say, this is fine. They are just producing here. If you're not capable of understanding the level of abuse being applied and inflicted on bystanders, then you really have a terrible psychological problem."
Reports of chemical poisonings of communities and water supplies have been common over the years, and even more cases have not been reported due to fear and intimidation, according to Marie-Monique Robin, author of The World According to Monsanto. The book has a whole chapter dedicated to the rise of transgenic soy in the region. One rare case, that of 11-year-old Silvino Talavera, who died of chemical intoxication, actually was fought to a successful conclusion in Paraguay's court system in 2004 and brought international attention to the problem.
Already the new emphasis on enforcement has brought about an enormous change in compliance, due in large part to what Lovera calls the "pedagogic effect" of applying the law. When Lugo took office two years ago, Lovera estimates the level of compliance to agricultural regulations at about 10 or 15 percent. Nowadays, Lovera believes compliance to those regulations is closer to 50 percent.
"I see that as a good sign, and this will only increase our competitiveness in terms of international trade in terms of being considered as a serious place to do business," he said.
Most growers, he says, have been open to learning about the legislation and changing their practices.
"The producers are saying, 'If we've done this in the past, we're not going to do it again.' That's the response we're getting from the real producers, not from these clan leaders and syndicate leaders who are my critics at the moment.
"The guys who are earning their living plowing the land and sowing the seeds, they want to do the best job they can. So we are going to help them; we're open to dialog, discussions, debate - that's the only way of solving the debate we're having at the moment. They are really cooperating, and I predict we're going to have a much better countryside in a few months."
I asked Lovera to discuss some of the challenges his agency has faced in trying to enforce the law.
"The main impediment we have at the moment is nostalgia," he said. "Some people like Cristaldo - he represents a group of pseudo-entrepreneurs who are basically a privileged caste in this country and of course they are fighting not to lose those privileges, which are highly unjust and unfair for the rest of the population.
"In any moderately civilized country if you would spray your pesticides on people, you'd basically go to jail. In this country that wasn't the case, it may still be the case in many places in the country that they may be spraying on the wrong places, on the wrong people, on the wrong animals.
"We're out there to put an end to this situation. So if you protest against that, then, well, you're not really fit to live in a democratic society; you're not fit because you're not able to respect fellow human beings, and you're not sensible enough to recognize that you need a certain degree of environmental quality, and that your business and economic activities should be limited by those discernible impacts."
A longer story is available at Z Communications.
A Spanish-language version is at El Proyecto Esperanza.
Tracy L. Barnett is an independent writer, currently traveling through Latin America researching environmental initiatives for a book and for The Esperanza Project, a green web portal for the Americas.
Some images from recent SENAVE "interventions," courtesy of the agency:
Created with Admarket's flickrSLiDR.
Read more: Environment, Gmos, Latin America, Industrial Agriculture, Paraguay, World News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Rachel Ben-Avi: Now You See It, Now You Don't
BP... Oil... The Gulf Coast... Dispersants.
Seafood... Oil... Taste tests... Smell tests.
Minimizing the damage... Reality.
Unemployment... The economy.
The Environment... The fate of the earth.
Acy sticks in my mind. I cannot get him out of my mind. I don't mind him there. He is the one who touches me. "BP is trying to move out," he says.
"Oil is there," he says. "We have oil on the bottom of our waterways. 90% of the oil is still there. We need to make sure BP stays. Need to clean it up."
I have organized articles into files. I am periodically stumped not only by the amount of information coming from all quarters, day after day, faster than I can digest it, but also and more to the point, by the conflicting "facts" and opinions proffered. This is no tidy subject. And almost everyone seems to have a horse in this race. Almost. I think Acy does not. Well, of course he does, but his horse isn't hidden; it's in the forefront, where one can see it; difference is, it's not dragging him, blinders on, down the shortest, least irksome track to money. It's not distorting the depressing reality in which he finds himself.
Acy tells truth while he would be better served by fiction. "I worked in one part of this particular bay for two months, and we wear hazmat suits, we wear gloves, we taped up; they say oil's not there. The last day they got rid of me; I was working for BP; I found oil was on the bottom; I reported it to the Coast Guard; I reported it to BP, took 'em out there, showed 'em it was there..."
I have on this trip to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, been in the company of big brains, power, and unimaginable wealth.
But I cannot get Acy out of my head. "NOAA keeps saying the oil's not there; everybody says it's not there: we know it's there...; this has catastrophic effects on our community, our way of life."
I sit at my kitchen table; it is piled high with papers, articles from newspapers and magazines, notes I took while in Baton Rouge with GIC (www.interdependence.org), notes I took while watching congressional hearings on CSPAN.
August 19th.
The hearings: Rep. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, spent the entire day gathering information from an "extremely distinguished group of witnesses..." Here is some of what was said.
Dr. Bill Lehr, from NOAA. He addresses the government's response to the oil spill. According to experts, the oil that was spilled can be divided into four basic categories, he says: "about one quarter of it was either recovered directly, was burned in situ, or was skimmed on the surface; another quarter either evaporated or was dissolved into the water column; another quarter...several times the size of the Exxon Valdez remains out there for cleanup purposes; and another quarter was dispersed into the water column. Part of that was through natural dispersion and another part through the use of dispersants." No fisheries, he assures us, are being opened until they meet the FDA's standards for health and wholesomeness.
If you don't think too much about that statement, it sounds as if the oil is, mirabile dictu, pretty much taken care of. And then the New York Times of August 24th tells us that indeed it is. "Undersea plume vanishes," it says, "degraded by previously unknown bug." Terry Hazan, a microbiologist and oil spill expert at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory tells us the "bugs have degraded the oil." But then, five or so paragraphs later, the paper says, "The bugs' success in degrading one plume does not invalidate fears of how the ecosystem may have reacted to the multiple invisible mists of oil that stretched out from the Macondo well while it was flowing, or the lingering taint of diffused oil and methane or hard-to-degrade, if nontoxic, petroleum components like asphalt."
Wait a second, there. Aside from "invisible mists" and "diffused oil and methane," since when is asphalt nontoxic? Do I want to eat asphalt?
Dr. Donald Kraemer, from the FDA. He addresses the safety of seafood harvested from the Gulf and talks about a "strict protocol for reopening closed fisheries" and the testing of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAH , "the primary contaminants of concern in oil." (It is my understanding that they are potentially carcinogenic, mine, not Kramer's.) Tested in seafood, he tells us that the levels are "well below the level of concern," and in fact, no higher than they were before the spill. (Sounds almost too good to be true.) The reopening protocol? 1: all oil from the spill is no longer present in quantities or forms that could contaminate seafood, 2: a scientifically valid sampling plan is agreed upon, and 3: all samples from the area have successfully passed all sensory and chemical analysis to insure that they contain no harmful oil residues.
Phew. (That's my "phew," not his.)
One of these men--I've lost track, I confess--emphasizes the rigorous training of those who smell seafood to detect danger. Smelling abilities are finely honed. These are no amateur noses. They are trained noses, and mind you, not every sniffer passes muster. There is sensory testing. Experts who go through significant training to attain skill in picking up odors of oil, of dispersants. Experts in The Smell Test. Truly.
Thus is our seafood deemed safe.
Yes, I am serious.
Dr. Paul Anastas, from the EPA. He addresses toxicity tests on dispersants and on oil plus dispersant in fish. The oil is moderately toxic, but the EPA found no excessive mortality, no excessive impact of dispersants.
How much mortality is "excessive? " I wonder. What is "excessive" impact when it comes to dispersants?
Clearly, they must keep at it, says Dr. Anastas. Never can tell what the future will bring.
On persistent questioning by Markey:
Lehr admits 75% of the oil is still in the environment but not available for testing. (In droplets, in air, etc.)
Markey: What % was actually removed by BP?
L: I'd have to redo calculations....
M: 10% would have been removed: Burning 6%, skimming 4%. 90% unaccounted for. That right? And an unknown amount on beaches...
L: Hard to estimate amount.
M: Twenty one years ago, 10% was determined to be recoverable at the Exxon Valdez spill. The amount is the same now.
L: Yeah, about same.
M: In my mind that is not a passing grade. Even using a 21 year old grading system, BP has not passed.
There is some back and forth about the algorithms' (the scientists' calculations) being released to the public. Lehr says it will take two months before numbers can be released.
Markey: The public has a right to know right now what is going on in the GOM. Two months is too long. We need the data to be released now.
Questions about methane: Will NOAA be taking methane into account? Would it take into account all the hydrocarbons involved?
Long talk about toxicity studies on Corexit.
Each of the components is low toxicity to humans. Someone says this.
But some may be toxic to fish. Someone says that.
If it's toxic to fish, and I eat it, then what?
Donald Kraemer: Corexit is composed of common household constituents, found in food and toothpaste and lip gloss. Unlikely to bio-concentrate. (I don't like that: unlikely.) In parts of Gulf re-opened for fishing, no testing but belief that seafood is okay. (I don't like that either: "no testing" or "belief"...)
M: What about fish that swim from oiled area to non oiled area?
Lehr: Fish is presumed guilty until proved innocent, Has to pass tasting test, then goes to NOAA for chemical test. (Tasting test. That sounds like the smell test to me.) Testing in areas where oil has not been present. (And that proves what?)
M: Bluefin Tuna spawn in GOM, swim up to Georgia, ultimately migrate to coast of New England. How do we test them?
That question is blown off, as if frivolous, almost as if it is amusing.
Markey also notes that he wrote a letter to the FDA asking about the testing for heavy metals, arsenic, mercury. Has not gotten a response. It is six weeks since he sent the letter. When will he hear, he asks.
In a matter of days, he is told.
Who's on first?
M: Dr. Lehr, do you agree that the government can vouch unequivocally that the fish caught in state waters is safe to eat? As well as in federal waters?
Lehr: I would say that the fish caught is meeting all the standards that were developed by FDA and NOAA.
That's the problem, I think.
Dean Blanchard speaks. He is the president of Dean Blanchard Seafoods, the largest dockside shrimp broker in the United States and the third largest in the world. He is from Grand Isle, Louisiana. He guesses he has moved in his lifetime about 300,000,000 pounds of shrimp and never seen anyone get sick. He cannot get product liability insurance now. He's worried about customers getting sick from his seafood; he worries a lot about pregnant women getting sick. "That would be hard to live with," he says. He's more careful now than ever before about the shrimp delivered to him, but he's not worried about the shrimp he okays, he's worried about someone coming along and suing him just to "make money off this." He says he eats shrimp six, seven days a week. It's good, he assures us. If it isn't, he tells the fishermen who supply him, don't bring it to me.
That's where--after several hours of listening to men in suits and one woman--I saw and heard Acy.
I have read and read; I have done my homework. I am oppressed with information, much of which raises more questions than it supplies answers, much of which I cannot recall already, and I have only just read it. I am overloaded. As, I assume, we all are, or at any rate those of us who have made the attempt to keep up with, to understand all the varied aspects of this event.
Acy preoccupies me. He is the one who sits squarely before my eyes. It is he whose voice touches me. Acy Cooper Jr.
Mr. Markey tells us that Acy is a fisherman from Plaquemines Parrish and that he is vice president of the Louisiana Shrimper's Association and owner of a commercial shrimp boat. He wears no jacket, no tie, just a white short sleeved shirt. He is tanned, has graying hair, a graying moustache and beard, wears wire rimmed glasses, and chews gum all the time he testifies; he speaks in a thick, sometimes barely comprehensible Louisiana accent. His statement is almost monotone, but the more he talks, the more his eyes redden, glisten wet.
"They say the oil is gone. It's not gone. We have oil on the bottom..."
"These places we do have that's clean; we know it's clean. We worried about what comes in tomorrow or day after tomorrow that we can't fish any more." We want to make sure what we sell is good, that's the main thing. We have meetings. We discuss this. "Now, we have to make sure BP stays in place as long as it needs to be... I tell you right now that they are trying to move out, and they are trying to go...."
"It starts August 16, the season, I went out; normally I catch a couple to 10,000 pounds of shrimp. I caught 500 pound. This season, $1.25. These same shrimp, last season was around $2, $2.25/lb; they already went down one dollar. Now if I can't get the price for my shrimp, and I can't catch em, how am I going to survive?"
"One link is broken in this chain; we lose our industry. Who do we go to then?"
In the "disappearance" of the oil, we have the perfect metaphor for our mental machinations, those nifty tricks the brain employs to ditch that which is unthinkable: our self-destruction. Microbes ate the oil The water takes care of itself. (Don't even think about all the plastic and garbage down there.) Ditto for air quality. Poison in the air? If you can't see it, and you don't smell it, well, it just plain isn't there.
"They say the oil is gone," says Acy. "It's not gone. It's on the bottom. We can take you and show you. I brought the Coast Guard. I brought BP and showed 'em. You stir the bottom. It all comes up. So, whoever said it was gone, as you heard today. They said 75% was gone before. 90%'s still there. And it's going to come up on our shores eventually, somewhere, if not in La, somewheres else. Thank you."
***********************
This is the third of a series of articles I am writing (the first were Mother Earth, www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-benavi/mother-earth_b_676330.html and Dinner at Tara, www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-benavi/dinner-at-tara_b_682750.html ) after returning from a trip to Louisiana during which we, members of GIC, the Global Interdependence Center, www.interdependence.org were educated, more or less, about various aspects of the horrendous environmental catastrophe that has caused and will continue to cause so much damage and so much tearing heartache for so many.
Seafood... Oil... Taste tests... Smell tests.
Minimizing the damage... Reality.
Unemployment... The economy.
The Environment... The fate of the earth.
Acy sticks in my mind. I cannot get him out of my mind. I don't mind him there. He is the one who touches me. "BP is trying to move out," he says.
"Oil is there," he says. "We have oil on the bottom of our waterways. 90% of the oil is still there. We need to make sure BP stays. Need to clean it up."
I have organized articles into files. I am periodically stumped not only by the amount of information coming from all quarters, day after day, faster than I can digest it, but also and more to the point, by the conflicting "facts" and opinions proffered. This is no tidy subject. And almost everyone seems to have a horse in this race. Almost. I think Acy does not. Well, of course he does, but his horse isn't hidden; it's in the forefront, where one can see it; difference is, it's not dragging him, blinders on, down the shortest, least irksome track to money. It's not distorting the depressing reality in which he finds himself.
Acy tells truth while he would be better served by fiction. "I worked in one part of this particular bay for two months, and we wear hazmat suits, we wear gloves, we taped up; they say oil's not there. The last day they got rid of me; I was working for BP; I found oil was on the bottom; I reported it to the Coast Guard; I reported it to BP, took 'em out there, showed 'em it was there..."
I have on this trip to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, been in the company of big brains, power, and unimaginable wealth.
But I cannot get Acy out of my head. "NOAA keeps saying the oil's not there; everybody says it's not there: we know it's there...; this has catastrophic effects on our community, our way of life."
I sit at my kitchen table; it is piled high with papers, articles from newspapers and magazines, notes I took while in Baton Rouge with GIC (www.interdependence.org), notes I took while watching congressional hearings on CSPAN.
August 19th.
The hearings: Rep. Ed Markey, D-Massachusetts, chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, spent the entire day gathering information from an "extremely distinguished group of witnesses..." Here is some of what was said.
Dr. Bill Lehr, from NOAA. He addresses the government's response to the oil spill. According to experts, the oil that was spilled can be divided into four basic categories, he says: "about one quarter of it was either recovered directly, was burned in situ, or was skimmed on the surface; another quarter either evaporated or was dissolved into the water column; another quarter...several times the size of the Exxon Valdez remains out there for cleanup purposes; and another quarter was dispersed into the water column. Part of that was through natural dispersion and another part through the use of dispersants." No fisheries, he assures us, are being opened until they meet the FDA's standards for health and wholesomeness.
If you don't think too much about that statement, it sounds as if the oil is, mirabile dictu, pretty much taken care of. And then the New York Times of August 24th tells us that indeed it is. "Undersea plume vanishes," it says, "degraded by previously unknown bug." Terry Hazan, a microbiologist and oil spill expert at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory tells us the "bugs have degraded the oil." But then, five or so paragraphs later, the paper says, "The bugs' success in degrading one plume does not invalidate fears of how the ecosystem may have reacted to the multiple invisible mists of oil that stretched out from the Macondo well while it was flowing, or the lingering taint of diffused oil and methane or hard-to-degrade, if nontoxic, petroleum components like asphalt."
Wait a second, there. Aside from "invisible mists" and "diffused oil and methane," since when is asphalt nontoxic? Do I want to eat asphalt?
Dr. Donald Kraemer, from the FDA. He addresses the safety of seafood harvested from the Gulf and talks about a "strict protocol for reopening closed fisheries" and the testing of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAH , "the primary contaminants of concern in oil." (It is my understanding that they are potentially carcinogenic, mine, not Kramer's.) Tested in seafood, he tells us that the levels are "well below the level of concern," and in fact, no higher than they were before the spill. (Sounds almost too good to be true.) The reopening protocol? 1: all oil from the spill is no longer present in quantities or forms that could contaminate seafood, 2: a scientifically valid sampling plan is agreed upon, and 3: all samples from the area have successfully passed all sensory and chemical analysis to insure that they contain no harmful oil residues.
Phew. (That's my "phew," not his.)
One of these men--I've lost track, I confess--emphasizes the rigorous training of those who smell seafood to detect danger. Smelling abilities are finely honed. These are no amateur noses. They are trained noses, and mind you, not every sniffer passes muster. There is sensory testing. Experts who go through significant training to attain skill in picking up odors of oil, of dispersants. Experts in The Smell Test. Truly.
Thus is our seafood deemed safe.
Yes, I am serious.
Dr. Paul Anastas, from the EPA. He addresses toxicity tests on dispersants and on oil plus dispersant in fish. The oil is moderately toxic, but the EPA found no excessive mortality, no excessive impact of dispersants.
How much mortality is "excessive? " I wonder. What is "excessive" impact when it comes to dispersants?
Clearly, they must keep at it, says Dr. Anastas. Never can tell what the future will bring.
On persistent questioning by Markey:
Lehr admits 75% of the oil is still in the environment but not available for testing. (In droplets, in air, etc.)
Markey: What % was actually removed by BP?
L: I'd have to redo calculations....
M: 10% would have been removed: Burning 6%, skimming 4%. 90% unaccounted for. That right? And an unknown amount on beaches...
L: Hard to estimate amount.
M: Twenty one years ago, 10% was determined to be recoverable at the Exxon Valdez spill. The amount is the same now.
L: Yeah, about same.
M: In my mind that is not a passing grade. Even using a 21 year old grading system, BP has not passed.
There is some back and forth about the algorithms' (the scientists' calculations) being released to the public. Lehr says it will take two months before numbers can be released.
