%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fanne-smart%2Fnew-oregon-law-protects-ev-charging-choice_b_9423386.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
New Oregon Law Protects EV Charging Choice  
In my experience in energy politics, I've seen many attempts around the country to undermine customer choice when it comes to new clean energy technology. Net metering advocates fought to defend solar choice. Cities battled for the ability to directly provide greener and more affordable power through customer choice aggregation. And now electric vehicle drivers, businesses, and innovators have succeeded in protecting charging choice, through legislation just signed into law in Oregon.

SB 1547, signed by Governor Kate Brown, increases the state's renewable portfolio standard, ends the use of coal in Oregon, and directs utilities to support transportation electrification and deployment of EV charging stations. Though there were serious concerns when this legislation was first introduced, the final version signed into law promotes clean energy policy and importantly supports the competitive development of charging infrastructure across the state.

As it often happens in politics, the original bill was negotiated before the session began, behind closed doors directly between environmental groups and Oregon's big electric utilities, leaving many important voices out of the discussion. The resulting deal threatened charging choice by giving utilities monopoly control over EV charging stations. The proposed bill limited innovation and competition, with no assurances this ratepayer-funded build out would benefit all Oregonians.

This legislation needed changes, and the House and Senate heard that loud and clear. ChargePoint, innovation-focused groups like TechNet and the Electric Vehicle Charging Association, and hundreds of Oregon EV drivers spoke out about the importance of protecting charging choice as utilities enter into the EV market. This means that workplaces, retailers, residents, apartments, cities and universities - not just the utility - must retain the ability to choose, from a competitive market, which charging equipment and features are appropriate for the unique needs of EV drivers visiting that site.

Thankfully, in the final days of session, the Legislature made an important amendment with one small but vital sentence. The final version of SB 1547 requires utilities to "protect customer choice, competition, and innovation in EV charging equipment and services." This language will be used by the Oregon Public Utilities Commission to review utility proposals before approving anything that threatens charging choice.

And now that this legislation has been signed by Governor Brown, Oregonians can rest assured that the state will continue to support their ability to choose the EV charging equipment that meets their driving needs, not just those of the utility.

-- 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  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2016%2F07%2F25%2Fgenius-solid-shampoos-use-less-plastic-packaging-by-leaving-out-water_n_11186216.html&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Genius Solid Shampoos Use No Plastic Packaging By Leaving Out Water  
This company wants to help you bathe guilt-free, with bath products that save water and opt out of plastics altogether.
Skin and hair care company Eth...

Read more: What's Working, Reclaim, Environment, Waste, Beauty Products, Shampoo, Plastics, Bath Products, Impact News

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fdotearth.blogs.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F07%2F25%2Fburning-issues-build-as-sand-fire-spreads-on-l-a-s-parched-wild-fringe%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Burning Issues Build as ‘Sand Fire' Spreads on L.A.'s Parched Wild Fringe  
A wind-driven blaze raging through chaparral north of L.A. illustrates how development patterns and homeowners' choices are adding fuel to the West's fire problem.  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.the-dialogue.com%2Fen%2Fen54-maximum-life-span%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
The Maximum Life Span Of Different Organisms  
From short-lived butterflies to the basically immortal hydra, charting the maximum life span among a variety of species .  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2016%2F07%2F160725090005.htm&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Unusual new zoantharian species is the first described solitary species in over 100 years  
A very unusual new species of zoantharian was just discovered. Although most zoantharians are colonial and many are known from coral reefs, the new species lives a solitary life in muddy habitats. This species is the first of its genus described in over 100 years.  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2016%2F07%2F160725090002.htm&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Loss of habitats and local species extinctions  
Unfortunately, loss of plant and animal habitat leads to local species extinctions and a loss of diversity from ecosystems. Fortunately, not all of the extinctions occur at once. Conservation actions may still be able to save threatened species, according to a vertebrate zoologist.  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdana-ellis-hunnes%2Fadvocating-for-the-enviro_b_11097318.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Advocating For the Environment and Wildlife Conservation Is One of the Hardest Things I've Ever Done  

Image Credit: Huffington Post Images



"We'll lose more species of plants and animals between 2000 and 2065 (65 years) than we've lost in the last 65 million years. If we don't find answers to these problems [insert: extinction, climate change, pollution], we're gonna be victims of this extinction event that we're at fault for." - Captain Paul Watson

I have done some challenging things in my life; one of them, getting a PhD and doing climate change and food-security research in Ethiopia with the rest of my family half-way across the globe.

Another challenge was being pregnant for 9 months, 9 months of fairly severe nausea and vomiting.

However, the emotional investment and toll of getting a PhD and/or being pregnant are time-limited commitments that in 20/20 hindsight, pale in comparison to advocating for the environment and for wildlife conservation, a lifetime commitment. A commitment I make to myself and to my son; whose world I want to be filled with the same unique and rich bounty of wildlife that mine is/was filled with.

Unfortunately, however, it is proving difficult to remain positive, and to have hope for the future when much of the daily news, tweets, or Facebook feeds are horrific and terrifyingly bleak.

"Every 15 minutes, another African elephant is murdered for its ivory; elephants may be extinct within the next 10 years at current rates."

"Every 8 hours, another rhinoceros is killed for its horn, and may become extinct in the next 20-25 years."

"97% of Bluefin tuna are lost, whole breeding generations, they may not recover."

"95% of the Great Barrier Reef is bleached, corals are dying, disintegrating, our oceans are warming and acidifying, wrecking the largest living organism on Earth."

"Likely fewer than 50 Vaquita porpoises remain, and may go extinct by 2020"

And on, and on, and on.

It feels hopeless, it feels desperate, it feels difficult to breathe, to swallow, to think.

I want to scream at the top of my lungs, "How can we let these amazing animals just die!" "How can we not do more to save them?" "How can government officials ignore the deaths, allowing terrorism-groups to be fueled by these kills?" "What will Earth look like when my son is my age?"

I find it ironic that my most-read blog post is the one where I pour my heart out about how emotionally difficult it is to be an eco-advocate; not the ones where I provide scientific data, information, or recipes.

So, here are my questions: What is it that makes a difference to people? Makes them want to act?

For me, it was seeing images of the cruelty we (humans) bestow on other animals; cruelty in a way I didn't think could be imaginable - for fun! Cruelty to animals who evolved millions of years before we did, who found a way to live in harmony with others.

For me, it was seeing images of the barbaric nature in which we remove fish and sharks from our oceans, take what we want from them (fins), and throw them back to suffocate in a slow, tortuous, painful death.

For me, it was seeing films of elephants, mourning the loss of a family member, looking far more human than we have in recent years.

For me, it was reading books about animal societies, so much like our own, where children stay by their parent's side for life, working together, trusting together, and loving together.

In many ways, animals are far more "human" than we are, and show far more empathy towards each other, or towards us; more than we show towards them.

But, not all of us are that way. Once I learned what I now know, I decided to "be the change I wish to see" - Ghandi.

I decided to educate others like it's nobody's business. I decided to take on this task. Because, if I don't, if I don't stand up for what I believe is right, and I don't fight for those who have no spoken-language (animals), then, I simply perpetuate the damage.

By not trying to stop it, I indirectly perpetuate it.

Perhaps Dr. Neil Degrasse Tyson, the cerebral astrophysicist got it right: "Humans aren't as good as we should be in our capacity to empathize with feelings and thoughts of others, be they humans or other animals on Earth. So maybe part of our formal education should be training in empathy. Imagine how different the world would be if, in fact, that were 'reading, writing, arithmetic, empathy."

I can imagine empathy still being a part of this world, I felt it, in Ethiopia. One of the poorest countries on the planet, with some of the hungriest, most impoverished people. I felt it, when I would meet and talk with individuals on the streets, beggars, shoe-shiners, construction workers. Though they had NOTHING, what they had, they offered to share with me.

What I took away from that experience was, humans have the capacity to empathize, humans have the capacity to care, humans have the capacity to share; to share the resources, the world, the oceans. We have the capacity to do a great many things. We simply need to act on them.

But, here's the other side; and perhaps Dr. Carl Safina got it right when he asked this question in his recent TEDtalk: "Do Humans have enough: [Capacity - my add in] Consciousness, intelligence, rationality, creativity, empathy, love to let Life on Earth Survive?"

