1468316702000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fnatural-capital-coalition-%2Fa-new-suit-from-paris_b_10938132.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
A New Suit from Paris

"2016-07-12-1468314432-577741-pavan.jpeg"

This article has been submitted as part of the Natural Capital Coalition's series of blogs on natural capital by Pavan Sukhdev, founder & chair, GIST Advisory

COP-21 will be remembered as a feel-good moment in the struggle to contain climate change. Whether it was skilful French diplomacy, or the replacement of inconclusive top-down negotiations with bottom-up consensus-building, or the fear of shame of the unwilling, or perhaps just the quality of food (good by any measure, and outstanding by COP standards) COP-21 definitely lifted spirits up. I certainly did not leave Paris feeling miserable, as I did Copenhagen six years ago.

The Intended Nationally Determined Contributions ("INDC's") announced by governments at Paris added up to impressive reductions against 'business as usual'. However, they were well short of reductions needed to be 2/3rd confident of staying within 2oC of warming. The so-called "emissions gap" based on these INDC's was still around 20%-30%.

This "emissions gap" should come as no surprise. We need nothing short of a global change in economic direction and resource use to achieve these pledges. Governments struggle to manage macroeconomic direction at the best of times, and they do worse with managing resource use. It is corporations - the engines of today's economies - that decide economic direction and resource use.

The private sector delivers around two-thirds of today's economy (measured in terms of GDP and jobs), but can today's corporation deliver tomorrow's green and climate-safe economy? I think not. I have argued that we need a new corporate model if we are to address climate change, biodiversity loss, and other global environmental problems. This responsible, sustainable new model (I call it 'Corporation 2020') will drive 'stakeholder capitalism': delivering private profits without causing public losses. Such a transition will need trenchant changes in the ways corporations leverage, advertise, get taxed, and report performance. Redefining corporate performance is a key part of this new model, as the performance metrics of shareholder capitalism ignore third-party impacts on society, the so-called externalities of business.

But well before we get there, we need widespread acceptance of a common approach and framework for such measurement and evaluation. The formal launch of the Natural Capital Protocol, on July 13th 2016, is a crucial step in this direction. This Protocol is a universally applicable approach and framework for any business to measure its impacts and dependencies on natural capital. The draft was circulated in November last year, in the run-up to COP-21.

Further work will be needed to measure impacts on human capital (knowledge, skills and health that enable individuals to earn a living) and on social capital (formal and informal relationships and rules that enable people to engage and transact). Measuring and integrating corporate performance across all capital dimensions, not just shareholder financial capital, will herald a vital change in the nature of today's corporation towards one which has positive externalities: a yardstick for corporate sustainability.

I entered COP-21 pleased with declared INDC's, and delighted with the draft Natural Capital Protocol, but one nagging question remained. What if the emissions gaps from COP-21 pledges remained unbridgeable, not because corporations failed to take leadership and transform production as they did not know their true costs (because after natural capital accounting is commonplace, they truly will) but because their customers, consumers such as myself, refused to change what they bought? So I began to wonder, at COP-21, what could I pledge personally that might make a difference?

There are some obvious examples of consumer demand that destroys natural capital. For example, beef usually damages forests, climate and freshwater supply. These 'externalities' of livestock farming are estimated at several hundred billion dollars. I had stopped eating beef (and all other meat) several years ago in 2009, when I realised (through TEEB research) the extent of natural capital damage caused by meat production systems- such as the impacts on mangrove forests of prawn farming, the unsustainability of ocean fisheries and livestock's long shadow on rainforests. So I could not commit much more on that front.

But what about my use of other heavily advertised, high-footprint, "volume" goods? The footprint of clothing is immense, including GHG emissions and freshwater impacts along its value chains. I pledged a change personally at COP-21, where I wore a "new" suit. It was my father's. I had 'borrowed' it from him due to some rushed and careless packing and a stopover in New Delhi. This suit was four decades old, but you'd never guess: styles in men's suits seem to turn in circles, and this was a well-known French brand. So I wore it right through COP-21 and entertained myself by asking people I met to guess when I had bought it: the most educated guess was "seven years ago".

I called my father in India and told him about this pledge. He laughed, and promptly gifted me another four old suits from when he lived in colder climes. They all fit me perfectly, and seem none the worse for wear. I have resolved to never buy another suit for the rest of my life. I treasure these "new" old suits for sentimental reasons, and because my personal climate pledge now also requires me to keep my weight in check.

Now isn't that an unusual positive externality, for a suit-maker? The brave new world of 'Corporation 2020' awaits.

Disclaimer: Articles in this series are submitted by people who work in organizations who are part of the Natural Capital Coalition, or people who are involved in the natural capital space more generally, the views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of The Natural Capital Coalition, other Coalition organizations, or the organization that employs the author.

Follow Pavan on Twitter: @PavanSukhdev

Pavan Sukhdev is founder-author of 'Corporation 2020', a movement that sees corporate sustainability as the cornerstone of a 'green economy' and maps a rapid pathway to a new model for corporate behaviour driven by regulatory changes & responsive to the reality of planetary boundaries and their imminent tipping-points. Pavan wrote his book 'Corporation 2020' at Yale University where he was awarded the 2011 McCluskey Fellowship. Pavan is also founder-CEO of GIST Advisory, a consulting firm that specializes in helping governments and corporations value and manage their impacts on natural and human capital.

Earlier, from 2008 to early 2011, Pavan was Special Adviser and Head of UNEP's Green Economy Initiative, and lead author of their report "Towards a Green Economy", as well as Study Leader for the G8+5 commissioned project on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). Pavan was appointed to lead TEEB by the EU Commission and Germany, and delivered its "Interim Report" while still working full time at Deutsche Bank in 2008. He then took a sabbatical from Deutsche Bank to lead TEEB and the Green Economy Initiative for UNEP from 2008 to 2011.

Pavan is a Goodwill Ambassador for UNEP, a role in which he promotes TEEB implementation and Green Economy transitions to governments. He serves on the boards of Conservation International, the Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), TEEB, and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).

On 13th July 2016, The Natural Capital Coalition will launch a standardized framework for business to identify, measure and value their impacts and dependencies on natural capital. This 'Natural Capital Protocol' has been developed through a unique collaborative process; a World Business Council for Sustainable Development consortium led on the technical development and an IUCN consortium led on business engagement and piloting. The Protocol is supported by practically focused 'Sector Guides' on Apparel and Food & Beverage produced by Trucost on behalf of Coalition.

Keep up to date with the Natural Capital Coalition on Twitter: @NatCapCoalition

Keep up to date with our series on natural capital here.

www.naturalcapitalcoalition.org

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468289770000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fchris-weigant%2Fwar-on-weeds-end-in-sight_b_10934184.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
War On Weed's End In Sight

The end of the federal government's War On Weed is approaching fast. No matter how the details work out, that much seems pretty clear at this point. What began roughly 100 years ago as a racist legislative overreaction to Latino workers' preferred method of relaxing -- and was then ramped up (under Richard Nixon) to punish hippies and minorities and college students -- could once again become sane governmental policy, ending almost a century's institutional demonization of a fairly harmless natural substance. When it happens, it will be the most significant governmental shift on a pointless and endless social "war" since the end of Prohibition. The only remaining questions are how the mechanics of the war's end will work out, and how fast it'll happen. But whether it ends with a bang or a whimper, that end is definitely now in sight.

Consider the following developments (some very recent and some ongoing):

DEA about to report

The Drug Enforcement Agency is going to announce any day now their completion of a review of the status of marijuana under federal drug law. They had promised it'd be done by the end of June, so it's already overdue. No matter what their review recommends, it may spur fundamental change in the legal status of marijuana.

Suppose the D.E.A. actually applies common sense and science to the federal classification of marijuana. If they do so, they will recommend a downgrade from Schedule I to at least Schedule II (although a strong case could be made for Schedules III through V just as easily, depending on how you interpret the concept of "abuse" of marijuana). If the D.E.A. leads the way, the process will be fairly smooth and fairly quick. But even if they dig in their heels (they are the nation's drug warriors, after all) and refuse to recommend any change, they might just spark a backlash from other parts of the government.

Obama could act on his own, after the election

One of President Obama's campaign promises was to stop letting politics trump science in federal policy. He has had a very mixed record on this issue, however, as evidenced by the long (and pointless) battle his administration fought against allowing over-the-counter sales of the "Plan B" emergency contraceptive. Obama also consistently treated any suggestion of changes in federal marijuana policy as a joke to be laughed off, for pretty much his entire first term in office. His first attorney general sent some awfully conflicting guidelines out to federal prosecutors on marijuana policy -- first seeming to relax enforcement and then to tighten it back up. This confusion did eventually end, and the Department of Justice has now (mostly) taken a hands-off stance to states with legalized medical and/or recreational marijuana.