Markey: The public has a right to know right now what is going on in the GOM. Two months is too long. We need the data to be released now.
Questions about methane: Will NOAA be taking methane into account? Would it take into account all the hydrocarbons involved?
Long talk about toxicity studies on Corexit.
Each of the components is low toxicity to humans. Someone says this.
But some may be toxic to fish. Someone says that.
If it's toxic to fish, and I eat it, then what?
Donald Kraemer: Corexit is composed of common household constituents, found in food and toothpaste and lip gloss. Unlikely to bio-concentrate. (I don't like that: unlikely.) In parts of Gulf re-opened for fishing, no testing but belief that seafood is okay. (I don't like that either: "no testing" or "belief"...)
M: What about fish that swim from oiled area to non oiled area?
Lehr: Fish is presumed guilty until proved innocent, Has to pass tasting test, then goes to NOAA for chemical test. (Tasting test. That sounds like the smell test to me.) Testing in areas where oil has not been present. (And that proves what?)
M: Bluefin Tuna spawn in GOM, swim up to Georgia, ultimately migrate to coast of New England. How do we test them?
That question is blown off, as if frivolous, almost as if it is amusing.
Markey also notes that he wrote a letter to the FDA asking about the testing for heavy metals, arsenic, mercury. Has not gotten a response. It is six weeks since he sent the letter. When will he hear, he asks.
In a matter of days, he is told.
Who's on first?
M: Dr. Lehr, do you agree that the government can vouch unequivocally that the fish caught in state waters is safe to eat? As well as in federal waters?
Lehr: I would say that the fish caught is meeting all the standards that were developed by FDA and NOAA.
That's the problem, I think.
Dean Blanchard speaks. He is the president of Dean Blanchard Seafoods, the largest dockside shrimp broker in the United States and the third largest in the world. He is from Grand Isle, Louisiana. He guesses he has moved in his lifetime about 300,000,000 pounds of shrimp and never seen anyone get sick. He cannot get product liability insurance now. He's worried about customers getting sick from his seafood; he worries a lot about pregnant women getting sick. "That would be hard to live with," he says. He's more careful now than ever before about the shrimp delivered to him, but he's not worried about the shrimp he okays, he's worried about someone coming along and suing him just to "make money off this." He says he eats shrimp six, seven days a week. It's good, he assures us. If it isn't, he tells the fishermen who supply him, don't bring it to me.
That's where--after several hours of listening to men in suits and one woman--I saw and heard Acy.
I have read and read; I have done my homework. I am oppressed with information, much of which raises more questions than it supplies answers, much of which I cannot recall already, and I have only just read it. I am overloaded. As, I assume, we all are, or at any rate those of us who have made the attempt to keep up with, to understand all the varied aspects of this event.
Acy preoccupies me. He is the one who sits squarely before my eyes. It is he whose voice touches me. Acy Cooper Jr.
Mr. Markey tells us that Acy is a fisherman from Plaquemines Parrish and that he is vice president of the Louisiana Shrimper's Association and owner of a commercial shrimp boat. He wears no jacket, no tie, just a white short sleeved shirt. He is tanned, has graying hair, a graying moustache and beard, wears wire rimmed glasses, and chews gum all the time he testifies; he speaks in a thick, sometimes barely comprehensible Louisiana accent. His statement is almost monotone, but the more he talks, the more his eyes redden, glisten wet.
"They say the oil is gone. It's not gone. We have oil on the bottom..."
"These places we do have that's clean; we know it's clean. We worried about what comes in tomorrow or day after tomorrow that we can't fish any more." We want to make sure what we sell is good, that's the main thing. We have meetings. We discuss this. "Now, we have to make sure BP stays in place as long as it needs to be... I tell you right now that they are trying to move out, and they are trying to go...."
"It starts August 16, the season, I went out; normally I catch a couple to 10,000 pounds of shrimp. I caught 500 pound. This season, $1.25. These same shrimp, last season was around $2, $2.25/lb; they already went down one dollar. Now if I can't get the price for my shrimp, and I can't catch em, how am I going to survive?"
"One link is broken in this chain; we lose our industry. Who do we go to then?"
In the "disappearance" of the oil, we have the perfect metaphor for our mental machinations, those nifty tricks the brain employs to ditch that which is unthinkable: our self-destruction. Microbes ate the oil The water takes care of itself. (Don't even think about all the plastic and garbage down there.) Ditto for air quality. Poison in the air? If you can't see it, and you don't smell it, well, it just plain isn't there.
"They say the oil is gone," says Acy. "It's not gone. It's on the bottom. We can take you and show you. I brought the Coast Guard. I brought BP and showed 'em. You stir the bottom. It all comes up. So, whoever said it was gone, as you heard today. They said 75% was gone before. 90%'s still there. And it's going to come up on our shores eventually, somewhere, if not in La, somewheres else. Thank you."
***********************
This is the third of a series of articles I am writing (the first were Mother Earth, www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-benavi/mother-earth_b_676330.html and Dinner at Tara, www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-benavi/dinner-at-tara_b_682750.html ) after returning from a trip to Louisiana during which we, members of GIC, the Global Interdependence Center, www.interdependence.org were educated, more or less, about various aspects of the horrendous environmental catastrophe that has caused and will continue to cause so much damage and so much tearing heartache for so many.
Read more: Environment, Gulf Seafood, BP Oil Spill, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
9 Of The Most Polluted Places In The World (PHOTOS)
From the highways of Los Angeles to the Citarum River of Bandung, Indonesia, earth's most polluted city of Linfen, China to the streets of London, the world is laden with man-made pollution. Chemical, air, water and oil pollution ruin the environment, cause premature deaths, spoil the world's resources and worsen climate change.
As the world's population soars to nearly 7 billion, we here at HuffPost Green decided to take a virtual tour of some of the world's most polluted places. Check out our slideshow of nine places that top lists for pollution both nationally and sometimes throughout the whole world. Find out which city's death rate surpasses its birth rate by 260 percent. Or which city has 50,000 people die prematurely each year due to man-made air pollution. As always, we want to hear from you. Tell us what you think in the comments.
MORE:
Check the state of your air with the American Lung Association's interactive map.
As the world's population soars to nearly 7 billion, we here at HuffPost Green decided to take a virtual tour of some of the world's most polluted places. Check out our slideshow of nine places that top lists for pollution both nationally and sometimes throughout the whole world. Find out which city's death rate surpasses its birth rate by 260 percent. Or which city has 50,000 people die prematurely each year due to man-made air pollution. As always, we want to hear from you. Tell us what you think in the comments.
MORE:
Check the state of your air with the American Lung Association's interactive map.
Read more: L.A., Russia, Nuclear Waste, Dzerzhinsk, Peru, Most Polluted Cities, London Pollution, Citarum River, Niger Delta Oil Pollution, Los Angeles, London, Niger Delta, Doe Run Peru, World's Most Polluted Cities, Environment Pollution, Water-Pollution, Indonesia, Lake Karachay, Phoenix, China Pollution, Niger Delta Oil, Los Angeles Pollution, La Oroya, Doe Run, Linfen, Environment, Russia Pollution, Air Pollution, Slidepollajax, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Reverend Billy: The Newest City
-- meditation before 2010 Burning Man --
For millennia, we human beings lived in walled cities. That was where the power was. We were safe and warm inside the walls that kept the dark chaos of nature -- out.
In the old days it was the darkness of wolves and bats and the undead. The wall was vertical stone. In modern times the wall is made of impressions and perspectives, pixels and trade deals. Nevertheless it is the same wall and does the same job: keeping out the wilderness and that great expanse of the fleeing poor and all their droughts and earthquakes and floods. We will send out help. We'll do what we can! But our walled city design has stayed the same through the years. We stay here on the inside with our power. Beyond the wall is the dark chaos.
What a surprise then to find that the wall is suddenly full of holes. Our power is no longer inside with us, here behind the wall where the power belongs. Suddenly, our nation-state and corporations and religion are hard to find. Are the powerful on our side of the wall like they used to be? Public image professionals have assured us that the power will return soon. But the wilderness keeps showing up in the oddest places: in our dreams, in rumbling sounds under whispers.
How astonishing to find that we ourselves are the fleeing poor. We knew there were economic problems, but people have lived in the capitals of broken empires for centuries and things were OK. We didn't know that we would be forced to move for lack of money or food. They kept telling us that the old walls were still casting their spell, like television screens that broadcast old hits. Our betrayal wasn't clear to us until the weariness wore us down and we had to take a rest by the side of the road.
How were we to know that when we saw a walled city in the distance and walked toward it for days - that we would not be admitted? We felt drawn to it. We could feel the power. Now we stand at the gate of this city and find that it is inhabited by a vast wilderness. The dark chaos has reversed the power and walled us out. But what is this wall made of? It takes the form of incomprehensible bad weather, erupting rock and the last screams of the dying. Who do we even talk to? The newest city doesn't seem to know that we are Americans.
Read more: Environment, Burning Man, Reverend Billy, Bill Mckibben, Children, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
The Moneyless Man: How Did Mark Boyle Spend A Year Without Spending A Dollar? (PHOTOS)
In 2008, economics graduate and former businessman Mark Boyle gave up the one resource we all crave more of: money. He sold his house, found a place to live where he could trade labor directly for accommodation, set up a rocket stove made from discarded catering cans, a solar shower, a veggie garden, and a compost toilet. And on November 28th (International Buy Nothing Day 2008), he became The Moneyless Man.
In his new book "The Moneyless Man: A Year Of Freeconomic Living," Mark tells us how he did it and why. He answers practical questions, offers useful tips to cut down daily expenses, and relays the philosophical lessons he learned. What Mark discovered is that not only could he successfully eliminate his bills and reduce his carbon footprint, but that by living without money he ended up more productive, healthier and happier than ever.
In the slideshow, Mark documents all the challenges and experiences of his moneyless year.
For more information about Mark and his book, check out his profile for CNN.
In his new book "The Moneyless Man: A Year Of Freeconomic Living," Mark tells us how he did it and why. He answers practical questions, offers useful tips to cut down daily expenses, and relays the philosophical lessons he learned. What Mark discovered is that not only could he successfully eliminate his bills and reduce his carbon footprint, but that by living without money he ended up more productive, healthier and happier than ever.
In the slideshow, Mark documents all the challenges and experiences of his moneyless year.
For more information about Mark and his book, check out his profile for CNN.
Read more: Mark Boyle, Carbon Emissions, Moneyless Man, Mark Boyle Moneyless Man, Environment, The Moneyless Man a Year of Freeconomic Living, Reducing Carbon Emissions, Environmentalism, Green Living, Slidepollajax, Mark Boyle Moneyless, Green Living Tips, Moneyless, Boyle, Carbon Footprint, Books News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Janet Ranganathan: Minding the Sustainability GAAP
Limited transparency around corporate sustainability risks can lead to investments that are bad for the environment, and investors' bottom lines.
Yesterday BP abandoned its hope of bidding on a potentially lucrative exploration license in Greenland. The implication is that its tarnished reputation is undermining its ability to compete for projects. Across the Atlantic, the Tennessee Valley Authority has lost nearly $50 million in power generation during this summer's heatwave, because the Tennessee river is too hot for the nuclear plants' cooling towers to function.
What do these two stories have in common? They are both examples of how environmental degradation can hit home for companies. The global environmental crisis, including climate change, water scarcity and ecosystem degradation, isn't just a problem for "greens." It also creates significant financial risks for companies and their investors.
Environmental Risks Alter Balance Sheets
Such risks vary from sector to sector but include: potential liability for environmental accidents; the physical impacts of climate change on supply chains; and growing water scarcity in many parts of the world.
BP's recent crisis generated by the mammoth Gulf of Mexico oil spill is an extreme example of environmental risk. It turned the company's anticipated net income of $5.6 billion for the second quarter of 2010 into a record $17.1 billion loss.
But in a resource-constrained and warming world, there are many other risks that may significantly alter the balance sheet. For example, research suggests that consumer goods companies could face a loss of earnings if they do not respond to environmental pressures in their supply chains, including physical climate change impacts and public policy responses to them. Specifically, the World Resources Institute (WRI) report Rattling the Supply Chains indicates that such businesses could face a 13-31 percent reduction in earnings before interest and taxes as soon as 2013, rising to 19-47 percent in 2018.
Certain sectors will be heavily impacted by specific risks in vulnerable countries or regions. For example, 79% of planned new power plant capacity in India will be built in water scarce or stressed areas. Since thermal and hydroelectric power plants depend heavily on water for cooling and energy generation, uncertain water supply creates significant risks for domestic power companies.
A Gap in Financial Accounting Standards
Worldwide, current financial accounting standards and generally accepted accounting principles (known as GAAP) fail explicitly to address such risks, which often derive from unsustainable business strategies. They can also miss the opportunities that such challenges create. Superior environmental performance by corporations can translate into lower costs from improved energy and resource efficiency and higher revenues from product innovation and enhanced brand recognition. General Electric's Ecomagination™ product line is one compelling case in point.
Current financial accounting standards and generally accepted accounting principles fail explicitly to address environmental risks, which often derive from unsustainable business strategies.
Corporate sustainability reports can help fill information gaps on some risks. But sustainability reporting standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative, remain largely voluntary, and as a result, their uptake is limited. Another recent WRI report Undisclosed Risk, for example, found that developing markets have particularly lagged behind in producing corporate sustainability reports. What's more, stand alone reports all but guarantee that sustainability remains at the periphery rather than the mainstream of financial and investment decisions. A 2008 KPMG International Survey of Corporate Social Responsibility, for example, found that only three percent of annual financial reports had corporate responsibility information fully integrated into them.
The failure to integrate sustainability as a strategic business issue in annual financial reports means that businesses and investors continue to make investments that are bad for the environment, society and ultimately their own bottom line. As a result, environmental trends continue on a downward trajectory, creating even greater risks for companies, especially those that have not embraced sustainable business strategies.
Towards Integrated Reporting
A solution may finally be on its way. A coalition of businesses, regulators, accountants, securities exchanges and not-for-profit groups recently launched an International Integrated Reporting Committee initiative to "create a globally accepted framework for accounting for sustainability." Jointly convened by HRH Prince Charles's UK-based Accounting for Sustainability Project and the Global Reporting Initiative, the committee includes participants from the International Accounting Standards Board, U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board, International Organisation of Securities Commissions, the Big Four auditors - Price Waterhouse Coopers, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and KPMG - and NGOs including the World Resources Institute. The committee intends to present a framework, which brings together financial, environmental, social and governance information in a single "integrated" reporting format, at the G20 intergovernmental summit in France in 2011. The G20 already backs the formation of a single set of reporting standards, and G20 support for broader rules will be crucial to their introduction.
Moving sustainability from the periphery to mainstream investment is an essential next step in preparing the corporate sector to deal with environmental risks. The move won't be easy. But given worsening environmental trends and the fact that today's investment decisions will either sustain or degrade the earth's environment, integrated reporting is both sorely needed and long overdue.
Yesterday BP abandoned its hope of bidding on a potentially lucrative exploration license in Greenland. The implication is that its tarnished reputation is undermining its ability to compete for projects. Across the Atlantic, the Tennessee Valley Authority has lost nearly $50 million in power generation during this summer's heatwave, because the Tennessee river is too hot for the nuclear plants' cooling towers to function.
What do these two stories have in common? They are both examples of how environmental degradation can hit home for companies. The global environmental crisis, including climate change, water scarcity and ecosystem degradation, isn't just a problem for "greens." It also creates significant financial risks for companies and their investors.
Environmental Risks Alter Balance Sheets
Such risks vary from sector to sector but include: potential liability for environmental accidents; the physical impacts of climate change on supply chains; and growing water scarcity in many parts of the world.
BP's recent crisis generated by the mammoth Gulf of Mexico oil spill is an extreme example of environmental risk. It turned the company's anticipated net income of $5.6 billion for the second quarter of 2010 into a record $17.1 billion loss.
But in a resource-constrained and warming world, there are many other risks that may significantly alter the balance sheet. For example, research suggests that consumer goods companies could face a loss of earnings if they do not respond to environmental pressures in their supply chains, including physical climate change impacts and public policy responses to them. Specifically, the World Resources Institute (WRI) report Rattling the Supply Chains indicates that such businesses could face a 13-31 percent reduction in earnings before interest and taxes as soon as 2013, rising to 19-47 percent in 2018.
Certain sectors will be heavily impacted by specific risks in vulnerable countries or regions. For example, 79% of planned new power plant capacity in India will be built in water scarce or stressed areas. Since thermal and hydroelectric power plants depend heavily on water for cooling and energy generation, uncertain water supply creates significant risks for domestic power companies.
A Gap in Financial Accounting Standards
Worldwide, current financial accounting standards and generally accepted accounting principles (known as GAAP) fail explicitly to address such risks, which often derive from unsustainable business strategies. They can also miss the opportunities that such challenges create. Superior environmental performance by corporations can translate into lower costs from improved energy and resource efficiency and higher revenues from product innovation and enhanced brand recognition. General Electric's Ecomagination™ product line is one compelling case in point.
Current financial accounting standards and generally accepted accounting principles fail explicitly to address environmental risks, which often derive from unsustainable business strategies.
Corporate sustainability reports can help fill information gaps on some risks. But sustainability reporting standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative, remain largely voluntary, and as a result, their uptake is limited. Another recent WRI report Undisclosed Risk, for example, found that developing markets have particularly lagged behind in producing corporate sustainability reports. What's more, stand alone reports all but guarantee that sustainability remains at the periphery rather than the mainstream of financial and investment decisions. A 2008 KPMG International Survey of Corporate Social Responsibility, for example, found that only three percent of annual financial reports had corporate responsibility information fully integrated into them.
The failure to integrate sustainability as a strategic business issue in annual financial reports means that businesses and investors continue to make investments that are bad for the environment, society and ultimately their own bottom line. As a result, environmental trends continue on a downward trajectory, creating even greater risks for companies, especially those that have not embraced sustainable business strategies.
Towards Integrated Reporting
A solution may finally be on its way. A coalition of businesses, regulators, accountants, securities exchanges and not-for-profit groups recently launched an International Integrated Reporting Committee initiative to "create a globally accepted framework for accounting for sustainability." Jointly convened by HRH Prince Charles's UK-based Accounting for Sustainability Project and the Global Reporting Initiative, the committee includes participants from the International Accounting Standards Board, U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board, International Organisation of Securities Commissions, the Big Four auditors - Price Waterhouse Coopers, Deloitte, Ernst & Young and KPMG - and NGOs including the World Resources Institute. The committee intends to present a framework, which brings together financial, environmental, social and governance information in a single "integrated" reporting format, at the G20 intergovernmental summit in France in 2011. The G20 already backs the formation of a single set of reporting standards, and G20 support for broader rules will be crucial to their introduction.
