1471529859000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Ftom-szaky%2Fmaking-environmentalism-a_b_11572748.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Making Environmentalism Accessible through Reality TV
As a genre, reality television has a bad rap. A so-called "guilty pleasure" in many circles, top of mind here are the dating shows, cabin fever-fueled competitions, and the observational fly-on-the-wall brand of reality that has turned regular people into celebrities. For better or worse, reality TV holds the attention and interest of a wide and diverse audience, taking up more than half of the total annual audience viewership for top 10 primetime programming. One thing is for certain: when it comes to reaching a large number of people and keeping them hooked, reality television has it down.

Can the mass appeal of reality television be used to make environmentalism more accessible to a wider audience? At TerraCycle, our teams are constantly brainstorming new ideas and activations to engage consumers and take steps towards closing the "green-gap" and turning values into action. We have found that the first step to enacting social change is raising awareness.

In a previous post I discuss getting people excited about environmental issues by presenting them in a positive and fun way. Topics like poisoned water in Flint, the steadily increasing tonnage of the nation's landfills, and the methane gas released by decomposing trash adding to the earth's greenhouse gas emissions are not exactly light fare. The seriousness of these matters can be quite intimidating to the average consumer, subduing them into inaction. Moreover, the people contending with these issues, environmentalists, may seem like an intimidating, unrelatable bunch, as well.

Human Resources is a reality television show bringing viewers behind the scenes and into-the fast-moving environment of the TerraCycle office. It's shot on-location, features real employees (including myself), and uses no scripts. Definitely more Real World than An Inconvenient Truth.

Early on, we realized that an important balance had to be maintained between our message of sustainability and eco-mindedness (TerraCycle is a recycling company "Eliminating the Idea of Waste," after all), and creating an entertaining premise that viewers will come back to. We have achieved that equilibrium by integrating TerraCycle projects, mission goals and events into each episode, and giving them a fun, more often funny, spin on our corporate culture by highlighting what really makes TerraCycle tick: its people.

TerraCycle runs on the ideas, work ethic and talent of people of all ages, backgrounds and experiences, and not only does that make for a successful company, it makes for great entertainment. Described as "The Office" meets "Project Runway," Human Resources has given viewers a dynamic look at our Materials Sales team as they struggle to find a recycling solution for dirty diapers, chronicled the friendly intra-office competition that a boys vs. girls "recycle-a-thon" (with collegiate Greek-life recruits, no less) inspires, and followed our Design team down the rabbit hole of turning items bound for landfill into valuable, usable works of art.

These are the same people we see eating ramen at their desks, playing "Rock, Paper, Scissors" (badly), giving each other side-eye across the office, and laughing together. It is this human element that makes the show interesting and relatable, creating a conduit for exposure to our environmental message, and allowing viewers to see themselves as very much alike to the "professional" environmentalists featured on-screen.

The appeal of reality TV as a form of entertainment stems from our desire to know ourselves better by "knowing" others. This social comparison tendency is a potential reason people are drawn to this type of entertainment, as reality television creates perceived access to people, lifestyles and concepts they are either very familiar with, or can learn from. These reference points to our own experience create connections that allow us to see ourselves through characters and scenarios, increase our empathy, and potentially make us more receptive to new concepts and topics we may not have considered before.

Now in its third season (premiering August 26 on Pivot), Human Resources has been invaluable to TerraCycle's message. The success of the show is proving that people connect to environmental concepts and can be stewards for the planet in their own way, and we hope that it continues to be as fun for viewers to watch as it is for us film.

-- 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

1471520841000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.nationalgeographic.com%2F2016%2F08%2F18%2Fhow-my-first-snow-leopard-encounter-defined-my-career-path%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
How my First Snow Leopard Encounter Defined my Career Path

The snow leopard is an endangered high-altitude predator species occurring in 12 Asian countries, including Afghanistan, where around 50-200 individuals exist. Wakhan National Park, in northeastern Afghanistan, a high-elevation region above the tree line (most of the sanctuary is at 3600 meter and above), is considered a hotspot for snow leopards and their spectacular wild prey species such as Marco Polo sheep, urial, and ibex. As a young wildlife biologist trying to define my future career, I spent much of my time involved in conservation projects in Wakhan National Park where snow leopard depredation on livestock, and sometimes, retaliatory killing of snow leopards, seemed fairly commonplace. I was constantly thinking about the direction I should take in my conservation interests. I was fascinated by the snow leopard and by these remarkable wild ungulates; however, I did not foresee that future circumstances might shape my mind.

It was early in June 2010 that the door of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) office in Wakhan was being hammered very hard and accompanied by angry shouting. I came out of the office and was met by an angry old man with a long stick in his hand shouting, “Your snow leopard has killed the only bull I had and I want compensation!”

While this man was crying and yelling at me, I was trying to calm him down and learn more about the incident. Showing him respect and sympathy by calling him “Uncle,” I asked when, how, and where this had happened. He pointed towards the steep hill south of our office and said: “It happened today over there close to the snow patches.”

I told him that I felt sorry for his loss but that we were an NGO only helping communities to manage their natural resources, and therefore didn't own the snow leopards. I said the cats belonged to the government of Afghanistan and he would need to register his complaint with the District Governor's office.

Before he left, I managed to get a rough location of the incident, and then peacefully sent him on his way. Now, as a young biologist, I was interested in using camera traps to photograph this snow leopard at the bull carcass, where he would likely stay for a few days.

Early that afternoon, my three colleagues and I started walking in the direction that the old man had pointed. Our task was to find the carcass and set the camera traps nearby. After three hours of hiking over steep slopes and cliffs, everyone had spread out to increase our chances of finding the carcass. Two of my friends were exhausted and stayed behind, while the third one, who was a local ranger, was far ahead of me climbing even higher. Eventually, we lost contact with one another in the rough terrain. Since it was getting late and we had to return home before dark, I had already given up trying to find the carcass and was more interested in finding my friends.

Though I was fatigued from my search efforts, I continued to seek out the local ranger. But then I saw something jump and disappear. I first thought that it was some bird of prey, but quickly saw another jump and then a third one that ended with an aggressive snow leopard about 15 meters in front of me, trying to defend its kill. The animal appeared much more aggressive than the old man beating our door earlier today and I froze.

While I always dreamed of seeing a snow leopard in the wild, and maybe take pictures of it, this encounter was not what I had in mind. Though I had my camera hanging around my neck, I did not even think about it's existence, let alone using it to make photographs. The only thing on my mind was to save myself from this belligerent animal. I slowly stepped back a step or two then turned and quickly “escaped” by jumping over big rocks and scrambling down cliffs. After racing for about 200 meters I turned back to discover that the animal was not chasing me. My heart was beating hard and I was still trying to figure out if I was safe.

After find my friends we went back together to the area being, almost certain that the carcass would be near where I encountered the snow leopard. As expected, we found the carcass and set the camera traps around it. Those cameras had captured many photos of the snow leopard, including the one at the top of this post, as well as of red fox, vultures, and other wild species.

It turned out that we would meet this particular snow leopard again. We named him “Pahlawan” (wrestler) two years later when we trapped and tagged him with a GPS collar in June 2012. We identified him through his coat patterns.