This is important, because it is not ultimately the D.E.A.'s decision how marijuana is classified -- it is instead the attorney general's decision. Congress doesn't even need to be involved with any shift in policy, because the attorney general can change the federal government's classification with her signature alone. So even if the D.E.A. review refuses to recognize that "the times they are a changin'," the Justice Department can easily overrule them and go ahead and reschedule marijuana. President Obama might just order this to happen on his way out of office, during the lame-duck period after the election, no matter what the D.E.A. has to say about it. What would a self-described former member of the "Choom Gang" have to lose, at that point?

Congress could act as well

Even if the D.E.A. proves recalcitrant and the Obama administration isn't bold enough to reschedule on their own, Congress may get involved. A bill which will remove all the needless red tape from medical research on marijuana is working its way through the House right now, and it is notable for who has sponsored it -- not just pro-marijuana congressmen, but also some of the most avidly anti-marijuana congressmen as well. It is no longer a politically acceptable stance to deny doctors from even studying marijuana's benefits anymore -- another measure of how the War On Weed is winding down.

For years, marijuana research was only allowed if the hypothesis was some version of: "Marijuana's bad for you... mmm-kay?" No science was permitted with the aim of proving any benefits at all -- and then politicians and the medical establishment could sanctimoniously fight against legalizing medical marijuana with the Catch-22 excuse of "no solid research has been done, therefore marijuana can't be considered a medicine." As Doc Daneeka might have explained to Yossarian: "Doctors say medical marijuana isn't a proven medicine until they see studies scientifically showing the benefits, but research showing any beneficial uses doesn't actually exist -- because any researcher who tries to prove beneficial uses is denied the permission to conduct such research by the government -- so this scientific evidence will never actually be allowed to exist." That was then, but now even the most strident anti-drug congressmen are working to remove this enormous Catch-22 situation, forever.

Democratic Party officially calls for change

This one has a worrisome undertone to it, because of the way it happened. Still, it's a positive development any way you look at it. This weekend, in a showdown between Bernie Sanders supporters and Hillary Clinton supporters, a plank was inserted in the Democratic Party platform document that called for a "path to legalization" for marijuana. This is stunning, because the subject hasn't been addressed by either party in such a direct fashion since at least the 1970s. Sanders, in his campaign, called for "descheduling" marijuana -- treating it like alcohol, essentially, and moving its regulation over to the folks who now oversee tobacco and alcohol (instead of the drug warriors). This was proposed by the Sanders supporters at the platform committee meeting, but the idea was voted down. Compromise language was offered instead (with the "path to legalization" language) which called for at least rescheduling marijuana down from Schedule I. This passed by only one vote (out of over 150 cast). The worrisome aspect was that the Clinton people fought so hard against it -- fighting for timidity rather than leadership, as Democrats have been regularly doing on the issue ever since they were badly spooked by Republican charges of being "soft on crime," back in the 1980s and 1990s.

A platform document fight doesn't guarantee how Hillary Clinton will treat the matter once in the Oval Office, however. Both Clinton and Obama, if you'll remember, were publicly against gay marriage in the 2008 campaign (timidity ruled the day on the issue among Democratic leadership, back then). But look where we are now -- Obama realized that he needed to "evolve" on the issue and politically it has done him a lot of good. He'll go down in history as the boldest president on gay rights of all time, in fact. Clinton could wind up doing the same on marijuana, too, no matter how timidly she's approached the issue so far during this year's campaign.

Legalize it

Even though the federal government states (as part of the Schedule I definition) that marijuana has "no accepted medical use," half of the United States have now legalized such medical use. Half. Depending on how you count, the number of such states is now at least 25 (some states have severe restrictions, red tape, and other hoops such as only allowing CBD oils and other non-euphoric forms, to treat diseases such as epilepsy). The tide on medical use has already turned and nobody will ever force this genie back into the bottle again.

The voters of four states -- and the District of Columbia, the seat of our national government -- have completely thrown in the towel altogether and just legalized adult recreational use of marijuana. The sky has not fallen in any of these jurisdictions. The sun rises, the sun sets, and the hellscape predicted by those against legalization has not materialized at all. This year, California voters will get a chance to vote on recreational legalization in November. California is the biggest market in the entire country -- if the state were its own country, it would have the sixth largest economy in the world. And California won't be alone. Seven other states may also have the opportunity to vote to legalize this November. Which means by the end of this year, marijuana may be fully legal for any adult to buy openly in over 10 states. This isn't quite the tipping point that medical marijuana has already reached, but it may be the biggest step towards such a tipping point yet taken.

Double the budgetary impact

Once other states see how much tax revenue is generated by states who have legalized recreational use, it's going to be pretty hard to argue against allowing such taxes to be collected. But marijuana legalization actually has a two-fold impact on state budgets. First, there's the tax revenue to be collected -- and marijuana smokers are just about the only political group in the country who are currently actually begging to be taxed. Think about that, especially seen through the eyes of a conservative politician. Who else is not going to complain about paying new taxes, after all?

But it gets even better, because the secondary budget impact is that millions of dollars (billions, when all states are added together) in law enforcement funds will be saved by not having to hassle with low-level pot busts anymore. Cops will be freed up to concentrate on other things, and new tax revenue will flow in at the same time. That is a double benefit to any state trying to put together a yearly budget -- and it's going to become more and more irresistible over time, especially to those who profess themselves to be fiscal conservatives.

War On Weed's end

In conclusion, although it is impossible to see precisely which path we'll take at this point, the federal government's War On Weed is almost over. Its days are numbered. The end is in sight.

It won't happen overnight, of course. Even it the D.E.A. gives its approval and Loretta Lynch acts immediately, rescheduling marijuana on the Controlled Substances list isn't going to be the last gasp. The war won't truly be over until the last vestiges of the federal government's wrongheaded policies have been reversed entirely. What would this look like? It would have many facets, because the idiocy behind the policy has become so ingrained in federal law.

First and foremost, federal officials would not be strangled by gag laws which now prevent them from even publicly admitting that marijuana is not as dangerous as heroin. This has got to be the biggest piece of idiocy in the entire misguided War On Weed, but it'll be the easiest to change.

More concretely, marijuana businesses need to stop being persecuted for what they sell. Right now, it is impossible for many of these businesses to use the banking system. The federal penalties for laundering money from drug trafficking are so severe that the banks refuse to allow marijuana businesses -- completely legal ones, in states where they are allowed -- from opening an account. That has got to change. Marijuana businesses should not be forced to operate on a cash basis (what other business is?) and instead should be treated like any other wholesaler or retailer in the country. Tax laws also need to reflect this normalization. As of now, marijuana businesses can't legally claim common business expenses like employee salaries or rent -- again, like every other business in operation is allowed to. This will require a shift in the federal tax code.

Medical research on marijuana should be approved just like research on any other substance. Marijuana supplies for such research should be allowed from anywhere, instead of one government farm being a bottleneck for such research supplies. No extra approvals by a multitude of departments should be necessary any more (the hoops that such research has to jump through are still on the order of Catch-22, even after some recent improvements have been made). Doctors should be able to get solid scientific studies which show effectiveness and which also start to break down the dozens of chemicals in the plant to more accurately prescribe their use for different medical conditions.

Marijuana should really become legal on federal property, so that campers in a National Park aren't at risk of punishments they wouldn't face if they stepped outside the park's boundaries. But this brings up a much wider point -- what I see as the real end of the road for the fight to dismantle the federal War On Weed. Prohibition required a constitutional amendment to end, and at least we won't have that hurdle to get over. But the War On Weed's end is going to look a lot like how Prohibition ended in one enormous way.

The states have to be given full control -- up to a point -- over how marijuana will be treated. The end to the federal War On Weed won't mean marijuana will be legalized in all 50 states the next day, but that's actually OK. Indeed, Prohibition hasn't actually ended yet in many counties across America. "Dry" counties still exist in plenty of states, where the sale of alcohol is absolutely forbidden. Alcohol can't be sold on Sundays in lots of other places (so much for separation of church and state). In some places "near beer" is the only thing you can buy (which is pretty horrendous stuff to drink, it should be mentioned). In other places, Everclear (190-proof grain alcohol) is illegal, but Bacardi 151 can be purchased. Laws still differ everywhere, in other words, concerning the legal purchase of alcohol. But here's the crucial footnote to this patchwork of alcohol laws across America: you can buy a bottle of liquor legally (in a "wet" county, of course) and then get in your car and legally drive to any place in America, wet or dry -- without having to worry about getting busted by the cops for having an unopened bottle of hooch in your car. As long as you consume it in private, mere possession of alcohol is not banned by law anywhere in America.