Moving sustainability from the periphery to mainstream investment is an essential next step in preparing the corporate sector to deal with environmental risks. The move won't be easy. But given worsening environmental trends and the fact that today's investment decisions will either sustain or degrade the earth's environment, integrated reporting is both sorely needed and long overdue.
Read more: Gaap, Financial Accounting Standards Board, Environment, Ecosystems, Climate Change, Green Business, Gulf Oil Spill, Business, Business News
Categories: Greener Pastures
David Sirota: Lessons From a Low-Impact Week
"Will you join me in lowering our impact?"
That was the subject line on a recent e-mail I sent out to family, friends, column/blog readers and radio listeners, asking them to join me for a week in trying to reduce our individual environmental footprint. Inspired by Colin Beavan's prophetic book No Impact Man, I proposed four pollution- and waste-reducing steps many people could try for a few days:
The week took a lot to organize, but it was a huge success. Our big sponsor, the terrific company Independent Power Systems, provided awesome support, and we subsequently found other great sponsors for the week's individual days. And all the sponsors specialize in low-impact products. See them here.
Having now completed this low-impact week, I can report that it was not easy and that I did not achieve perfection -- not even close. However, I can also say I learned a few things beyond how to manage bicycle-seat discomfort.
To see some of the things I and all the Low-Impact Week participants learned, read my syndicated newspaper column out today. I wrote about the experience - and I think there are some really important lessons.
That was the subject line on a recent e-mail I sent out to family, friends, column/blog readers and radio listeners, asking them to join me for a week in trying to reduce our individual environmental footprint. Inspired by Colin Beavan's prophetic book No Impact Man, I proposed four pollution- and waste-reducing steps many people could try for a few days:
- Stop consuming meat.
- Devote one meal a day to eating only locally grown products.
- Avoid producing nonrecyclable garbage.
- Refrain from riding in a fossil-fuel burning vehicle with fewer than three people.
The week took a lot to organize, but it was a huge success. Our big sponsor, the terrific company Independent Power Systems, provided awesome support, and we subsequently found other great sponsors for the week's individual days. And all the sponsors specialize in low-impact products. See them here.
Having now completed this low-impact week, I can report that it was not easy and that I did not achieve perfection -- not even close. However, I can also say I learned a few things beyond how to manage bicycle-seat discomfort.
To see some of the things I and all the Low-Impact Week participants learned, read my syndicated newspaper column out today. I wrote about the experience - and I think there are some really important lessons.
Read more: Environment, Environmentalism, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Jim Luce: The Stewardship Report on Connecting Goodness Announces Editorial Calendar
A bright new face has been added to the crowded Web, drawing a large readership and uploading more than 900 stories in its first twelve weeks. Still in soft-launch, The Jim Luce Stewardship Report (JLSR) is focused on "Connecting Goodness."
Covering Faces, Issues, World Affairs, Life Style, the Arts, and Video, JLSR offers articles by a global mix of over 50 writers since its spring inception, including the American Ambassador to Haiti, the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the U.N., and the new JLSR Health Editor, Dr. Steven Becker. The Facebook group page for contributors and friends already has more than 600 members.
The portal's mission is to engage the world to improve it. It is about bettering ourselves so that we can do more to better humanity. It is accepting the responsibility we have as human beings -- Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Humanist, or None of the Above -- to actively help better the world.
The Stewardship Report focuses on what my Jewish friends call tikum olem. Christians, the Social Gospel. Muslims, helping the unfortunate - a key tenet of Islam. Buddhists, mindfulness with a purpose.
For me, this has meant helping orphaned children in the developing world though Orphans International Worldwide (OIWW). My passion. Your focus might be the arts, the environment, women's issues, gay rights, housing. JLSR is for all of us who care, and who are frustrated that we do not know how best to make a difference. We can collectively heal the world. This site will feature information about and ways to do that.
The Stewardship Report includes profiles, social diary, business, children, conflict resolution, connectivity, education, environment, eyewitness, health, viewpoint, politics, United Nations, news and views from Africa, the Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Mid-East, South Asia, Developing World, as well as Artists, Cultural, Dance, Film, Fine Arts, Literature, Music, Museums, Theater, Photography, and the Performing Arts. The most-read section is The Luce Index.™
The Jim Luce Stewardship Report Index™ ("The Luce Index™") ranks thought leaders and global citizens on ten confidential criteria which collectively indicate the individual's ability to create positive social change. The theme of The Stewardship Report is Connecting Goodness, and The Luce Index™ ranks leaders in their ability to do so. Luce Index™ scores are updated frequently and may be used for public use with attribution to Luce Index™. More than 300 thought leaders and global citizens are already ranked (and written about).
Skype Interviews. One benefit of getting to know heads of state and CEO's is that they know much more about the world than I do. Take Josh Silverman of Skype, for example. He turned me on to software that records videos from Skype calls. I can now interview heads of state anywhere in the world and create a record of it on-line. I would like to Skype-interview Arianna Huffington in Washington, Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela in South Africa, Bono, Michelle Obama, Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh, Oprah Winfrey in Chicago, the Dalai Lama in India, and Elie Wiesel in Los Angeles.
With ad revenues increasing, the editorial team has announced the portal's first editorial calendar. The Fourth Quarter has been set as follows:
October is all about Culture: film, literature, theater, and the arts. Plus music, dance, architecture, and photography. I personally want to interview one of my favorite authors, Sri Lankan-Canadian Shyam Selvadurai. Look for special features on Jazz at Lincoln Center, Clive Davis, and even Vodou Rock.
November we tackle Health. Why are people in my family dying of cancer? Where are we now with HIV & AIDS? Our health editor will help us answer questions. I also want to cover NGOs and health, looking at Doctors without Borders and The Smile Train.
December is the Holiday Season - a time for Peace and Hope - and we shift to universal good will and a search for unsung heroes. Know any? Desmond Tutu, Peter Yarrow, and Bob Edgar of Common Cause are big for me. Also a look at giving around the world.
The First Quarter of 2011 is eclectic:
January is the month to look at child care around the world, including my passion: orphan care. I want to learn more about SOS Children's Villages and better explain the mission of Orphans Interntional Worldwide. Do you know the difference between Family vs. Full Care? What's up with UNICEF and CARE? If WorldVision is willing to help kids, does it matter that at heart they want to convert them to their version of Christianity? It does to me - I think it is immoral.
February is all about love and relationships. Gay Marriage. Gay Immigration in the U.S. Gay Valentines in... Jamaica? Should I go check it out? Interracial love can be as challenging today as romance was for Romeo and Juliet. And yet it is also more common than ever in our history. How about intergenerational romance? Foster families?
March is about poverty, in the Developing World - and in the United States. Do you have any idea how many Americans today receive Food Stamps? How does poverty differ from New York City to Port-au-Prince and New Delhi? Child porostituiton is a problem in Phnom Phen - and in Brooklyn.
The Second Quarter of 2011 is what your mother warned you never to discuss in public: religion, politics, and finances.
April is about religion - or lack thereof. I would love to interview the Episcopal Presiding Bishop, Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Nhat Thich Hanh, and the Aga Khan. Would I be foolhardy enough to attempt a definitive five page article on What is Christianity? Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism? Humanism? You bet.
May is about politics, when we re-visit Mu Sochua in Cambodia, Carolyn Maloney in New York, and all our friends in between. JLSR deals with Goodness, so you will have to read about Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin elsewhere. I would like to chat with George Bush, however. And interview Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Maybe even Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton!
June we get serious and discuss finance and our economy. I will find experts who can explain the world in ways that we can understand it. If the Chinese can make that lamp at Home Depot for me to buy for $30, what's the problem? There is one - let me explain it. What about Wal-Mart? And where are we with unions in this new millennium?
The Third Quarter of 2011 will be as follows:
July will feature stories on the Environment and Going Green. Environmentally-friendly reconstruction efforts in Haiti and other stories will run during this month. A close-up on mHealth, mEducation and mCommerce and how they impact Social Change. Chats with people close to the Aga Khan, the Earth Institute at Columbia, and the Rockefeller Foundation.
August will focus on Travel, including pieces on "Almost Heaven, West Virginia," "Puerto Rico - More than Ricky Martin," and to beat-the-heat, "Book Now for Dog Sledding in Alaska!" Plus the best of Africa, Asia, the Mid-East, of course Europe and the Americas.
September brings us to the more sobering topics of both Human Rights and the Environment. We will learn more about Universal Human Rights Declaration of the U.N. and the NGO Human Rights Watch. A look at Robert Kennedy and the Waterkeeper Alliance is planned.
And voila - the first year of The Jim Luce Stewardship Report (JLSR) is in the bag. It seems so simple, yet of course, it isn't.
"There is a fine line between another blog and a news and views portal," states attorney Jonathan Sirota, an advisor to JLSR. We are positioning the Stewardship Report between the New York Times and Huffington Post - both of which Jim Luce has written for."
John Lee of Federico & Co. is our Lifestyle Editor. Dr. Steven Becker is medical editor, and Veejay Sai is a lifestyle contributor, interviewing fashionistas such as Agatha Ruiz de la Prada.
Presently, viewers are primarily spread between ten countries: the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Cambodia, Germany, Malaysia, France, Ireland, Netherlands, and Singapore. The average time readers spend on each story is over five minutes. The JLSR goal is to reach 500,000 unique viewers per month in 2010. At present, readers speak over 30 different languages.
Recent readers have logged on from Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, China, the D.R., Greece, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Laos, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, the Ukraine, U.A.E., and Vietnam.
Be prepared for an exciting year with lots of e-books on the horizon. Our writers will tell you what you want to know from around the globe. Whether it's in Africa, the Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Mid-East, South Asia, about politics, religion, or the arts, The Jim Luce Stewardship Report intends to grow into a portal you call home. Connecting Goodness!
The Jim Luce Stewardship Report is published by Luce Publications, established in 1984.
See also by Jim Luce:
Stewardship Report: First Ambassador Writes Op-Ed "Diplomatic Viewpoint"
Covering Faces, Issues, World Affairs, Life Style, the Arts, and Video, JLSR offers articles by a global mix of over 50 writers since its spring inception, including the American Ambassador to Haiti, the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the U.N., and the new JLSR Health Editor, Dr. Steven Becker. The Facebook group page for contributors and friends already has more than 600 members.
The portal's mission is to engage the world to improve it. It is about bettering ourselves so that we can do more to better humanity. It is accepting the responsibility we have as human beings -- Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Humanist, or None of the Above -- to actively help better the world.
The Stewardship Report focuses on what my Jewish friends call tikum olem. Christians, the Social Gospel. Muslims, helping the unfortunate - a key tenet of Islam. Buddhists, mindfulness with a purpose.
For me, this has meant helping orphaned children in the developing world though Orphans International Worldwide (OIWW). My passion. Your focus might be the arts, the environment, women's issues, gay rights, housing. JLSR is for all of us who care, and who are frustrated that we do not know how best to make a difference. We can collectively heal the world. This site will feature information about and ways to do that.
The Stewardship Report includes profiles, social diary, business, children, conflict resolution, connectivity, education, environment, eyewitness, health, viewpoint, politics, United Nations, news and views from Africa, the Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Mid-East, South Asia, Developing World, as well as Artists, Cultural, Dance, Film, Fine Arts, Literature, Music, Museums, Theater, Photography, and the Performing Arts. The most-read section is The Luce Index.™
The Jim Luce Stewardship Report Index™ ("The Luce Index™") ranks thought leaders and global citizens on ten confidential criteria which collectively indicate the individual's ability to create positive social change. The theme of The Stewardship Report is Connecting Goodness, and The Luce Index™ ranks leaders in their ability to do so. Luce Index™ scores are updated frequently and may be used for public use with attribution to Luce Index™. More than 300 thought leaders and global citizens are already ranked (and written about).
Skype Interviews. One benefit of getting to know heads of state and CEO's is that they know much more about the world than I do. Take Josh Silverman of Skype, for example. He turned me on to software that records videos from Skype calls. I can now interview heads of state anywhere in the world and create a record of it on-line. I would like to Skype-interview Arianna Huffington in Washington, Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela in South Africa, Bono, Michelle Obama, Muhammad Yunus in Bangladesh, Oprah Winfrey in Chicago, the Dalai Lama in India, and Elie Wiesel in Los Angeles.
With ad revenues increasing, the editorial team has announced the portal's first editorial calendar. The Fourth Quarter has been set as follows:
October is all about Culture: film, literature, theater, and the arts. Plus music, dance, architecture, and photography. I personally want to interview one of my favorite authors, Sri Lankan-Canadian Shyam Selvadurai. Look for special features on Jazz at Lincoln Center, Clive Davis, and even Vodou Rock.
November we tackle Health. Why are people in my family dying of cancer? Where are we now with HIV & AIDS? Our health editor will help us answer questions. I also want to cover NGOs and health, looking at Doctors without Borders and The Smile Train.
December is the Holiday Season - a time for Peace and Hope - and we shift to universal good will and a search for unsung heroes. Know any? Desmond Tutu, Peter Yarrow, and Bob Edgar of Common Cause are big for me. Also a look at giving around the world.
The First Quarter of 2011 is eclectic:
January is the month to look at child care around the world, including my passion: orphan care. I want to learn more about SOS Children's Villages and better explain the mission of Orphans Interntional Worldwide. Do you know the difference between Family vs. Full Care? What's up with UNICEF and CARE? If WorldVision is willing to help kids, does it matter that at heart they want to convert them to their version of Christianity? It does to me - I think it is immoral.
February is all about love and relationships. Gay Marriage. Gay Immigration in the U.S. Gay Valentines in... Jamaica? Should I go check it out? Interracial love can be as challenging today as romance was for Romeo and Juliet. And yet it is also more common than ever in our history. How about intergenerational romance? Foster families?
March is about poverty, in the Developing World - and in the United States. Do you have any idea how many Americans today receive Food Stamps? How does poverty differ from New York City to Port-au-Prince and New Delhi? Child porostituiton is a problem in Phnom Phen - and in Brooklyn.
The Second Quarter of 2011 is what your mother warned you never to discuss in public: religion, politics, and finances.
April is about religion - or lack thereof. I would love to interview the Episcopal Presiding Bishop, Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Nhat Thich Hanh, and the Aga Khan. Would I be foolhardy enough to attempt a definitive five page article on What is Christianity? Islam? Buddhism? Hinduism? Humanism? You bet.
May is about politics, when we re-visit Mu Sochua in Cambodia, Carolyn Maloney in New York, and all our friends in between. JLSR deals with Goodness, so you will have to read about Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin elsewhere. I would like to chat with George Bush, however. And interview Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Maybe even Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton!
June we get serious and discuss finance and our economy. I will find experts who can explain the world in ways that we can understand it. If the Chinese can make that lamp at Home Depot for me to buy for $30, what's the problem? There is one - let me explain it. What about Wal-Mart? And where are we with unions in this new millennium?
The Third Quarter of 2011 will be as follows:
July will feature stories on the Environment and Going Green. Environmentally-friendly reconstruction efforts in Haiti and other stories will run during this month. A close-up on mHealth, mEducation and mCommerce and how they impact Social Change. Chats with people close to the Aga Khan, the Earth Institute at Columbia, and the Rockefeller Foundation.
August will focus on Travel, including pieces on "Almost Heaven, West Virginia," "Puerto Rico - More than Ricky Martin," and to beat-the-heat, "Book Now for Dog Sledding in Alaska!" Plus the best of Africa, Asia, the Mid-East, of course Europe and the Americas.
September brings us to the more sobering topics of both Human Rights and the Environment. We will learn more about Universal Human Rights Declaration of the U.N. and the NGO Human Rights Watch. A look at Robert Kennedy and the Waterkeeper Alliance is planned.
And voila - the first year of The Jim Luce Stewardship Report (JLSR) is in the bag. It seems so simple, yet of course, it isn't.
"There is a fine line between another blog and a news and views portal," states attorney Jonathan Sirota, an advisor to JLSR. We are positioning the Stewardship Report between the New York Times and Huffington Post - both of which Jim Luce has written for."
John Lee of Federico & Co. is our Lifestyle Editor. Dr. Steven Becker is medical editor, and Veejay Sai is a lifestyle contributor, interviewing fashionistas such as Agatha Ruiz de la Prada.
Presently, viewers are primarily spread between ten countries: the U.S., Canada, the U.K., Cambodia, Germany, Malaysia, France, Ireland, Netherlands, and Singapore. The average time readers spend on each story is over five minutes. The JLSR goal is to reach 500,000 unique viewers per month in 2010. At present, readers speak over 30 different languages.
Recent readers have logged on from Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Brazil, China, the D.R., Greece, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Laos, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, the Ukraine, U.A.E., and Vietnam.
Be prepared for an exciting year with lots of e-books on the horizon. Our writers will tell you what you want to know from around the globe. Whether it's in Africa, the Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Mid-East, South Asia, about politics, religion, or the arts, The Jim Luce Stewardship Report intends to grow into a portal you call home. Connecting Goodness!
The Jim Luce Stewardship Report is published by Luce Publications, established in 1984.
See also by Jim Luce:
Stewardship Report: First Ambassador Writes Op-Ed "Diplomatic Viewpoint"
Read more: Romeo and Juliet, Film, Chicago, Bono, Literature, Carolyn B. Maloney, South Africa, Nelson Mandela, The Luce Index, Life Style, Mu Sochua, Photography, SOS Children’s Villages, Josh Silverman, Cancer, HIV & AIDS, Heal the World, Valentines, Performing Arts, Orphan Care, Social Change, Palitha Kohona, Bangladesh, Oprah Winfrey, Social Gospel, Jamaica, Jimmy Carter, India, Hillary Clinton, Human Rights, Huffington Post, Hinduism, Skype Interviews, Judaism, Economy, Novels, Washington, Gay Rights, South Asia, Better the World, New Delhi, Gay Immigration, Stewardship Report, Jlsr, Port-Au-Prince, John Lee, Women’s Issues, Love, Bill Clinton, Michelle Obama, Dalai Lama, Wal-Mart, Health, New York City, Muhammad Yunus, Haiti, Orphans Interntional Worldwide, Cambodia, New York Times, Relationships, Going Green, Museums, Buddhism, Dance, Helping the Unfortunate, Europe, Puerto Rico, Human Rights Watch, Jim Luce Stewardship Report, Sri Lanka, West Virginia, Universal Human Rights Declaration, Chinese, Episcopal Presiding Bishop, Child Care, Jim Luce, Unions, Dr. Steven Becker, Humanism, Alaska, Food Stamps, Holiday Season, Unsung Heroes, Bettering Humanity, Americas, Los Angeles, Barack Obama, Education, Care, Shyam Selvadurai, Christianity, Arianna Huffington, Connecting Goodness, Worldvision, World Affairs, George Bush, Finance, Children, Nhat Thich Hanh, Music, Thought Leaders, United Nations, Arts, Foster Families, Intergenerational Romance, Desmond Tutu, Goodness, Environment, Elie Wiesel, Travel, Federico & Co., Conflict Resolution, Fine Arts, Katharine Jefferts Schori, Religion, Islam, Developing World, Africa, Unicef, Politics, Theater, Mid-East, Global Citizens, Interracial Love, Connectivity, Culture, Gay Marriage, Tikum Olem, Aga Khan, Jon Sirota, Poverty, Asia-Pacific, Media News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Leah Lamb: Sex, Pandas, Kittens, and Swimming with Whales: Reclaiming the way we talk about the environment
I have a dream of creating stories that reconnect people to the planet, and reclaim the way we tell stories about the environment. What? You say. Reclaim? Yes. Reclaim. Let me tell you why.