This unexpected encounter with a snow leopard, along with the heartbreaking concern of the owner of the bull, made me think carefully about conservation in the area. Although I had heard about depredation incidents before, none of them gripped me until this series of events. I saw that snow leopard depredations pose threats to community livelihood, as the dead bull would have been worth as much as 4 to 5 month's salary of a regular government employee at that time, and thus much for a poor household to lose.

Such predations not only threatened people's economic circumstances but also posed real threats to snow leopards by means of retaliatory killings by the affected community members. Aiming to mitigate this problem, I decided that if I did one good thing in my life it should be solving the conflicts between snow leopards and the livelihoods of these poor communities.

Although it was very scary and dangerous, this single incident that included the screaming face of the old man, my first ever confrontation with a wild snow leopard, and all the excitement and emotion behind those events, helped me find my real interests and shaped my future career. I continued to help with snow leopard camera trapping and participated in capturing and following 4 snow leopards in Wakhan using GPS telemetry. In addition, I helped draft the national policy for Afghanistan on snow leopards, the National Snow leopard Ecosystem Protection (NSLEP), with collaboration of the Government of Afghanistan. I also have contributed to the snow leopard book entitled “Snow Leopards-Biodiversity of the World-Conservation from Genes to Landscapes”, providing the chapter about snow leopard conservation and status in Afghanistan.

As I thought more about snow leopard conservation, I became even more interested in the root causes of depredation on livestock. Research related to this would certainly help mitigate snow leopard-human conflict and would eventually lead to conserving both the species and community livelihoods.

Having this in mind, I came across the Fulbright PhD Scholarship in 2014, and by articulating my research interests I eventually got the scholarship. This appeared to be a unique opportunity for me to turn my dreams to reality and study snow leopard depredation and conflicts with human communities.

I am now a second-year PhD student at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, Massachusetts, currently studying snow leopard-human conflict in the mountains of the northeastern Afghanistan. I trust that my research brings positive changes to the lives of local people, as well as to the conservation of this magnificent big cat species in my study area.

"IMG_7970" Zalmai Moheb was burn in Khoshi District, Logar, Afghanistan in 1981. He spent 12 years of his childhood in Pakistan, where he completed his primary school, before his family moved back to Afghanistan. Mr. Moheb completed his secondary school in Khoshi, Logar and then he joined the Kabul University, from which he received his Bachelor's Degree in Agricultural Science in 2005.

He started his career with the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) as a Field Research Assistant in 2006. He later went to India, where in 2009 he received a Master's Degree in Wildlife Science. After completing his Master's, Zalmai rejoined WCS-Afghanistan, where he served in different positions including Conservation Officer, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, Research and Monitoring Manager, and Ecological Survey Manager.

In his tenure with WCS-Afghanistan, Mr. Moheb conducted several wildlife surveys in remote areas throughout the country. He conducted research on several wild species such as the snow leopard, Persian leopard, brown bear, Marco Polo sheep, urial, markhor, ibex, Bactrian deer and several other species. In addition, Mr. Moheb actively contributed to several national documents e.g. National Snow Leopard Ecosystem Protection, and the justification document for the Afghanistan's second national park, the Wakhan National Park, declared in 2014. Moreover, he acted as technical advisor to the government of Afghanistan at several international conferences. Zalmai Moheb has published articles about brown bears, snow leopard, Persian leopards and Bactrian deer in various international journals. He has also contributed as lead author of the chapter for Afghanistan in the gain book “Snow Leopards-Biodiversity of the World-Conservation from Genes to Landscapes”.

Zalmai Moheb is interested in wildlife and nature conservation in Afghanistan, in particular conserving the endangered snow leopard (Panthera uncia) and its prey species in northeastern Afghanistan. His focus is to study the explanatory factors of snow leopard depredation, prey-predator relationships, the pastoral behavior of local communities, and the impact of livestock management for mitigating human-wildlife conflict in the Hindu Kush and Pamir Mountains within the Wakhan National Park in northeastern Afghanistan. Mr. Moheb's future goals are to train more and more people in the field of environmental conservation and to build a conservation network in Afghanistan. Moreover, he wants to establish a non-governmental wildlife organization that could serve in the field of wildlife and environmental conservation throughout Afghanistan.

gaia

1471492055000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fbrian-hughes%2F5-ways-businesses-can-con_b_11556346.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
5 Ways Businesses Can Conserve Water: Going Blue to Go Green

"2016-08-17-1471397025-8045409-waterconservationintheourplanetusas.jpg"

Image source: PhotoDune

When most businesses think about environmental sustainability practices, water conservation isn't always top of mind. But it should be. From the drought in California to water quality concerns in major cities like Flint, Michigan, water conservation is not just a business imperative- it's a global issue. Water is a limited resource. While 70 percent of the earth's surface is water, only 2.5 percent of this water is fresh water. An even small percentage is suitable for drinking, reports the Water Project. Water is a scarce resource we take for granted every day. If we continue down this same path, scientists predict worldwide water shortages will become increasingly prevalent.

Here's the good news: like many sustainability measures, simple changes can make a significant impact on daily water use. Every business uses water in different ways, of course - and some use a lot more water than others. But even making a small change, like installing low-flush toilets, can help your business conserve water. Here's how to get started integrating water conservation into your business's environmental sustainability model:

Start with a water audit. Many companies that use a significant amount of water underestimate just how much water they are using. A commercial water audit will assess how much water your business is using each day and identify conservation opportunities. Audits can also uncover costly leaks where inexpensive repairs could help stop unnecessary water loss and save your business money. Talk to your utility company about what water audit options it provides. Depending on your utility provider, you may even qualify for a free water audit or receive rebates for instituting water-saving initiatives, reports Small Biz Trends.
Educated and empower employees. No one wastes water intentionally, but without conservation education, it can be difficult for your staff to know what they're doing wrong. Engage employees in a workplace initiative for conscientious water use and management. Start a workplace challenge, publish updates on your company blog or internal newsletter, and encourage the entire team to get involved.
Know your state's status. Be informed about the major water issues facing your state and community. While California's water crisis is well known (as is general water scarcity throughout the Western states), did you know that every state in the country faces their own water challenges? This interactive water quality map from Pelican Water aggregates the most significant water issues facing our nation on a state-by-state basis. Texas, for example, faces water quality problems due to contamination from chlorine byproducts, TTHMs, and mercury. In Arizona, arsenic and lead contamination are exacerbating groundwater depletion problems. Know the issues facing your state and what your business can do to protect employees better from contamination concerns with drinking filters.
Go low-flow. Contact your building management team and request they install low-flow restrictors. For example, the difference between older toilets and new, low-flow toilets is pretty significant. Older toilets use as much as 5 gallons to flush compared with low-flow toilets that only use 1.6 gallons. Don't stop at the toilets! Low-flow faucet aerators can cut water flow down from 2.2 gallons per minute to 1.5 gallons. Pre-rinse spray valves cut water usage down from 4 gallons to 1.5 gallons. Let you building management know that going low-flow is a priority for your business!
Re-think landscaping. I live in Texas, a state notorious for scorching summers with limited rainfall. One trend I've noticed among local businesses is a push towards sustainable landscaping. That means choosing drought-hardy plants, like succulents and cacti, rather than bushes or shrubbery that requires significant water to flourish. Another option: eliminating grass. Consider replacing your grass with pebble and stone steps. Not only will you significantly reduce landscape water needs, but you will also save a bundle on upkeep costs. Just think, no more mowing, weeding, or fertilizing either! Plus, drought-tolerant landscaping sends an important message to your customers and clients that you value environmental sustainability.