That is the real end of the road for marijuana, as well. No matter how all the rest of the details are worked out, this is when the war will fully be over. It's a monumental shift in federal policy, so it'll likely happen incrementally, but even so it may happen a lot sooner than you might think. These things have a way of steamrolling, in politics. The first step is taken (boldly or timidly), and then the next steps become easier because the logic supporting the entire War On Weed will begin to fall apart. "Why do we bother to still ban this, when we are now allowing that to take place?" becomes the question with no defensible answer (other than the wholly-inadequate: "Well, because we've always done it that way"). The framework will collapse of its own weight, and sometimes these collapses happen very swiftly. If 40 million Californians can enjoy the same freedom that citizens of Colorado and Oregon now enjoy, then the federal government is going to look pretty silly trying to turn back this tide. To some, the federal War On Weed won't be over until everyone affected receives an apology for all the idiocy (a full presidential pardon for Tommy Chong, perhaps?), but realistically speaking the end will happen when the government does exactly what Bernie Sanders boldly called for during his campaign -- the federal government treating marijuana not the same way it treats heroin or crystal meth, but the same way it treats alcohol and tobacco.

That was once a pipe dream, if you'll excuse the stoner-joke metaphor. For anyone who has lived through the War On Weed era, it seemed at times that the federal government was going so far backwards that such an end could not even realistically be conceived. But times are changing fast. The once-inconceivable hasn't quite become inevitable yet, but even so the end of the War On Weed is definitely now on the political horizon. Politicians should really take note, because they're now at risk of being on the wrong side of history. The old movement slogan has never seemed more appropriate, in fact: "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." Those are really the only choices left for the politicians, as the people in state after state jettison the War On Weed on their own, at the ballot box.

Chris Weigant blogs at:

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468282489000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Ftodd-paglia%2Fstarbucks-cups-destroy-fo_b_10933538.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Starbucks Cups Destroy Forests: 8000+ Paper Cups a Minute Used Once & Trashed
On Thursday, July 7, at 6:20 a.m. a yellow Penske rental truck pulled up in front of Starbucks Headquarters in Seattle. Ten Stand.earth volunteers jumped into the back of the truck and pulled out a series of 62 large plastic bags each of which was dangling from a long steel cable. It weighed a lot and the volunteers slowly, methodically laid it out this giant caterpillar-like thing on the sidewalk and began removing the hefty bags. Inside each bag were hundreds of Starbucks paper cups strung together in 11-foot lines that, when the steel cable was lifted, would form a 75 foot long wall of cups. In total there were 8,181 paper cups. When the volunteers strung that steel cable between two telephone poles all 8,181 cups formed a massive wall that from the street obscured the Starbucks main entrance.

8,181 is a lot of cups: it's the number of paper coffee cups that Starbucks serves every minute, every day of the year. The vast majority of those cups are thrown in the trash. The banner that hung alongside the wall of cups read: Starbucks Cups Destroy Forests.

The volunteers were met with incredulous private security officers who blocked them from entering the building to deliver copies of Stand's new report, Starbucks Cuts Forests for Cups. Our volunteers were heartened, however, by employees who streamed by the cup display, many stopping to thank us for pushing the company to follow through on its commitment to serve a better cup.

Starbucks, in a statement on our action quoted by the Globalist, stated:

"We have made a commitment and have never wavered from our efforts to make our cup recyclable..."

If by "never wavered" Starbucks means "we have made nearly zero progress" on altering the forest destroying nature of their cups, then we agree. In 2008 Starbucks made a public commitment to make its cups recyclable by 2015, meaning recyclable with regular paper recycling everywhere they served coffee. What the company fails to mention is that they failed to deliver. Why aren't current Starbucks paper cups recyclable? In order to hold liquid, they are lined with plastic made by the Dow Chemicals and Chevron Oils of the world, which makes recycling them with regular paper a major problem. But cups without that specific plastic lining that can hold hot liquids already exist. Starbucks is a huge consumer of paper cups and could demand those cups from their cup suppliers, but there's no indication that's happened.

Starbucks, which once committed to taking full responsibility for delivering a solution to disposable cups, instead passed the buck in their statement:

"What is recyclable varies significantly by municipality and sometimes even by store, and we pay local private haulers across the country to collect and recycle hot cups along with our other recyclable products, compost and trash."

That sounds very complicated. But here's something that's simple: wouldn't it make sense to use a cup that's recyclable anywhere that regular paper is recycled? No private haulers, no schlepping things across the country - all that's needed is a better cup!

Starbucks is just the type of innovative company that could be leading the charge to switch to an environmentally-friendly alternative. With 4.3 billion paper coffee cups leaving their stores each year, Starbucks has the chance to make a real difference. But instead of going with innovation and leadership, Starbucks is leaning on PR games and passing the buck. Their statement concludes:

"We're proud of the progress we've made, have annually reported and consistently shared our success and our challenges, and will continue to advocate to key policymakers and do even more within the industry to address the issue."

Starbucks, we can't wait to be proud of you. But with 8,000 cups a minute going straight into the trash, more than a million trees being cut annually to produce them, and big costs to our climate, you've got a long way to go.

It's time to stop wavering, stop passing the buck, and give us a Better Cup that doesn't destroy forests, create carbon pollution, or embarrass your mermaid and your customers who expect you to live up to your promises. Let Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz know you demand a better cup by signing our petition here.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468282484000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmarcia-g-yerman%2Fbeat-the-pollution-with-t_b_10907630.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Beat the Pollution with the Plume Air App

"2016-07-09-1468103011-3050453-3ScreensPLUME.jpg"

Extreme heat waves are happening with alarming regularity. Summer used to be the time for kids to be outside non-stop. Now, both children and adults need more information on how to protect their health from a wide range of pollutants in the air.

Plume Air Report is my go-to tool. There are others, but Plume is my favorite. It is available free as an iOS and Android download.

Innovator, Romain Lacombe, is the founder and CEO of Plume. He has a varied background which includes environmental economics, math, banking, a stint in Silicon Valley, and a Fulbright scholarship. Open Data, which is a key premise behind Plume, is one of his top concerns.

During the COP21 conference in Paris, Lacombe co-organized the international event "Data Against Climate Change." He believes that data can boost "climate innovation," as well as serve as an instrument of assessment and evaluation.

Equally important for Lacombe is delivering to users a drill down on pollution history for specific areas via "geolocation." This illustrates hourly shifts, and daily comparisons to annual levels. Lacombe defines this as "making the air more transparent."

Plume's World Air Map collects beyond 500,000 data points every day from 11,000 stations, in order to build "predictive models" for over 200 metro localities. For those vicinities without a station, a combination of Artificial Intelligence and data science can estimate air pollution levels on a 60-minute basis. Emissions become a concrete entity, "democratizing access to environmental information."

"2016-07-09-1468102615-2205124-WorldMapPULSE.jpg"

The map contains hexagons of different sizes and colors to demarcate city population size (from 1 million to 10 million), and city pollution (from black indicating a Plume index of +300 to two shades of blue ranging from 0-20 and 20-50). Twenty countries are listed alphabetically; 150 cities cover North and South America, Europe, and Asia.

In the morning, I have a Plume Index Air Quality message waiting for me, with information about the current level of pollution. Living in New York City, change can be dramatic from day to day, and even within a 24-hour period. The more polluted the air is, the higher the number.

Individuals can set their level of sensitivity as Low, Normal, or High. Favorite activities to check in on are represented by icons symbolizing running, bicycling, going outdoors with young children, and eating outside. With the hourly breakdown, it makes it easier to plan activities. You can also be informed of the temperature and the UV Index. The primary pollutants of ozone, particulate matter, and nitrogen dioxide are noted, and compared with mean yearly averages. At times when pollution is HIGH, I am advised to "Take it easy" with almost everything. I even get a special message stating: "IMPACT IF CHRONIC EXPOSURE. The air has reached a high level of pollution. Higher than the maximum limit for 24 hours established by the World Health Organization (WHO)."

You don't have to be a geek to appreciate the deeper look into air pollution that Plume makes available. Clicking on the "head icon" with the brain center brings you to a series of concise evaluations about pollution specifics including:" What is it? Where Does It Come From? What are the risks?"

In the section Everything You Should Know About Pollution, there is information on the "inversion layer," which traps pollutants. I particularly liked the descriptions of frequently used terms like Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, Sulphur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, VOCs, and Particulate Matter. Many people are familiar with the verbiage, but don't always fully grasp how or why their health is impacted.

In 2015, during the month of March, Paris hit a calamitous concentration of air pollution -- beyond the numbers of Beijing. Plume Labs informed the French government of the circumstances. In response, officials took steps to cut vehicle traffic by 50 percent for a full day.

Lacombe has written: "Air pollution is an invisible enemy, but we can fight back: actionable information helps limit our exposure, improve our health and well-being, and make our cities breathable."

Each year, air pollution leads to almost 7 million deaths around the world. It is presently the world's fourth-largest health threat. If we want to avoid the highest level of pollution on the Plume scale, Airpocalypse -- where everyone is advised to stay indoors a consideration of how serious a problem air pollution is must be addressed.