I don't know if we know the answer to this question yet.

All I know is that I will continue to tweet, to Facebook, to blog, and to educate.

When I am met with silence, scorn, sarcasm, ridicule, ignorance, or stubbornness, I will do my best to move past it and keep fighting.

After all, "There's still a lot left worth fighting for." - Jane Goodall

-- 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  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fdaoud_alahmad%2F28260579700%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
oenguin  

Daoud Alahmad posted a photo:

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Frosaly-byrd%2F5-inspiring-signs-that-su_b_11159402.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
5 Inspiring Signs That Sustainability Is Gaining Traction In The U.S.  
The first half of 2016 saw devastating events that have left many -- including us -- feeling pessimistic about the future of the U.S. and the world. However, since December 2015's Paris Climate Agreement, there have been various environment-related developments that provide us with some hope that, at least in regard to making sure our world is liveable in the future, we are starting to move forward. Here are 5 inspiring signs that sustainability is gaining traction in the U.S.

1. Chemical safety reform. The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act is a much-needed chemical safety reform signed by President Obama in June 2016. Although most of the products we consume today contain chemicals, chemical safety law in the U.S. has been broken for decades and had not been substantially amended since it was signed into law in the 1970s...until now. This 2016 amendment, which received bipartisan support, makes more information about chemicals available and provides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with more authority and support to regulate chemicals, allowing the agency to better protect human health from toxic chemicals. Moreover, major companies like Wal-Mart are asking suppliers to remove formaldehyde, triclosan and six other substances from their products, in an attempt to eliminate chemicals from household goods.
   
   
2. All about renewables. The U.S. Energy Information Administration came out with their 2016 Annual Energy Outlook that paints the future of energy, and that future looks bright. Renewables are expected to surpass nuclear power by 2020 and coal by 2028, to become the second largest source of U.S. electricity generation after natural gas. The growth in renewable energy production is spurred by supportive federal and state policies and incentives, as well as the continuing drop in the cost of wind and solar. Governments and companies are increasing the use of renewables and setting aggressive goals, and some smaller cities and companies are already reaching 100% renewable energy. But small cities aren't the only ones acting- larger cities such as San Diego and Salt Lake City have adopted goals to go 100% renewable, while the state of Hawaii and Google have also pledged 100% clean energy.
   
   
   
3. Action to reduce food waste. Efforts to reduce the 40% of food wasted in the U.S. from production to consumption process are in full swing. Evidence includes proposed legislation that clarify the "sell by/use by/expires on" dates on food, as well as the Save the Food campaign that provides guidance and motivation for individuals to reduce food waste at home. Companies are also responding to the call to reduce food waste; for example, Starbucks has pledged to donate 100% of unsold food within the next five years.
   
   
4. Climate change is a 2016 political issue. Individuals running for all levels of government are weighing in on climate change one way or another and climate deniers are being called out. In general, Democrats are rallying around the need to act on climate more than Republicans, but congressional and local Republican candidates are beginning to talk about climate change more. For example, in Florida (a state that has been known for its climate denying governor and senators), a bipartisan coalition of mayors wrote a letter calling for more climate-related questions in presidential primary debates. Although we haven't heard many positive statements on climate action from the Republican presidential candidate, we are hoping that the Democratic nominee will help push this forward, considering more Americans (64%) now are worried a "great deal" or a "fair amount" about climate change (more than at any time since 2008).
   
   
5. Appreciation for nature. National parks saw a record number of visitors last year: 307.2 million visits in 2015, just in time for the 100th anniversary of the U.S. National Park system in August 2016. A key part of sustainability is appreciating all the benefits that nature provides us, including not only the resources that we base our lives on, but also the peace of mind, adventure, and sense of belonging we experience when visiting these magnificent areas.
   

It is easy to be frustrated by some of the recent occurrences in the U.S. and around the world. Yet as evidenced by some inspiring signs, different aspects of sustainability are being embraced in the U.S., in various ways and by various actors. We hope that this momentum towards sustainability continues to grow in the U.S., as we still have a lot of work to do to make the systems that shape our lives more sustainable.

-- 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  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fpeter-brown-hoffmeister%2Fthe-oldnew-view-of-yosemi_b_11166590.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
The Old-New View Of Yosemite: Saving The Park From The Epidemic Of Drive-Through Nation  


In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln signed The Yosemite Grant, granting Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Grove to the state of California, the first time that the U.S. Government enacted to protect land for future public enjoyment. This was 13 years after the Mariposa Battalion - with the help of Miwok scouts - entered and obtained the Valley from the two occupying Yosemiti bands, and 26 years before John Muir sparked the founding of Yosemite National Park (at the time, the third national park in U.S. history). For all of known history both written and oral, dating back an estimated 3000 years, people have gazed at the waterfalls, the granite sweeps, the meadows, the streams, the Merced River, and the flora and fauna that make their homes in the seven square miles of creek and river drainage know as the Yosemite Valley.

The Yosemite Valley is small. At seven square miles, it accounts for roughly half of 1% of the total area of the national park (1169 square miles of protected land). Yet, according to the National Park Service, of the 4 million annual visitors, most visit Yosemite for less than a full day, driving the Valley Loop Road and returning to the exit after only a few hours. Overnight visitors average only 2.4 nights' stay, mostly in the Valley campgrounds, Curry tent cabins, housekeeping cabins, and the Ahwahnee Hotel. The most recent statistics gathered by the NPS (2010 year-end stats) show only 53,139 backcountry hikers in the entire park. That's 1.3% of total visitors.

In 2006, after climbing a route on the Book Cliffs one afternoon, I sat on a log near the Lower Yosemite Falls Trail and read a book while thousands of visitors streamed past me. Minus the background and foreground, I could have been looking at a city sidewalk in central Tokyo, Lower Manhattan, or the Thames Path in London. And to my surprise, in two hours, not a single person left the asphalt trail in front of me. I was fewer than fifty feet into the trees, completely alone, and this made me realize that not only do most Yosemite visitors stick to the Valley, but most visitors stick to the paved portions of the Valley, the concessions locations, and the sandy beaches along the banks of the Merced River. This reduces the area of impact even further, squeezing most of the 4 million annual visitors into a square mileage of something less than two square miles. Everyone understands the equation "smaller impact area + heavier use = incredible pressure." Any attending observer can see that. The roads, pathways, parking lots, and beaches are littered with garbage, and even the Curry Village deer herd - maybe the most socialized deer herd in the entire world - hesitates to cross pavement during daylight hours.

On a trip in 2011, I climbed the East Buttress of Middle Cathedral. Sitting on top of The Pedestal before our early morning start, a few hundred feet above the Valley floor, I observed the same phenomenon I always do in Yosemite. Shuttle busses, hikers, cars, bikes, motorcycles, photographers, RVs, horses, and trucks passed below me on the paved trails and roads. No one ventured off the paved trails. And in a way, this is a good thing. People are sticking to the developed areas of the park. They're impacting what has already been impacted. They're not cutting new trails, destroying additional habitats, or dumping hotdog wrappers in the middle of Stoneman Meadow. But all of that human pressure on two square miles is taking its toll. Roads are constantly needing repair, the air quality in the Valley, especially in summer, is poor for a designated wilderness area, and the camping on any dates near July 4th is like camping in a ride-line at Disneyland.

Plus, where the humans congregate, the scavengers scavenge. Coyotes, bears, jays, squirrels, and crows are fattening themselves on human detritus. They're so used to getting food from humans that I once saw a Valley camper throwing rocks at a raccoon to scare him away from his bear box, and that raccoon fielding those rocks like a seasoned third baseman in the Major Leagues. The raccoon deflected the rocks off his chest, picked them up, then tasted each one, knowing that humans generally carry and discard food, good food, good fatty food, and it was worth a few rock bruises to get to the good stuff.

Or take Camp 4 ground squirrels - California Ground Squirrels to be exact. According to biologists, these squirrels should be eating seeds, berries, tubers, leaves, bulbs, or woodplants, and occasionally insects or carrion for added protein. But in Camp 4, I've seen them eating Ramen noodles, marshmallows, candy bars, hamburgers, French fries, toothpaste, and hotdogs, plus puncturing and drinking from soda cans. They'll also steal and eat anything that smells like food. I've seen one devour a greasy foil wrapper as if it were the finest fare in a swanky restaurant.