Bottom line:

Much of the water that's wasted by small businesses is "lost" through inefficiencies in toilet/faucet usage in the restroom, landscaping, air conditioning and cooling, cleaning/washing down floors and equipment, reports NASA. Generating a profit and conserving resources are not mutually exclusive business goals. Small changes - like opting for low-flow toilets - not only save money but also protect the environment and our scarce water resources for future generations.

-- 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

1471462386000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fsarah-illingworth%2Fdirector-martha-jeffries-_b_11554806.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Director Martha Jeffries On Years Of Living Dangerously

"2016-08-16-1471388655-8314760-MarthaJeffriesImpolitikalyearsdangerouslyclimatechange.jpeg"

Director Martha Jeffries recently wrapped on two stories for the second season of Years of Living Dangerously, an Emmy Award-winning show about climate change. The show goes blockbuster, seeking to finally capture mass attention regarding an issue that stands to affect every living thing. That worked pretty well first season 'round. As Martha notes in this interview for Impolitikal, climate change can no longer be sidestepped as a scary unknown we hope will go away. Extensive research shows that the world's climate is changing, largely due to human activity - and if people, policy and business continue as usual, the economic and social impacts will be felt by all.

How did you come to work on Years of Living Dangerously, and what's your role?
I'm directing and producing two stories for the upcoming second season of Years. I spent a decade making travel television and shot in many testing and sometimes volatile locations, and was starting to see the impacts of climate change in different places around the world. I met a producer from season one who kindly recommended me to the executives and I jumped at the chance to tell these stories.

What can you tell us about the episodes you've worked on?
My two stories are at opposite end of the spectrum - among the darkest and most hopeful this series has to offer. The first is on the oceans. We look at ocean warming and ocean acidification and the impact these human-caused phenomena are having on coral reefs. During filming, the worst coral-bleaching event in human history occurred. Over 90% of the Great Barrier Reef suffered, some of which will never recover. Many reefs will be reduced to a slime-clogged deadzone. We are losing one of the seven natural wonders of the world - something that took thousands of years to grow. One in four fish rely on coral reefs to breed and survive and nearly half a billion people rely on fish as their main source of protein. Think what the implications of that are for health, political stability and global migration. Terrifying.

My second story is on carbon pricing, which might be our best climate change solution. In a nutshell, carbon pricing is a user charge. If you generate carbon, you pay for it. A price on carbon will drive a move away from fossil fuels by making them more expensive. Which would then allow for an easier transition to renewable energy forms and spur the innovation we need to tackle this problem. Many countries around the world already have some form of carbon pricing in place. My story focuses on a burgeoning student movement in the US, calling for a carbon price here. It has been incredibly inspiring seeing millennials from all ends of the political spectrum stand up and demand change.

"2016-08-16-1471387873-5782324-MarthaJeffriesyearslivingdangerouslyimpolitikal.jpg"

Shooting at the Great Barrier Reef

Did anything happen while filming that left a strong impression on you?
In the early days of production we joked we should have an inhouse therapist to help deal with the shock and distress many of us were facing as we discovered the realities of climate change. This isn't something that will happen in the future, this is happening now. It's an uncomfortable reality, but our planet has changed and our quality of life will change too. We can't push this one down the road any longer. It's happening now and it's happening fast. It's not too late, but we absolutely cannot keep dragging our feet.

I met with several families in the Philippines whose sole source of food and income is the ocean. These people live a very low-consumption lifestyle and are deeply tied to the water. But the reefs are dying and fish are disappearing. The people who are contributing the least to climate change are those who will suffer the most. It is a great injustice.

What was your stance on climate change before working on the show?
I've always been concerned about climate change, and I thought well-informed. But I'll admit, the speed with which things are changing was a huge surprise. We're right on the precipice.

What have you learnt personally through working on it? Has it changed you?
Where to begin! We did all of our own research, so the first few months of the job were spent studying climate science and the social, political and economic implications of each story. The terrific thing about a high profile project like this is the incredible access to people. I've spoken to some of world's most prominent scientists, politicians, journalists and economists over the past year. It's been a real privilege.

I also learnt to dive for my ocean story since I wanted to film a good portion underwater. I've always loved the ocean and have been a casual surfer for a few years but never dived. It gave me a much greater understanding of the ocean, which in turn gave me a greater sense of responsibility to tell this story well. The ocean gives us so much - oxygen, food and a temperature with which we can live. I think many of us take the oceans for granted. But they are fragile, and without them there would be no life on the planet.

"2016-08-16-1471387945-8756709-MarthaJeffriesyearslivingdangerouslywaterimpolitikal.jpg"

On location in the Philippines

In terms of personal change, I think this series has brought out the latent activist in me. I now realize the responsibility to make change lies within all of us. Sometimes it's as easy as picking up the phone or visiting your local politician and making it clear that action on climate change is a priority.

What are some of the barriers to effective action to address climate change?
Good old-fashioned political gridlock. It is astounding that it's an unofficial Republican Party line to deny climate change. I spoke to many Republicans who know climate change is real and are deeply concerned, but they're afraid of alienating their voter base. We don't have time for infighting. As the world's wealthiest nation the United States has a responsibility to the rest the world to lead on this, but it's falling behind.

What are some areas of progress?
The world has come a long way in the past 18 months. The climate march on New York, which attracted hundreds of thousands; COP21 in Paris; and the Pope releasing an encyclical calling for urgent climate action created a much greater awareness of climate change and the need to address this fast. There are great leaps being made in renewable energy and non-polluting technologies. And now almost every leader on earth agrees we need urgent climate action.

Roaring Fork Films is the production house behind the series. Can you explain a bit about their motivations for making the show?
Roaring Fork Films was founded by David Gelber and Joel Bach. David and Joel were a producer team on 60 Minutes for many years, and after working on a couple of climate change stories they realized this was the story of our lifetime - but that there was a huge gap in communication. No one was telling the stories of the everyday people being impacted. They have done an amazing job bringing together an incredible cast and crew to make a high quality, ambitious, sensitive and exciting show that demands attention.

There are a lot of big names involved with the project, on-screen and off. Why do you think so many celebrities have been willing to contribute their name and their time to help highlight this issue?
We've had a terrific group of people involved. There is power in fame. People will often listen to a celebrity far quicker than a scientist. A huge problem in the climate crisis has been communication. Scientists have been telling us for years that we have been pushing the capacities of this planet too hard, but people have refused to listen. Trained communicators and spokespeople have a responsibility to get onboard and use their voice to reach the numbers of people required to demand change. Many of our correspondents were not climate experts but did want to know what they could do to help. Learning on-screen was the best gift they could give.

Season two of Years of Living Dangerously will premiere on the National Geographic Channel this October in 170 countries. Find Martha.

Read via Impolitikal.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

1471456976000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fastrid-puentes-riaao%2Funderstanding-the-link-be_b_11569720.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Understanding the Link Between Business and Human Rights in Mexico
Has a corporation ever made you feel vulnerable? Have your rights been ignored? Does it seem that businesses have no oversight? Then this may be of interest to you.