Tell Your Governor: Support the Clean Air Plan

Images: Courtesy of Plume Labs

This article originally appeared on the website Moms Clean Air Force.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468273175000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fstephen-wells%2Ffamily-or-property-the-le_b_10894042.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Family Or Property -- The Legal Value Of Our Animal Companions
My dog, Eve, was recently bitten by a rattlesnake while we were hiking. We were a long way from a veterinarian and I wondered whether I would lose her. I didn't hesitate to tell the emergency vet that they should spare no expense trying to save her, because Eve is an integral part of my family. If you share your home with a companion animal you likely feel the same way. According to a 2015 Harris poll, 95 percent of households with companion animals consider them part of their family. But because animals are considered "property" under the law, there's no guarantee that value will be accounted for in the situation of a wrongful death, for example. When a court is asked to calculate the value of a beloved companion animal, the determination is typically based purely on the animal's market value, that is, what it would cost to "replace" them.

But that may be starting to change. Animal law is a relatively new legal field, pioneered by 37-year-old nonprofit the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Like any movement for social change, progress--especially legal progress--takes time. Sweeping legal victories happen, but more often than not, the change is incremental. But the overall trend in animal valuation offers hope -- we're seeing more courts recognize that beloved non-human animal family members have intrinsic value, which must be reflected in damages their families are entitled to by law.

Two recent legal decisions we've been following are representative of this step forward. In March 2016 an Oregon rancher was awarded nearly $250,000, including $100,000 for emotional damages, after three of his Great Pyrenees livestock guardian dogs were shot and killed by two brothers out hunting. He will also be compensated for the value of the dogs as property. This decision is an important step in the recognition that animals have inherent value. While $100,000 can never bring back the dogs, the award recognizes that animals have value far beyond mere property under the law.

Another recent case reminds us that while we are moving forward, there's no guarantee that a companion animal's intrinsic value will be given the weight it deserves in the courtroom. In May 2012, the Monyak family of Georgia left their dogs Lola and Callie at a boarding facility while on vacation. The staff mistakenly gave Callie's daily dose of Rimadyl--an anti-inflammatory drug for arthritis--to Lola during their twelve-day stay. Not only did Callie not get the medicine she needed, Lola, a much smaller dog, was subjected to repeated overdoses, resulting in acute kidney failure. The Monyaks spent tens of thousands of dollars on extensive veterinary treatment to save Lola, but she eventually died from her injuries in March 2013. For years the family has been fighting a legal battle for compensation for the vet bills and for Lola's intrinsic value.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed an amicus, or "friend of the court," brief in support of the Monyaks, urging the Georgia Supreme court to affirm a previous Court of Appeals decision permitting damages that exceed Lola's market value, and to include Lola's intrinsic value. Lola was a dachshund mix, making her "market value" essentially $0. The Court made its decision earlier this month, but the results were mixed. It allowed recovery of vet bills in excess of market value, which is a positive step, but it held that compensating for Lola herself would be based on fair market value rather than her "actual value to the owner" or "intrinsic value."

The different outcomes in these two cases show that our laws are catching up to where we are as a society, but until animals are no longer classified as mere property, there's no guarantee that mourning families like the Monyaks will be able to achieve justice for their beloved family members.

The subtle progress we're seeing matters. These are the seeds of change on a much larger scale, and for those of us watching closely, we know that progress for companion animals is just the beginning. When it comes to non-human animals, it's easiest for us to see the value in our companion animals, and so their treatment under the law functions as a bellwether for treatment of all animals, like those subject to brutal factory farming practices.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468272295000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fannie-leonard%2Fthe-hidden-consequences-o_b_10930938.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
The Hidden Consequences of Food Waste
I've spent much of my working life digging into the problem of waste. One of the most important things I've learned is that solving our waste problem requires we look at the whole system, not just our own contribution to it. Sometimes that feels big and daunting, but it also offers many more opportunities to bring about positive changes.

Food waste is especially unforgivable. Millions of people are malnourished or going hungry, not only in developing countries but here in the US, while grocery stores, restaurants and homes are throwing away tons of perfectly edible and nutritious food every day. But the problem is not just the food that's wasted when leftovers go in the trash. It's also all of the greenhouse gas emissions, water, biodiversity loss and soil & air pollution that was generated to create that food only for it to be tossed away uneaten. To understand the full impact of wasting food, we have to look at where that food comes from and where the wasted food goes.

Let's unpack this a bit, starting with snack foods. Not so long ago, big food manufacturers discovered that palm oil could be used instead of butter or trans fats in a vast number of baked goods and other foods. This was very convenient as trans fats had started to get a bad name. You'll find palm oil (or one of its many aliases) in all kinds of food from Quaker granola bars, to Betty Crocker cake mix, to Fritos chips and Dunkin' Donuts.

Palm oil comes from tropical countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and parts of Africa. As we've tried to ditch the trans fats from our diets, demand for palm oil has shot up and these countries are now chopping down thousands of acres of lush tropical rainforests, to clear the way for palm tree plantations. Indonesia has lost over a quarter of its forest since 1990 - an area the size of Germany - which is a tragedy for the indigenous communities and tigers, orangutans and other endangered species which need the forest to survive. Companies have made progress towards buying more responsibly produced palm oil but deforestation still continues, so we should all be mindful of wasting food that may have cost more than just the dollars we paid for it. You can sign this petition to help encourage food companies to stop destroying rainforests for palm oil.

The supply chain for beef has similar problems. This time the trail of destruction leads to the Amazon rainforest. The cattle sector in Brazil has historically been the largest driver of deforestation in the Amazon as ancient forests are cleared to create grazing pastures for cows, that become steaks and burgers. Supermarkets are the largest market for Brazilian cattle products but globally few of them are willing to guarantee the beef they sell is free from deforestation, or violations of indigenous rights in the Amazon.

This isn't the only problem associated with meat production. Aside from the ethical concerns of raising animals for human consumption, livestock is the most significant contributor to nitrogen and phosphorus pollution of streams, rivers and coastal waters worldwide. They're also major emitters of greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the livestock sector is responsible for about 14% of global emissions, as much as the transportation sector. These problems show why choosing plant based foods over meat can help heal the planet.

The seafood industry is responsible for a different kind of damage. Tuna - one of the most popular sources of affordable protein - is often caught using longlines, as are swordfish and marlin. These are fishing lines over 60 miles long with thousands of hooks on to catch the fish. Longlining is notorious for high levels of 'bycatch', which is the catching of wildlife like threatened seabirds, turtles and sharks that weren't the intended prize. Around 100 million sharks, tens of thousands of sea turtles and tons of other marine life are killed every year. The destructive, inhumane and controversial practice of shark finning mainly takes place on tuna longline vessels. Longliners rarely return to land, and usually offload their catches to other vessels at sea. Out of sight of any kind of enforcement, they often operate illegally and in violation of human and workers' rights.

All this is to show that there are many good reasons to think twice about wasting perfectly good food. But I don't want to leave you with the feeling that our food system is doomed to destroy the planet. Some very real solutions already exist. Ecological farming uses modern techniques to farm with nature, not against it. Rotating crops and planting a diversity of options for example (rather than a single crop for many miles, like the oil palm plantations of Indonesia) plays a crucial role in food security, nutrition and human health as well as increasing resilience to erratic weather changes within a farm.

Phasing out chemical use (such as pesticides and herbicides) in food production is another example. Organic farms support 34% more plant, insect and animal species than conventional farms. For pollinators like bees, the number of different species was 50% higher on organic farms. This is of vital importance, since bees and other pollinators maximise global food production through their pollination services. These are just a few examples of how we can reduce the environmental impacts of food production, more of which are explained here.

We can all play an important role in making sure the food scraps we don't use aren't causing further damage to our planet. Rotting food waste that goes into landfill is a major source of climate polluting methane. Composting is a simple thing we can all do to help prevent this. You don't need a fancy compost bin to get started. I've seen neighborhood composting programs in India and the Philippines that use old barrels, or just long ditches with some worms in!

Whatever you're lucky enough to put on your plate each day, it's clear we all need to appreciate where it comes from and be motivated to make sure every last bite, scrap and rind goes to good use.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468272292000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Faudrey-peterman%2Fanticipating-the-future-black-lives-matter_b_10928328.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Anticipating The Future 'Black Lives Matter' National Park
Speaking at "Carver Day" last Saturday on the tranquil, pastoral grounds of George Washington Carver National Monument in Diamond, MO, I told the audience that I'm very much looking forward to the day when a unit is added to the National Park System commemorating the success of the 'Black Lives Matter' movement.

I could feel George Washington Carver's essence in the forest and in the clearing where this home was built by Moses Carver in 1881 that GWC visited. When I touched this tree I imagined that I was connecting with him through space and time.

Never having been perfect, our country has come through many tumultuous times on the way toward "liberty and justice for all." The places and events that have had the most pivotal effect in our evolution are protected in our National Park System to show us from whence we have come, and what we must do to continue to honor our debt to our ancestors and our responsibility to our descendants.

It is no more optimistic to envision a 'Black Lives Matter' National Monument in our future than it would have been to imagine the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail on "Bloody Sunday" 1965. That day when the hounds of hell were loosed upon Dr. Martin Luther King and the peaceful marchers for voting rights, when young John Lewis (today's longtime Congressman) was beaten within an inch of his life and many others were critically wounded by law enforcement, who would have thought that it would become enshrined in the National Park System as one of the most pivotal events in our history?