After nearly two years of consuming and producing environmental video and blog content for Current's Green Channel, I nearly crawled away in a deep depression about the state of the world. I suffered from too-much-eco-news-itis. So I sublet my house, and retreated to a cabin perched on a cliff on the Lost Coast to complete my novel (and escape the world as we know it). I unplugged from the Internet (as best I could), and plugged into the planet. I spent the last three months walking in the woods, walking by the ocean, and consuming information from a different source: the natural world. I've never been happier.
What happened is that I started to see a huge disconnect between my experience in the environment, and the news I consume about the environment. And then I started thinking about the key reasons about why I went into producing media: to motivate, mobilize and inspire people to be stewards for our planet.
Houston. We have a problem. Because I don't know about you, but that majority of news I read about the environment these days sucks. I am overwhelmed by the amount of bad news. So much so, (incoming: true confession), I don't want to look. I don't want to take in more news about the BP spill, endangered turtles being burned, or mountain top removal. (Please don't misunderstand, because I deeply respect the journalists that dedicate their time to telling these stories. Because these are the stories that should be mobilizing people into action. Right??) After reading the news, I'm beginning to feel like it's game over, the planet is screwed, and it's just a matter of time until the bottom drops out. And then I started to think~ HOUSTON. WE HAVE A REALLY BIG PROBLEM. Because when people start thinking it's over, it's over grover.
And then I am reminded about that story of the kids whose school bus was hijacked and buried in a coal mine. Some of the kids, against all odds, fought to get out. Some of them saw that it was hopeless and quit. Many years later they did psychological analysis on all the kids, and guess what? The kids who fought against all odds were the ones who ended up living fairly normal lives. The ones who didn't, you guessed it: permanently traumatized. Why~ because they took action on what they hoped could happen, rather than give up because of what they feared might happen. The very action of taking action, is what saved their sanity in the end.
So. The moral of this blog post: after all of these thoughts going around in my head I starting really thinking about what kind of stories motivates people to take action and mobilize? And how can I, as a producer of media make a meaningful contribution?
And hence, People and the Planet was born. A series of stories that take place all over the world about people who are healing in the presence and assistance of wild animals and the natural world. I know. It sounds crazy. But stay with me.
Here's a little video that explains the vision:
Our first story takes place in the kingdom of Tonga and is about a woman who practices aqua cranial sacral healing in the presence of humpback whales. I know. It sounds...crazy..I mean...fascinating. She checks out. I want to tell you how she heals people, and the role of these wild animals and the ocean in her healing process. I am excited to make this the first story we tell in this series: Why? Because I have done a lot of research on whales: and the majority of information out there is about people slaughtering whales. But if this animal is out there making contact with people and helping heal us...we need more of those stories. And the next time you read horrific news, or some plea to protect the ocean, rather than think, "just more bad news, can someone turn on South Park?" Maybe an image from our short documentary will surface, or a line from the story will be remembered, and you will be reminded why you care for this planet and want to protect it.
Alright~ I'm signing off for now. If you believe that we need more of these stories in the world, we need you. Seriously, we can't do this without you and we hope you'll join our team. Either way: I want to hear your thoughts and ideas: What motivates you? What mobilizes you?
Read more: Environment, Green, Media, The Tonga, Whales, New Zealand, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Janet Ritz: The U.S. Military's 1947 Warning on Intolerance
A film produced by the U.S. Military in 1947 was meant to present the case for the desegregation of the armed forces. Though not initially intended for broadcast to the general public, it speaks to the divisions present in society today.
The production is dated by current standards. The message is prescient given the current strife and division: the ostracization of the "other," whether through protests of mosques, by Glenn Beck's scheduled through-the-looking-glass rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, or by the funding of climate science denial and extreme tea party activism against the current administration by the Koch Brothers, two of the biggest polluters on the planet.
The film was shot to convince members of the military that desegregation was the right idea. The subsequent integration of African-Americans into the armed forces has since become an integral part of the command structure with our strategy in war. (See: Powell Doctrine).
The YouTube version now serves as a warning to the future as produced by a military that had fought years of heartbreaking war where millions had lost their lives due to prejudice and intolerance.
In this anti-fascist film produced by US Military in the wake of WWII, the producers deconstruct the politically motivated social engineering of Germany by the Nazi regime.
From the film:
You see, here in America, it is not a question of whether we tolerate minorities. America is minorities. And that means you and me. So, let's not be suckers. We must not let the freedom or dignity of any man to be threatened by any act or word. Let's be selfish about this. Let's forget about "we" and "they." Let's think about us.
During the war, the military had used propaganda as a tool to get their message out to those trapped behind enemy lines. That same office produced the film. The technique is obvious; the message is worth consideration. Over 50 million died in World War II. Before they died, there was a systematic dismantling of individual rights and freedoms that began with the ostracization of the "other."
Propaganda Techniques:
Edward Filene helped establish the Institute of Propaganda Analysis in 1937 to educate the American public about the nature of propaganda and how to recognize propaganda techniques. Filene and his colleagues identified the seven most common "tricks of the trade" used by successful propagandists.
• Name Calling: Propagandists use this technique to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce.
• Glittering Generalities: Propagandists employ vague, sweeping statements (often slogans or simple catchphrases) using language associated with values and beliefs deeply held by the audience without providing supporting information or reason. They appeal to such notions as honor, glory, love of country, desire for peace, freedom, and family values. The words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people but the implication is always favorable. It cannot be proved true or false because it really says little or nothing at all.
• Transfer: Transfer is a technique used to carry over the authority and approval of something we respect and revere to something the propagandist would have us accept. Propagandists often employ symbols (e.g., waving the flag) to stir our emotions and win our approval.
• Testimonial: Propagandists use this technique to associate a respected person or someone with experience to endorse a product or cause by giving it their stamp of approval hoping that the intended audience will follow their example.
• Plain Folks: Propagandists use this approach to convince the audience that the spokesperson is from humble origins, someone they can trust and who has their interests at heart. Propagandists have the speaker use ordinary language and mannerisms to reach the audience and identify with their point of view.
• Card Stacking: Propagandists use this technique to persuade the audience to follow the crowd. This device creates the impression of widespread support. It reinforces the human desire to be on the winning side. It also plays on feelings of loneliness and isolation.
• Band Wagon: Propagandist uses this technique to make the best case possible for his side and the worst for the opposing viewpoint by carefully using only those facts that support his or her side of the argument while attempting to lead the audience into accepting the facts as a conclusion. In other words, the propagandist stacks the cards against the truth. Card stacking is the most difficult technique to detect because it does not provide all of the information necessary for the audience to make an informed decision.
More on the techniques of propagandists at this link.
It is and always has been a risk in free societies that those interested in power or ideology will take advantage of those freedoms to deny the same to others. Watch the film with an open mind, despite the dated style, and listen to the message. Then, the next time someone tells you to hate the "other," ask yourself if that "other" could one day become you.
In the film, the "others" are created by splitting minorities into groups to create disunity. The narrator refers to a priest who ended up in a concentration camp for speaking out against the strategy. His name was Martin Niemöller and his speech has become well known:
"First they came ..." is a famous statement attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group:
"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Niemöller's speech has been used and overused (and misused). Historically, it should not be forgotten that the first time he gave it was at his church in Dahlem, an affluent district of Berlin, as the Nazis marched to arrest him for the speech. He spent the years following at a concentration camp, where he was liberated by American troops at the end of the war.
Niemöller was trying to warn his parish of a lesson hard-learned. He had been a decorated submarine (u-boat) commander during the First World War. Niemöller had supported Hitler as a strong leader to take the German people out of the despair of unemployment following the double devastation of the Versailles Treaty (where Germany was economically penalized for the First World War) and the Great Depression. He was an educated and devout man who was vulnerable to the message of the other until he realized that he and everyone eventually becomes the other when such misuse of power goes unchecked.
Here's an example of the misuse of Pastor Niemöller's speech as Glenn Beck rails against those who have decided to boycott the advertisers of his show:
Recognize those techniques?
American has been the beacon of freedom for many around the world since its inception. It was founded on the principle of freedom of religion by Puritans leaving England because they could not worship as they wished. Waves of immigrants have followed, each facing their own tough road to acceptance. With African-Americans it was a journey of hell and not by choice that required a civil war to right -- followed by decades of prejudice and the stigmatization of the other that denied opportunities to so many. With the Irish, it was anti-Catholicism. With the Chinese, it was race. So many have come and have pushed through the prejudice.
Now, there is a growing prejudice against the devout of Islam. Fear of radical extremism is understandable; we are involved in war and we were attacked. But that does not excuse the broad brush assigned to all Muslims, including the many who died at 9/11 in the tower attack and those working to bridge the gap of understanding between cultures. And, it's not smart. We're in a war, whether we want to be or not. There is nothing our enemies would like better than the propaganda victory to be able to say: See, America is not tolerant, even of moderate Muslims who are American citizens and contributing members of their society.
Wherever a mosque may be, our constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and our society was built on the idea that we must not allow the ostracization of the "other." If you don't like Muslims or Jews or African Americans or Hispanics or Asians or members of the LGBT community or the unemployed...; if you want them to have less rights than you, if you decide to hate them because of something someone told you on the radio rather than from your own experience, are you being a sucker? Do you care about our country's founding philosophy or are you apathetic to what it will become if you undermine the power of the first amendment?
For reference: the first amendment of the constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Speaking out is good. Speaking out to prevent others from exercising their civil rights because of intolerance, prejudice or the desire for political power may be as protected by the Constitution as is the right to protest against such hate speech. It should also be recognized for what it is and how it has been used historically with the consequences therein.
More on this topic at THE ENVIRONMENTALIST
Follow THE ENVIRONMENTALIST on Twitter @environmentlst
THE ENVIRONMENTALIST on facebook.
The production is dated by current standards. The message is prescient given the current strife and division: the ostracization of the "other," whether through protests of mosques, by Glenn Beck's scheduled through-the-looking-glass rally at the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, or by the funding of climate science denial and extreme tea party activism against the current administration by the Koch Brothers, two of the biggest polluters on the planet.
The film was shot to convince members of the military that desegregation was the right idea. The subsequent integration of African-Americans into the armed forces has since become an integral part of the command structure with our strategy in war. (See: Powell Doctrine).
The YouTube version now serves as a warning to the future as produced by a military that had fought years of heartbreaking war where millions had lost their lives due to prejudice and intolerance.
In this anti-fascist film produced by US Military in the wake of WWII, the producers deconstruct the politically motivated social engineering of Germany by the Nazi regime.
From the film:
You see, here in America, it is not a question of whether we tolerate minorities. America is minorities. And that means you and me. So, let's not be suckers. We must not let the freedom or dignity of any man to be threatened by any act or word. Let's be selfish about this. Let's forget about "we" and "they." Let's think about us.
During the war, the military had used propaganda as a tool to get their message out to those trapped behind enemy lines. That same office produced the film. The technique is obvious; the message is worth consideration. Over 50 million died in World War II. Before they died, there was a systematic dismantling of individual rights and freedoms that began with the ostracization of the "other."
Propaganda Techniques:
Edward Filene helped establish the Institute of Propaganda Analysis in 1937 to educate the American public about the nature of propaganda and how to recognize propaganda techniques. Filene and his colleagues identified the seven most common "tricks of the trade" used by successful propagandists.
• Name Calling: Propagandists use this technique to create fear and arouse prejudice by using negative words (bad names) to create an unfavorable opinion or hatred against a group, beliefs, ideas or institutions they would have us denounce.
• Glittering Generalities: Propagandists employ vague, sweeping statements (often slogans or simple catchphrases) using language associated with values and beliefs deeply held by the audience without providing supporting information or reason. They appeal to such notions as honor, glory, love of country, desire for peace, freedom, and family values. The words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people but the implication is always favorable. It cannot be proved true or false because it really says little or nothing at all.
• Transfer: Transfer is a technique used to carry over the authority and approval of something we respect and revere to something the propagandist would have us accept. Propagandists often employ symbols (e.g., waving the flag) to stir our emotions and win our approval.
• Testimonial: Propagandists use this technique to associate a respected person or someone with experience to endorse a product or cause by giving it their stamp of approval hoping that the intended audience will follow their example.
• Plain Folks: Propagandists use this approach to convince the audience that the spokesperson is from humble origins, someone they can trust and who has their interests at heart. Propagandists have the speaker use ordinary language and mannerisms to reach the audience and identify with their point of view.
• Card Stacking: Propagandists use this technique to persuade the audience to follow the crowd. This device creates the impression of widespread support. It reinforces the human desire to be on the winning side. It also plays on feelings of loneliness and isolation.
• Band Wagon: Propagandist uses this technique to make the best case possible for his side and the worst for the opposing viewpoint by carefully using only those facts that support his or her side of the argument while attempting to lead the audience into accepting the facts as a conclusion. In other words, the propagandist stacks the cards against the truth. Card stacking is the most difficult technique to detect because it does not provide all of the information necessary for the audience to make an informed decision.
More on the techniques of propagandists at this link.
It is and always has been a risk in free societies that those interested in power or ideology will take advantage of those freedoms to deny the same to others. Watch the film with an open mind, despite the dated style, and listen to the message. Then, the next time someone tells you to hate the "other," ask yourself if that "other" could one day become you.
In the film, the "others" are created by splitting minorities into groups to create disunity. The narrator refers to a priest who ended up in a concentration camp for speaking out against the strategy. His name was Martin Niemöller and his speech has become well known:
"First they came ..." is a famous statement attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group:
"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Niemöller's speech has been used and overused (and misused). Historically, it should not be forgotten that the first time he gave it was at his church in Dahlem, an affluent district of Berlin, as the Nazis marched to arrest him for the speech. He spent the years following at a concentration camp, where he was liberated by American troops at the end of the war.
Niemöller was trying to warn his parish of a lesson hard-learned. He had been a decorated submarine (u-boat) commander during the First World War. Niemöller had supported Hitler as a strong leader to take the German people out of the despair of unemployment following the double devastation of the Versailles Treaty (where Germany was economically penalized for the First World War) and the Great Depression. He was an educated and devout man who was vulnerable to the message of the other until he realized that he and everyone eventually becomes the other when such misuse of power goes unchecked.
Here's an example of the misuse of Pastor Niemöller's speech as Glenn Beck rails against those who have decided to boycott the advertisers of his show:
Recognize those techniques?
American has been the beacon of freedom for many around the world since its inception. It was founded on the principle of freedom of religion by Puritans leaving England because they could not worship as they wished. Waves of immigrants have followed, each facing their own tough road to acceptance. With African-Americans it was a journey of hell and not by choice that required a civil war to right -- followed by decades of prejudice and the stigmatization of the other that denied opportunities to so many. With the Irish, it was anti-Catholicism. With the Chinese, it was race. So many have come and have pushed through the prejudice.
Now, there is a growing prejudice against the devout of Islam. Fear of radical extremism is understandable; we are involved in war and we were attacked. But that does not excuse the broad brush assigned to all Muslims, including the many who died at 9/11 in the tower attack and those working to bridge the gap of understanding between cultures. And, it's not smart. We're in a war, whether we want to be or not. There is nothing our enemies would like better than the propaganda victory to be able to say: See, America is not tolerant, even of moderate Muslims who are American citizens and contributing members of their society.
Wherever a mosque may be, our constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and our society was built on the idea that we must not allow the ostracization of the "other." If you don't like Muslims or Jews or African Americans or Hispanics or Asians or members of the LGBT community or the unemployed...; if you want them to have less rights than you, if you decide to hate them because of something someone told you on the radio rather than from your own experience, are you being a sucker? Do you care about our country's founding philosophy or are you apathetic to what it will become if you undermine the power of the first amendment?
For reference: the first amendment of the constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Speaking out is good. Speaking out to prevent others from exercising their civil rights because of intolerance, prejudice or the desire for political power may be as protected by the Constitution as is the right to protest against such hate speech. It should also be recognized for what it is and how it has been used historically with the consequences therein.
More on this topic at THE ENVIRONMENTALIST
Follow THE ENVIRONMENTALIST on Twitter @environmentlst
THE ENVIRONMENTALIST on facebook.
Read more: Ground Zero Mosque, US Military, Intolerance, The Environmentalist, Propaganda, Tolerance, Prejudice, Politics, Religion, Environment, Koch Industries, Religion and Politics, Integration, Glenn Beck, Muslim, Tea Party, Mlk, I Have a Dream, Sarah Palin, Lincoln Memorial, Glenn Beck Rally, Tea Party Movement, Martin Luther King, Koch Brothers, Islam, Van Jones, Green, Barack Obama, Unions, Discrimination, Politics News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Maria Rodale: A Visit to My Kitchen: Beth Terry from Fake Plastic Fish
Nearly three years ago, a photo of an albatross chick changed Beth Terry's life. The bird's stomach had exploded from eating disposable plastic bottle caps and additional plastic waste. It motivated Beth to see if it would be possible to live a life with less plastic, if not plastic free. Her blog, Fake Plastic Fish, started as a diary of her attempts to find plastic alternatives, and has now become a resource for people trying to live a plastic-free life.
Beth is in my kitchen today talking about the chemicals that remain in many organic foods, a grown-up version of her mom's creamy casserole, and how her research has changed her life.
Why is living organic important to you?
It's important for me to eat organic food because I am aware of the chemicals in foods from pesticides and hormones, and I also know they are very harmful to the environment and to farm workers. I don't want to contribute to that.
Through my research, I started to wonder how chemical-free organic food is if it's surrounded by plastic. That plastic can contain some of the same hormone disruptors that we're trying to avoid in organic food in the first place. Consumers don't have any idea what chemicals are in the plastic because no one is responsible for sharing that info. If we don't know what it is, how do we know it's safe?