In 2011, the United Nations Human Rights Council issued Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. The principles reiterate that nations must control business activities, that corporations must respect human rights, and that victims must have access to justice.

The Council also created the Working Group on Business and Human Rights to put these principles into action.

The Working Group will visit Mexico from August 29 to September 7. This visit will be its second to Latin America, after a mission to Brazil in December 2015.

The Mexico visit is important for three reasons:

Mexico is the 15th largest economy in the world.
Mexico doesn't often invite international human rights institutions on official missions that generate recommendations the government must address seriously.
The nation is experiencing a human rights crisis, evidenced by its position atop the lists of forced disappearances and attacks on journalists and human rights defenders (particularly environmentalists).

Expectations of the visit are high. The Working Group has received information about the human rights situation in Mexico and about business-influenced violations of those rights. The Group has yet to announce the places it will visit or an exact agenda, a complicated task considering the vast geography of the country and the variety of issues to address.

During its visit to Brazil, the Working Group met with authorities, State and private businesses, civil society, and affected groups. It visited strategic locations such as Altamira, the city closest to the Belo Monte Dam, and Minas Gerais, where a mining-waste dam broke last November.

The result was a report containing 32 recommendations for Brazil's government and corporations. The Working Group expressed its worry about undue corporate influence in the creation of national policies. It explained why politics and lobbying may compromise the State's ability to monitor business. It noted that most businesses don't evaluate the implications of their activities for human rights. It emphasized weaknesses in regulating, licensing, and monitoring large projects. And it highlighted the lack of consultation on mitigation and compensation measures with affected communities.

Ten of the recommendations made to Brazil could also be applied to Mexico.

The government should:

Train officials, decision makers, and judges about the obligations of business and government to prevent and remedy human rights violations.
Define clear policy expectations so that all businesses (both national and foreign) respect human rights and operate with due diligence.
Comply with the Guiding Principles as well as with international standards and best practices, especially in infrastructure and development projects.
Evaluate effective access to remediation, strengthen judicial and non-judicial mechanisms, and address business-related abuses.
Strengthen the regulation of large-scale projects, and increase resources, capacity, and coordination between authorities--particularly those related to the environment and human rights--to improve monitoring of socio-environmental impacts.
Ensure that when environmental disasters occur, mitigation and remediation measures are implemented, and adequate compensation is provided to the affected people (duly consulted).
Guarantee that people potentially affected by development projects (especially the most vulnerable) receive information and adequate legal advice to be on equal footing in negotiations with corporations.
Provide more resources for national programs to protect environmental defenders and emphasize improvement of social, economic, and political conditions.

Public and private business should:

Respect human rights and act with due diligence to identify, prevent, and mitigate human rights violations.
Ensure effective consultation with affected people and communities. This involves assessing impacts on human rights, paying special attention to vulnerable or potentially marginalized groups, and guaranteeing adequate and timely information about activities that could affect them. It includes distinguishing the risks to women, children, and men, especially with regards to infrastructure projects that displace communities.

The UN Working Group aims for its visit to be an important event for human rights in Mexico.

We hope its conclusions reflect what the country really needs. We hope that both business and government welcome the visit, take the recommendations seriously, and demonstrate the political will to act on them.

We shall see come September. A positive response is in all of our best interest.

-- 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

1471456974000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Ftony-long%2Fillegal-fishing-treaty-no_b_11568358.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Illegal Fishing Treaty, Now in Force, Boosts Global Effort to Cut Crime
The Port State Measures Agreement adds a vital new tool in a global strategy to deter lawbreaking fishermen

For some of the world's most audacious thieves, life just got trickier. For decades they have roamed the ocean, fishing without licenses, without regard for the marine environment, and, in most cases, without much fear of being caught. With about 140 million square miles of surface water and no central authority, the ocean has proved to be an easy place for these illegal fishermen to get away with a crime.

And their haul has been huge. Experts estimate that illegal fishing accounts for up to 26 million metric tons of seafood annually, worth up to $23.5 billion. This theft undercuts law-abiding fishermen, threatens the health of our oceans and fish populations, and destabilizes coastal communities that rely on consistent fish stocks for food and jobs.

But on June 5, a global treaty to end illegal fishing, called the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA), entered into force; the pact is now international law in 35 governments and overseas territories, including the European Union. The agreement was designed to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing by making it significantly harder to move illegally caught fish to market.

The PSMA, the first legally binding international measure targeting illegal fishing, requires captains to give notice when approaching a port--whether to unload their catch or for such services as refueling--and provide details on their licensing and fishing activities. Based on that information, and coupled with a vessel's history, port officials decide whether to allow the vessel to offload, inspect it, or turn it away.

The treaty also requires that port officials inform neighboring countries of known or suspected illegal catches--a key provision to help apprehend criminals who shop around for a port willing to accept their fish.

But the PSMA is only one component of an effective global strategy to end illegal fishing. Authorities and fishery managers need numerous mechanisms and consistent enforcement around the world. Here is a summary of how we could fully cinch the net on illegal fishing.

Expand PSMA membership: Coastal countries that have not signed on to the PSMA should do so quickly; those that have should move swiftly to implement and enforce the treaty. As long as illegal operators can find a port where they can unload and sell their catch, they will continue to profit from their crimes.

Mandate permanent, unique identifying numbers: To fish in most parts of the world, vessels need only a name, the flag of a country, and a radio call sign. None of those identifiers is permanent, and all can easily and quickly be changed, at little cost. That has made it difficult for governments to prosecute illegal fishermen and has allowed many repeat offenders to return known illegal vessels to the water under new identities.

Flag states and coastal states should require that all large fishing vessels have permanent, unique identifiers--specifically, one administered by the International Maritime Organization. An IMO number is essentially a serial number, like a vessel fingerprint that is assigned to a boat until it is scrapped, and can reveal a ship's real identity--including its owner and where it is licensed to fish.

Coordinate transnational efforts: Until recently, governments faced logistical and legal nightmares in pursuing illegal fishing operators into a neighboring country's waters. Even when officials wanted to reach out for help, they often didn't know whom to call.

To help address that, Interpol in 2013 launched Project Scale, an initiative designed to improve cooperation among the agency's 190 member countries to stop fisheries crimes.

Since the project's launch, Interpol has issued 17 Purple Notices, or alerts, on vessels engaged in illegal fishing and related crimes. Coordinated efforts by the agency and its member countries helped set the stage for the sinking of the notorious illegal fishing vessel Thunder on April 6, 2015, in the waters off West Africa. All Interpol member countries with a stake in marine fishing should be encouraged to coordinate and communicate through Project Scale.

Leverage technology to monitor the ocean: Traditionally, finding and chasing illegal fishermen on the water was expensive, dangerous, and often futile. Conducting the same operations via satellite is efficient, safe, and effective. Project Eyes on the Seas, a collaboration between The Pew Charitable Trusts and the British firm Satellite Applications Catapult, uses satellites to pinpoint a ship's location and heading, and overlays the data with other information, including a vessel's history of compliance with the law. That can help fisheries analysts determine--in near real time--whether a vessel is likely to be engaged in questionable activity.

Among governments that have used this system are the United Kingdom, Palau, and countries in the Polynesian Leaders Group, including Niue, the Cook Islands, Tonga, and Samoa. More governments should consider Eyes on the Seas as a tool to reduce illegal fishing in their waters.