Ranger Randall Becker (l) and Superintendent James Heaney epitomize the high caliber employees of the National Park Service and pose for a picture in front of the GW Carver bust with our new friend Josiah.

Yet indeed the horror that a majority of white Americans and President Lyndon Johnson felt at seeing the pictures coming out of the event roused the President to declare to Congress:

"The cause of the marchers must be our cause too..." and "really it is all of us who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome."

The Voting Rights Act followed shortly thereafter with the park being established in 1996 to protect that historical legacy.

Similarly Alcatraz Island commemorates the Indians of All Tribes Occupation, (1964, 1969-71) and the newly-minted Stonewall Inn National Monument marks the place where members of the LGBT community rose up in 1969 to force recognition of their unequal treatment at the hands of the law.

Our National Park and public lands system System protects the natural (e.g. Grand Canyon) cultural (e.g. Berryesa Snow Mountain National Monument in Nevada celebrating its first anniversary today,) and historic (e.g. Ford's Theater where President Lincoln was shot) treasures "unimpaired for the benefit of this and future generations."

When we arrive at a Black Lives Matter National Monument, it will signal that Americans held together and came through this very challenging time with a greater understanding of our oneness as a nation of diverse heritage, ethnicities, religious backgrounds and sexual orientation. We would have come to appreciate the strength in our diversity.

There could be no more glorious or appropriate place to hone and share this vision than the George Washington Carver National Monument. The park protects the birthplace of the so-called 'Peanut Man' and the 'secret garden' of the enslaved, orphan youth who would come to save American agriculture, change history and the world.

These young Junior Rangers are all smiles having just earned the badges that they're proudly wearing. Pastor Harold Wallace brought them and other members of Jackson Memorial Baptist Church in Kansas City to Carver Day in the park.

"I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station through which God speaks to us every hour, if we will only tune in," GW Carver famously observed. He said the plants spoke to him and communicated their secrets.

The green countryside approaching the park remains undeveloped for miles. I could picture the young orphan boy with the high falsetto voice roaming through the woods, talking with the plants and animals. From nursing ferns back health in his secret garden he would grow up to rescue America's failing agricultural industry, create more than 300 healing, nutritious and industrial products; testify before Congress (though a congressman from the south asked insultingly whether he'd brought watermelon to go with the peanuts, GWC's presentation impressed the committee so that they increased his time); train and inspire countless other scientists; become celebrated by an American president; earn membership in the Royal Society of Arts in England among only a handful of other Americans to have that honor, and have a national park created in his honor.

GW Carver's exploits are so much the stuff of legend that no one treatment could ever adequately describe him. But clues can be drawn from the fact that the legislation establishing the Monument was passed unanimously by Congress shortly after his death in 1943, one chamber governed by Democrats and the other by Republicans.

It "was the first National Park established to memorialize the life and scientific contributions of a man in agricultural science, the first to an African American, the first to a man other than a president, and the first in world history to interracial understanding and peace."

It also had strong international racial overtones. After America declared war in 1941 Richard Pilant, a distant relative of the Carver family who'd been working to get the monument established positioned it thus: "It became of necessity a war measure designed to show (the enemy) that America is a land of opportunity for all races."

As my new friend Josiah and I strolled through the meadows where George Washington Carver walked he showed me the jeweled bug that had befriended him and when I invited him to race down the path he said yes and "I'll take it easy on you."

In the sanctuary of demonstrated peace and boundless universal love for humanity, I entreated the audience to let the streaming videos of recent police interactions with African Americans serve as our version of pictures from "Bloody Sunday" or the gory photographs of young Emmett Till's mutilated body in 1955 so shocked America's conscience that it helped spur the Civil Rights Movement. Let us recognize and address the problems inherent in our system as we mourn the wanton killing of our fellow citizens by police officers and deranged individuals. Let us honor the sacrifice and investment of our ancestors that suffered through so much to give us the country we have today, for the sake of all those proud new Junior Rangers who earned their badges at the Monument Saturday and all those who will come after us.

Here's to the day when "Black Lives Matter" is an unnecessary affirmation as that ethic is cemented in the creation of a national park commemorating the legacy of this time.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468272290000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Falison-hermance%2Forphaned-baby-raccoons-at_b_10890238.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Orphaned Baby Raccoons At WildCare
WildCare's Wildlife Hospital treats nearly 4,000 ill, injured and orphaned wild animal patients from over 200 species every year. Meet a few of our patients in the story below.

Baby raccoons are, without a doubt, some of the most charming, amusing and delightful patients we treat in our Wildlife Hospital. Because they are incredibly intelligent and curious, raising orphaned raccoons to be healthy, and to ensure they will be both successful and appropriately wild, is a daunting job!

Raccoons may be incredibly cute, but they are wild animals, and these little babies will grow into fierce adult raccoons with sharp teeth and powerful strength. Raccoons do not make good pets. As with all of the orphaned patients at WildCare, these babies will be raised to be completely wild, and they will be released into their natural habitat as soon as they are old enough.

But while they're still young, they need a lot of care, and volunteer Raccoon Foster Care Team Leader, Marie-Noelle Marquis and volunteer Raccoon Foster Care Specialist, Shelly Ross are up to the challenge.

Right now WildCare has 31 orphaned raccoons in care, and we expect that number to continue rising as the summer continues.

Shelly currently has five furry orphans in her care. She has had several of these babies almost since they were born, feeding her neonate charges with special raccoon formula every two to four hours while they were still tiny with their eyes tightly sealed shut. She is now starting the process of introducing them to solid foods and (as seen in the video above) helping them discover things like moving water.

Each little orphan has his or her own sad tale about why he or she is orphaned. Shelly relates the following details about her little charges and provided us with the amazing photos in this story too!

Shelly writes:

Patient #0510 (female) - came in on April 30, born (estimate) April 25. The intake form for this baby raccoon says "Mom left in a hurry." This raccoon, at around 3 weeks old, got really really sick. I honestly didn't think she'd make it. Marie-Noelle took her for about 10 days and she survived and now is back with her group and is doing great - you'd never know she hit a rough patch early on (on top of whatever rough patch landed her with us!)

Patient #0520 (male) #0521 (female) - came in May 1, born April 28. These babies were found in an attic, where they had been crying for two days with no sign of Mom. Although we can frequently reunite mother raccoons with their young (raccoons are EXCELLENT moms!) the finder of these babies wouldn't allow a reunite attempt on the property. These two are siblings, and the boy is the biggest one in the group of five I currently have in care.

Patient #0547 (male) came in May 5, born April 28. His intake form said he was orphaned, found alone in a yard. When he arrived at WildCare, he was really, really cold, which can be deadly to a tiny baby animal. He was wheezing when he came in but he's doing great now and is the mellowest of the group.

Patient #0867 (male), came in June 8. We estimate him to have been born around April 18. He's the oldest of the group but is the scrawniest. We think his Mom was hit by a car and he was in a den in a tree for a week, starving.

This little raccoon probably had at least one sibling in the den with him that didn't survive. He must have finally flung himself out of the den and was found on the ground under the tree. He was a mess when he came in! His eyes were really sunken, and I've never seen one who looked, or felt like him. He was skin and bones! At his age, this baby should have weighed about 800 grams, but he was 338! He's a fighter though... it took about 24 hours before he started to perk up and about two days for his eyes to stop looking sunken.

He's still half the size he should be at 520 grams, and he's at least 400 grams less than everyone else, but he's spunky and has no idea he's smaller, nor do his fellow raccoons realize he's not their size. He's still being fed more often than the others but he's likely always going to be a small raccoon.

After Shelly sent in all the stories above, Marie-Noelle provided some additional details about little Patient #0501:

The homeowner heard a horrible fight between two raccoons on their roof in the middle of the night. This was most likely a male raccoon trying to mate with this baby's mom. It's true that male raccoons will kill a female's babies in order to mate with her since a mother raccoon will not mate again if she already has a litter to care for.

Apparently the mother raccoon successfully fought off her would-be suitor, and, once the fight subsided, the homeowners heard the back and forth of mom going in and out of the den. The homeowners knew they had a raccoon den and had decided to let the mother raise her litter and wait the 12 weeks until the family left on their own before sealing up the den site. This is something WildCare both recommends and applauds! A raccoon den on your property is only a temporary situation, mom and babies will move on, leaving the den, as soon as the babies are old enough to travel.

The sound of mom going in and out of the den lasted until about 5am. When the homeowner went to check the den, they noticed a blood smear in the entry point, indicating that the mother raccoon had been injured in the fight, and one baby left behind. (That was little #0510) The homeowners brought the baby raccoon to WildCare, and we attempted a reunite that night. The homeowner said there were originally 5 babies in the den and we were hoping mom simply ran out of time to grab all of them before the sun came up.