Visitors complain about the condition of the animals near the campgrounds. I've heard tourists say, "Why is that squirrel so fat" and "Why is that deer's coat so mangy?" Well, the answer is that they're eating what they shouldn't be eating. They're eating our food. They're living a way they shouldn't be living. Their lives are affected by the impact of the laziest visitors, those who drive through, walk a couple of short, paved paths, throw food and garbage to the ground, and drive away. The impact starts with what we can bring into the Valley in our enormous cars, trucks, SUVs, and RVs. With unlimited space in our vehicles, what don't we bring into the Valley? Unfortunately, our garbage bags, our discarded materials, are our legacy to the animals of Yosemite National Park.

For the people who love to visit Yosemite National Park, for the people who love the plants, animals, and scenery, the governmental shutdown of 401 national parks in 2013 was awful. All national parks unavailable for weeks during the gorgeous fall season? That was terrible. Or was it?

Personally, I wanted Yosemite open for all of October. My book publisher (Tyrus Books) had flown me to San Francisco, rented me a car, and I was supposed to do a reading from my new Yosemite novel, Graphic The Valley, in historic Camp 4 on October 5th, at the Big Columbia Boulder under the iconic Midnight Lightning. This location is my own personal Mecca, one of the holiest locations on earth. But the park was closed. All parks were closed. Even if I snuck into Yosemite - an option I considered - there would be no audience at my reading. And as cool as it is to read to myself in the dark, it wouldn't have been the same thing as the originally designed book-release party. My publisher (Ben Leroy) and I hiked into Castle Rock State Park instead, gave away free copies of my books, met climbers, and had fun, but it was no Yosemite. Nothing other than Yosemite is Yosemite.

I felt bad for myself, but not very bad because I felt good for the park. For a few weeks, the pressure on one of the most-visited national parks was lessened. The hordes that invade Yosemite in the fall (and I'm including myself in that statement) were forced to postpone or cancel their sieges. Better than a big vat of boiling oil poured over the wall is a nice, fat, government shutdown. The animals could move freely once again. Air quality improved. And for a few weeks, no one was able to throw garbage out of a car window.

I think a lot about Yosemite National Park. I've camped more than 180 days in the Valley, and researching for my Yosemite novel helped me to discover so much information that I would've never known. For example, from the time of the Mariposa Battalion's entrance to what is now the national park, and their subsequent burning of the natives' acorn stores, westerners have been a huge, negative addition to this wild place. We've brought the railroad, mining, dams, invasive species, illness, buildings, concessions, and unsustainable human numbers. We've damaged this incredible place, this location that was revered and respected for three thousand years by our human predecessors. In only 160 years of westerner use, consider the impact inflicted upon the Valley by the U.S. population and its collective choices.

The problem is clear. But what should we do? Have we gone too far? Have Icarus' wings melted and can we only anticipate an imminent death? Is there any reasonable, saving solution for Yosemite National Park and, particularly, the Valley?



Well, the funny thing is that a logical solution to the Yosemite overuse and heavy impact problem has already been written. 48 years ago to be exact. With his 1968 release of Desert Solitaire, Edward Abbey delineated the clear and intelligent future for the Valley. What should we do to save those seven - or more accurately - two square miles? We should do what Abbey told us to do the year after Yosemite reached 2 million annual visitors in 1967 (with a couple of key modifications that I'll detail later). Abbey's plan, written as "Polemic," is three-fold:

First, no motorized vehicle use in the park. Abbey writes, "Let the people walk. Or ride horses, bicycles, mules, wild pigs - anything - but keep the automobiles and motorcycles and all their motorized relatives out." He goes on to explain that the National Park Service can build large parking lots a few miles outside of the park where people can "emerge from their steaming shells of steal and glass and climb upon horses or bicycles for the final leg of their journey." Why allow people to drive through what was once pristine wilderness? If we don't drive into cathedrals, concert halls, or art museums, why should we be allowed to drive through this great house of worship? Also, "the parks, by the mere elimination of motor traffic, will come to seem far bigger than they are now - there will be more room for more persons, an astonishing expansion of space."

Second, no new roads in national parks. The existing roads are enough. New roads impact flora and fauna, are unnatural and ugly, and cost huge sums of money to clear, grade, and pave. The old roads are good enough for biking and running hourly (quarter-hourly) shuttle busses to haul personal gear, camping equipment, or the elderly. Abbey writes that the saved money from building new roads can be used for trail maintenance and backcountry shelter building.

Third, let the rangers range. Get them out of their booths. Abbey writes, "They've spent too many years selling tickets at toll booths and sitting behind desks filling out charts and tables in the vain effort to appease the mania for statistics that torments the Washington office." If the rangers are out on the trails leading hikes, horseback rides, plant discoveries, animal tracking tours, Junior Ranger programs, and ending the day with fireside talks, they'll be happier, healthier, and more fulfilled. Rangers currently waste a lot of time with car-related actions and infractions (the site of a park ranger directing traffic for an eight-hour shift is always a sad, sad sight), so eliminating cars will go a long way toward improving rangers' work conditions. Eliminating cars will certainly free up the rangers' time. I would add to Abbey's argument here and say that if rangers range with the visitors, mingling in the midst of the crowds rather than staying in booths or directing traffic, fewer Yosemite visitors will throw trash and food to the ground or hand-feed animals. The difference is a middle-school classroom with a teacher present versus a middle-school classroom with a teacher who's left the room for a few minutes.

Under Abbey's initial plan, he intended each family to bike twenty-three miles down into the Valley and twenty-three miles back up out of the Valley, and while this is epic and challenging, it makes visitation of the Valley all but impossible for nearly every U.S. family. The most active families, those with experience road-biking under grueling conditions, with old enough kids to complete 23 miles of uphill riding to the exit, would still be able to visit the Valley from the west, the most used park entrance. But most families would not be able to enter the park from that direction. Thus, I'd like to modify Abbey's plan.

At the Tuolumne and Wawona entrances, visitors could park cars at enormous lots just outside of the park entrances. Concessions possibilities abound right there, boosting local economies. Encourage those concessions, especially in the form of small businesses. Since these will be outside of the park boundaries, the NPS concessions contracts won't apply, and then even the governor of California can get on board with the plan (though he has publicly stated that environmental reform in Yosemite National Park will negatively impact the economy of California). From the Wawona and Tuolumne entrances, visitors could bike, hike, or ride horses into the park. No need to modify Abbey's plan significantly. People could bike to Tenaya Lake in Tuolumne, the dome country and up to Tioga Pass. At Wawona, the south side of the park is accessible from the entrance, with people having a chance to visit the famous groves, historical markers, or even bike up to Glacier Point.

But from the 120 and 140 Road entrances into Yosemite, I suggest regular shuttle bussing for everyone. Visitors could jump on shuttles that would take them all the way into the Valley, all the way to the Merced River drainage. Then, at the western end of the Valley floor, the park visitors could rent bicycles (rentals equaling additional revenue) and bike the remaining distance into camps and concessions areas. This bike ride is a slightly rolling but generally flat ride on good roads through some of the most beautiful scenery in the entire United States. Citizens of all ages are capable of riding bikes through relatively flat terrain, so there is an egalitarian component to this plan. Plus, with the roads free of cars, fatal accidents will be minimized if not eradicated entirely, and the automobile impact on large wildlife will be erased as well. How many cars will hit bears, deer, or elk within the park boundaries if zero cars are allowed to enter the park?

Finally, Abbey writes that children too small to bike will be able to visit the park in the future, but I say let those children ride right now on the shuttle busses. Also the infirm and the physically challenged are welcome on board. It is their right and privilege to visit our national parks as well, and we have to extend the opportunity for enjoyment of our great, wild lands. So anyone who cannot bike may choose to ride the shuttles, hardly a blight upon the land with their regularly scheduled departures and uniform appearances. Hybrid engines with good batteries could lessen their impact even further, and a California plant could build the vehicles in-state for further local revenue.