Other initiatives are shining a spotlight on criminal fishing operations, including the European Commission's system of first warning countries that support lawbreaking, and then banning their seafood imports. Also, countries are using regional partnerships in southeastern Africa, Central America, and the Pacific islands to share resources and information to detect illegal fishermen and keep them out of their collective waters.

Together, these mechanisms can expose unlawful operators and close off their opportunities for selling stolen fish. That could make life so difficult for the offenders that they hang up their nets and hooks, once and for all.

Tony Long leads The Pew Charitable Trusts' work to end illegal fishing worldwide.

-- 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

1471456972000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdavid-helvarg%2Fan-ocean-policy-for-the-n_b_11485696.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
An Ocean Policy For The Next President (Whoever She May Be)
As I've reported in Sierra magazine, thirty-three years ago, President Ronald Reagan established the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), stretching 200 miles out from our shores. At 3.4 million square miles, it's more extensive than our continental landmass. But unlike our lands, our public seas belong to all of us, and right now they are in trouble. The ocean is at risk from a cascading series of environmental disasters including industrial overfishing, pollution, loss of coastal and offshore habitats, and climate change. Faced with these threats, it's hard to fathom why this crisis in our seas has received no attention in the 2016 presidential campaigns. Hillary Clinton has pledged not to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean or off the Atlantic coast but has no position on the Gulf of Mexico, where 17 percent of domestic oil production takes place. By calling the science of climate change a hoax, Donald Trump has made it clear that he'd be unlikely to address climate-linked ocean threats such as sea level rise, ocean acidification, and harmful algae blooms intensified by warming ocean waters--such as we're now seeing on the coasts of Florida.

Yet there are commonsense steps the next president could and should take to help restore the blue in our red, white, and blue.

The next president should expand on the modest National Ocean Policy initiated by President Barack Obama in the wake of the BP blowout disaster. Ideally the new policy would eliminate federal agency conflicts and redundancy in ocean management. It would combine the best available science with public input to identify how to better utilize limited ocean spaces. Some examples might include relocating shipping lanes to reduce ship strikes on migrating whales, choosing offshore wind farm and aquaculture sites so they don't impact local fishing grounds, and protecting unique marine habitats and wildlife while also maintaining naval warfare training zones and fiber-optic cable laying. Former U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Thad Allen describes this as "putting urban planning in the water column."

The next administration should also continue to promote best fisheries and aquaculture management practices to sustain living resources and the jobs that go with them. Since its conservation-oriented reforms in 2006, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Act has seen two-thirds of U.S. overfished stocks rebuilt or improved. As they recover, there is increased political and commercial pressure to go back to over-exploiting the resource. When the act comes up for reauthorization this year, it should be strengthened--not undermined--so that the United States can remain a leader in reducing global fishing pressure.

The United States also needs to continue to lead in the fight against illegal, unregulated, and unreported (IUU) pirate fishing, which accounts for up to a third of fish caught and also often involves the use of slave labor. Last year, the largest citizen lobby for ocean conservation in U.S. history successfully lobbied for passage of a bipartisan IUU Fishing Enforcement Act, which, among other things, will allow better remote tracking and seizure of pirate vessels when they pull into ports. A similar citizen lobby will take place this spring as part of a biennial Blue Vision Summit.

America needs to create more fully protected marine reserves. This will build on the early work of Presidents Clinton and Bush, who protected the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument off Hawaii (an area larger than all national parks combined), and Presidents Bush and Obama, who established and expanded the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument. The next administration should also follow Secretary of State John Kerry's lead in supporting the global effort now underway to create additional large-scale marine reserves, including on the high seas and in the polar seas. These types of marine-protected areas can act as global reserves of the biodiversity that provide us food, storm protection, recreation, and tourism.

We can begin to fight the threat of ocean acidification with better monitoring to identify and manage hot spots, by reducing land-based pollution that can exacerbate the problem, and by finding ways to enhance marine organisms' abilities to adapt. But really the only significant solution is to commit to a rapid end to the emission of greenhouse gases. Ocean acidification is one of the greatest threats almost no one knows about. It's the result of seawater absorbing surplus carbon dioxide, which is changing the Ph balance of the ocean and threatening every shell-forming creature--from certain planktons to coral polyps to crabs to oysters. It is already affecting commercial oyster farm operations and coral reefs. A warmer, more acidic ocean also holds less dissolved oxygen that threatens to expand over 500 dead zones around the world.

With an estimated six feet or more of sea level rise expected this century, we also need to protect at-risk coastal populations through better shoreline management. Instead of building next to the water, we need to make a major investment in the restoration of natural barriers such as salt marshes and beach dunes. And we need to encourage planned retreat by not using federal subsidies to rebuild in harm's way on barrier beaches and in flood zones after major disasters.
Given all these impacts and more, the need for a rapid transition off fossil fuels is obvious. We should start by eliminating the dirtiest, most dangerous production systems. Along with stopping coal and tar sand mining, we should commit to ending all offshore oil drilling in the next eight years.

And of course there are other challenges. Where new technologies like deep-sea mining threaten to disrupt unique benthic ecosystems, we should adapt the precautionary principle and make policy based on doing the least harm, which may include refusing to license this technology.

Because plastic pollution of the ocean kills wildlife and concentrates toxins through the food web, the EPA needs to seriously consider identifying a range of plastics as toxic substances to be banned or tightly controlled so we can start to transition off of single-use plastic.

Noise pollution is another emerging issue. NOAA has just launched a plan to require noise reduction from shipping, the offshore oil industry, and other sources. We can learn a lot from the U.S. Navy's submarine force, known as "the silent service," when it comes to adopting noise control technology.

Ideally the United States ought to consider a unified Department of the Ocean similar to the Department of the Interior, which was created to manage our last great wilderness frontier. Right now ocean governance is spread across 22 federal agencies. The new Department of the Ocean could be made up of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for science and policy and the U.S. Coast Guard for operations and law enforcement.

Short of that, we need to provide these two frontline agencies with much more robust funding and legally mandated opportunities for the conservation, exploration, and protection of our ocean. When it comes to ocean challenges, we know what the solutions are. What we need is to mobilize the political will to enact them before it's too late.

-- 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

1471456968000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fskye-cooley%2Fthe-flood-of-2016-southeast-louisiana-the-consequences_b_11570046.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
The Flood Of 2016: Southeast Louisiana And The Consequences Of Real Community

My younger brother, who as I write this is on his way to Baton Rouge to help flood victims, and I spent the better part of this last week doing two things: monitoring Louisiana State University flood maps and exchanging irritated text messages at how little national media attention was being given to the devastation occurring in our home state. Between August 12 and 14, four trillion gallons of rain fell, 11 river gauges in southeast Louisiana set all time record highs, 20,000 people had to be rescued, 10,000 people have been put in shelters, and a number of souls lost their lives. In my hometown of Denham Springs, roughly 90 percent of the people living there have flood damage to their homes. The flood is historic, tragic, and hard to conceptualize. Quiet little suburban towns that few people outside of Baton Rouge have ever even heard of became lakes of rainwater and debris almost in an instant. Conversations went from what clothes children would wear on the first day of school, to what the basic items of survival were for a family with small children.