There's nothing that's perfect, but I eat fresh fruits and vegetables as much as I can. I do a lot of shopping from bulk bins, where I bring my own containers and fill up on grains, rice, and beans. Although some of those things are shipped in giant plastic bags, there's less waste in a huge bag than in everyone buying individual sizes. But plastic is ubiquitous; it's hard to get it all out.
What was your favorite food growing up?
My mom's tuna casserole, made with Campbell's Cream of Mushroom soup, canned tuna, and American cheese. It's warm, creamy, gooey and comforting.
What's your go-to comfort food now?
Homemade risotto--all the warm and creamy goodness of my favorite food growing up but without the packaged ingredients. The rice and olive oil come from bulk bins in my own containers, and everything else is organic and plastic-free. It takes a long time to make, but it's the most meditative, calming activity. It feels like such a treat when I allow myself that time to make it.
What's the one thing in your kitchen you just couldn't live without?
Mason jars. I store everything in them. I fill them with food from bulk bins at the store, store dry food in them in cupboards, and freeze them with stuff. (As long as you don't fill them up all the way, leave room for expansion, and thaw them slowly, they won't explode.) I have lots of different sizes of jars, from pickle to jam size, so we save them and constantly use them.
What magazine, website, book, album, or product are you most obsessed with right now?
I'm probably on Google the most because I'm always researching. I'm also kind of obsessed with Facebook. My Plastic Crap Wall of Shame page on Facebook has become a collection of unnecessary, overpackaged, single-use, single-purpose, single-size plastic crap. Someone posted a photo of individually packaged ice cubes recently called Ice Rocks. It's actually sold in stores, on shelves, water in plastic wrap that you freeze at home--it's the most unbelievable thing. It makes me laugh because it's ridiculous, but it makes me cry because it's real!
I'm also obsessed with the book Eating Animals; it totally turned me into a vegetarian. It completely changed me. I'll smell something and it will smell good, and I'll look at it and realize it's meat and then, it won't smell good to me anymore. There are images and scenes that he describes in that book about animal treatment. I thought I had heard it all, but the way he describes it, it's relentless.
What's the most important news story today that you think we all need to pay more attention to?
I think the problem with plastic is really coming into people's awareness now. There have been stories in Time, The New York Times, and CNN. Even Captain Moore, who discovered the Pacific Garbage Patch, had a spread in Rolling Stone.
Everyone is concerned about BPA and PVC. Parents are concerned about what their kids are being exposed to. There's not enough good information, but there is a lot of media attention. There's a lot of sensationalized news about plastic, but people don't know what to believe.
It's like that with a lot of environmental news: We hear the bad news but we don't hear what you can do besides signing these letters or giving money. I don't think making personal changes individually is enough to solve the problem, but I also don't think we will solve the problem if we don't start with ourselves. Taking personal responsibility is the first step. It was for me and for the people who read my blog.
Where do you get your news?
I'm not the kind of person who looks at one to two news sources regularly, but I listen to NPR and I'm on some list servers for various groups. I actually spend a lot of time researching the stories that are sent to me. I find that a lot of times the stories in the newspaper or on Yahoo don't give enough information, they just give the main idea. But if they mention the study and I'll go online and find the story and I'll try to understand it and share that information with my readers. That's the kind of blogger I want to be.
Related Links:
Make Mine Organic - Maria's Farm Country Kitchen
Keep Your Garden Plastic-Free With These Easy Swaps - Rodale.com
Fake Plastic Fish
For more from Maria Rodale, go to www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com.
Beth is in my kitchen today talking about the chemicals that remain in many organic foods, a grown-up version of her mom's creamy casserole, and how her research has changed her life.
Why is living organic important to you?
It's important for me to eat organic food because I am aware of the chemicals in foods from pesticides and hormones, and I also know they are very harmful to the environment and to farm workers. I don't want to contribute to that.
Through my research, I started to wonder how chemical-free organic food is if it's surrounded by plastic. That plastic can contain some of the same hormone disruptors that we're trying to avoid in organic food in the first place. Consumers don't have any idea what chemicals are in the plastic because no one is responsible for sharing that info. If we don't know what it is, how do we know it's safe?
There's nothing that's perfect, but I eat fresh fruits and vegetables as much as I can. I do a lot of shopping from bulk bins, where I bring my own containers and fill up on grains, rice, and beans. Although some of those things are shipped in giant plastic bags, there's less waste in a huge bag than in everyone buying individual sizes. But plastic is ubiquitous; it's hard to get it all out.
What was your favorite food growing up?
My mom's tuna casserole, made with Campbell's Cream of Mushroom soup, canned tuna, and American cheese. It's warm, creamy, gooey and comforting.
What's your go-to comfort food now?
Homemade risotto--all the warm and creamy goodness of my favorite food growing up but without the packaged ingredients. The rice and olive oil come from bulk bins in my own containers, and everything else is organic and plastic-free. It takes a long time to make, but it's the most meditative, calming activity. It feels like such a treat when I allow myself that time to make it.
What's the one thing in your kitchen you just couldn't live without?
Mason jars. I store everything in them. I fill them with food from bulk bins at the store, store dry food in them in cupboards, and freeze them with stuff. (As long as you don't fill them up all the way, leave room for expansion, and thaw them slowly, they won't explode.) I have lots of different sizes of jars, from pickle to jam size, so we save them and constantly use them.
What magazine, website, book, album, or product are you most obsessed with right now?
I'm probably on Google the most because I'm always researching. I'm also kind of obsessed with Facebook. My Plastic Crap Wall of Shame page on Facebook has become a collection of unnecessary, overpackaged, single-use, single-purpose, single-size plastic crap. Someone posted a photo of individually packaged ice cubes recently called Ice Rocks. It's actually sold in stores, on shelves, water in plastic wrap that you freeze at home--it's the most unbelievable thing. It makes me laugh because it's ridiculous, but it makes me cry because it's real!
I'm also obsessed with the book Eating Animals; it totally turned me into a vegetarian. It completely changed me. I'll smell something and it will smell good, and I'll look at it and realize it's meat and then, it won't smell good to me anymore. There are images and scenes that he describes in that book about animal treatment. I thought I had heard it all, but the way he describes it, it's relentless.
What's the most important news story today that you think we all need to pay more attention to?
I think the problem with plastic is really coming into people's awareness now. There have been stories in Time, The New York Times, and CNN. Even Captain Moore, who discovered the Pacific Garbage Patch, had a spread in Rolling Stone.
Everyone is concerned about BPA and PVC. Parents are concerned about what their kids are being exposed to. There's not enough good information, but there is a lot of media attention. There's a lot of sensationalized news about plastic, but people don't know what to believe.
It's like that with a lot of environmental news: We hear the bad news but we don't hear what you can do besides signing these letters or giving money. I don't think making personal changes individually is enough to solve the problem, but I also don't think we will solve the problem if we don't start with ourselves. Taking personal responsibility is the first step. It was for me and for the people who read my blog.
Where do you get your news?
I'm not the kind of person who looks at one to two news sources regularly, but I listen to NPR and I'm on some list servers for various groups. I actually spend a lot of time researching the stories that are sent to me. I find that a lot of times the stories in the newspaper or on Yahoo don't give enough information, they just give the main idea. But if they mention the study and I'll go online and find the story and I'll try to understand it and share that information with my readers. That's the kind of blogger I want to be.
Related Links:
Make Mine Organic - Maria's Farm Country Kitchen
Keep Your Garden Plastic-Free With These Easy Swaps - Rodale.com
Fake Plastic Fish
For more from Maria Rodale, go to www.mariasfarmcountrykitchen.com.
Read more: Toxic Chemicals, Environment, Recycling, Plastic, Organic Food, Plastic Bags, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Meathead Goldwyn: Meat Or No Meat: Tell Us What You Think And Why
Eat meat or not? No other food topic is more divisive, and perhaps, none is more important. Our food choices are based on many influences and influence much of our world from our health to the environment to national economies to personal finances. For many, this is a religious issue and there is a strong desire to evangelize. Animals seem to be godlike to both sides.
The Huffington Post Food Section would like to compile the best arguments on the subject or meat, pro, con, or in between, and perhaps help some people decide. There are books on either side of the issue, but we would like to see point and counterpoint side by side. We would also like to debunk some myths.
This debate began 6/23/2010
In the first week of this discussion, it appeared that the arguments could be grouped int six categories. The debate has taken some interesting turns. At the outset by far most of the commenters were veg*ns. Lately it seems that the omnivores outnumber them.
Here's how we can do this together: Have at it in the comments below. Take your best shots. Compose your comments carefully and thoughtfully. Make your case. Back up your statements with facts and references from credible sources, preferably peer reviewed scientific journals. Look for solutions and middle ground. Try to conduct the debate without the use of pejoratives such as "stupid, illogical, ignorant, dumb, etc." I think you have lost the debate if you succeed in driving off the opponent. We encourage you to read this article first before posting. You might also want to follow the links to get the bigger picture.
We will frequently copy the best arguments and paste them here in the main article for all to see and for all to use in continuing the debate. We know this is an emotional issue, but please show respect for opposing viewpoints.
I will try to fairly represent the omnivore's point of view and move the debate along. I run a barbecue and grilling website called AmazingRibs.com. You can click here to read more about me. I have invited Lisa Viger (HuffPost account LisaViger), an artist and ethical vegan, to assist in this discussion by suggesting edits to this article and by recommending quotes from your comments to be elevated to the main article. Lisa lives on a small vegetable farm in southern Michigan. Her blog about vegan eating, Raw on $10 a Day (or Less) is at http://rawon10.blogspot.com and features fabulous looking recipes and mouthwatering photos.1) Health
Vegans/Vegetarians (henceforth referred to as Veg*ns to include both). Meat is bad for you. It contains too much saturated fat and makes you obese which is the root cause of a whole range of health issues: Colon cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes, heart diseases are all higher among omnis.
Omnivores. Most elite athletes are omnis. Entopticon says "Last I checked, which wasn't very long ago, there has still never been one single recorded case of a vegan centenarian."Many veg*ns suffer from vitamin B12 deficiency and that can result in brain shrinkage. Meat is good for you, it contains things you cannot get from veggies. You can stay healthy with a vegan diet, but you need a lot of knowledge and supplements. Veg*ns are more aggressive. HerrMonk says "The most bio-available and highest quality fats for us, come from animal sources. Plant protein is low-quality, and lacks all the essential amino acids to be used as a complete protein source. It is nearly impossible to get enough saturated fat, and omega 3s from plant sources in nature. It's very easy from animal. B12 is an essential micro-nutrient, that is only available from animal sources (despite mis-labeled 'vegan' friendly sources)."
Veg*ns. Food borne disease is a problem with meat. Ground beef is dangerous. It is often contaminated with pathogenic strains of E-coli. It can kill. It is contaminated because the CAFOs keep cattle in contact with feces and the pathogens get on their hide and feed. It gets on the meat in the butchering because they move too quickly and don't take enough care. It is all driven by greed.
vegswan, a microbiologist, says "[I] have been appalled to learn about the diseases fostered and spread by animal domestication. Think of the recent egg and many beef recalls!! Hemorrhagic E. Coli, Smallpox, H1N1, Mad Cow, papillomavirus, pfeisteria (and sea lice in farmed salmon) are primarily promoted by animal farming. Certainly CAFOs are prominent contributors with their untreated cesspools and runoff, how else does spinach get contaminated?!? We all learned about early European settlers spreading diseases and decimating indigenous peoples, not because they were sickly but because THEY RAISED ANIMALS and acquired their germs (Jared Diamond). Another problem is the slashing/burning of virgin rainforest for grazing cattle and farming pigs, which are then exposed to emergent viruses, bacteria and parasites that have never before infected humans. Coupled with the mass transport of animals and their byproducts, everything from multiply antibiotic resistant E. coli and Salmonella to Nipah virus and prions are rapidly being spread worldwide. You also neglected to mention the voluntary moratorium on GMO and cloned beef and milk, which are unlabeled, and so are extremely likely to already be in world food circulation. I abhor animal cruelty and the blight of monocrops and ocean runoff dead zones, but we mustn't ignore the exceptional ability of animals to harbor diseases- especially in dense unsanitary confinement, juxtaposed with food crops.
Omnivores. Sprouts, lettuce, apple juice, and other fruits and veggies have killed as many as meats. The connection between meat and heart disease is being questioned by scientists. Carbs are just as bad, maybe even worse than animal fats and they come primarily from plants. FDA experts say sprouts are more dangerous than ground beef, even when home grown.
StopCensoringMe says "The factory raised meat most eat is a cesspool of unhealthy chemicals" among them antibiotics, steroids, and growth hormones which get into humans and cause a range of problems from antibiotic resistance to early puberty. The farts of omnis smell really bad. That must mean something.
Viger. There [has been] much convo about B12 and that a vegan diet must be unnatural because it's supplemented. I would add, before dairy and other foods had vitamin D added to them as a supplement, rickets (a nutritional deficiency) was very common among omnivores. An omnivorous diet is nearly always supplemented in one way or another.
Goldwyn. There are MANY people below who believe that eliminating meat has made them healthier. That kind of anecdotal info cannot be argued. But it is not science. There is a growing body of science on the benefits and dangers of both diets. Let's start with that which we can all agree: Research seems to weigh heavily against processed foods, especially processed meats. It seems also clear that too much meat can be unhealthy. But there is plenty of evidence that a diet lacking meat can be dangerous unless it is carefully watched to make sure it gets all the proper vitamins, especially B12. It seems that a vegetarian diet can be just as dangerous as an omnivorous diet if it is not tended to carefully with supplements. If it is, it is likely to be more healthy than an omnivorous diet.
As for food borne illness, dangerous strains of e-coli and salmonella are the most common problems in meat and veggies, but there are many other pathogens. All can be killed with proper cooking. Undercooked ground beef and poultry are serious risks, but raw sprouts, lettuce, spinach can also be dangerous. Raw sprouts should probably be outlawed, and homegrown sprouts are just as risky as aw ground beef. Bottom line: Neither diet is more dangerous if practiced properly and intelligently. That's a big if.
2) Evolution, culture, and tradition
Omnivores. Humans have evolved as omnivores. Our teeth are designed for it. Our saliva and digestive systems are designed for meat. Hematite says "Humans have teeth adapted to an omnivorous diet. There is no serious debate about this. Our teeth resemble those of pigs and bears, both omnivores. Humans have the gut of an omnivore. We lack any chambers for the fermentation of cellulose, a hallmark of most true herbivores, but we also lack the short intestine of true carnivores. The shortness of the carnivore intestine is not, as sometimes claimed by veg*ns, because meat is needs to be expelled quickly but because meat is easy to and does not require the large surface area for absorbing nutrients that herbivores need."
Eat or be eaten is the way of the world. In the wild sweet cute animals eat each other all the time. Even our kin, gorillas eat a monkey now and then. And don't think your dog or cat wouldn't eat you if it could.
Veg*ns. Our digestive systems are designed for vegetable matter. Humans were not meat eaters until the Ice Age. So over the course of history, we were vegetarians longer than we were omnivores. But evolutionary history doesn't mean we have to always eat meat. We can evolve again. We now have other options. Technology has freed us from hunting.
Omnivores. Meat has been a part of human culture forever. True, some societies don't eat meat, and a few omit certain meats, but most cultures have meat in their rituals religious ceremonies, and habits. In the US, since the end of WWII it became practically a national mantra to have meat once a day. We were taught that this was a balanced diet.
Veg*ns. We were taught wrong. We now know more and we need to leave behind foolish things as we mature as a society. Christi Vidrio says "At one time we believed that smoking was good for you, but now we know better. Same with meat."
angry expat says "Nobody wants to be told how to eat. Education is important, but fear tactics and disregard for cultural precedent are insulting and harmful to the discussion."
gemini68 says "As a Muslim we are taught that eating meat is permissible (with the exception of scavenger animals such as swine) as long as the meat is slaughtered in a humane or ha'lal way. This has become an issue because of the way meat and animals are handled in this country."
Goldwyn. It doesn't matter what our ancestors did. The world today is vastly different. Each individual is different. Our canine teeth can be used to bite apples as as well as meat. We have to understand that our cultures and traditions arose from ignorance centuries ago. If somebody can prove that lamb is dangerous, then Jews will have to learn to eat eat pot roast for Passover and use the lamb shank just for show. What? They do already? Oh... Nevermind...
3) Taste
Veg*ns. There are a lot of fabulous tasting recipes that don't involve meat or animal products. You can be thoroughly satisfied without eating meat.
Omnivores. Meats taste great. A lot of vegetables taste bad. Nobody likes lima beans or Brussel sprouts. If meat is so bad, how come so many vegan products are made to taste like meat? I have only five sense, why would I restrict the sensory inputs available to me? Omitting some foods would be like poking out an eye.
Veg*ns. Nobody likes liver, heart, or kidneys either.
Goldwyn. Meat tastes good to many people and living without it would be very hard for them. For many people, the culinary arts are as vital as the other arts, and living without meat would be like life without dance. To others it is disgusting. This is the definitive case of taste being a matter of taste.
4) Meat is murder
The arguments that "Meat is Murder" and "Meat is Torture" are closely related, but different in some important fundamental ways, so I have separated them. Both seem to hinge on the definition of "sentience" because veg*ns argue that animals are sentient beings. Merrriam-Webster's online dictionary defines the word as "feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought." At the moment, there is a fairly good and thorough discussion of sentience on Wikipedia. A summary is "Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive. Sentience is used in the study of consciousness to describe the ability to have sensations or experiences. In eastern philosophy, sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires respect and care."
Veg*ns. Animals are our peers in many ways. The earth needs them. We need to show them respect. Killing animals is tantamount to killing people. Who gave us the right to enslave animals to make milk, eggs, and then we eat their flesh? Sele45 says "The main basis of my vegan life is to refrain from taking things that aren't mine. The word 'arrogant' comes from a word meaning 'to take for oneself.' It's supremely arrogant of humans to believe they have more of a right to the body and life of another being than the being itself."
Omnivores. Humans have evolved with a higher consciousness, and have earned their place near the top of the food chain. It is natural selection to put animals and plants to work for us. Hunting is needed to control wildlife populations. Deer would overrun many farms and destroy crops if hunters did not thin the crop. Remember, these animals would not have been born if not for use as food. They owe their lives to their end use.
Plants have feelings too. They respond to environmental changes similar to animals. Their biological systems are intricate and complex, just like animals. Some cooperate to protect the community. But because they do not have faces, we feel free to kill them. What is it about faces that make some species protected? They are very important to the ecology. They make oxygen.