When we brought little #0510 back to her den, she was just a few days old, with her eyes and ears still tightly sealed shut. However, she immediately started calling for mom once she recognized the scent of the den. Unfortunately mom did not return, so this little girl went into Foster Care with Shelly. We will never know why mom didn't return for her, but we hope the mother raccoon's injuries healed well and her other kits are safe.

________________________

All of the baby raccoons featured in this story will be in care with our Foster Care volunteers for several more weeks. As they wean off milk formula, and start eating the foods they will find in the wild, they will also see Shelly (or any humans) less and less. These babies will grow up relying almost entirely on their fellow orphans, and will be resourceful, wily and wild raccoons by the time they are released.

Story and photos by Shelly Ross

WildCare is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization supported almost entirely by private donations and individual memberships. Visit us online at wildcarebayarea.org.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468272287000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fcarl-pope%2Fthe-internal-combustion-e_b_10928278.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
The Internal Combustion Engine - Is the End in Sight?
When Volkswagen engineers were challenged to enable small diesel engines to meet stringent US standards for nitrogen oxide pollution, they tried - tried - and failing -- cheated.

Now VW has agreed to one of the largest pollution penalties in history - whose hidden underside is that the engineers are still failing. Of the $15 billion VW has so far committed, $5 billion is to balance the environmental harm done by the 500,000 cheat-cars - as you might expect. The other $10 billion, $20,000 per vehicle, designated to deal with the cars, not the air, will not, however, fix the vehicles. Even given an effectively unlimited budget, engineers have not yet figured out how to make these cars emit less NOx pollution without creating an equally disastrous increase in CO2 emissions. If such a solution ever emerges, owners of these cars can get their vehicles cleaned up - but that seems unlikely. Meanwhile, owners can drive the cars for another two years, then turn them in to be scrapped. They get paid the value of the car not on the day they turn it in, but on the day, perhaps years earlier, when the cheating as revealed. So their incentives are to drive the car until the final deadline, and then sell it back for more than its value. During these two years the pollution continues.

Given the complexities of the Clean Air Act, and the threat of litigation by the purchasers of the cars (who are not the real victims, those who breathe the pollution are) this wasteful use of $10 billion may have been forced on regulators. What the settlements makes crystal clear, however, is that VW's engineers, with an unlimited budget, could not produce diesel engines that met US NOx standards, and retained the fuel efficiency that makes automakers (and customers) love diesels.

Auto and truck makers have made remarkable progress in cleaning up soot, hydrocarbons, sulfur, and carbon monoxide from internal combustion engines, while making those engines more efficient so that carbon pollution per passenger or ton mile could be lowered. Nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollutants from gas powered engines can also be cleaned up. Auto-makers like diesels because they squeeze more energy out of fuel - but they also make it much harder to control NOx emissions. VW didn't cheat to save a few dollars - it cheated because it couldn't make its small diesel cars meet US standards. (Large diesels deal with NOx with a cumbersome, bulky urea injection system, which cannot be accommodated in smaller models.)

This engineering limit on diesels is running into a global revolution of attitudes about air pollution. Deaths from air pollution are becoming a larger and larger catastrophe and a bigger and bigger political issue. New studies from the International Energy Agency calculated that 6.5 million people each year die from air pollution; similar studies emerge regularly from the World Health Organization. Governments and business can no longer conceal the death toll, and publics are unwilling to tolerate it. Governments are acting. The VW settlement is not the only regulatory crackdown on internal combustion engines.

The Chinese government has drastically modified its entire development strategy to respond to citizen pressure about lethal pollution. The Indian government is scrambling to deal with growing public anger. In Europe, where auto manufacturers have been massively manipulating emission testing results, and urban air quality degrading as a result, public outcry has led cities to begin banning significant segments of the European auto fleet. New EU pollution testing systems will make it much more difficult and expensive for auto manufacturers to game emission tests, leaving diesel vehicles in particular at risk.

Climate concerns and fuel efficiency standards are also making internal combustion an outmoded technology. The US is moving forward with new heavy duty fuel efficiency and pollution standards for diesels. Countries like India and China are passing more stringent pollution rules and eliminating fuel subsidies. US auto companies are complaining - falsely - that they cannot meet the current round of fuel economy standards; they are rightly concerned that the next round of post 2021 standards, is likely to exceed the capacity of internal combustion engines to meet. This will force a rapid increase in market share for electric cars.

As shared fleet transportation companies like Uber and Lyft seize more and more market share, electric vehicles become more and more and more competitive. Vehicles which drive 100,000 miles a year recover the purchase price of an EV from savings on fuel and maintenance 6 times faster than a car driven only 15,000 miles.

Oil powered transportation is becoming the most important climate threat. For both the US and Europe, 2015 was the year in which climate pollution from transportation exceeded emissions from electricity. Oil, not coal, is now the biggest danger. That means that advocacy, philanthropic and political energy that has focused on emissions from coal is going to take a closer look at oil. This closer look will increase the pressure on the internal combustion engine, which stands out as the main technology sustaining demand for oil.

Governments all over the world - California, the Netherlands, Britain, Germany among them -- are considering outright bans on the sale of internal combustion engines. (A month ago Norway almost implemented its proposed 2025 ban.) More immediately, Germany, South Korea, Sweden and China are aggressively increasing incentives for EV's. India's car manufacturers have joined with the government to phase out IC passenger vehicles by 2030.

Elon Musk has dubbed the internal combustion engine, powered as it is by thousands of small explosions inside its cylinders, a "remarkable kludge." Automotive engineers have indeed made modern gasoline and diesel engines perform remarkably - but now the limits are being reached.

In 1969 the California State Senate rejected - by one vote - a bill by then State Senator, later Congressman, Anthony Beilenson, to ban the sale of cars powered by internal combustion engines. Beilenson's bill, motivated by a conviction that California's critical air pollution crisis could not be solved by gasoline powered autos, has stood for almost half a century as an example of environmental over-reach.

Now technology trends, public insistence, industry investment, and government policy are all signaling that Beilenson's dream - an end to the burden of a transportation system powered by exploding gasoline or diesel combustion engines - is coming within grasp.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468272285000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdavid-doniger%2Fmomentum-growing-for-hfc_b_10928258.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Momentum Growing for HFC Agreement as Vienna Talks Kick Off

The post co-authored with Bhaskar Deol

After eight years of heated deliberations, countries are finally coming close to an agreement to phase down the super-potent heat-trapping chemicals called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) under the Montreal Protocol. Talks towards an HFC deal resume next week in Vienna, and expectations are rising.

HFC use is growing rapidly in air conditioning, refrigeration and other sectors, especially in rapidly growing developing nations. Pound for pound, the climate impact of HFCs is thousands of times greater than that of carbon dioxide. Replacing HFCs with climate-friendlier alternatives can help avoid 0.5˚C of global warming by the turn of the century.

Following 2015's historic Paris Climate Agreement, an HFC amendment to the Montreal Protocol will help countries meet and deepen their commitments to curb climate-changing pollution and would be another big win for the Montreal Protocol.

Through the Montreal Protocol, every nation on earth has eliminated the production and import of ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). All nations will soon complete the phase-out of second set of ozone-depleters, called hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs). New research confirms that the Antarctic ozone hole, first identified thirty years ago, is healing as a result of actions taken under this treaty. Phasing out CFCs and HCFCs has also delivered huge climate protection benefits, because these chemicals are also extremely powerful greenhouse gases.

HFCs were adopted as replacements for CFCs and HCFCs. HFCs don't deplete ozone and pack a smaller heat-trapping punch than CFCs. But if HFC use continues growing, it will block our chances of meeting the Paris goal of holding global warming below a 2˚C increase. Now that better alternatives—both fluorocarbons and non-fluorocarbons—are available, it's time to move on from HFCs. Developing countries can enlist the Protocol's help to leapfrog to solutions that are better for the climate and for business.

Much progress has been made since the first HFC amendment proposals were tabled eight years ago. The European Union, the United States, Japan, Australia, the state of California, and other jurisdictions are implementing stringent HFC reduction policies. A suite of environmentally preferable alternatives are being developed by chemical companies, deployed by appliance manufacturers, and purchased by customers.

For example, HFO-1234yf—a refrigerant with less than 1/1000th the heat-trapping potency of the HFC it replaces—is already being used in millions of car air conditioners across the world. Consumers have purchased millions of room air conditioners that use viable, energy efficient alternative refrigerants such as HFC-32 or HC-290 (propane). Building chillers are being commercialized with energy efficient, lower-potency refrigerants such as HFO-1233zd, HFO-1234ze, HC-290. Some sectors, such as insulating foams, are skipping HFCs and jumping directly to HFOs and hydrocarbons. As alternative chemicals and products reach maturity, their costs come down. The transition pathways for industries in both developed and developing countries are becoming clearer and better understood.