Through it all, media coverage was so lacking that people living outside of the immediate area resorted to social media sites to updates themselves on what was happening in the area; using uploaded videos, pictures, and posts to piece together events and timelines, the pathways of the moving water, and how long the crisis would last. As cellular service failed, power went out across town after town, and families scrambled to find shelter, secure rescue, and just survive…news media coverage was virtually silent. A number of very good articles have been written about why, mostly speaking on the fact that the flood did not fit the narrative of entertainment the news media requires in order to garner coverage. The few articles that complain on the lack of national media coverage all have the same goal in mind… to get more media coverage on the event so that the scope of the tragedy can be known and help given to those people in need.

To accomplish this, they focus on the scope of the tragedy itself; as I resorted to earlier in this piece. In order to achieve the goal of coverage, those of us who care about the heartbreak in southeast Louisiana are forced to package it in those narrative frames of entertainment and historic loss in order to get anyone to care… and that to me is the larger tragedy. The tragedy is that strong, loving, cohesive communities, because of their strength and resilience, cannot be celebrated and assisted at the same time. That in order to be worthy of attention the very fabric of societal order has to have been sheered away; news media requires scenes that look like a zombie apocalypse, not scores of hometown heroes trying their best to rescue one another.

In these communities, families who lost everything feel guilty for letting someone give them money for a warm meal, because others have lost more. Neighbors organize care packages for people in the “devastated areas,” while floodwaters seep into their homes. Friends let friends of friends, and complete strangers off the street, sleep in their beds and on their couches because they have a place that is dry and some room to spare. People wait anxiously for the water to subside so that they can go and help their friends rebuild. Former high school classmates put up online lists of people to locate one another, connect with one another, and share supplies. The local fisherman run rescue missions through streets that have become rivers to rescue families stranded on rooftops and trapped on highways; forming a “Cajun Navy” of volunteers. And former residents travel from cities like Chicago and D.C., taking vacation days from work, to make sure longtime friends have someone there to help them remove the water-soaked sheetrock from their house.

No stories of looting, no stories of riots, no devolving of society to the lowest forms of humanity…instead a tragedy that has brought out the best in friends, family, and neighbors; people who help others before they help themselves…who see the assistance of others as an assistance of self.

Rather than reward that with aid and bringing the full force of our collective national attention to examples of what resilient and strong American communities look like when challenged…these communities are ignored and left to fend for themselves…simply because they can. The consequence of being a strong community is that your tragedy is not mentioned in national news, your strength uncelebrated, and your needs unmet unless they can be met through your own resilience. Humility and selflessly helping others does not fit the script of our news media… that is more of a tragedy than any flood.

For those looking for ways to help, please see the following:

“How To Help Victims Of Louisiana Floods”

HealingPlace Church

-- 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

1471456966000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmatthew-spiegl%2Froot-canal-seaworld-gets-drilled-in-new-killer-whale_b_11569358.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Root Canal: SeaWorld Gets Drilled In New Killer Whale Teeth Report

SeaWorld's CEO Joel Manby has been all smiles since he and Wayne Pacelle, CEO of The Humane Society of the United States announced that their organizations had reached an agreement to end the captive breeding of killer whales at SeaWorld's parks in California, Texas and Florida along with the six killer whales under SeaWorld's care at Loro Parque in Spain. But when it comes to the killer whales themselves, they're not smiling because there is something missing - their teeth.

Dentition as a Welfare Indicator

Do you remember going to the dentist as a child for a checkup? Do you remember how happy you were if you didn't have any cavities? Do you remember the sound of the dentist's drill when you did?

A new report from the Free Morgan Foundation (FMF) examines the condition of killer whale teeth as a measure of their welfare in captivity. The report, Ongoing concerns regarding the SeaWorld orca held at Loro Parque, Tenerife, Spain provides extensive photographic documentation that chronicles the dentition of the six killer whales in SeaWorld's care at Loro Parque. Based on the report, it appears that cavities are the least of their problems.

The authors of the report, Dr. Ingrid Visser and Rosina Lisker, visited Loro Parque in April of this year where they observed and photographed the killer whales over a period of three days. During their visit, Visser & Lisker received personal assurances by Dr. Javier Almunia of the Loro Parque Fundación and two Loro Parque veterinarians, that there were no health problems with the killer whales.

When specifically asked about the wild-born female Morgan, the authors were told she had no broken teeth:

“All three employees denied that Morgan had any broken teeth. Subsequent to the authors' visit, on 28 April 2016, Loro Parque posted on their official website blog the following text; “Dr. Visser asked about Morgan's broken teeth, and the veterinarian staff confirmed that Morgan does not have broken teeth just abrasion in [sic] some of them.” [emphasis added].” (Visser & Lisker at p. 16.)

The photographic evidence collected by Visser & Lisker, however, adds to the growing stack of documentation regarding welfare issues facing the killer whales held in that facility.

Morgan is of particular concern to Visser & Lisker because during her time in captivity beginning at Dolfinarium Harderwijk in 23 June 2010 and then at Loro Parque since 29 November 2011, she has suffered significant, progressive dental distress that would not have occurred had she been returned back to the ocean following her rehabilitation:

According to the authors, in 3 years, 10 months, 10 days, Morgan went from 0% severe damage of her right mandibular teeth to 75%. The report goes on to calculate that between 41.66% and 75% of the mandibular (lower jaw) teeth were moderately or severely damaged among the six killer whales observed at Loro Parque.

Drilling and Flushing Superior Dental Care?

Drilling and daily flushing of killer whale teeth is portrayed as ‘superior dental care' by Seaworld. But is it really? I asked former SeaWorld trainer John Jett Ph.D. to describe the daily dental care of killer whales from a trainer's perspective:

“We used a variable-speed drill, with a stainless drill bit that was disinfected with betadine prior to the drilling procedure. It was a Dremel brand drill like you can buy at a hardware store. The holes were flushed using a Waterpik filled with betadine. We would receive cases of 1,000mL bags of betadine from the animal care department, which we would cut with scissors and pour into the Waterpik basin in preparation for tooth flushes.” (John Jett Ph.D. July 2016)

Another former SeaWorld trainer, Jeffrey Ventre MD, gives further detail about pulpotomies, tooth flushing and the health impacts of dentition of killer whales in captivity in this video:

Five Freedoms

The welfare issues at Loro Parque extend far beyond the killer whales teeth. Visser & Lisker also asses the welfare of the killer whales through an analysis and discussion of the physical conditions at Loro Parque with respect to the ‘Five Freedoms' of animal welfare:

FREEDOM FROM HUNGER AND THIRST.
FREEDOM FROM DISCOMFORT.
FREEDOM FROM PAIN, INJURY OR DISEASE.
FREEDOM TO EXPRESS NORMAL BEHAVIOR.
FREEDOM FROM FEAR AND DISTRESS.

These standards are internationally recognized as providing the absolute minimal requirement for an animal's physical and mental well-being.

In the report, Visser & Lisker document violations of four of the ‘five freedoms' of the killer whale's welfare at Loro Parque. Their report also meticulously documents 23 violations of animal welfare standards affecting the killer whales at Loro Parque using the C-Well® welfare standards. (Visser & Lisker at p. 33.)