Maslin says "Any definition of 'murder' that produces the answer 'yes' to the question 'Is meat murder' creates statements that must be true but are absolutely crazy, like this one: Blue whales are some of the greatest murderers of all of Earth's history, known to murder 40 million organisms a day when feeding. Nonsensical, but true if 'meat is murder'.
It can't be right. We don't even treat whales like predators. But every one of those 40 million [krill] lives is indeed snuffed out in the whale's maw, along with other species that just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Goldwyn. According to Law.com Murder is "The killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought (prior intention to kill the particular victim or anyone who gets in the way) and with no legal excuse or authority." So killing animals or plants cannot, by widely used international legal definitions, be murder.
Viger. Maybe we can talk about the actual killing part and what it does to us as individuals and a society, if it does anything at all. Vickster says with her goats she puts a bowl of corn down and then shoots the goat in the head. Grumpyfarmer was talking about raising his first calf when he was in kindergarten. I think that would influence how the person feels about raising and killing animals. I also think it would have to leave a pretty profound psychological wound. I've seen these 4-H kids and it's not a happy thing. But then Vickster makes the case that her goats don't even see it coming and so didn't suffer. Which is kind of a moot point since the vast majority of our animals are killed in large, commercial slaughterhouses, even those raised on very small farms.
5) Meat is torture
Veg*ns. Animals have fear, feelings, and rights. Sele45 says "Plants have no pain receptors. Also, plants make about 40% more foliage than they need to live. Their fruits are intended to smell and look appetizing because when they are picked and eaten the seed is more likely to be spread. Being eaten furthers the life cycle of fruits. And foliage is produced in excess."
The way we grow animals, hold them in CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) and factory farms is inhumane. Then we cram them with grains they have problems digesting, then we cram them into slaughterhouses where they can smell and hear death, then we manhandle them just before the kill, and then we kill them inefficiently so some die slowly and in pain. Just watch the films of animal cruelty from CAFOs and slaughterhouses. CAFOs are beneath our dignity. They are inhumane prison camps. They are all about greed, not about providing cheaper food. They harm not only animals but farm workers.
Crows says "I believe that an animal raised on a small farm by a caring farmer is better off than an animal raised on a factory farm. But I do not think someone eating meat should be comforted by the fact it was raised on a small farm. If something is killed needlessly, that is wrong. I think that principle is the reason for many people becoming vegetarians/veg*ns."
Omnivores. MarcEdward says "Factory farms aren't petting zoos - I get it. Your argument is identical is to the Pro-Lifers who post pictures of abortions. Prettiness is not a basis for ethics. Factory farms are efficient - they produce the maximum amount of meat for the least cost, and consumers (especially poor people) benefit. I value all life, but I value human life over the lives of chickens and cows. The question is how much human malnutrition is worth alleviating how much suffering in animals?" But CAFOs and slaughterhouses do not have to be this way. The industry needs reform. All of these problems can be fixed. Many alternative systems are emerging. They need to be mainstreamed. Many omnivores share their distaste for the inhumane conditions in factory farms.
Drumsgirl says "I think open heart surgery is pretty gross and disgusting - and don't want to do it or have it done to me - but I still think it's a good thing society does."
Grumpyfarmer says: "Whenever this debate comes up, someone compares livestock farming to slavery, which in my mind is equating animals with people. Anyone who feels animals are on par with humans has probably not seen a sow eat her baby pigs, a bull calf earnestly trying to breed its own mother, or a hawk eating a rabbit while it is still alive. Do animals deserve humane treatment? Of course they do. But that doesn't mean it is wrong to eat them. So far the veg*ns are OK with animals eating other animals "in nature". I am an animal, and I am part of nature, and any animal I eat is killed much more humanely than any animal eaten by another. So, no guilt feelings."
Goldwyn. This debate depends upon emotion vs. science, IMHO. It seems that those who believe meat is murder draw a line on the food chain ladder, and that line seems to me to be arbitrary. That line seems to be at animals with eyes or faces. But why do eyes make one creature inedible and another edible? Veg*ns hate the smartass question omnivores always throw out about plants having rights and feelings too, but they need to answer it and they are not doing that very well below. They just dismiss it as silly. The other side makes a more powerful case in my clearly biased opinion, that plants are every bit as adept at surviving in their niche in the world as animals, that they are extremely complex individuals and societies, and it can be clearly demonstrated that they can be stressed.
Current research by scientists are discovering that plants and microbes are sentient. They display amazing abilities to communicate, they respont to stimuli, they suffer stress, many do not want to be eaten and have elaborate mechanisms to protect themselves from throns to chemicals. Dr. ML Tortorello, a renowned microbiologist told me that "Every form of life deserves respect, not just charismatic megafauna made popular by Disney. Every species has a role. Every species is integral to the ecosystem. Every species is somebody's hunter, somebody's prey, somebody's partner. To claim that animals have greater rights than plants is an assertion not based on an understanding of the biological world. Death is part of all life. A plant is as highly adapted for its niche as a pig. People who are vegetarians because they think killing animals for food is murder do not understand the biological world. But if they make their diet decision based on their emotional response to charismatic megafauna, that's fine. But it unfairly elevates some species over others."
Dr. Bonnie Bassler of Princeton has done fascinating research on the ability of microbes to communicate and work together. It is discussed in Smithsonian. An excerpt: "Bassler is at the forefront of the fast-growing field of 'quorum sensing,' the study of how microbes communicate with each other as they go about building the vast interlocking infrastructure of life on which we macrobes depend. In recent years she and other microbiologists have discovered that bacteria are not the dull solipsists of long-standing reputation, content to merely suck in food, double in size, divide down the middle and repeat ad infinitum, attending to nothing but their obtuse, unicellular selves. Instead, bacteria turn out to be the original newshounds, glued to their cellphones and Internet chat lines. They converse in a complex chemical language, using molecules to alert one another to who's out there, in what numbers and how best to behave given the present company. Bacteria survey their ranks, they count heads, and if the throng is sufficiently large and like-minded--if there is a quorum--they act. Through chemical signaling, tiny bacterial cells can band together and perform the work of giants."
If my ethics prevent me from killing sentient beings, then I could not even brush my teeth. I think that the argument that society needs to adapt the vegan lifestyle because animals are sentient and vegetables are not is hard to support scientifically.
Veg*ns. Plants don't have neurons so they can't be sentient.
6) Environment & Economics
Veg*ns. We are eating species to extinction especially seafood like swordfish and bluefin tuna. Farm animals have a large carbon footprint. The world's livestock population produces more greenhouse gases than automobiles and a lot of it is methane. StopCensoringMe says "Not only do feed animals consume a great deal of water (and they are often raised in places like California and Texas where water is precious), they also manage to foul water supplies and water tables with the their copious poop."
Omnivores. Surprisingly, rice creates seven times the atmospheric methane than animals. Entopticon says "You want to compare beef to soy acre for acre? Walk out onto an acre that was just plowed to make room for rows of soy. The entire ecosystem, which could have been home to a million or more creatures, is obliterated. When it is filled with rows of shallow-rooted soy plants, the water runoff won't be much better than a parking lot, and the soil, which would have had as many as two billion microorganisms in a single tablespoon, will be devastated. Then walk out onto an acre of sustainable pasture. You will find that it is teeming with life. Research shows that biodiversity and soil vitality actually increases."
Perennials, like grasses, are beneficial. Grasses need animal fertilizer. Together they fortify the soil. The impact of annuals, such as corn, soy, beans, vegetables, legumes, and other row crops is deleterious and destroys topsoil. Klbrz said "one of the biggest (and quite serious) problems facing the Gulf of Mexico was the runoff of fertilizers and pesticides from vegetable crops in the Midwest. Please, don't kid yourself about what farming does or doesn't do to the planet; unless you are buying 100% local, organic, or harvesting from your own backyard, you contribute to serious environmental damage every time you eat soy (especially), corn, and other crops farmed on a large scale." And tractors kill wildlife and destroy habitats.
nikanj says that animals adapt better to climate change "Grazing animals will not care if their pasture gets frosted some fine summer morning, but if that pasture is plowed and planted in corn, the crop will be lost. Grazing animals can provide sustenance in more marginal climatic conditions than is possible with cereal grains.
What about the conflict between veganism and environmentalism? No leather shoes? What form of oil derivatives are in your shoes then? Veggies only? Even in winder? How much energy is wasted getting your carrots to you from South America? How many lakes acidified and fish killed by truck exhaust? How many manatees run over by boats? How many deers flattened by trains?
Vicster says: We know that row crops cause soil erosion while destroying habitats. We also know that the regions where fruits and vegetables can be grown all year long tend to be arid. Talk about unsustainable." Hematite says "Concentrating animals in one place causes a number of environmental problems, but it does not increase the total amount of waste they produce. Bison were producing just as much methane 200 years ago as domestic cows are producing now. And what about the carbon footprint or transporting vegetables north in winter? And don't tell me canning and pickling are solutions. That costs energy, destroy nutrients, and the taste awful.
The Great Banana Debate raged for days. jumbotron16 started it as an example of how all food choices have ramifications, he pointed out that veg*ns often eat a lot of bananas. "Do you have any idea what goes on in the banana industry? (1) Child labor is common place, and a non governmental organization in Ecuador found that children as young as eight were being recruited to work. (2) In an attempt to meet the demand for aesthetically perfect bananas, over 400 types of agrochemicals are used. In fact, more chemicals are used during banana production than any other crop with the exception of cotton. These chemicals can lead to sterility, cancer, and death. (3) In a 1997 study done off the coast of Costa Rica, it was discovered that 60 percent of the coral reefs in Cahuita National Park had been severely damaged due to runoff from coastal banana plantations. (4) Lastly, according to the World Wildlife Fund the banana industry produces more waste than any other agricultural sector in the developing world. It is estimated that for every one ton of bananas produced, there are two tons of waste." He linked to this article as support: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/global-issues-for-breakfast-the-banana-industry-and-its-problems-faq-cohen-mix/
Entopticon says. "A single acre of rainforest can have millions of creatures living on it. Bananas need loose soil with high organic matter, so after a few years the crops are moved, and rainforest is cut down for your dietary choice, killing countless animals. How are the millions of animals whose habitat is obliterated for your banana habit, and the countless animals that die horrible deaths in that process, any less important than ... chickens?"
Veg*ns. Yes, annual monocrops are bad for the environment, but most are grown to feed animals.
Meat processing plants are well known as major hirers of illegal/undocumented workers say veg*ns. So are farmers, say the omnis.
Omnivores have voiced concern about the economic impact on farmers, US society, and poor people worldwide if corn subsidies are removed or if meat was more heavily regulated or taxed. Honeybear64 says. "Does that fact that abolishing slavery meant the total upheaval of the Southern economy, and the economic devastation of the lives of slave owners, automatically mean that abolishing it was wrong? Same question with those threatened by boycotts of animal agriculture. Problematic, to say the least.
"So often we veg*ns try to portray all farmers as factory farmers, because it's so much easier to turn people against horrific cruelty than against "Old MacDonald". The factory farm is such an easy and convenient target."
Goldwyn. Seems to me that this is an area that is unsettled. Both sides have strong arguments and plenty of useful data from good sources much of which contradicts other sources. It seems to me, from wading through the links you post, that NOBODY really knows how much water a cow uses a day when you include the water needed for its feed and other peripheral uses. Vickser says: "You do realize these animals will go extinct if they aren't raised for food, right?" Goldfarmer sums it up well: "Humans have the responsibility of stewardship - animals do not. And that is simply the condition of being a human living on Earth."
The middle ground
Charsan says: For every fact or opinion debunking a myth about vegetarianism you'll find another equally compelling to convince you not to eat meat. We get lost in the weeds trying to convince the other side they're wrong. What's the point? Eating food is a one of the basic necessities of life, developed over eons and what we eat today as a species varies by culture around the globe. Rather than focusing on what you're eating, to the exclusion of other questions, like where did my food come from? Is this even food. Do I really want to eat this? How does eating this make me feel? How do they treat the animals in a factory? The first step to better living is becoming conscious of what you are doing. Forget the fad diet or the six dollar Angus beef burger. Think, eat and enjoy!
Cameron Brown says: Something I don't understand is why the debate is always framed as "meat lovers" vs. "vegetarians". There's obviously nothing seriously unhealthy about eating some meat - it's the *amount* that we eat that is the problem.
If everyone in the US (and other rich countries) simply cut back a bit on their meat consumption - e.g., go veggie a couple of days a week - it would be hugely beneficial both to them and to the environment.
I think the militant vegetarian approach is misguided - very rarely will a devoted meat-lover switch to being a full vegetarian. We should focus on the middle ground of encouraging people to eat meat in sensible quantities. As such, I'm a big fan of the "meatless Monday" kind of efforts I've seen here and there. That's the right approach in my mind. I sort of maintain a blog on this topic: http://www.semiveggie.com
Jsarets says: It's difficult to make objective arguments about the ethical ramifications of eating animal products. This vector involves attempts to reconcile the nature of life and consciousness with the extension of predator/prey relationships in the food web to the unique human practice of agriculture, and it invariably centers upon subjective belief systems.
Nakigaia says. When people argue from dogma it becomes impossible to have a discussion. The best source of guidance I have found is listening to what my body needs in any moment. Sometimes a great salad seems just perfect and other times I need a little beef. Some people have the physiology or body design to eat strictly vegetarian and others don't. I have seen people try to live up to a belief about food while starving their bodies by not providing them with what they need. If you are hungry for a hamburger and it tastes really good you probably needed it. If you're eating one out of habit or boredom then that is about consciousness, not food.
I'm now 60 years old, have experimented with several food "dogmas" (including macrobiotics), and consider myself a conscious eater. Over the years I have found that preaching to convert other people seldom works and is more a reflection of the needs of the one preaching. I consider it more effective to become something for oneself and model the outcome. If your outcome doesn't match your expectations you are free to move on without having to eat crow, pun intended.
Definitions
Vegan or Total Vegetarian. Eats only foods from plants including fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains, seeds, and nuts.
Lactovegetarian. Eats plant foods and dairy products.
Ovo-lactovegetarian or lacto-ovovegetarian. Will eat eggs.
Pescetarian. Eats fish but no other animal flesh. Unclear if this person eats dairy and/or eggs.
Semi-vegetarian. Will not eat red meat, but may eat fish or fowl.
Veg*n. A contraction of vegan and vegetarian meant to encompass both approaches.
Flexitarian. Eats meat only once or twice a week. Maybe three time. It's flexible.
Omnivore. Eats everything edible. Might even eat veg*ns.
Carnivore. Eats only meat.
References
Here are some relevant links. If you have others, please share. I will show a bias to well researched and documented articles by established authorities and reputable sources.
Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada: Vegetarian diets.
The Vegetarian Myth.
The Humane Myth.
Livestock's Long Shadow.
Allan Savory - Keeping Cattle: cause or cure for climate crisis?
Grass-fed beef has a larger carbon footprint.
Ecological Integrity: Integrating Environment, Conservation and Health.
Humans are vegetarians by nature.
Humans are omnivores by nature.
Oldest Evidence of Stone Tool Use and Meat-Eating Among Human Ancestors Discovered: Lucy's Species Butchered Meat
Eating meat led to smaller stomachs, bigger brains.
What vegans need to know about Vitamin B12 also this Information Sheet from the Segetarian Society.
The darker side of soy.
Farm subsidy database.
The Expressions of Emotions in Man and Animals by Charles Darwin and others.
Can meat eaters be environmentalists?
The relationship between meat consumption and colorectal cancer remains controversial.
The American Heart Association's dietary recommendations for vegetarians.
Food, Inc.
Fast Food Nation
Supersize Me
King Corn
U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists future water and energy shortages predicted to change face of American agriculture (1997)
Arguments against the idea that plants are sentient.
http://www.igac.noaa.gov/newsletter/highlights/1996/ch4.php Sources of methane in the atmosphere. Some very surprising data.
Lifestyle Changes Lead to Dramatic Cancer Increase among Inuit People (formerly known as Eskimos)
-------------------
Craig "Meathead" Goldwyn runs a popular website about barbecue, AmazingRibs.com, with both meat and meatless recipes. I eat meat about five nights a week, rarely at lunch, and never for breakfast. I have read extensively on the subject of meat pro and con and often question the impact of my choices. I was blown away by the powerful arguments against meat in Jonathan Safran Foer's landmark book "Eating Animals". Then I read Lierre Kieth's compelling "The Vegetarian Myth". The middle ground is staked out profoundly by Michael Pollan in "The Omnivore's Dilemma", probably the most important book about food since Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" drew back the curtain on the Chicago stockyards in 1906. I shall try to be fair and open minded in my comments and my selection of arguments to elevate to the main article. If I'm not, I'm sure you will let me know.
Lisa Viger is an artist and ethical vegan. I live on a small vegetable farm in southern Michigan. My blog about vegan eating, Raw on $10 a Day (or Less) is at http://rawon10.blogspot.com and features delicious recipes and mouthwatering photos.
---------------
Friend Craig "Meathead" Goldwyn on Facebook.
Read more: Carnivore, Vegetarian, Health, Cafo, Vegan, Environment, Omnivore, Peta, Diet, Meat, Meatless, Eating Meat, Lierre Kieth, Omnivore's Dilemma, Jonathan Safran Foer, Michael Pollan, Vegetarian Myth, Slidepollajax, Food News, Lisa Viger, Food News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Miles Grant: Conservation Groups to Attorney General: Count Gusher's Oil AND Gas
The National Wildlife Federation has been a leader in pressing the federal government to hold BP & other parties fully accountable for the Gulf disaster. While attention has been focused on the oil spilled, NWF joined NRDC today in writing a letter (PDF) to Eric Holder, asking the U.S. attorney general to consider the impact of the well's discharged gases as well as oil.
Why are those gases, like methane, butane & propane so important? When calculated in equivalent units of weight, the magnitude of discharged oil plus gas is equal to one and a half times the oil alone. In other words, if 172 million gallons (4.1 million barrels) of oil were discharged into U.S. waters, the total discharge in barrel of oil equivalents (oil plus gas) was actually more than 252 million gallons (6 million barrels).
Here's John Kostyack, NWF's executive director for wildlife conservation & global warming, on why that's so critical:
To hold BP fully accountable for the impacts of the Gulf disaster, the Department of Justice needs to calculate civil penalties by combining both the oil and gas discharges -- a total that's 50 percent higher than the oil alone. While the public's attention has been focused mainly on oil, both the Oil Pollution Act & Clean Water Act make it clear that penalties should consider both oil and gas.
The discharged gases could have serious impacts on the Gulf's marine life. "So much of the gases will dissolve into the water before reaching the surface," said Dr. Ian MacDonald, professor of oceanography at Florida State University. "These effects may include neurological damage & death for fish and other marine life."