So with a few small modifications, Abbey's plan is a rational course of action. But there will be significant protest and consternation. Abbey writes that critics will argue "that the majority of Americans would not be willing to emerge from the familiar luxury of their automobiles, even briefly, to try the little-known and problematic advantages of the bicycle, the saddle horse, and the footpath. This might be so; but how can we be sure unless we dare the experiment?" Exactly. Let's give visitors a chance to change. The majority of Yosemite visitors would say that they love the park, so we must let them demonstrate that love through support of environmentally friendly reform.

For a good example of a similar and effective national park plan, consider Zion National Park. In 1997, annual visitation of Zion had reached 2.4 million people per year. The numbers were going up. So the NPS decided to implement a new seasonal shuttle system. From March to November, visitors are not allowed to drive private vehicles on the Zion Canyon Scenic Drive, a section quite similar to the Yosemite Valley Loop Road. The NPS said, "The shuttle system was established to eliminate traffic and parking problems, protect vegetation, and restore tranquility to Zion Canyon." Did it work? Yes. Do some people complain? Yes, again. But visitation has not dropped off. Over the past ten years, Zion's annual visitation numbers have risen to an average of 2.7 million per year. While Zion Canyon has been protected in many ways, people still come. Plus, without private vehicles, the canyon feels more like a national park, even more like a wilderness.



Would this work in Yosemite? Yes. Would visitation be cut in half as some people argue (when referencing significant environmental improvement plans)? Again, if Zion NP is a good example, then no. In Zion, visitation increased after the private cars ban. So visitors will still visit Yosemite as well. Revenue will not be significantly impacted by this proposal. Or what if we modified the proposal even further?

Private vehicles could be excluded from the Valley Loop only. Cars would still be allowed to enter at Wawona and Tuolumne, and even as far as Crane Flats from the West. This would increase the popularity of the lesser-used portions of the park, balancing impact to a significant degree and again minimizing the vehicular onslaught on the Valley. Shuttles could then run from Glacier Point and Crane Flats, down into the Valley, to each campground, natural wonder, and concessioner's point, then back up. If need be, these shuttles could run every 15 minutes to accommodate large numbers.

Since humans generally make things personal, I'll explain what this might look like for a serial visitor to the park: Me.

To be honest, I'm sometimes part of the ugly statistics. Even though I've never stayed fewer than three nights in the park, and I've camped, hiked, and climbed in the high country, I've also driven into the seven square miles of Yosemite Valley and stayed only in that Valley location on nine different visits to Yosemite. So, if "Abbey's Laws" were enacted, or one of my own modified versions, would I still visit Yosemite and would I do things differently?

Well, yes and no. Yes, I would still visit the park, still camp in the Valley and the high country, read under the same trees, make coffee in the beautiful Valley mornings, still swim and hike and climb, and stare at the wildlife and scenery. But I would do things differently too. My mobility would be limited. Instead of driving up the Tioga Road for a day of dome hiking or climbing in Tuolumne, I would stay in the Valley the entire time. I would have to pick between Tuolumne and the Valley on each trip to the park, rather than driving two hours back and forth, getting to do both whenever I wanted. Would this seem like a loss? Maybe. But I'd also feel like a better animal on this planet earth. I wouldn't be wasting gas or putting wear and tear on my car or the park's roads. Also, my family's bikes would see more use than normal. Already our favorite mode of travel in the Valley (an easy way to avoid traffic, travel quickly, and have more fun in the open air) we would now be forced to travel by bike. We would probably also walk further, explore more, and limit trips to the stores to times of absolute necessity. All of these things - when considered fully - are positives. In the new Yosemite Valley, we would live a more local lifestyle, be in better shape, and burn zero fossil fuels. For an active family, there is no drawback to the vehicle ban on the Valley Loop Road.

But what is the economic impact of this proposal? It could be significant. There's no way around that. For a while, it might be as if Yosemite has closed, a second shutdown. The 90%+, those who drive the Loop Road and return to the exit the same day, they will not come. But others will replace those lost visitors. Those who have stayed away because of the driving hordes will now be more interested in the park. If Zion is a model, visitation will still increase, but impact will decrease. Visitors will adapt. They will see the wisdom in protecting the park for future enjoyment, and they will begin to claim that future. The park will be quieter, more peaceful, and more epic. As Abbey noted, seven square miles will seem larger than before. Without individual motorized vehicles, the Valley will lose its Disneyland feel and return as a more wild land.

Plus, consider what it will look like with so many people on bicycles. I run a high school outdoor program in my hometown, and to start the year, we bicycle in a big group for five straight days, visiting different city parks, getting to know the city together on our bikes. Riding with 70 people is managed chaos, but it's fun chaos. We look like a slow-moving biker gang, a smiling, chatting, laughing biker gang. In the new Yosemite Valley, it will look like that: big groups of happy bikers all riding together, or stretched out, cruising through the trees, pedaling and gliding and smiling. And consider the efficiency of bikes as well. According to a 2008 Sierra Magazine article entitled Two-Wheeled Wonder, "Pound for pound, a person riding a bike can go farther on a calorie of food than a gazelle can running, a salmon swimming, or an eagle flying." More efficient than a gazelle, salmon, or eagle? If that doesn't make you want to ride a bicycle, nothing ever will.

And what is the opposite plan, the other option for Yosemite's future? Instead of heading Abbey's advice and implementing his three-part plan (or one of my modified versions), how could we increase visitation and revenue in the park and not make any major changes to infrastructure or rules? I spoke to a regional park planner for the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, and she told me that the NPS planners are under extreme pressure from lobbyists to accept commercial sponsorships of the parks. What would these commercial sponsorships look like if implemented? The parks might follow the National Football League model. We could have Coca Cola Yellowstone National Park. Walmart Glacier National Park. McDonalds Yosemite National Park. Sounds pretty good to me. I don't know about you...



So far planners and park superintendents are fighting these commercial machinations, but the options are worth billions of dollars. Since we are not talking about the U.S. defense industry where individual contracts can exceed 250 billion dollars and therefore a few billion dollars don't matter, the corporate sponsorship money is attractive. According to the Park Service, the 394 national parks generated a total annual revenue of 31 billion dollars in 2010, so additional billions matter in this business, and perhaps that is the problem: the major national parks are big business in the United States. Those who hope for future wilderness areas - and not developed outdoor businesses - are rooting for the planners to hold their ground. But will they?

When it comes to Yosemite alone, do we want more human pressure on the Valley? Do we want extended concessioners' influences? Do we want to see a Golden Arches next to the LeConte Memorial? Maybe a Motel 6 at Yosemite Village? Or a 7-Eleven in the Mariposa Grove? And is it far-fetched to imagine that we could double the park's visitation numbers once again, as we did in 1954, 1967, and 1996 (the year the park first reached 4 million annual visitors)? What would Yosemite Valley look like on July 4th, during a year in which the park experiences 8 million annual visitors? Is that what we want for the future of one of our greatest protected wilderness areas?

Like cell phone and computer proliferation, suburban development, genetically modified food, and outsourcing of U.S. labor to the East, we have to either say, "Enough," and stop or slow down, or we can choose to keep throwing items into the great pressure cooker, keep packing them in, and turning up the heat once again. Because pressure cookers never explode, right?

-- 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  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjamie-henn%2Ftime-for-democrats-to-tak_b_11182592.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Time for Democrats to Take On Big Oil  
It's Monday morning and I'm riding the Amtrak train down from Boston to Philadelphia for the Democratic National Convention. We're someplace in Connecticut right now, rumbling along at a slow speed past the backs of industrial parks and small family homes. Occasionally I'll catch glimpses of the highway where cars cruise past us, arguably a more comfortable ride than my bench here in the cafe car, with its bad coffee and overpriced, reheated meals.

Don't get me wrong, I love the train. Even with the crowds, delays, and occasional unexplained shut down, riding the rails in 2016 beats highway gridlock and long security lines at the airport. But also, come on: it's 2016. Weren't we supposed to have hoverboards, flying cars, and super-fast elevated bullet trains by now? What happened? And what can we do about it?

That's part of why I'm headed down to Philadelphia this week. It's not a lack of technological smarts that's prevented us from fully embracing a clean energy future (well, maybe on hoverboards), but a lack of political will. And not just a lack of will, but a lack of will in the face of tremendous opposition. While the Democratic Party's past support for climate action can be at best described as lukewarm, the fossil fuel industry's opposition has been red hot. We're still trapped in the fossil fuel age because the industry has fought tooth and nail to keep us here. In other words, this train is slow because Exxon made it so. If we want to see any real progress, that dynamic has to change, and fast.