SeaWorld and the Humane Society

Wayne Pacelle is the CEO of HSUS, a position he has held since 2004.
Six years after he began working in that position, in November 2010, his organization wrote a letter to the US Government highlighting the animal welfare violations at Loro Parque. HSUS requested that the US Government act according to the letter of comity provision (the legal principle that nations will mutually recognize and respect each other's laws) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). They requested to have the SeaWorld killer whales seized and repatriated back to the United States:

“Therefore, it is imperative that NMFS and APHIS undertake an immediate investigation and make an official finding as to Loro Parque's non-compliance so that NMFS can take action to seize the orcas or work with SeaWorld to arrange for their repatriation to the United States.” (HSUS letter 11 November 2010.)

The revelations in the Visser & Lisker (2016) report are stark and startling and reaffirm the validity of the HSUS welfare concerns raised in November 2010 about SeaWorld's killer whales at Loro Parque.

This new report by the FMF has also been submitted to representatives of the US National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Protected Resources
as a not so subtle reminder that it cannot wash its hands of responsibility for monitoring the conditions of the killer whales at Loro Parque through feigned ignorance and denial of readily verifiable facts and observable conditions.

The fact that SeaWorld keeps six of its claimed twenty-nine killer whales at an off-shore facility is a detail that is often overlooked, yet these individuals represent approximately 20 percent of SeaWorld's entire killer whale collection.

Although Loro Parque is not owned by SeaWorld, the killer whales held there are ultimately under the care and responsibility of SeaWorld. Furthermore, as a consequence of the original transfer of four SeaWorld killer whales to Loro Parque in 2006, there is also a responsibility of the US Government pursuant to the MMPA to pay attention to the welfare conditions of the killer whales held at Loro Parque today. (See the FMF white paper on whale laundering.)

On 17 March 2016, SeaWorld and HSUS made an announcement - in partnership - that shook the very foundation of the marine theme park industry, setting in motion the beginning of a gradual phasing out of the commercial display of killer whales in captivity. But is that enough?

The HSUS policy position regarding SeaWorld's killer whales at Loro Parque as expressed to the US Government in 2010 was powerful, principled and represented the humane mandate for the welfare of the killer whales, and of all animals, that the HSUS represents. It is a position that SeaWorld needs to fully embrace.

“SeaWorld has a moral and legal obligation to these animals and must act to secure their welfare. “ (HSUS letter 11 November 2010.)

Whether the HSUS partnership with SeaWorld will result in a softening of HSUS's stance on the deplorable welfare conditions that continue to plague the killer whales at Loro Parque is uncertain. No doubt, it is an important question that will have to be answered by HSUS - preferably with actions rather than words.

To that end, the FMF sent an “open letter” to Mr. Manby and Mr. Pacelle asking them to meet with the FMF regarding the situation at Loro Parque and to discuss a long term commitment to work together to return Morgan to the ocean in a controlled, natural environment. To date, neither Mr. Manby or Mr. Pacelle have responded to the FMF invitation to talk.

Morgan as Her Own Best Advocate

Ever since being taken from the wild in 2010, Morgan has commanded the public's interest in an international spotlight. Over the course of the last several months, Morgan's plight has increased public awareness and outrage over the welfare issues facing her and other killer whales in captivity.

Two recent viral videos show Morgan ramming her head into a heavy metal segregation gate while being confined in a small medical tank and also show her “hauling-out” onto the main performance stage for an extended period after a performance. This was apparently in an attempt to escape the aggression of SeaWorld's other killer whales who are also held with Morgan at Loro Parque.

The stories of these two events spread across social media and received mainstream coverage, including National Geographic, Time, People, The Dodo, HuffPost UK, and in this exclusive television interview with former SeaWorld trainer Dr Jeffrey Ventre on Sky News with Kay Burley.

For their part, SeaWorld and Loro Parque have gone to great efforts to try to spin the story about Morgan, claiming that she is healthy and doing well in captivity and that the recent videos show normal behavior. However, in fact, they are quite alarming and such a response underscores the paradox of perception by those who want to continue to profit from the captivity of these sentient beings and those who wish to put an end to it.

The Visser & Lisker report draws attention to the clear and obvious issues of Morgan's teeth and explains why the damage is due to confinement in a concrete tank. This report and Morgan's plight continues to gain international attention with new in-depth articles about Morgan appearing in the Dutch news magazine Vrij Nederland and German newspaper Donaukurier in August.

Pain Relief?

The images of the killer whales teeth in the report speak for themselves.
They are graphic, indisputable and universally recognizable as “painful” to any person who has had a cavity, chipped, broken or lost a tooth, or had a tooth drilled by a dentist.

These latest revelations about SeaWorld's killer whales has the potential to take yet another bite out of the bottom line of the struggling marine theme park industry as it continues to struggle with a public relations campaign, trying desperately to distance itself from the Blackfish effect.

On 4 August 2016, SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: SEAS) reported its financial results for the first half and second quarter of 2016. The results were not encouraging for investors. One analyst even suggested that SeaWorld should reinvest in the business, pinning its hopes on the addition of new roller coasters - not killer whales.

The world is rapidly changing and national and international laws and regulations and the government entities that are entrusted to enforce them, need to catch up to society's expectations and demands. What happens next is anyone's guess. But one thing is for sure, the Visser & Lisker report gives both government regulators and marine theme park executives something to chew on.

(Author's note - Matthew Spiegl serves on the Board of the Free Morgan Foundation.)

-- 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

1471452454000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fhilary-cooke%2Fthe-next-great-victory-for_b_11548886.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
The Next Great Victory For Birds
One hundred years ago, Canada and the United States signed the historic Migratory Bird Treaty to protect birds from indiscriminate slaughter for food and fashion markets. Millions of birds were killed each year and few species were spared, including unlikely ones such as robins, bobolinks, and meadowlarks, as well as egrets, herons, shorebirds, ducks, and grouse. Bird populations dwindled, spurring one of the earliest conservation crises and a historic agreement between two countries.

Millions of birds like the Great blue heron were slaughtered annually for fashion markets. By 1910, populations had crashed and plumes were worth more than their weight in gold. Photo credit: ©Jukka Jantunen.

The Migratory Bird Treaty, signed on August 16th 1916, was implemented through Canadian and American federal legislation making it illegal to kill, import, export, sell, or purchase migratory birds, their nests, and eggs. Over the next century, it ushered in several critical reforms: abolition of hunting for food and fashion markets; bag and season limits on hunting game birds; new protections from pollution; and habitat protection through establishment of wildlife refuges, migratory bird sanctuaries, and stewardship initiatives.

Ratification of the Migratory Bird Treaty and subsequent conservation successes of the 20th century resulted from cooperation among hunters, naturalists, writers, scientists, industries, environmental organizations, governments, private citizens, and elected representatives.

The plumes, or aigrettes, of egrets and herons were especially prized for women's hats. Photo credit: ©W.M. Morrison.

William T. Hornaday was one of the most ferocious and relentless advocates for the protection of wild birds and the Migratory Bird Treaty. As founding director of the Bronx Zoo, operated by the newly-formed New York Zoological Society (the precursor to my current organization, the Wildlife Conservation Society, or WCS), Hornaday was uncompromising in his position. He published dramatic accounts of the extinction of several species such as Great Auk, and the presumed plight of other birds like the Great Egret if the commercial market for wild birds persisted.

When efforts were flagging, Hornaday rallied support, pushing for the expansion of proposed protected species to include most migratory birds. And when the Treaty process had apparently stalled, Hornaday tracked down a missing Canadian document to a British embassy cabinet where it had been sitting, misfiled. The treaty was signed soon after and Hornaday called it 'the greatest victory ever achieved for the birds of this continent'.

Today, WCS continues to play an important role - discovering new ways to protect myriad avian species and their habitats, leveraging partnerships with others, and inspiring people to share in our mission.

Hornaday's vivid testimonials on the fate of North American birds were part of his relentless campaign for bird protection and the Migratory Bird Treaty. From The Wild Life Call, March 1911, Number 1. Edited by William T. Hornaday, Director New York Zoological Park, ©WCS.

The Migratory Bird Treaty was crafted to protect wild birds from intentional killing for commercial markets and to recover dwindling populations. What was not anticipated when the Treaty was written was the rise of new and different forms of human activity that would result in the unintentional harm or killing of birds in the late 20th and early 21st century.

More than one-third of the 1,154 native bird species of North America are in need of urgent conservation action. Each year, billions of birds are killed and nests are lost as a direct result of human activity, including collisions with vehicles, buildings, and power lines; predation by domestic and feral cats; and, as a result of agriculture, forestry, and fishing by-catch.

A regulatory framework governing incidental death of birds under Migratory Bird legislation, combined with enforcement of existing Migratory Bird Regulations, is critical and decades overdue. But birds face other threats: habitat loss and fragmentation, pesticides, and climate change, among others. Effective recovery of all birds requires commitments to collaborate across borders and across agencies. The geography of our shared birds transcend the government systems developed to protect and manage our environment.

Lapland Longspurs migrate in the thousands along roads on their way to Arctic breeding grounds. Unfortunately, this makes them especially vulnerable to mortality from vehicle collisions. These six were among many that collided with a large truck on the Klondike Highway of the Yukon. Photo credit: Hilary Cooke/WCS Canada.

The successful cross-border partnerships initiated 100 years ago should inspire us to work even harder to identify shared values and goals while leveraging collective knowledge and capacity. Such efforts will secure a future for all North American bird species while inspiring other international collaborations on migratory birds.

Our ultimate goals should be to ensure that no bird is added to Hornaday's list of extinct species. I do not wish to end my career with regret knowing that, despite our knowledge, capacity, and tools to secure the future of North America's birds, we failed to rise to the challenge. So let us seize the opportunity of this 100th anniversary of the Migratory Bird Treaty to catalyze a new era of collaborative conservation.

-- 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

1471452449000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fbrian-hughes%2F5-environmentally-safe-actions_b_11561878.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
5 Environmentally Safe Actions That Will Increase Your Home's Value

"2016-08-17-1471427351-6404021-sustainablehomes.jpg"

Image source: PhotoDune

Sustainable building is all the rage these days, and for good reason. Climate change and the undoing of the earth's delicate ecosystem is no longer a point of conjecture. According to the EPA, "The global average temperature increased by more than 1.4°F over the last century." And "the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest on record." Global warming is a real thing. And the sooner we as a society adapt to this reality, the sooner we'll adjust the way we live to be kinder to planet earth.

I've written in the past about "Ethical consumerism." That is the idea that we can buy our way to a better version of ourselves. I would also like to suggest that ethical consumerism extends to the home you live in. In other words: the idea that green homes do less harm to the earth has marketable value. If you reside in a more progressive neighborhood, this value is even more enhanced.

Recently, the Institute for Market Transformation released a study showing a positive correlation between home energy efficiency and curb appeal. On average, high-performance homes are valued at a premium of 3.46 percent more than non-high performance homes. Some were even valued as high as 6% to 7.7% more. That equated to between $10,343 to $53,000 that buyers were willing to pay for a high-performance home over a standard performance home.

What does this mean for you, the enterprising homeowner who wants to reduce their footprint? It means that renovations designed to improve the efficiency of your home can also boost its resale value. Here're some actions to get started.

1. Get an energy audit: When you are just starting out, getting an energy audit can be a great way to identify your home's specific energy deficiencies. Plenty of private companies offer this service. The Residential Energy Services Network is a database of qualified local professionals. A comprehensive audit can be conducted within the course of an afternoon. The auditor will do a full overview of your home; checking for leaks, examining insulation, inspecting ductwork and more. After a thorough walkthrough, the auditor can make recommendations based on your home's specific needs.

If you're up for it, you can go the DIY route. Keep in mind, conducting a proper energy audit is as much science as it is an art. The best auditors have years of construction experience and have reviewed all manner of houses. An energy audit also involves crawling up into your attic and down into your basement or crawlspace. But if you love DIY home projects, then, by all means, give it a go.

2. Spend an afternoon at the hardware store: Before you tackle any of the high budget considerations for upgrading your home (see below), start with the low cost & high yield repairs and upgrades that you can do yourself. Sealing up holes in your insulation and caulking windows is a good starting point. Energy.gov has a comprehensive guide to the process of caulking. This article on energy efficiency basics provides more suggestions on sealing, insulating, and smart home integrations.

3. Install energy efficient windows: When you have windows that are not energy efficient (think "old" or "thin") your house is losing energy. Through a process called "heat transfer," hot air is always trying to equalize with cold air. That means that heat is going out in the winter and coming in during the summer, even if you don't want it to.

The most permanent and energy efficient solution to this problem is to install energy efficient windows. The Department of Energy estimates that replacing your windows with ENERGY STAR® rated windows can reduce heat loss by 10%-20%. That means it will take a lot less energy to heat and cool your home. Say hello to lower energy bills.

4. Power your home with renewable energy: Believe it or not, there are some effective alternatives if you want to power your home without polluting the environment. Depending on the state you live in, wind power, geothermal, and solar may be great options.

The easiest way to switch is to work with your utility or an independent supplier to simply choose a 100% renewable plan. Wind energy is the most common form of renewable energy offered by providers.

Choosing to place solar panels on your roof requires a greater upfront investment, but that investment pays for itself over time. The amount you save overall will depend on where you live and how much sun your panels absorb. Project sunroof offers a calculator you can use to estimate savings based on your location.

5. Upgrade your appliances: In the eloquent words of ENERGY STAR Consumer Messaging Guide for 2015 "every appliance comes with two price tags: the purchase price and the cost of operating the product." Old or inefficient appliances are a significant drain on energy usage. Upgrading them all at once can constitute a major one-time cost but can benefit you over time. Many experts rank updated appliances as the number-one home improvement project for the kitchen.

6. Read up on green home rating accreditations and get your home rated: The term "Greenwashing" refers to people (usually those interested in inflating the price of a house for sale) who falsely represent the efficiency of a home. There are rating systems that will "grade" your home for efficiency so you can legitimize your efforts to prepare for a future sale. HERS, LEED, E nergy Star, and Built Green are some of the more well-known certifying bodies. Each one of them has their defining criteria of what makes a home sustainable. Some homes have more than one certification. Once you've taken steps to move your home to a more sustainable footprint, research them to find out which one is right for you.

There's even a search engine to find certified homes for sale called Viva Green Homes. That will be useful if you'd like to do a bit of competitive analysis to determine what ratings are typical in your area.

Bottom line:

Follow these steps to transform your home into a more sustainable place. The world will thank you - so will your pocketbook.

-- 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