When the Montreal Protocol parties meet again in Vienna next week, they must build upon the progress and momentum generated last year in Dubai and this April in Geneva. They can use the 10-day Vienna meeting to start writing the details of the HFC phase-down agreement. If negotiators do their job, the long-sought treaty amendment can be signed when they meet next in Kigali, Rwanda this October. Here is what Parties need to achieve in Vienna this month:

In Geneva in April, negotiators largely resolved concerns about assuring workable alternatives for countries with the world's highest temperatures, such as in the Middle East. They also started working out criteria for funding assistance for the technology transition in developing countries. In Vienna, parties need to move quickly to resolve concerns about access to patented technologies and the availability of financing.
As one concrete step towards closing the deal, the parties can task their Technology and Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) to further analyze transition costs, ahead of the Kigali meeting.
The parties also must come closer together on the dates for freezing and reducing HFC production and import, and on formulas for country baselines. An early freeze date is critical to avoid unnecessary HFC growth and to speed the transition to next-generation alternatives. Three of the amendment proposals include freeze dates in the early 2020s for developing countries, while India's proposal, introduced a year ago, would postpone a freeze for more than a decade. There's a growing consensus, however, that it would make little sense for countries like India to build up their air conditioning industries using outmoded chemicals and product designs, only to find themselves stuck in a technological backwater.
Developing countries need strong assurances, however, that developed countries will take the lead in cutting their own HFCs; that they will continue commercializing making available safer alternatives; and that they will contribute sufficient resources to the Multilateral Fund to help developing country industries with the costs of transition. The U.S., the European Union, Japan, and other donor countries have pledged to contribute those added resources. Now it's time to for countries to negotiate and firm up their mutual commitments to phase-down schedules and Multilateral Fund support. That's the proven path to past agreements under the Montreal Protocol.

There are many signs that countries are ready to “do the deal” on HFCs this year. Commitments to adopt a Montreal Protocol HFC amendment this year are now a regular feature of G-7 and G-20 communiques, as well as many bilateral meetings. In June, for example, Indian Prime Minister Modi and U.S. President Obama pledged to work for a Montreal Protocol HFC amendment this year with “an ambitious phasedown schedule” for all countries and “increased financial support” to the Protocol's Multilateral Fund to help developing countries with implementation. The same day, the U.S. and China reaffirmed their joint commitment to completing an ambitious HFC deal this year, in a communique from the annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.

The Montreal Protocol is the world's most successful environmental treaty, already doing double duty saving the ozone layer and curbing climate change. With global climate action needed now more than ever, sealing an HFC deal under the Montreal Protocol is the biggest thing that can be done this year to build on the Paris agreement and protect our children's future.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468272284000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fsusana-malcorra%2Fa-un-centered-on-people-planet-and-shared-prosperity_b_10909606.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
A UN Centered on People, Planet and Shared Prosperity

Oftentimes, the United Nations is the only bastion of hope for many people around the world in difficult circumstances. The United Nations that the world requires demands innovative, accountable and efficient leadership to guide it in adapting itself to the challenges that lie ahead.

Informed by the foundational principles of the United Nations Charter, my vision calls for a United Nations that is: centered on people, planet and prosperity; driven by issues; and focused on delivering positive impact.

We must make this Organization work for the people and planet in a manner that promotes the greatest prosperity for all. It must be propelled by the need to address the issues at hand and not by organizational arrangements.

An issues-based approach propels us from the silos that divide us to the issues that connect us. Through pursuing an issues-based approach that connects us and is centered on delivering sustainable impact in support of people, planet and prosperity, we are compelled to promote economies of scale, reduce unnecessary duplication, and be more inclusive and effective in our partnerships.

In today's world, the only way to deliver positive impact is by listening carefully to people and working in unison with local, regional and international partners. The Secretary-General must inculcate a culture of humility in the daily work of the Organization in its effort to faithfully implement and support Member States' decisions and their decision-making processes.

Also, it is not enough for the United Nations to effectively respond to existing crises. It must lead with the foresight to anticipate and prevent crises on the horizon.

Our focus on people, planet and shared prosperity must be premised on the guiding principles of sustainability and building resilience. Promoting sustainable development, as called for in the 2030 Agenda, reduces vulnerability in the long-term. Building resilience necessitates considering women and youth as an integral part of our solutions.

Ensuring reliable financing for development is critical to reduce the vulnerability that incites conflict, generates humanitarian need and imperils human rights. We must think in new ways that profit from South-South cooperation, leveraging triangular support and private-sector engagement to foster sustainable and innovative solutions for all.

Our actions must be imbued with respect for the primacy of national ownership. The Organization must enable collaboration with national and local communities and actors to strengthen their capacities as a first resort in all of its responses.

In an era of great interconnectedness, the problems that confront us transcend borders. It is vital that we work to implement a viable and robust strategy for zero tolerance to terrorism together with a reinvigorated focus on disarmament and nonproliferation. The role of climate change and other environmental pressures in igniting humanitarian need and conflict must be considered.

The Secretary-General must galvanize efforts to end conflict through preventative diplomacy and political dialogue, exercising good offices and leveraging regional partnerships.

All our efforts must be underpinned by the promotion of human rights. The Organization must spare no effort to use the tools at its disposal to promote human rights in a manner that is holistic, inspirational, up-front and that recognizes the responsibility that is incumbent upon sovereign states.

Partnership and inclusivity call on us to build on commonality where it exists, but acknowledge that strength emanates from diversity. We must do more to leverage the influence, political and economic weight, and contextual knowledge of regional actors to promote peace, invest in preparedness and disaster-risk reduction, and cultivate prosperity.

This approach demands a Secretary-General with the courage of conviction to listen to, heed guidance from, propose solutions to and work together with Member States, to find common ground, build confidence and cultivate trust.

As Chief Administrative Officer of the organization, it is incumbent upon the Secretary-General to support the stewardship of reform and review processes in close consultation with Member States. It is also the responsibility of the Secretary-General to foster flexibility and nimbleness, and to provide the managerial oversight to hold the Organization accountable to its membership, to the people around the world it aspires to serve, and to the ideals codified in the Charter.

Accountability implies transparency, performance, and due diligence, beginning with senior leadership and cascading throughout the Organization. It requires an organizational culture that is accountable, action-oriented and focused on impact. The Secretary-General must provide the visionary leadership and strong management to steer the Organization toward this culture. Such an Organization is also fully representative of our world, both in terms of gender and geography. I will strive to achieve these objectives, including gender parity at the top, as a key driver of change.

While serving the United Nations for over a decade in humanitarian, peace and security and management sectors, I have seen the Organization and its membership work closely together to devise creative solutions to respond to unprecedented challenges: This must become the rule.

This post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post regarding the selection and appointment of the next Secretary-General of the United Nations. A new Secretary-General will take office on January 1, 2017, and each of the declared candidates for the position was invited to participate in this blog series. The President of the General Assembly noted that, this year, the selection process will have more transparency than ever before. The declared candidates for the position are listed by the UN here. To see all the posts in the series, visit here.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468272279000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fsteven-cohen%2Finterdependence-sustainab_b_10925226.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Interdependence, Sustainability, and a Sense of Place
The global economy, global trade, global tourism, and immigration are here to stay. The technology of inexpensive communication, GPS, bar codes, cheap computing, containerized shipping, and a host of other innovations guarantee that supply chains will remain global. Global supply chains ensure that the food and other manufactured goods we need are made as efficiently and effectively as possible. We are part of a global economy, and if you want to see the economic impact of isolation all you need to do is look at North Korea and Iran. The market forces that push the global economy have more political potency than the nostalgic nativists pushing in the other direction. That could change, but I doubt it.

That's because in addition to the economic power of the global economy, young people have grown up with inexpensive, instantaneous communication and access to global travel. They find exposure to foreign cultures, foods, and people to be interesting and exciting. Here in America, we also have people like me who are attracted to diversity and immigration. I am delighted to live in a city where 40% of those who live here were born in other countries. If the future belongs to those that are creative, smart and entrepreneurial, drawing on the entire globe for talent seems to be the way to go. The master's programs I direct at Columbia enroll students from all over the country and all over the world, and it is an exciting and successful learning experience for almost everyone.

When I traveled to Europe for a month after I graduated college in 1974, phone calls cost as much as a night in a hotel (and more than the hostels we stayed in) and we communicated with our families with something called post cards and aerograms (lightweight air mail letters). Today, young people use FaceTime, Skype, text, and phone to stay in touch with folks everywhere at any time, and the price of communication is virtually zero. The foreign becomes familiar. Xenophobia can't gain traction when you have friends on every continent. That is a growing reality for many--but not for all, as the Republican presidential race demonstrates. There is little question that the images of foreign people and places can be manipulated for propaganda and political purposes. Many Americans can see the world on the web, but do not have the resources to touch it and experience foreign travel for themselves. But when I weigh the political clout of those who want to build walls against the power of those who benefit from globalization, I believe globalism wins. In addition, the appeal of global interaction for those who can afford it, and the American self-image as a nation of immigrants, is stronger than the tendency toward isolation.