There are reasons to be optimistic. Earlier this month, the Democrats released their most ambitious party platform on climate ever. The platform doesn't go far enough--most notably on fracking, offshore drilling, and other fossil fuel extraction--but it does go farther. The document calls for a WWII like mobilization on clean energy; massive investments in solar, wind, and efficiency; and yes, new investments in mass transit. Taken as a whole, the platform puts the country on the road--no, make that the rails--to finally tackling the climate crisis.

Perhaps even more importantly, the party platform has some tough talk for the fossil fuel industry. There's a back story. Over the last 9 months, journalists at Inside Climate News, Los Angeles Times, and elsewhere have exposed a decades long plot by ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies to mislead the American people about the dangers of climate change. Internal documents show that Exxon and friends knew about climate change as early as the 1970s, but instead of warning the public, they buried the truth and spent millions on misinformation campaigns and lobbying. A group of Attorneys General led by New York and Massachusetts have launched an investigation to see if Exxon committed fraud, while environmental groups, including 350.org, are pushing for federal investigations and further action.

Now, the Democratic Party is also getting into the mix. According to the party's platform, "Democrats also respectfully request the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies accused of misleading shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change." Respectful as it may be, the request is an important one, because it shows that some Democrats may finally be willing to stand up to the fossil fuel industry.

That's a big development. It took us years to convince President Obama, arguably the most powerful person in the world, to take on Big Oil and reject the Keystone XL pipeline. Last November, he finally did it, and lo and behold, he hasn't turned into a lump of coal or been driven from the White House by a mob of angry oil executives. Instead, his approval ratings have shot up. That's not to say that rejecting the pipeline made him the most popular man in America, but it is evidence that the decision didn't hurt him. And it's a sign that more Democrats could, and should, be moving in that direction.

Taking on the fossil fuel industry isn't just the right thing to do for the climate, it's the right thing to do for the eleciton. Big Oil wasn't the most popular going into this contest and the ongoing investigations into Exxon will only strengthen the case. Just look at last week's report from the Center for International Environmental Law which concluded that it was actually Big Oil who was behind Big Tobacco's public lies about the threats of smoking long before they started lying about the impacts of fossil fuels.

In contrast, people across the country are embracing a clean energy future. The solar industry is one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy. Young people are clamoring for climate action. Just this weekend, thousands of people took to the streets of Philadelphia to demand bold climate leadership and environmental justice. If Hillary and the Dems want to drive turn out in November, rallying the country to take on the fossil fuel empire is a good place to start.

Who knows, if we can finally get our politicians to take up the fight with us, then maybe we can all take the fast train down to the next convention in 2020 or 2024. Personally, I'm still holding out for the hoverboard.

-- 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  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2016%2F07%2F160725105228.htm&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
New index reveals likelihood of terrestrial or aquatic lifestyles of extinct mammals  
Researchers have developed a new index based on rib and body weight measurements that predicts whether a mammal lived on land, in water, or both. When applied to extinct mammalian species, the index showed that some could not have supported their own weight while walking or crawling, and thus must have been restricted to an aquatic life. The index reveals the habitats of extinct species and enables reconstruction of their lifestyles and the anatomical changes that accompanied adoption of an exclusively aquatic lifestyle.  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2016%2Fjul%2F25%2Frspb-calls-for-grouse-shooting-estates-to-be-licensed&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
RSPB calls for shooting estates to be licensed  

Group says move would allow shoots to be banned if birds of prey are illegally killed, amid withdrawal from hen harrier scheme

Grouse shooting estates should be licensed so that authorities have the power to ban them if birds of prey are illegally killed, the RSPB has urged, as it quit a government initiative to save the hen harrier in England.

The hen harrier action plan is a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs-led scheme in which landowners, shooting groups and conservation organisations agreed to work together to increase numbers of hen harriers in England.

Related: The mystery of the missing hen harriers | Patrick Barkham

Continue reading...  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2016%2F07%2F160725104109.htm&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Researchers discover how honey bees 'telescope' their abdomens  
Honey bees are able to wiggle their abdomens in a variety of ways. Now new research shows how they are able to do it. Specialized membranes that connect a honey bee's abdominal segments are thicker on the top of the abdomen than on the bottom, report the scientists. This asymmetry allows the segments to lengthen on top and contract on the bottom, resulting in the unidirectional curling the researchers observed in the bees they filmed.  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2016%2Fjul%2F25%2Fsalman-khan-bollywood-star-acquitted-poaching-charges&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Bollywood star Salman Khan acquitted of poaching charges  

Actor was previously convicted of killing three endangered animals but higher court in Rajasthan has overturned the verdict

The Bollywood star Salman Khan has been acquitted of shooting and killing three endangered animals nearly two decades ago, a verdict that overturned a lower court's ruling that would have sent the actor to jail.

Khan and seven other people, including Bollywood actors, had been accused of killing a gazelle and two antelopes over two days in 1998 while filming a movie in Rajasthan state.

Related: Bollywood box office takings down for first time in five years

Continue reading...  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Frosaly-byrd%2F5-inspiring-signs-that-su_b_11159402.html&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Rosaly Byrd: 5 Inspiring Signs That Sustainability Is Gaining Traction In The U.S.  
The first half of 2016 saw devastating events that have left many -- including us -- feeling pessimistic about the future of the U.S. and the world. However, since December 2015's Paris Climate Agreement, there have been various environment-related developments that provide us with some hope that, at least in regard to making sure our world is liveable in the future, we are starting to move forward.

Read more: Environment, Sustainability, Green News

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fbaruch-fischhoff%2Fclimate-talk_b_11181886.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Climate Talk  
Finally, things are moving. Internationally, last year's Paris accord was a remarkable statement of government concern over climate change. Nationally and locally, individuals, organizations, and industries have been mobilizing to do their part.

It's been a long time coming, considering how long the climate signal has been visible.

The greenhouse effect has been known for over a century. Some gasses, notably carbon dioxide and methane, trap heat from the sun in the earth's atmosphere. The increase in these gasses from burning fossil fuels has been known for almost as long, including an early warning from Alexander Graham Bell.

In December 1980, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the US Department of Energy issued a report beginning, "In adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, mankind is unintentionally conducting a great biological and geophysical experiment, [whose] probable outcome is beyond human experience." The report spelled out threats that included disappearance of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, melting permafrost, crop failures, climate refugees, and species extinction.

Thus, it has long been clear that we're taking a major gamble with our climate, and our future. Reasonable people act when faced with catastrophic threats. Why has our collective response been so sluggish?

Last October, leading scientists, activists, and communications experts came together to discuss what it would take to get climate the attention that it deserves. That workshop produced a report, Toward Consensus on the Climate Communication Challenge, summarizing the science on effective communication.

In general terms, some of its conclusions are obvious:
More immediate problems (jobs, kids, health) consume our personal attention.
Big problems require collective action by groups with conflicting interests.
Powerful forces attack any science whose findings threaten their interests.
Emotions (fear, powerlessness) can cloud our judgment.

A century of social science research has provided the detail needed to unpack these processes and focus action. When do people find time to work on long-term global threats? What kinds of international agreements are worth the struggle? How can disinformation be refuted, without affording it unwarranted attention? When do emotions mobilize, rather than paralyze or confuse us?

Toward Consensus argues that acting on that research will require unprecedented collaboration, and humility, among natural scientists, social scientists, and climate activists. Natural scientists will need to respect the social sciences, not just assume that more evidence will win the day. Social scientists will need to draw on all relevant results, not just their own specialty. Climate activists will need to test their communications, not just trust their hunches about what people need to hear.

Fortunately, the human side of climate science is moving.

In the 1980 report, social science was one of five working groups. After that, it almost vanished from the climate science scene. Now, though, it is getting more respect. Nature Climate Change was the first Nature journal to include social science; the new Nature Energy does as well. The National Academy of Sciences hosted two major colloquia on the "Science of Science Communication."

Collaboration among these communities is fostered by organizations such as Climate Nexus, Climate Central, The Climate Advocacy Lab, Climate Access, Yale Climate Connections, and Climate Outreach.