Reports have indicated microbes are breaking down some of the subsurface oil in the Gulf. Will they attack dissolved gases like methane & propane?
"Even if microbes work to degrade the hydrocarbon gases, they'll be competing for oxygen and other nutrients with microbes attacking oil," said Dr. Lisa Suatoni, senior scientist with NRDC's Oceans Program. "That could significantly affect the overall degradation process."
You can count on the National Wildlife Federation to continue working to hold BP & other parties accountable for the full impacts of the Gulf disaster on people, wildlife & habitats.
For all the latest news on how the oil spill is impacting the Gulf Coast's wildlife & to learn how you can help, visit NWF.org/OilSpill.
Read more: Bp, Nrdc, Green, Environment, National Wildlife Federation, Dr. Ian MacDonald, BP Oil Spill, Gulf Oil Spill, Gulf of Mexico, Eric Holder, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Georgianne Nienaber: Gulf's Dolphins: 'Man Needs to Make Right Their Waters'
"Diviner than the Dolphin is nothing yet created, for indeed they were aforetime men and lived in cities along with mortals. They exchanged the land for the sea and put on the form of fishes. But, even now, the righteous spirit of men in them preserves human thought and human deeds." -- Oppian of Silica, 200 A.D.
Dolphin in Arnica Bay, AL courtesy Captain Lori DeAngelis
Oppian of Silica might question today whether dolphins, and not men, have a more righteous spirit.
The explosion of the BP Macondo wellhead at the Deepwater Horizon platform in April was more than an economic and environmental disaster. Besides resulting in the deaths of eleven men, the flow of 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico has proven to be an assault on the soul of every man, woman and child living on the Gulf Coast. The uncertainty of the final outcome has resulted in wild accusations, lies on the part of BP, and obfuscations from the government we have elected to protect us. It has produced even wilder claims from bloggers that the Gulf is now a "dead zone" with "yellowed" skies, no fleas on dogs, toxic rains, whales mysteriously spirited across the border to Mexico, and unusual respiratory illnesses. Fears of the dispersant, Corexit, have resulted in windfalls for fly-by-night chemistry labs as terrified residents pay up to $560 a pop for "dispersant testing" of everything from well-water to backyard fish ponds.
Seemingly normal, intelligent people have been driven to distraction by fear of the unknown. Part of this fear is exacerbated by "experts" working for attorneys revving up for what could be the biggest rash of class action suits since the Exxon Valdez. The result is that the most vulnerable -- the elderly, the poor and the dispossessed -- are frightened and left feeling that there is nowhere to turn.
I spent part of the last week on the Gulf coast from Terrebonne Parish in Louisiana to Dauphin Island, Alabama, trying to chase down rumors and separate fact from fiction. It felt like chasing the rust on my aging Toyota, and was a fool's errand. What is a journalist to do when claims are made, but no one will offer up any facts, leads, names or documents to prove the claims made by bloggers who visited the same area in previous weeks and had no documentation, but published anyway?
I left days before my scheduled departure, completely demoralized by lawyers, do-gooders and eco-activists who seemingly have no interest in a rigorous quest for the truth. These sycophants and carpetbaggers have thrown veracity out the window in favor of money, book sales, political expediency, possible movie deals, and sensationalism.
Why has this happened? A friend suggested to me that it is because reporting on this catastrophe has been lacking a spiritual dimension. There is no doubt that the BP river of oil has taken a terrible spiritual toll on the people of the Gulf coast and beyond. "When grief levels are high, people do strange things," my friend suggested.
When people are running scared they will do anything to protect themselves. Individuals lie because in some sense they have no idea what the truth is. Meanwhile, compassion dictates that we realize people are afraid for their lives and their livelihoods. Certainly there are individuals who will prey upon these vulnerabilities and they should be roundly condemned.
Scientists suggest that it will be many years before we know the full extent of the disaster, and are wary of reporters since the media ends up misquoting them or distorting the facts. It is not so much media bias as it is lack of scientific training on the part of journalists and bloggers. We don't need any more photos of dead birds and the same oiled marshes of Barataria Bay again and again. Yes, thousands of birds died and it is a tragedy. Dying and dead dolphins are documented on video. Yes, hundreds of miles of shoreline were oiled, and filthy boom remains in Barataria Bay and elsewhere, but not everything was destroyed. Yes, questions and uncertainties remain, but it is time to examine what happened so that it never happens again and examine the consequences with an unflinching scientific eye. What we don't know far exceeds what we know, and this is not to suggest that the tragedy be diminished.
It is also time to be thankful for what was not damaged. I spent a night in Dulac in southern Terrebonne and the marshes are as beautiful as ever. But no one is reporting this.
There is some excellent science being done and there are also five-year baseline studies out of Dauphin Island Sea Lab that will prove invaluable as scientists try to learn from and evaluate this ecological disaster.
Future reports from this writer will examine what scientists know and don't know, what has been hidden on the beaches, and whether there will be serious long-lasting health effects. We are faced with uncertainty, and uncertainty makes us very uncomfortable..
But what I would like to share now is an interview I had with Captain Lori DeAngelis of Orange Beach Alabama. We met at Flipper's dockside restaurant after a session with local activists earlier in the day. We could not go out on the water because her boat is in BP's "vessel of opportunity" program, meaning it is on standby for oil-spill related duty. As a form of compensation for me, Captain Lori brought along a thick, three-ring binder with photos of all of the dolphins known to her in the area's waters. Each has a name, a history and distinctive markings as well as personalities that provided fodder for fascinating stories.
This remarkable woman is not a scientist, but she has lived with nature and the dolphins of Arnica Bay as owner and operator since 2004 of Dolphin Queen Cruises. Captain Lori's love of the dolphins goes without saying. What is fascinating about this woman is her unrelenting dedication and sense of responsibility towards these cetaceans. The BP disaster has filled Captain Lori with uncertainty also, but she does not wallow in self-pity or anger. When she cries it is for the dolphins and not for herself. This woman is driven to understand what is happening to her beloved waters and to do what it takes to protect the dolphins that live there.
"Man needs to make right their waters," she says.
Captain Lori is no ideologue, but instead readily admits that she does not understand the science and is not willing to make false claims. Captain Lori relies upon observation of the dolphins' behavior, and that, combined with her own instincts, tells her that something is not quite right. She will not make sweeping predictions, but admits, sadly that she "just does not know" what is happening in the local waterways. That the dolphins are reacting, she is certain.
It is Captain Lori's unflinching, honest emotion and compassion that makes her testimony some of the most compelling I have documented in three months of visits to the Gulf Coast since April.
This is a woman totally committed to nature, speaking the truth of what she knows. That is all we can ask of anyone bearing witness to this tragedy. And, it is required of everyone.
Captain Lori DeAngelis knows and understands only the moments she is with the dolphins and their reactions to their environment. She, like them, waits for the sun each morning and is willing to face the darkness when and if it comes. Her hopes and fears are real and not merely stories with no soul.
Dolphin in Arnica Bay, AL courtesy Captain Lori DeAngelis
Oppian of Silica might question today whether dolphins, and not men, have a more righteous spirit.
The explosion of the BP Macondo wellhead at the Deepwater Horizon platform in April was more than an economic and environmental disaster. Besides resulting in the deaths of eleven men, the flow of 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico has proven to be an assault on the soul of every man, woman and child living on the Gulf Coast. The uncertainty of the final outcome has resulted in wild accusations, lies on the part of BP, and obfuscations from the government we have elected to protect us. It has produced even wilder claims from bloggers that the Gulf is now a "dead zone" with "yellowed" skies, no fleas on dogs, toxic rains, whales mysteriously spirited across the border to Mexico, and unusual respiratory illnesses. Fears of the dispersant, Corexit, have resulted in windfalls for fly-by-night chemistry labs as terrified residents pay up to $560 a pop for "dispersant testing" of everything from well-water to backyard fish ponds.
Seemingly normal, intelligent people have been driven to distraction by fear of the unknown. Part of this fear is exacerbated by "experts" working for attorneys revving up for what could be the biggest rash of class action suits since the Exxon Valdez. The result is that the most vulnerable -- the elderly, the poor and the dispossessed -- are frightened and left feeling that there is nowhere to turn.
I spent part of the last week on the Gulf coast from Terrebonne Parish in Louisiana to Dauphin Island, Alabama, trying to chase down rumors and separate fact from fiction. It felt like chasing the rust on my aging Toyota, and was a fool's errand. What is a journalist to do when claims are made, but no one will offer up any facts, leads, names or documents to prove the claims made by bloggers who visited the same area in previous weeks and had no documentation, but published anyway?
I left days before my scheduled departure, completely demoralized by lawyers, do-gooders and eco-activists who seemingly have no interest in a rigorous quest for the truth. These sycophants and carpetbaggers have thrown veracity out the window in favor of money, book sales, political expediency, possible movie deals, and sensationalism.
Why has this happened? A friend suggested to me that it is because reporting on this catastrophe has been lacking a spiritual dimension. There is no doubt that the BP river of oil has taken a terrible spiritual toll on the people of the Gulf coast and beyond. "When grief levels are high, people do strange things," my friend suggested.
When people are running scared they will do anything to protect themselves. Individuals lie because in some sense they have no idea what the truth is. Meanwhile, compassion dictates that we realize people are afraid for their lives and their livelihoods. Certainly there are individuals who will prey upon these vulnerabilities and they should be roundly condemned.
Scientists suggest that it will be many years before we know the full extent of the disaster, and are wary of reporters since the media ends up misquoting them or distorting the facts. It is not so much media bias as it is lack of scientific training on the part of journalists and bloggers. We don't need any more photos of dead birds and the same oiled marshes of Barataria Bay again and again. Yes, thousands of birds died and it is a tragedy. Dying and dead dolphins are documented on video. Yes, hundreds of miles of shoreline were oiled, and filthy boom remains in Barataria Bay and elsewhere, but not everything was destroyed. Yes, questions and uncertainties remain, but it is time to examine what happened so that it never happens again and examine the consequences with an unflinching scientific eye. What we don't know far exceeds what we know, and this is not to suggest that the tragedy be diminished.
It is also time to be thankful for what was not damaged. I spent a night in Dulac in southern Terrebonne and the marshes are as beautiful as ever. But no one is reporting this.
There is some excellent science being done and there are also five-year baseline studies out of Dauphin Island Sea Lab that will prove invaluable as scientists try to learn from and evaluate this ecological disaster.
Future reports from this writer will examine what scientists know and don't know, what has been hidden on the beaches, and whether there will be serious long-lasting health effects. We are faced with uncertainty, and uncertainty makes us very uncomfortable..
But what I would like to share now is an interview I had with Captain Lori DeAngelis of Orange Beach Alabama. We met at Flipper's dockside restaurant after a session with local activists earlier in the day. We could not go out on the water because her boat is in BP's "vessel of opportunity" program, meaning it is on standby for oil-spill related duty. As a form of compensation for me, Captain Lori brought along a thick, three-ring binder with photos of all of the dolphins known to her in the area's waters. Each has a name, a history and distinctive markings as well as personalities that provided fodder for fascinating stories.
This remarkable woman is not a scientist, but she has lived with nature and the dolphins of Arnica Bay as owner and operator since 2004 of Dolphin Queen Cruises. Captain Lori's love of the dolphins goes without saying. What is fascinating about this woman is her unrelenting dedication and sense of responsibility towards these cetaceans. The BP disaster has filled Captain Lori with uncertainty also, but she does not wallow in self-pity or anger. When she cries it is for the dolphins and not for herself. This woman is driven to understand what is happening to her beloved waters and to do what it takes to protect the dolphins that live there.
"Man needs to make right their waters," she says.
Captain Lori is no ideologue, but instead readily admits that she does not understand the science and is not willing to make false claims. Captain Lori relies upon observation of the dolphins' behavior, and that, combined with her own instincts, tells her that something is not quite right. She will not make sweeping predictions, but admits, sadly that she "just does not know" what is happening in the local waterways. That the dolphins are reacting, she is certain.
It is Captain Lori's unflinching, honest emotion and compassion that makes her testimony some of the most compelling I have documented in three months of visits to the Gulf Coast since April.
This is a woman totally committed to nature, speaking the truth of what she knows. That is all we can ask of anyone bearing witness to this tragedy. And, it is required of everyone.
Captain Lori DeAngelis knows and understands only the moments she is with the dolphins and their reactions to their environment. She, like them, waits for the sun each morning and is willing to face the darkness when and if it comes. Her hopes and fears are real and not merely stories with no soul.
Read more: Obama Environment, Lies, Bp, Dolphins, Oil Spill, Gulf of Mexico, Macondo, Lawsuits, Environment, Orange BeachExxon Valdez, Media Lies, Sea Lab, Lori DeAngelis, Dauphin Island. Alabama, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Susan Buchanan: Rice And Crawfish Farmers Paid To Host Birds After Spill
This article was published in "The Louisiana Weekly" in the Aug. 23, 2010 edition.
To keep migratory birds away from oily areas along the Gulf Coast, the U.S. Dept of Agriculture is paying rice growers and landowners in Louisiana and other states to flood farms and pastures for habitat this fall. Birds need sustenance when they reach the southern U.S. on journeys that can exceed a thousand miles, often taking them to Central or Latin America.
Before traveling, birds accumulate fat reserves, but they rest and refuel during their excursions. Think of the time you arrived famished at a relative's home for the holidays after the airline didn't serve food on the flight you took. And you were just sitting on the plane, reading and dozing.
"More than 50 million, migratory birds will travel south this fall towards marshes and coastlines impacted by the oil spill," said Tim Landreneau, state-program specialist with USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service in Alexandria, La. "NRCS is working with farmers and ranchers from Missouri to the Gulf Coast to manage portions of their land to provide additional food and habitat for them."
Steven Linscombe, Louisiana State University agronomy professor and director of LSU AgCenter's Rice Research Station in Crowley, said "the migratory bird initiative is intended to divert birds north and west of the oiIed marshes and islands near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Rice and crawfish growers used to seeing lots of birds are generally in favor of the program. In the fall, we normally host birds from Canada and the northern U.S. because our rice fields provide groceries--like waste grain, seedlings and seed from weed grasses." Some of these state- and nation-hopping birds are endangered species.
Catfish producers and others willing to flood fields and pastures have also signed up for the program, while sugarcane growers don't practice flooding and aren't participating, Landreneau said. To provide bird habitat, landowners are creating mudflats and shallow areas containing less than a foot of water.
Landreneau said $40 million has been earmarked from three USDA, NRCS sources--the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)--to pay landowners in eight, "flyway states" to develop or enhance migratory bird habitat. Sign-up for the program began on June 28 and ended on August 1. Louisiana got the most funding, receiving $14 million this year, followed by Mississippi and Arkansas with over $6 million each. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri and Texas are also participating.
"Farmers and landowners have signed contracts through either EQIP, WHIP or WRP to cover expenses" to implement practices needed to develop habitat, Landreneau said. Typical expenses include manipulating crop stubble and other vegetation and performing the flooding. Payments to landowners will be based on 75% of the average, per-acre cost of implementing each practice across the state, and landowners will have to absorb 25% of the average cost.
Landreneau said "this is a financial assistance program, not a subsidy--meaning NRCS shares the expense of installing the conservation practice with the landowner." Under the program, "payments to landowners this year will range from $10 to $90 an acre, depending on how much their practices cost. First reports indicate that program participation in Louisiana this year will be highest in Acadia, Evangeline, Jefferson Davis, St. Landry and Vermilion Parishes." For now, the program is intended to last three years, and many Louisiana participants have signed up for several years.
As Louisiana landowners begin flooding fields for habitat, shorebirds and early-season, water fowl have been spotted there, with many more expected, Landreneau said.
Linscombe said "several other crops besides rice are involved in the migratory bird program since rice in Louisiana is rotated with soybeans and corn and in aquaculture with crawfish. The program should increase production of crawfish by allowing more harvested rice fields to be re-flooded this fall." If crawfish are plentiful, they will be gathered.
"Few Louisianans will complain about more crawfish next spring," Linscombe said. Given the scarcity of oysters and shrimp since the spill, crawfish from southwest Louisiana could be in bigger demand than ever.
When asked about possible growth in weeds and blackbird populations from the flooding program, Landreneau of NRCS said participating farmers might see more aquatic weeds, but he added that weed treatment is a standard, farming practice. And, he said, flooding is not expected to increase the flocks of blackbirds that typically prey on rice.
Rice thrives in Louisiana's climate in fields that are shallow ponds surrounded and punctuated by short, man-made levies, allowing precise water control. Water is provided by nearby rivers, streams and deep wells. Fields are flooded for most of the growing season and then drained just before harvest to provide firm soil that can support harvest equipment. The main crop is gathered in August and September, and is often followed by a ratoon crop that does not need planting and is harvested in late October and November.
Michael Salassi, agricultural economics professor at LSU, pointed to the benefits of Louisiana rice producers partnering with USDA to expand bird habitat. "Migratory birds are a valuable resource to Louisiana," he said. "Rice production fields, in particular, are well suited to provide overwintering habitat for a wide variety of migratory birds." And the bird initiative could give some growers extra income this winter, he said.
City dwellers, who hear birds on sunny mornings but don't know much about them, might wonder what makes birds such valuable resources. Birds help the environment by transplanting seeds and pollinating plants. And as part of the food chain, they control insects and rodents and are themselves meals for other animals.
Rice growers are avid bird watchers, Linscombe said, "this week, for example, I was in a field and saw flocks of stilts, roseate spoonbills, ibises and egrets, and stopped and enjoyed the spectacle for awhile."
As for the state's rice production, the sector has made a bit of a comeback. Louisiana rice acreage declined from a 1999 peak as urbanization, rising production costs and coastal erosion took their toll. Acreage began to recover in recent years, however, and yields per acre were a record last year.
Earlier this decade, Louisiana rice output suffered from Hurricanes Rita and Ike, said Andrew Wong, co-owner of Jazzmen Rice, LLC in New Orleans. Meanwhile, rice demand has been helped by growing Asian and Latin populations in the U.S. and health awareness, he said. His company contracts Louisiana-grown, aromatic rice, developed by LSU AgCenter's Rice Research Station, from farmers, and sells it to stores and restaurants. Business is so brisk that jobs created directly and indirectly by Jazzmen could expand from one hundred this year to over 2,000 in five years, Wong predicted.
Researchers have long been interested in rice fields as habitat, Linscombe said. "In a program that started well before the spill, we've had young scientists here this summer from Mississippi State University, doing sampling to determine the nutrient and caloric content of our rice fields and soil as food for wildlife."
The initial imprint of the USDA's migratory bird initiative will be known by year-end, Linscombe said. "This fall and winter we'll find out whether the program does in fact divert birds from oil-tainted areas. And we'll learn whether it was truly needed since only a portion of the coast is oiled."