But globalization brings costs along with benefits. Protecting labor from businesses that are highly mobile and multinational is one issue. Another is that with the creation of a global culture, how does one maintain a sense of place, community, and nation against the forces of homogenization? Some of the pushback against global forces derives from appropriate fear of a loss of control and some from a sense that those attributes that made us distinctive can no longer survive. These are real concerns as local culture competes against the shiny new global culture. Food, art, music, and media can reflect distinct local forms of expression. But the forces of homogenization are everywhere. Your Starbucks latte can be purchased in Hong Kong and Hawaii, and it will look and taste the same.

As important as global economic and cultural forces may be, I see the push for distinctive identity and a sense of place ensuring that communities and nation states will maintain their power in a more globally interconnected world. Part of it is expressed in Not in My Back Yard (NIMBY) local politics that resists development by local or global forces. This desire for community control of local land uses is powerful and growing. While part of the force behind the Brexit and Trump movements is racist xenophobia, an element of these movements is caused by a sense of lost control due to foreign forces beyond our reach. Trump, a primary beneficiary of the global economy with his global brand and real estate holdings, is cynically and effectively manipulating this anger and frustration to generate support for his inconsistent and incomprehensible policy positions. His success is in part due to his message that globalization results in loss of control.

It is true that globalization and our modern urban economy reduces independence and increases interdependence. When a rural family moves off a self-sufficient farm to a cosmopolitan city they lose control of their supply of food and shelter. They gain access to higher income, intellectual stimulation, health care and other resources, but they are not as self-sufficient as they were before. Nostalgia is a funny thing, though. When you think of the agrarian past, you might forget about the droughts, storms, pestilence, and other sources of crop failures experienced over the years; the good old days weren't always all that good. Nevertheless, the new global economy presents challenges to those who benefited from America's industrial economy. It is not simply trade and immigration that is reducing the market for labor, however, but also automation. Go to a construction site and watch the number of prefabricated pieces being hoisted by crane into place. Where once skilled construction tradesmen would appear in great numbers, today we see a few people operating machinery. Many modern factories also show the growth of automation. Workers sit in control booths operating machines and workers on the assembly line are often checking that the machines are performing as designed. Not all factories look like this, but the trend line is obvious.

The issue for workers everywhere is how do we protect ourselves from the unseen and unaccountable force of the global economy? Unions and government regulation won't work, because businesses are highly mobile and multinational. The latest trade agreements are built on the premise that in return for free trade, nations must enforce environmental and occupational health and safety regulations along with some form of living wage. It is far too early to see if these mechanisms work. The other forms of protection that younger workers are adopting are to accommodate the brain-based economy and constantly obtain the new knowledge that businesses seek from their employees. This is an insecure existence and, when coupled with the crushing level of educational debt incurred by some of our young people, is a prescription for political instability.

There are no easy answers to the issues generated by the global economy. Ensuring that the planet doesn't get used up and discarded by economic growth is a fundamental challenge. National regulation can control localized environmental problems, but are less effective in regulating climate and global marine impacts. Human labor faces the same challenges. Still, the global economy is constrained by national and local forces. The planet's environment is a precondition for human life, and so there are physical constraints on the global economy. Political stability is required for trade, as are consumers with resources to buy goods and services, and so national employment policy is necessary to ensure the healthy economy needed by global corporations. Finally, local control over the use of land constrains where global corporations can locate. While most localities compete for companies to site facilities, in addition to tax breaks they do so by demonstrating the quality of their community: its natural environment, infrastructure, schools, and political stability. Nations and communities can influence the global economy if they act strategically to defend their interests.

We have entered into a more interdependent global economy with many benefits, but despite its appeal and power, there are political and physical forces that will constrain its power. The need for a sustainable environment requires care in production, consumption, and waste management. The need for stable and growing markets requires a labor force that has meaningful work and is motivated. The human need for community and a sense of place will constrain the tendency toward a mindless homogenization of economic and social trends.

Transitions are painful. New York City's transformation was not easy. We changed from an industrial and commercial city to a global capital of ideas, communication, health care, education, business and tourism. After World War II, the garment industry was our largest business. Today, all those factories are long gone. The transition was so difficult that the city nearly went bankrupt in the mid-1970s. Drugs, crime, grime and decay were everywhere and the city lost a million people. Today, the city glistens; new buildings and parks are everywhere (along with ubiquitous tour buses). But income inequality is growing, and without subsidized housing the working and middle class would already be gone. The problems we face are new and are created by technologies and organizational dynamics new to the world. The old solutions will not work, Trump's nostalgia and racist ranting won't work, and we need to experiment with new solutions to these new problems.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia

1468272277000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fellen-kanner%2Fmeatless-monday-cheap-eat_b_10772322.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Meatless Monday: Cheap Eats for Tough Times
These are challenging days for those of us who eat. Food's expensive. The climate change we're experiencing is killing our crops and is going to make things even worse. The House Agriculture Committee's proposed Farm Bill takes a $16 billion chunk out of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps progam). These are "near draconian cuts," as Wholesome Wave CEO Michel Nischan says. "In its current form the proposal would deny food-assistance to millions of people, many of them children."

"I normally don't consider the price when it comes to food. I buy what I want," says Rory Freedman , author of the mega-bestselling Skinny Bitch. Working with the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Freedman took the SNAP challenge, spending $33 for a week's worth of food for her family.

The organic produce she usually gets wasn't an option. Likewise, sweet treats like organic fair-trade chocolate. On a $33 food budget, "there's nothing extra for indulgences." Standing in the checkout line, "holding my breath, wondering, am I going to have enough money for this, or do the walk of shame and put something back on the shelf -- that was an entirely new experience."

According to a new Oxfam America study, eight out of ten American women -- most often the family decision-makers when it comes to meals -- are willing to make changes when they understand the broader impact of what they eat. That includes going meatless once a week. Meat production sucks up 8% of our global water supply. Even a single meal where you swap beans for beef saves gallons upon gallons of water.

Going meatless saves money, too. It's why Freedman was able to meet the SNAP challenge. Her grocery bill came in at a tight $32.55. "I eat a lot of whole foods," she says. Her week's worth of groceries consisted of "fruits and vegetables, whole grains like brown rice, whole wheat pasta, beans."

Every culture has a beloved beany dish that feeds people in lean times, be it Cuban black beans and rice or Middle Eastern mjeddrah, lentil and rice pilaf. The processed food that makes up the majority of what Americans eat, the boxes and cans that clutter our shelves and our diets, the food Tracie McMillan writes about in The American Way of Eating, was not around three and four generations back. Poverty was, whether it was the Great Depression of the 1930s, the recession of the 1970s or the economic collapse of 2008.

When I put my husband through grad school, our weekly food budget was less than you'd pay for a single restaurant meal -- under $25. We did not see many -- or maybe any -- restaurant meals, but a homemade summer corn and tomato stew stands out in fond memory -- cheap, seasonal and local. Otherwise, it was a lot of rice and beans. I still have a real love for them. They're comfort foods that come from the earth, not out of a box. They're filling, nourishing, shelf-stable and cheap. They've sustained mankind for eons. They'll come through for us now.

As Freedman says, "We can eat healthy plant-based food on a very limited budget." Being vegan makes things a little easier. So do initiatives like Wholesome Wave's Double Value Coupon Program, doubling the SNAP dollars at local farmers markets so people can get twice as much fresh, local produce. The program is all the more precious now, with potential SNAP cuts looming.

Nischan and Freedman both believe consumer advocacy can help drive policy change and create a healthy, sustainable food system. I hope they're right. But we can't wait for the government's help. "We all need to take personal responsibility," says Freedman. It begins with what we eat.

Mjeddrah

1 cup brown rice
1 cup lentils
4 cups water or vegetable broth
1 bay leaf
2 tablespoons olive oil
1 large onion or two small, sliced thin
1 teaspoon cumin, optional
sea salt and fresh ground pepper to taste

Pour lentils into a small bowl. Pick out discard any stems or stones. Cover with cold water. Do the same with the rice, in a separate bowl. Leave 'em to soak for 30 minutes at a minimum, for 2 hours, if you've got the time.

The lentils and rice don't need any fussing with, just let them sit.

Bring water or vegetable broth to boil into a large saucepan. Strain lentils into a sieve. Rinse in cold water. Add to broth. Do the same with the brown rice. Toss in bay leaf. Reduce heat to low and cook, covered, for 30 to 40 minutes, until lentils and rice are soft and fluffy and have soaked up all the liquid. Remove cover, remove from heat and set aside.

Just before serving, heat oil in a large skillet over medium-high heat. Add sliced onion and cook, stirring, for 3 to 5 minutes, until onions start to soften and turn golden and fragrant. Reduce heat to medium, and cook, stirring, another 10 minutes or so, until onions are brown and tender. Season with sea salt and fresh ground pepper.

Stir lentils and rice together gently. Remove bay leaf and season generously with sea salt, fresh ground pepper and optional cumin.

Serve pilaf lavishly topped with onions.

Serves 6 to 8.

This post originally ran on July 23, 2012,
More at soulfulvegan.com

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

gaia