There are long lags in climate dynamics. Once the greenhouse gasses go up, it will be a long time until they come down. There are also long lags in human affairs. Once individuals, organizations, and professions set sail, it is hard to change their course.

Aligning the scientists, activists, and institutions needed to address climate is, therefore, akin to creating a pontoon bridge of supertankers. Toward Consensus shows the urgency of making that happen - so that the climate community does not willingly fly blind, by ignoring other disciplines that could inform its work, evaluate its success, and redirect it when it is failing.

Baruch Fischhoff, Howard Heinz University Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, has been involved with climate issues since the late Carter Administration.

-- 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  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2F2098566-mystery-ancient-human-ancestor-found-in-australasian-family-tree%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Mystery ancient human ancestor found in Australasian family tree  
A genome analysis suggests that Asian and Pacific human populations share a single origin and their ancestors might have bred with Homo erectus  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2F2098564-universal-ancestor-of-all-life-on-earth-was-only-half-alive%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Universal ancestor of all life on Earth was only half alive  
The identification of genes likely to belong to the common ancestor of life suggests its biochemistry was incomplete, forcing it to cling to undersea vents  
gaia  

%feed  
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/354095589435584201/  
Chalcid wasp (Perila  

Chalcid wasp (Perilampus sp.) collected in Grasslands National Park, Saskatchewan, Canada, and photographed at the Centre for Biodiversity Genomics (sample ID: BIOUG21601-C03; specimen record: http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Public_RecordView?processid=CNGSF2717-15; BIN: http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Public_BarcodeCluster?clusteruri=BOLD:ACV0077)

 
pin-gaia  

%feed  
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/7881368077527132/  
Drowsy caterpillars  
Drowsy caterpillars are transforming into moths with a cunning skill - producing their own cyanide. #SensationalButterflies  
pin-gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fpawel-alva-nazaruk%2Fearths-climate-is-warming_b_11144918.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Earth's Climate Is Warming -- And We Can Fix It!  
The scientific community has long reached a consensus that human activities are altering the Earth's climate system. According to IPCC, the average Earth surface temperature has increased by 0.7 ± 0.2°C since the late 19th century, and is projected to rise another 1.5 to 6°C by 2100 without additional mitigation measures.

Currently, global climate change has become the greatest threats to humanity. Due to the underlying complexity of climate system, potential consequences of climate change encompass a broad range of health and ecological implications that across national boundaries and beyond intergenerational limits, including spread of human infectious diseases, destruction of tropical coral reefs, extreme and unusual weather events, shrinking mountain glaciers, rising sea level, and accelerated species extinction. It is not merely an issue for people within a specific geographic location, but a threat to all mankind that living on Earth, and a catastrophic crisis to current and future generations. Regardless, it will up to us to pick up the slack and continue forward demanding justice and create a world that are survivable to all mankind now and in the future.

Why is Climate Change the biggest challenge we face?

Scientific uncertainty



Scientific uncertainty in climate change is significant and partly irreducible, because of superficial understandings of the spatially and temporally dynamic interactions in atmospheric, terrestrial and aquatic carbon cycle and limitations to climate change projection through a series of model calculations. Even though the basic physical law that governs global warming is simple, no scientific consensus is reached regarding the anticipatory increase in average Earth surface temperature and the deleterious effects associated with the change.

Threats of harm
Despite the uncertainties surrounding climate change, a number of negative impacts of climate change has already been identified, including sea level rise, retreat of glaciers, increase of extreme weather events and heightened risk of disease outbreak, all of which occurred with merely 0.7-degree Celsius rise in global temperature since the late 19th century. It is reasonable to assume that If the warming trend stays in the next few decades, even under the low emission scenarios developed by IPCC (which is characterized by a high level of environmental and social consciousness among the general public along with a globally coherent commitment to sustainable development), climate change will bring about myriad health and economic consequence on the society.

Irreversibility
The addition of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere are now pushing the Earth towards an irreversible course of climate change. Scientific evidence has indicated that even if the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gas remains at the present level, global average temperature will continue to go up 0.5-degree Celsius, due to bigger thermal inertia of the oceans.

Also, some of the climate impacts, such as stronger typhoon, more intense hurricanes and infectious human disease, could lead to loss of lives, severe injuries and more negative impacts on the human communities. For example, many island states, especially the atoll nations of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, are facing the unprecedented crisis of been partly or completely inundated by future sea level rise resulting from thermal expansion of ocean and loss of glaciers and ice sheets.

Other than consequential effects, numerous climate change vulnerability assessments suggest that rising global temperatures will influence the physical and biologic conditions of vector-borne disease such as malaria, cholera and diarrhea, thereby adding to the overall public health burden attributable to climate change. Nevertheless, the effects above described, while destructive, are only a fraction of multifold environmental and health consequences that climate change can bring about.

Moral issues
Countering the effect of climate change will inevitably raise discussion with regard to climate justice. To construe social justice against the background of climate change, it covers not only fairness among people in different countries regardless of geographic location and socio-economic status, but also equal treatment over the generations and maybe respect towards natural landscapes and other live forms that share the planet with human beings. How can we prevent "free rider effect" in the global effort to stop climate change? Should we make the wealthy nations pay for the consequences of climate change that was largely caused from their uncontrolled emissions in the past few decades? What can we do to support the low-income countries that would suffer the most from the effects of human-induced climate change? Such issues have constantly been put forward and debated in the internal conferences on climate change

What can we do?



In recognition of a recurring pattern of delayed response to highly uncertain climate risks using conventional approaches of risk management, countries all over the world have now begun to take more proactive steps in tackle the issue of climate change and reverse its attendant influences to natural and human communities, such as providing subsidies to renewable energy industries, or enacting climate change control laws to regulate greenhouse emission. While countries are stepping up on their climate change effort, it is also important for us, as private citizens, to make equal contribution in the fierce battle against climate change.

It does not really take you any more time, energy or effort to save yourself from the plight of climate change. Instead, you can radically reduce your carbon footprint through simple actions like taking public transportation, buying locally, or using energy-efficient light bulbs. If all of us are doing our part, the small steps would add up gradually and eventually lead to big changes.

In our previous publications, the BWI team have come up with several effective steps that could help you reduce your carbon impacts and slow down climate change. Although not all of the tips are right for everyone, just implementing a few of them would definitely make a difference. Check the following list of articles and see what is suitable for you!

Join meatless monday and save the planet
Solar power your home and business
Shop for need instead of greed
Gardening for climate change
Reduce food waste and lessen greenhouse emission

Mitigating and adapting to climate change is recognized as an increasingly urgent task that needs international cooperation . As long as everyone starts to act now, we can stop climate change and save the humanity from the global crisis.

This infographic would show why climate change is the biggest threat to humanity
Infography of sustainable development

If you are interested in exciting solutions having a positive effect on people and the planet, visit us at Better World International!

-- 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  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.nationalgeographic.com%2F2016%2F07%2F25%2Fpalmetto-pipeline-an-eminent-problem%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Palmetto Pipeline: An Eminent Problem  

I hop off the boat into a horde of red-white-and-blue-clad 4th of July revelers. Looking back at the mighty Savannah River, I see a half dozen children playing in the water, with two sets of alligator eyeballs cresting the water thirty feet or so beyond.

“What's going on here,” I ask Tonya, my guide and companion for the week, who also happens to be of the Savannah Riverkeeper (a contributor to the funding of this part of my project).

“Oh that's fine, those gators are always here,” she cooly replies.

We're halfway through our journey down the Savannah River from above Augusta to the ocean, tracing the proposed route for a new gas pipeline, meeting the people that would be impacted along the way. This trip is part of a series of short films telling the stories of our most passionate defenders of freshwater around the United States. A gas pipeline of this magnitude has dredged up fiery passions on all sides of the issue. With it being Independence Day, we eschewed any set plans and posted up on a sandbar, which shortly after our arrival turned into a party barge destination of epic proportions. Before long, we earned an invite to the “real” 4th of July barbecue on the banks of the river a mile or so downstream.

Tonya seems to know everyone, so I get to know everyone. With an equal number of t-shirts featuring the Union and Confederate flags, I try to downplay my upstate New York roots and fit in with the 150 or so partiers. I ask everyone I can about their feelings on the proposed Palmetto Pipeline. Most seem to be against its implementation, but not for the reasons I might expect.

Looking back a year later, there were certainly a handful of people opposing it for purely environmental reasons, but the most repeated complaint was the proposed use of eminent domain by Kinder Morgan, the company responsible for the construction of the pipeline. Employing eminent domain could save millions of dollars for Kinder Morgan, removing the need to negotiate with individual landowners. This basically means landowners' properties would be assessed for a certain value (usually quite low). Kinder Morgan would pay the property owners to get the right of way to build the pipeline. However, this leaves the landowner, who still technically owns their property, to pay taxes on land they could no longer use. This didn't sit well for many of the people we met.

Eminent domain is typically used for large public works projects, such as highways or power lines, and the proposed use by a private company enraged many local landowners and motivated them to fight for the protection of their land and water.

Meeting these people and understanding their fight has greatly widened my understanding of why people care about rivers. Having grown up paddling and guiding on rivers around the country, I hold them in high regard for an entirely different set of reasons than my new red-white-and-blue Georgia and South Carolina friends. Despite the different routes to this passion, the end result is the same, people wanting to protect the integrity of their rivers.

In early 2016, government officials reasoned that eminent domain couldn't be used because there wasn't a significant public benefit to the additional gas it could provide. The Savannah River will run a little freer thanks to the hard work of an unlikely group of advocates crossing political and demographic boundaries to protect the water and the land.

The Water Is for Fighting project, funded in part by a National Geographic Young Explorer Grant, documents the challenges facing our nation's freshwater resources. Corey Robinson is collecting these stories through film, still pictures and words. Check back next week for the third of a four-part series of documentary videos about the project.

Follow along with @coreyrobinson #w4f2015

Visit Corey's Website

“Whisky is for drinking, water is for fighting.”

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fsteven-cohen%2Fclimate-change-and-the-co_b_11177834.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Climate Change and the Complexity of Science  
One of the most successful environmental treaties of all time was the Montreal Protocol of 1987, which banned the use of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, an ozone-depleting substance mainly used in refrigeration and air conditioning. The ban was made feasible by the development of new refrigerants that would not deplete the ozone layer. According to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry:

In the 1980s, I remember that many scientists feared that ozone depletion was irreversible and the headlines in many newspapers declared that nations were powerless to stem the growing loss of ozone - the great hole in the ozone that threatened us all. But the Montreal Protocol proved that the pessimists and the naysayers were wrong. Virtually all the parties have met their obligations under the accord. Nearly 100 of the most ozone-depleting substances have been phased out. And as a result, the hole in the ozone is shrinking and on its way to repair. It's why we're here today... Now, that's the good news. The bad news is that in too many cases, the substances banned by the Montreal Protocol have been replaced by hydrofluorocarbons - HFCs - which are safer for ozone, but are exceptionally potent drivers of climate change - thousands of times more potent, for example, than CO2.

The diplomatic debate about phasing out HFCs has been underway for seven years, but the technology of refrigerant coolants appears to have finally caught up with the need for replacement technology. Once replacement technology is available, diplomacy becomes possible. According to Coral Davenport of the New York Times:

The Montreal treaty allows nations to amend it to ban substitute chemicals that have negative environmental effects even if they do not harm the ozone. And American chemical companies such as Dow, DuPont and Honeywell have already begun to patent climate-friendly HFC substitutes.

In many ways, this is a repeat of what happened when the Montreal agreement was reached. New chemicals can replace important chemicals that are dangerous to the environment as long as time, effort, and resources are devoted to developing those effective substitutes. Businesses are willing to cooperate and take advantage of the new business opportunities that are presented. Everyone is happy when they make money and protect the planet at the same time.

Even the precautionary principle might not have prevented this problem; testing technologies or drugs before they are used wouldn't have helped. When we test new technologies to understand their main side effects, we are dependent on the current state of scientific knowledge to gauge that impact. HFCs protected the ozone and were better to use than CFCs, but later on we found that HFCs caused global warming. At the time we adopted HFCs, we were ignorant about their impact on global warming. Had we known, we might have still decided back in the 1980s that protecting the ozone layer was more important than global warming, but our ignorance made such a choice unnecessary.

The technological world we live inevitably creates impacts we can't predict. By definition, not all the dimensions of new, cutting-edge technology are well understood. As we struggle to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy technology, we should be prepared for the unanticipated impacts of solar cells, batteries, wind generators, smart grids and all the rest. Having stepped down the path of technologically based economic development, we should not expect a pristine planet. But we can expect and work toward an environmentally sustainable earth. There is no excuse for willful disregard of the facts and every reason to listen closely when someone finds that your breakthrough invention has some negative effects.

We should approach the introduction of new technology and our analysis of environmental impacts with care and humility. The ozone hole was an urgent crisis that perhaps pushed other considerations out of our mind as we focused on the problem at hand. The climate crisis is today's high priority crisis. What other challenges are we setting aside as we focus our attention on the urgent crisis of the moment?

What is key is that we integrate a concern for environmental impacts into the development and implementation of new technology. Human ingenuity fashions our technology to respond to the problems of human survival and wellbeing. The goal is to make products that transform our lives. The success stories are all around us: the air conditioning that comforts us during the current heat wave, the computer and wireless internet that carries this blog piece to you, and countless inventions that make our way of life possible.

But today we are seven billion humans and before our growth peaks we will hit nine billion. It's a big planet, but our lifestyles have still managed to transform it. We've lit it up, carved it up, built it up, and travel everywhere to see all of it. We need to understand that impact if we are to continue to ensure that the natural systems that provide us with air, water, and food remain viable. While our species is ingenious, we make mistakes and our learning process is far from perfect.

The process of negotiating this treaty amendment has been difficult with both China and India agreeing to a transition from HFCs, but arguing for a longer period of transition than desired by climate advocates due to cost. The transition will not be without financial cost, and while the costs are relatively low, for developing countries they may be significant. The compliance deadlines could be influenced by the development of newer, lower-cost substitutes. If the price of transition is lowered, then the time scale issue will become less important.

Both China and India are seeing greater environmental awareness among their young people, particularly the youthful elite. This is something we already saw in Europe, the U.S. and Japan. Once environmentalism takes hold among young people in China and India, we can expect to see less opposition to aggressive global environmental agreements and hopefully, less need for them in the first place. The key will be to connect future economic growth the health of the global ecosphere. Since the connection is true, the argument will be made with great impact.

-- 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  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2F2098527-californias-fires-force-evacuation-of-people-and-exotic-animals%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
California's fires force evacuation of people and exotic animals  
The wildfires have destroyed at least 18 houses in northern Los Angeles and a movie set so far  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fsteven-cohen%2Fclimate-change-and-the-co_b_11177834.html&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Steven Cohen: Climate Change and the Complexity of Science  
One of the most successful environmental treaties of all time was the Montreal Protocol of 1987, which banned the use of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs,...

Read more: Climate Change, Pollution, Technology, Science, Environment, Politics, Green News

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.nationalgeographic.com%2F2016%2F07%2F25%2Ftwo-arizona-vineyards-give-back-to-a-river-through-a-voluntary-water-exchange%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Two Arizona Vineyards Give Back to a River through a Voluntary Water Exchange  

In an effort to stem the depletion of groundwater and keep Arizona's prized Verde River flowing, two vineyards are buying water credits through a new exchange designed to balance the basin's water use for the good of the river and the local economy.

Launched last week by the not-for-profit Friends of Verde River Greenway, the Verde River Exchange connects residents and businesses in the valley willing to temporarily reduce their water use with others seeking to offset the impacts of their groundwater pumping. As in many basins, groundwater helps sustain flows in the Verde, so the exchange is focused on motivating groundwater users to balance their withdrawals.

In the first pilot, a local family agreed to forego the irrigation of a small pasture for one year, generating water credits that will partially offset the use of groundwater by Merkin Vineyards and Page Springs Vineyards. The two vineyards, in turn, will purchase the water credits, providing revenue that can be used to compensate the local family.

It's a novel approach to motivating river protection, and it remains to be seen how much voluntary action the exchange generates. But it provides a vehicle for those wanting to do their part to sustain a healthy river in their backyard.

“There are few tools for communities to manage (their water) use,” said Chip Norton, president of Friends of Verde River Greenway, “and so we believe the Verde River Exchange is launching at an opportune time.”

The over-pumping of groundwater, which is depleting crucial water reserves and drying up rivers across the United States and much of the world, is a vexing problem. Especially where laws or norms allow private landowners to pump as much water as they want from beneath their land, the threat of groundwater depletion can be difficult to pare back.

The Verde River, a stunning ribbon of green that winds 195 miles from spring-fed headwaters north of Prescott to the greater Phoenix area, is one of Arizona's few remaining healthy river systems. An avian paradise, the Verde and its forested corridor provide habitat for more than two hundred and twenty species of birds, and help sustain muskrats, river otters and ninety other mammals.

While Arizona is often praised in water circles for its pioneering 1980 groundwater act, the law only applies to five “active management areas,” including Tucson and Phoenix. Groundwater pumping in regions outside of those designated areas, including the Verde Valley, remains more or less unrestricted.

“The exchange is something new,” said Jocelyn Gibbon, lead coordinator of the exchange and principal of Freshwater Policy Consulting, based in Flagstaff, Arizona. “We don't know anywhere else it's being done quite this way on a voluntary basis.”

In setting up the pilot project for the exchange, the team perceived the two vineyard owners as likely to care about the long-term health of the river and the long-term prospects for the community, Gibbon explained. “We thought they might be willing to step up and say, ‘We'll help you do this.' To our great excitement, both of them said yes.”

Page Springs Cellars and Vineyards overlooks Oak Creek, a beautiful tributary of the Verde known for the canyon it carved outside of Sedona, a popular tourist town amidst stunning red rocks. It is Oak Creek that will benefit from this first transaction of the exchange.

Both Page Springs and Merkin Vineyards use highly efficient drip systems to irrigate the grapes for their wines, so the two are no strangers to water stewardship. The exchange enables them to go above and beyond efficient water use and give some water back to the river.

Together the two vineyards' purchase of water credits this year will offset the impact of irrigating about nine acres of their grapes.

“Not only will it (the pilot) have an impact on the river, but also on what people think is possible,” Gibbon said. “The Verde Valley is changing and increasingly people are appreciating the river as an asset in many ways. It would be really exciting if people saw (the exchange) as a tool and something of a cultural norm.”

Three years in the making, the exchange includes among its funders and partners, The Nature Conservancy of Arizona, the Walton Family Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, the Bonneville Environmental Foundation (BEF), as well as Friends of Verde River Greenway.

“I think it's a critical pilot that others can look at, understand, and consider replicating (or creating enabling conditions for) in other places, says Todd Reeve, CEO of BEF and creator of the Water Restoration Credit now used widely by water users throughout the western United States to balance their water footprints.

As water pressures intensify with population and economic growth, creative solutions like the Verde River Exchange offer some honest hope that we can actually have healthy rivers side-by-side with healthy economies.

It's an aspiration worth toasting over a nice glass of wine.

 

[Disclosure: Todd Reeve and I co-created the water restoration initiative called Change the Course, which has partnered on a number of projects in the Verde Valley, including this pilot project of the exchange.]

Sandra Postel is director of the Global Water Policy Project, Freshwater Fellow of the National Geographic Society, and author of several books and numerous articles on global water issues.  She is co-creator of Change the Course, the national freshwater initiative that has restored billions of gallons of water to depleted rivers and wetlands. She is working on a book about repairing and replenishing the water cycle.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fellen-kanner%2Fmeatless-monday-preservin_b_11072030.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Meatless Monday: Preserving What's on America's Plate  
Mark Twain, adored the abundance of America's plate. He even dreamed of it. He found the food in Europe "as tasteless as paper." He longed for the food of home, like "Saratoga potatoes. Hot wheat-bread, Southern Style. Radishes. Baked apples, with cream. American butter. Hominy. Boiled onions. Turnips. Green corn, cut from the ear and served with butter and pepper. Stewed tomatoes. Hot hoe-cake, Southern style. Buckwheat cakes."

Twain was exuberant and, it seems, ravenous -- his list goes on for pages. "I was struck not just by the breadth of his menu and the vibrancy of the dishes, but how specific he was -- not just mussels, but steamed mussels from San Francisco," says author and environmentalist Andrew Beahrs. "That's what led to Twain's Feast."



Researching Twain's Feast, Beahrs followed in the author's foosteps, trekking across America in search of some of Twain's beloved regional eats. "It's how I've come to understand the variety and diversity of the country," Beahrs says. But more than a few of Twain's favorite foods have since vanished or are off the menu due to scarcity.

So much of what we love about regional cuisine starts with regional produce. But according to food conservationist Gary Nabhan, four out of five American apple varieties are no longer on our tables or trees. Since Twain died, we've lost more than 93% of our native seed varieties.

Slow Foods USA's Ark of Taste works to reestablish more than 200 regional American foods in danger of disappearing from our plates for good from loss of biodiversity or other environmental damage. Nonprofits like Seed Savers Exchange and United Plant Savers are dedicated to rare plants and produce conservation. But they can't do it alone.

Even in today's world of corporate food and standardized meal kits, you know authentic when you see it and you know it when you taste it. Visiting your local farmers market makes preserving rare and regional produce easy -- and a delight. Choose local fruits and vegetables at the seasonal summer peak. Value them. Source them. Cook them. Eat them. We all have a stake in what we eat, in keeping America's plate as big and diverse as the one Twain celebrated.

Pikliz

It's a sauce, it's a relish, it's a veg-intense condiment you'll find in almost every Haitian home in every South Florida Haitian restaurant. Pikliz (pronounced pik-leez) makes the most out of heat-resistant summer crops like carrots, cabbage, chiles and onions. It looks like cole slaw. Be not deceived. It packs a Scotch bonnet sucker punch. Adding a second Scotch bonnet makes it truer to the Haitian ideal. Unless you can truly stand the heat, start with one.

It seems easier to bung all the vegetables in the food processor, but if possible, resist the temptation. Hand chopping the vegetables results in crisper, more authentic pikliz. This quick fuss-free pickle will be ready to eat after 48 hours, but flavors will bloom the longer you keep it. And you can keep it indefinitely.

Enjoy a spoonful or two of pikliz on just about anything, including corn bread from any -- and every -- region.

2 cups cabbage (about half a pound), thinly sliced
1 carrot, diced
1 red pepper, diced
1 onion, diced
1 to 2 Scotch bonnet peppers, minced *
1 teaspoon sea salt
2/3 cup fresh orange juice
1/3 cup fresh lime juice
1 cup cider vinegar
4 whole cloves
4 garlic cloves
1/4 teaspoon black pepper corns

In a large bowl, mix together the sliced cabbage, diced carrot, pepper and onion and minced Scotch bonnet. Sprinkle in sea salt and toss to combine. Pour in the orange juice, lime juice and cider vinegar. Vegetables should be just about submerged. Give them a stir and drop in the cloves, garlic cloves and pepper corns.

Pour everything into a generous 1 quart container with a tight lid. Refrigerate for a couple of days, giving the jar an occasional shake when you think to.

Yield: About 3 cups.

*Avoid Scotch bonnet burn. Wear rubber or latex gloves when mincing them. Wash your knife, cutting board and hands when you're done.

This is an updated post, the original version of which ran August 8, 2010.

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  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fatony%2F28528685345%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Fighting for Survival - The Black and Orange Flycatcher, Juvenile  

AntoGros posted a photo:

Fighting for Survival - Overcoming the Threatened Tag

The Black and Orange Flycatcher, Juvenile A Near Threatened Species

Nilgiris, Jul 2016

Was very Lucky to get this young beauty in the open on a clean perch..... A Low Light Shot, but then, Birders cannot be Choosers.......

A bit about the bird - As per Wiki "A distinctly coloured bird found mainly in the high-elevation areas of the Western Ghats, the Nilgiris, the Palnis and associated hill ranges. The male is distinctly black headed with black wings. The female has the black replaced by dark brown and has a light eye-ring. They are usually seen singly or in pairs. It is a species of flycatcher endemic to the central and southern Western Ghats.The young bird at around two weeks of age is brownish orange with a whitish vent and abdomen. The head has dark streaks and the wings appear bluish with a trace of brown. There is a pale ring around the eye and the orange tail appears stumpy. Eight weeks after fledging they appear almost like adults except for patches of brown feathers in the crown.

 
gaia