To keep migratory birds away from oily areas along the Gulf Coast, the U.S. Dept of Agriculture is paying rice growers and landowners in Louisiana and other states to flood farms and pastures for habitat this fall. Birds need sustenance when they reach the southern U.S. on journeys that can exceed a thousand miles, often taking them to Central or Latin America.
Before traveling, birds accumulate fat reserves, but they rest and refuel during their excursions. Think of the time you arrived famished at a relative's home for the holidays after the airline didn't serve food on the flight you took. And you were just sitting on the plane, reading and dozing.
"More than 50 million, migratory birds will travel south this fall towards marshes and coastlines impacted by the oil spill," said Tim Landreneau, state-program specialist with USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service in Alexandria, La. "NRCS is working with farmers and ranchers from Missouri to the Gulf Coast to manage portions of their land to provide additional food and habitat for them."
Steven Linscombe, Louisiana State University agronomy professor and director of LSU AgCenter's Rice Research Station in Crowley, said "the migratory bird initiative is intended to divert birds north and west of the oiIed marshes and islands near the mouth of the Mississippi River. Rice and crawfish growers used to seeing lots of birds are generally in favor of the program. In the fall, we normally host birds from Canada and the northern U.S. because our rice fields provide groceries--like waste grain, seedlings and seed from weed grasses." Some of these state- and nation-hopping birds are endangered species.
Catfish producers and others willing to flood fields and pastures have also signed up for the program, while sugarcane growers don't practice flooding and aren't participating, Landreneau said. To provide bird habitat, landowners are creating mudflats and shallow areas containing less than a foot of water.
Landreneau said $40 million has been earmarked from three USDA, NRCS sources--the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)--to pay landowners in eight, "flyway states" to develop or enhance migratory bird habitat. Sign-up for the program began on June 28 and ended on August 1. Louisiana got the most funding, receiving $14 million this year, followed by Mississippi and Arkansas with over $6 million each. Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri and Texas are also participating.
"Farmers and landowners have signed contracts through either EQIP, WHIP or WRP to cover expenses" to implement practices needed to develop habitat, Landreneau said. Typical expenses include manipulating crop stubble and other vegetation and performing the flooding. Payments to landowners will be based on 75% of the average, per-acre cost of implementing each practice across the state, and landowners will have to absorb 25% of the average cost.
Landreneau said "this is a financial assistance program, not a subsidy--meaning NRCS shares the expense of installing the conservation practice with the landowner." Under the program, "payments to landowners this year will range from $10 to $90 an acre, depending on how much their practices cost. First reports indicate that program participation in Louisiana this year will be highest in Acadia, Evangeline, Jefferson Davis, St. Landry and Vermilion Parishes." For now, the program is intended to last three years, and many Louisiana participants have signed up for several years.
As Louisiana landowners begin flooding fields for habitat, shorebirds and early-season, water fowl have been spotted there, with many more expected, Landreneau said.
Linscombe said "several other crops besides rice are involved in the migratory bird program since rice in Louisiana is rotated with soybeans and corn and in aquaculture with crawfish. The program should increase production of crawfish by allowing more harvested rice fields to be re-flooded this fall." If crawfish are plentiful, they will be gathered.
"Few Louisianans will complain about more crawfish next spring," Linscombe said. Given the scarcity of oysters and shrimp since the spill, crawfish from southwest Louisiana could be in bigger demand than ever.
When asked about possible growth in weeds and blackbird populations from the flooding program, Landreneau of NRCS said participating farmers might see more aquatic weeds, but he added that weed treatment is a standard, farming practice. And, he said, flooding is not expected to increase the flocks of blackbirds that typically prey on rice.
Rice thrives in Louisiana's climate in fields that are shallow ponds surrounded and punctuated by short, man-made levies, allowing precise water control. Water is provided by nearby rivers, streams and deep wells. Fields are flooded for most of the growing season and then drained just before harvest to provide firm soil that can support harvest equipment. The main crop is gathered in August and September, and is often followed by a ratoon crop that does not need planting and is harvested in late October and November.
Michael Salassi, agricultural economics professor at LSU, pointed to the benefits of Louisiana rice producers partnering with USDA to expand bird habitat. "Migratory birds are a valuable resource to Louisiana," he said. "Rice production fields, in particular, are well suited to provide overwintering habitat for a wide variety of migratory birds." And the bird initiative could give some growers extra income this winter, he said.
City dwellers, who hear birds on sunny mornings but don't know much about them, might wonder what makes birds such valuable resources. Birds help the environment by transplanting seeds and pollinating plants. And as part of the food chain, they control insects and rodents and are themselves meals for other animals.
Rice growers are avid bird watchers, Linscombe said, "this week, for example, I was in a field and saw flocks of stilts, roseate spoonbills, ibises and egrets, and stopped and enjoyed the spectacle for awhile."
As for the state's rice production, the sector has made a bit of a comeback. Louisiana rice acreage declined from a 1999 peak as urbanization, rising production costs and coastal erosion took their toll. Acreage began to recover in recent years, however, and yields per acre were a record last year.
Earlier this decade, Louisiana rice output suffered from Hurricanes Rita and Ike, said Andrew Wong, co-owner of Jazzmen Rice, LLC in New Orleans. Meanwhile, rice demand has been helped by growing Asian and Latin populations in the U.S. and health awareness, he said. His company contracts Louisiana-grown, aromatic rice, developed by LSU AgCenter's Rice Research Station, from farmers, and sells it to stores and restaurants. Business is so brisk that jobs created directly and indirectly by Jazzmen could expand from one hundred this year to over 2,000 in five years, Wong predicted.
Researchers have long been interested in rice fields as habitat, Linscombe said. "In a program that started well before the spill, we've had young scientists here this summer from Mississippi State University, doing sampling to determine the nutrient and caloric content of our rice fields and soil as food for wildlife."
The initial imprint of the USDA's migratory bird initiative will be known by year-end, Linscombe said. "This fall and winter we'll find out whether the program does in fact divert birds from oil-tainted areas. And we'll learn whether it was truly needed since only a portion of the coast is oiled."
Read more: Rice, Agriculture, Environment, Oil, Birds, Wetlands, Endangered Species, Usda, BP Oil Spill, Seafood, Wildlife, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Avital Binshtock: High-Grade Goods: Take Back-to-School Shopping Back to the Earth
Costa Rica's TNF Ecopapers makes tree-free notebooks using 80% postconsumer waste and 20% banana fibers that would otherwise have been trashed. The ruledpages are printed with water-based inks. $7 to $8
These pens and mechanical pencils from Paper Mate look and feel like regular plastic but are made of biodegradable sugar-plant parts. Their packaging is plastic-free and 100 percent recyclable. $1.70 for the pen; $2.70 for the pencil
Students need to stay (a) hydrated and (b) caffeinated. Earthlust keeps BPA out of the mix with its stainless-steel water bottles and insulated mugs, which are flecked with delicate nature scenes. The family-owned company donates 1% of its profits to environmental charities--plus $1 for each of its Facebook fans. $16 to $23
Save money (and cafeteria leftovers and dozens of to-go boxes) with the reusable stainless-steel containers from LunchBots. Or, to evoke grade-school nostalgia, you could scout a thrift store or eBay for a vintage version. $13 to $17
Despite its clunky name, the Vaio W Series 212AX Eco Edition from Sony
is a sleek laptop. Its plastic exterior is partly derived from cast-off
CDs and DVDs, and its carrying case is made of recycled plastic
bottles. Other green features include a 10-inch LED screen and a
76-page digital (rather than paper) manual. $500
The hanging organizer from Kangaroom Storage
is made entirely of recycled materials and pays tribute to a
generation's digital fixation, with its pattern of IM acronyms and
emoticons. (OMG!) There's also a matching shower caddy. $17 for the
hanging organizer; $8 for the shower caddy
photos by Lori Eanes
Read more: Laptop, Water Bottles, Charity, Thrift Store, Paper Mate, Green, Caffeine, Postconsumer Waste, Eco, Banana, Recycled, Lunch Box, Mugs, Dvds, Vaio, Donate, Boxes, Plastic, Ebay, Leftovers, Shopping, Bisphenol A, Plastic Bottles, Hanging Organizer, Packaging, Cds, Dorm, Reusable, Cafeteria, Facebook, Sugar, Back to School, Costa Rica, Containers, Sony, Responsible, Plants, Stainless Steel, Vintage, Nature, Environment, Led, Notebooks, Bpa, Biodegradable, Emoticons, Pens, Earthlust, Lunchbots, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Allison Kilkenny: 'It's as if a Nuclear Apocalypse has Gone Off in the Gulf'
There are a few new, developing BP-related stories that should greatly disturb any American who values openness and transparency in their democracy.
First, a chemist named Bob Naman claims samples he received from Orange Beach Alabama waters tested positive for the dangerous neurotoxin pesticide 2-butoxyethanol, the main ingredient of Corexit 9527A. The government has been claiming they discontinued the use of that version of Corexit in the Gulf. Now, Naman says he's worried because BP called him and "threatened him."
Next, Dr. Nyman of Louisiana State University, who began comparative tests early May to determine the impact of oil and the impact of Corexit laced oil on maritime life, says, while marine life may recover quickly from oil exposure, the same cannot be said about exposure to Corexit.
Large mammals were the least affected by the presence of oil, while the small bottom creatures, worms that are the food source for bottom feeders, were affected the most.
The conclusion was that an oil spill is disruptive to maritime life but does not negatively impact the seafood population on a permanent basis. The impact is temporary and can reverse and restore itself over a period of time.
The same cannot be said when natural waters contain a Corexit-oil mixture. Dr. Nyman's studies show that the recovery period is twice or three times as long when maritime life is exposed to the toxic mixture of Corexit and oil. While the large mammals ultimately recover, the smaller fish population is reduced dramatically by 25% or more, depending on the concentration.
The bottom of the natural food chain however, does not recover and is killed in its entirety which affects all the bottom feeders in the Gulf of Mexico, including shrimp, crawfish, crabs and lobster.
Over at Counterpunch, Anne McClintock has a very good summary of the three vanishing acts playing out in the Gulf: the "disappearing" of oil courtesy of Corexit, the disappearing story in the media, and the disappearing of private contractors who are making a pretty penny helping BP and the Coast Guard keep a lid on the cover-up.
Previously, I have written about the absolutely absurd claim that the oil has magically disappeared thanks to the Corexit fairy. Corexit simply hid the problem by sinking the oil, and there is no good way to clean up oil that is sitting deep in the ocean. Marine scientists have reported finding enormous oil plumes that could still exist in the Gulf due to the cold temperatures of the water.
I recommend reading McClintock's article in full, but I wanted to highlight this interaction with her source, a veteran named Steve who was hired to help in the clean-up effort.
"It's as if a nuclear apocalypse has gone off in the Gulf," he said. "The media is not telling the truth. No one is telling the truth. Let me tell you something. Yesterday on the beach where we work, my crew cleaned up seven hundred bags of oil. Today we went back and the beach was completely covered in oil, as if we had never been there. Today we carried away another seven hundred and fifty bags. Every day we clean up, then the tide brings it in again. The oil is everywhere, deep under the sand. Today I wanted to measure the oil, so I stuck my shovel into the sand and the oil was down there eight inches deep."
Steve leaned in close, "Do you want to know how long my contract is to work down here?" he asked. "Three years." His jaw muscles tightened as if he wanted to suck his words back into his mouth, but could not. "They are telling everyone it is not so bad, but clean-up will take many years. I am going to be here a long time." Steve wiped a hand heavily over his eyes as if they were burning. "Let me tell you something. Today we saw three sharks washed up dead on the beach. The insides of their noses were black with oil. The membranes of their mouths were black with oil. Their eyes were black with oil."
As I have repeatedly stressed, the full ramifications of this disaster won't be understood for years. That's why it's so essential the media doesn't buy the narrative that the crisis is over. Ever since they refused to allow workers to wear respirators during the clean-up, BP has been doing everything in its power to skirt liability for not only the oil volcano, but also the consequences of dumping two million gallons of experimental toxins into the ocean. They have bullied, intimidated, and used private contractors to suppress free and open media coverage of the unfolding events.
BP is now desperately trying to get the victims of the Gulf disaster to quickly sign away their legal rights in order to secure swift payment as opposed to dragging things out in a lengthy, expensive court war like the one Exxon victims had to (and continue to) endure.
All the right rich people want the Gulf squared in their rearview mirrors. The oil companies want to drill, and many politicians want the oil companies to stay happy so they can secure their donations come election time. The media is fatigued by the story, and eager to believe BP and state officials when they brushed off their hands and delivered the clarion call, "The End!"
Focusing on the unknown consequences of Corexit is bad PR. It's bad for deep-sea oil drilling. It's bad for the politicians that need oil corporation donations. In all honesty, it's bad for the local fishing industry, too. And I feel for those poor men and women, who will suffer years of financial devastation because of the irresponsible actions by BP (another reason not to let BP off the legal hook.)
Of course, it's also necessary to ask these questions. No one really understands the long-term consequences of Corexit. In fact, every day it becomes clearer and clearer that no one has any idea what this stuff is going to do to the food chain.
Cross-posted from allisonkilkenny.com
First, a chemist named Bob Naman claims samples he received from Orange Beach Alabama waters tested positive for the dangerous neurotoxin pesticide 2-butoxyethanol, the main ingredient of Corexit 9527A. The government has been claiming they discontinued the use of that version of Corexit in the Gulf. Now, Naman says he's worried because BP called him and "threatened him."
Next, Dr. Nyman of Louisiana State University, who began comparative tests early May to determine the impact of oil and the impact of Corexit laced oil on maritime life, says, while marine life may recover quickly from oil exposure, the same cannot be said about exposure to Corexit.
Large mammals were the least affected by the presence of oil, while the small bottom creatures, worms that are the food source for bottom feeders, were affected the most.
The conclusion was that an oil spill is disruptive to maritime life but does not negatively impact the seafood population on a permanent basis. The impact is temporary and can reverse and restore itself over a period of time.
The same cannot be said when natural waters contain a Corexit-oil mixture. Dr. Nyman's studies show that the recovery period is twice or three times as long when maritime life is exposed to the toxic mixture of Corexit and oil. While the large mammals ultimately recover, the smaller fish population is reduced dramatically by 25% or more, depending on the concentration.
The bottom of the natural food chain however, does not recover and is killed in its entirety which affects all the bottom feeders in the Gulf of Mexico, including shrimp, crawfish, crabs and lobster.
Over at Counterpunch, Anne McClintock has a very good summary of the three vanishing acts playing out in the Gulf: the "disappearing" of oil courtesy of Corexit, the disappearing story in the media, and the disappearing of private contractors who are making a pretty penny helping BP and the Coast Guard keep a lid on the cover-up.
Previously, I have written about the absolutely absurd claim that the oil has magically disappeared thanks to the Corexit fairy. Corexit simply hid the problem by sinking the oil, and there is no good way to clean up oil that is sitting deep in the ocean. Marine scientists have reported finding enormous oil plumes that could still exist in the Gulf due to the cold temperatures of the water.
I recommend reading McClintock's article in full, but I wanted to highlight this interaction with her source, a veteran named Steve who was hired to help in the clean-up effort.
"It's as if a nuclear apocalypse has gone off in the Gulf," he said. "The media is not telling the truth. No one is telling the truth. Let me tell you something. Yesterday on the beach where we work, my crew cleaned up seven hundred bags of oil. Today we went back and the beach was completely covered in oil, as if we had never been there. Today we carried away another seven hundred and fifty bags. Every day we clean up, then the tide brings it in again. The oil is everywhere, deep under the sand. Today I wanted to measure the oil, so I stuck my shovel into the sand and the oil was down there eight inches deep."
Steve leaned in close, "Do you want to know how long my contract is to work down here?" he asked. "Three years." His jaw muscles tightened as if he wanted to suck his words back into his mouth, but could not. "They are telling everyone it is not so bad, but clean-up will take many years. I am going to be here a long time." Steve wiped a hand heavily over his eyes as if they were burning. "Let me tell you something. Today we saw three sharks washed up dead on the beach. The insides of their noses were black with oil. The membranes of their mouths were black with oil. Their eyes were black with oil."
As I have repeatedly stressed, the full ramifications of this disaster won't be understood for years. That's why it's so essential the media doesn't buy the narrative that the crisis is over. Ever since they refused to allow workers to wear respirators during the clean-up, BP has been doing everything in its power to skirt liability for not only the oil volcano, but also the consequences of dumping two million gallons of experimental toxins into the ocean. They have bullied, intimidated, and used private contractors to suppress free and open media coverage of the unfolding events.
BP is now desperately trying to get the victims of the Gulf disaster to quickly sign away their legal rights in order to secure swift payment as opposed to dragging things out in a lengthy, expensive court war like the one Exxon victims had to (and continue to) endure.
All the right rich people want the Gulf squared in their rearview mirrors. The oil companies want to drill, and many politicians want the oil companies to stay happy so they can secure their donations come election time. The media is fatigued by the story, and eager to believe BP and state officials when they brushed off their hands and delivered the clarion call, "The End!"
Focusing on the unknown consequences of Corexit is bad PR. It's bad for deep-sea oil drilling. It's bad for the politicians that need oil corporation donations. In all honesty, it's bad for the local fishing industry, too. And I feel for those poor men and women, who will suffer years of financial devastation because of the irresponsible actions by BP (another reason not to let BP off the legal hook.)
Of course, it's also necessary to ask these questions. No one really understands the long-term consequences of Corexit. In fact, every day it becomes clearer and clearer that no one has any idea what this stuff is going to do to the food chain.
Cross-posted from allisonkilkenny.com
Read more: BP Oil Disaster, Bp Oil Spill Cleanup, Bp, BP Oil, Environment, BP Oil Spill 2010, Dispersants, Corexit, BP Oil Spill, Gulf Oil Spill, Gulf of Mexico, BP Oil Rig, Green News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Global Warming Graffiti Art: 350.org
Take one lightning fast painter and pair him with a serious environmental threat and you've got 350.org's latest (and coolest) video. The environmental organization ultimately promotes the notion (or necessity) that CO2 levels must be brought down to the safe level of 350, while our atmosphere is currently at 390. This video literally paints the picture in a way that anyone, whether you listened to Al Gore and bought a Prius or not, can appreciate.
(From: 350)
350 from Hans Hansen on Vimeo.
(From: 350)
Read more: Co2, Co2 Emissions, Co2 Reduction, Video, Painter, 350.Org, Environment, Environmentalism, Artists, Painting, Global Warming, Arts News
Categories: Greener Pastures
Join Us!
Follow us on facebook:
Join us on myspace:
