%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2016%2Faug%2F31%2Fsea-otters-killed-california-santa-cruz-beaches&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Shooting deaths of sea otters in California prompt investigation  

Bodies of four male sea otters, a federally protected animal whose killing can be punishable with jail time, washed up on beaches over course of eight days

Federal and state officials are investigating the shooting deaths of California sea otters, after the bodies of four male otters were found washed up on beaches near Santa Cruz.

On Monday, the US Fish and Wildlife Service announced a $10,000 reward for information that will lead to the arrest and conviction of the person responsible for fatally shooting three sea otters that were found between 12-19 August.

Continue reading...  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fcarol-browner%2Fthe-game-changer-new-york_b_11803042.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
The Game Changer: New York's Clean Energy Standard and Nuclear Energy  
For years, I've said that when it comes to the challenge of fighting climate change, we will need every tool available to reduce carbon pollution and create opportunities for new clean energy technology.

Yet, despite a world that demands more carbon-free energy - not less - public policies have left some of the tools in the toolbox. Until now.

Last month, with the help of Governor Andrew Cuomo's leadership, the New York State PSC took unprecedented action in passing a Clean Energy Standard that, in addition to ensuring ample opportunity for more wind, solar, and energy efficiency, recognizes the important role of existing carbon-free nuclear power. This is a game-changer: never before has nuclear received economic credit for its environmental benefits.

New York State is now the first government to include nuclear in its clean energy policy, providing a mechanism that will help keep New York's nuclear energy plants open. In the wake of an energy market that did not previously adequately value this power, the state faced the very real prospect of having these plants shut down.

The consequences of these shutdowns would have been dire, as New York's existing nuclear power plants provide the majority of its carbon-free power. In fact, New York's nuclear plants provide 61 percent of the state's emission-free electricity and avoid 26 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, equating to a societal value of almost $1.2 billion annually based on federal estimates.

Not only does New York recognize that meeting its own carbon reduction targets would be impossible without nuclear, achieving the carbon pollution reductions set forth in the federal Clean Power Plan would become virtually impossible in the near term. Any premature nuclear plant shutdown would represent a setback in the state reaching its clean energy goals.

The same goes for states across the country, where nuclear is the source of the bulk of our carbon-free power today. For example, in the case of the closure of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in late 2014, the plant's output was replaced by natural gas-fired generators, which produced an additional 3.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in New England in 2015.

And, a recent report issued by Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that if currently unprofitable nuclear energy plants were to shut down and were replaced with gas-fired generators, there would be an increase of 200 million tons of carbon pollution from power plants every year.

Across the country, a number of other states face the prospects of premature nuclear plant shutdowns, threatening our position as a clean energy leader. The timing couldn't be worse. The ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998. More carbon pollution will only exacerbate the problem.

Now more than ever, states should look to New York as a model as to how they can fairly value all forms of clean energy for their carbon free attributes.

Last month's news represents a meaningful step in the fight against climate change that will impact our energy policy outlook for decades to come. This is a worthwhile cause that Governor Cuomo should be acknowledged for undertaking, not only for the sake of cleaner air, but for establishing a common sense and fair policy of recognition for nuclear that ensures that nuclear power remains a vital component of our clean energy strategy for years to come.

-- 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%2Fcarol-browner%2Fthe-game-changer-new-york_b_11802988.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
The Game Changer: New York's Clean Energy Standard and Nuclear Energy  
For years, I've said that when it comes to the challenge of fighting climate change, we will need every tool available to reduce carbon pollution and create opportunities for new clean energy technology.

Yet, despite a world that demands more carbon-free energy - not less - public policies have left some of the tools in the toolbox. Until now.

In August, with the help of Governor Andrew Cuomo's leadership, the New York State PSC took unprecedented action in passing a Clean Energy Standard that, in addition to ensuring ample opportunity for more wind, solar, and energy efficiency, recognizes the important role of existing carbon-free nuclear power. This is a game-changer: never before has nuclear received economic credit for its environmental benefits.

New York State is now the first government to include nuclear in its clean energy policy, providing a mechanism that will help keep New York's nuclear energy plants open. In the wake of an energy market that did not previously adequately value this power, the state faced the very real prospect of having these plants shut down.

The consequences of these shutdowns would have been dire, as New York's existing nuclear power plants provide the majority of its carbon-free power. In fact, New York's nuclear plants provide 61 percent of the state's emission-free electricity and avoid 26 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, equating to a societal value of almost $1.2 billion annually based on federal estimates.

Not only does New York recognize that meeting its own carbon reduction targets would be impossible without nuclear, achieving the carbon pollution reductions set forth in the federal Clean Power Plan would become virtually impossible in the near term. Any premature nuclear plant shutdown would represent a setback in the state reaching its clean energy goals.

The same goes for states across the country, where nuclear is the source of the bulk of our carbon-free power today. For example, in the case of the closure of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in late 2014, the plant's output was replaced by natural gas-fired generators, which produced an additional 3.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in New England in 2015.

And, a recent report issued by Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that if currently unprofitable nuclear energy plants were to shut down and were replaced with gas-fired generators, there would be an increase of 200 million tons of carbon pollution from power plants every year.

Across the country, a number of other states face the prospects of premature nuclear plant shutdowns, threatening our position as a clean energy leader. The timing couldn't be worse. The ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998. More carbon pollution will only exacerbate the problem.

Now more than ever, states should look to New York as a model as to how they can fairly value all forms of clean energy for their carbon free attributes.

Last month's news represents a meaningful step in the fight against climate change that will impact our energy policy outlook for decades to come. This is a worthwhile cause that Governor Cuomo should be acknowledged for undertaking, not only for the sake of cleaner air, but for establishing a common sense and fair policy of recognition for nuclear that ensures that nuclear power remains a vital component of our clean energy strategy for years to come.

-- 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%2Fhung-vo%2Fthe-world-is-completely_b_11786892.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
The World Is Completely Urbanized  
In 2008, the United Nations declared that the world passed an unprecedented, but silent, benchmark: for the first time in history, the world is more urban than it is rural. This event had been anticipated for some time and was subject to constant academic reference in support of an "urban age" thesis. This conceptualization has been used in support of "city growth" and to justify the dominance of the city -- simultaneously conceptualized as the urban -- over other geographies and settlement types. In more recent years, this topic has been revisited by critical urban theorist Neil Brenner, Professor of Urban Theory at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. Contrary to popular beliefs, Brenner argues that the world has been completely urbanized and warns of the danger in fetishizing "cityness."

Brenner and his colleague, Christian Schmid, have already deconstructed the flawed methodologies deployed by United Nations demographers to quantify the global urban population in an earlier publication. These demographers rely on UN Member States to individually report data on its population, which vary greatly by country. Mexico and China could have different urban populations depending on which official methods were used. Meanwhile, in India, an urban area has to satisfy these requirements:

i. A minimum population of 5,000
ii. At least 75 percent of the male main working population engaged in non-agricultural pursuits;
iii. A density of population of at least 400 persons per sq. km.

Not considering these practices, the natural inconsistency of UN Member States' reporting also raises questions over the accuracy of our urban age. UN reports could use data from Member States that can be nearly a decade old. If this is the case, what use does this narrative have in framing our decision-making at the local, state and global level, when the data is epistemologically and methodologically flawed in a way that makes international comparisons meaningless? Meanwhile, equating "urban" with "city" is problematic because it suggests that once a city's administrative boundary ends, the area is suddenly non-urban. This is only useful for planners to demarcate a line where services to a city's electricity, plumbing, water and the like become unavailable to developers wanting to build outside this border.

In his new piece titled "The Hinterland, Urbanised?", Brenner contends that the "capitalist form of urbanization continues to produce contextually specific patterns of agglomeration, but it also relentlessly transforms non-city spaces into zones of high-intensity, large-scale industrial infrastructure -- operational landscape." Because these landscapes lie outside our commonly perceived "urban" and beyond our immediate view in a conceptual "outside" or "blind field", it has subsequently evaded our attention and critical inspection. These sites range from deforested areas in Mato Grosso, Brazil, to phosphate mining pits in central Florida, to desert-agro-industrial infrastructures in Saudi Arabia. Brenner says "spaces of the non-city have been continuously operationalised in support of city-building processes throughout the global history of capitalist uneven development." These urban areas, which can be found throughout the world, even in "extreme territories", reflect a global or planetary urban phenomenon.


Image of a phosphate mining pit in Florida in 2011. USGS snapshot.

Brenner's investigation of contemporary urban conditions raises critical questions about the nature of our urban world from epistemological, pedagogical, and practical dimensions. If the entire world is urbanized in varying scales across the globe, how can planners and decision-makers respond to these changing geographies and develop comprehensive action plans? Surely the roles and responsibilities of managing these operational landscapes do not end with a city's administrative boundaries. Are state and national governments equipped with the professional knowledge and are in a position to ethically manage these sites?

The recent protests organized by the Sioux tribe to halt the construction of a $3.8 billion crude oil pipeline project in North Dakota clearly demonstrates the need for new forms of collaborative and participatory governance to curve the negative impacts of capitalist urbanization. The severity of the urban condition could be ascertained through taking a brief glance at the following map representing the various oil and gas pipelines in the United States. If complex and dense infrastructures are commonly associated with urban areas, wouldn't these expensive pipelines constitute those structures, too, and suggest large-scale "urban-ness"? This is just one of the many visualizations of our extensive urban framework--think about the effects when multiple layers of infrastructures and conditions, such as air pollution, are layered upon one another.


Image of gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines in the US. NPMS

It is clear that the world is more urban than commonly understood, or even completely in varying degrees. Decision-makers and planners must work in an open, democratic, and participatory manner to engage citizens in the development and management of these operational landscapes; otherwise, we will continue to allow "the silent violence of accumulation by dispossession and environmental destruction in the world's hinterlands and operational landscape." For aspiring planners (broadly defined) like myself, how can we re-imagine or fantasize about an alternate, more equitable and sustainable reality for these landscapes?

With the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development (Habitat III) just around the corner, the urban--as more narrowly conceived by the global community--is entering the forefront of national and international agendas. The international community needs to leverage this opportunity to more critically examine our existing and emergent urban conditions in an effort to ameliorate the urban condition and honor the spirit and commitment of Agenda 2030, by "transforming our world".

-- 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%2Fmg23130893-300-court-rules-in-favour-of-queensland-megamine%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Court rules in favour of Queensland mega-mine  
Australia's federal court has rejected a bid to block a giant coal mine in central Queensland that could harm the Great Barrier Reef  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmarc-bekoff%2Fa-new-book-called-cat-wars-calls-for-killing-all_b_11801966.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
A New Book Called 'Cat Wars' Calls For Killing Free-Ranging Cats  

Cat Wars calls for a massive assault on all free-ranging cats

“From a conservation ecology perspective, the most desirable solution seems clear—remove all free-ranging cats from the landscape by any means necessary.” (Cat Wars, pp. 152-153)

In the process of writing about an on-going war on wolves (please see, for example, “Defenders of Wildlife Supports Killing Wolves: Livestock Win,” “Defenders of Wildlife = Defenders of Livestock? Why Do They Support Killing Wolves in Washington?”, and links therein), I received a new book by bird advocate Dr. Peter Marra, head of the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, and writer Chris Santella, called Cat Wars: The Devastating Consequences of a Cuddly Killer.

Along with numerous other people, I've been wondering when killing “in the name of conservation” is going to stop. Some people think it's simply business as usual, and there aren't any workable non-lethal humane alternatives. Killing members of one species to save others of their species, or killing individuals of one species to save individuals of another species, is all well and good and that's the way it is. Some people say they don't like the killing but don't do much to stop it. Our human-dominated world presents numerous frustrating and complicated challenges. We're living in an epoch called the Anthropocene, the “age of humanity.” We're all over the place ― here, there, and everywhere ― and we're the cause for the unprecedented loss of other animals, their homes, and destructive climate change. Actually, we're living in the “rage of inhumanity” because there are far too many of us and we think we're the only show in town. 

The move from wolves to cats was dishearteningly seamless. Simply put, the authors of Cat Wars are confirmed bird advocates and activists and foes of all free-ranging cats. To wit, their book calls for a no holds barred, one-sided war on cats, in which the authors conclude, “From a conservation ecology perspective, the most desirable solution seems clear—remove all free-ranging cats from the landscape by any means necessary.” (pp. 152-153; please click here for information on the phrase “by any means necessary”). The authors use the phrase “free-ranging” to refer to feral, outdoor, and community cats.

Many of the topics they consider need to be discussed under the general umbrella centering on the ethics of pet keeping, a topic considered in detail by Psychology Today writer Dr. Jessica Pierce in her book called Run, Spot, Run: The Ethics of Keeping Pets (for an interview with Dr. Pierce please see “Are You Ready to Give Another Animal the Best Life Possible?). 

Clearly, the authors are not advocating removing free-ranging cats softly, nor are they advocating any form of euthanasia or mercy killing. Rather, they are advocating outright and unregulated removal “by any means necessary.” When I asked some people what this meant to them, answers ranged from trapping, snaring, poisoning, bludgeoning, and shooting. A number of people feared we would see violence “in the name of science.”

Lest anyone say that these are hysterical responses, one only has to read the very words that Marra and Santella wrote. It's not asking too much from people to write what they mean, and although the authors surely read through their manuscript many times as did reviewers and editors, the phrase “by any means necessary” remains. Cats are vilified and no attention is paid to the emotional lives of these sentient beings. 

Even those who endorsed this book can't agree on what it's actually all about. The comments on the back cover range all over the place. For example, Jonathan Franzen calls the book a “compassionate handling of a highly fraught issue,” Ted Williams sees it as a “dispassionate examination of America's free-ranging cat debacle,” whereas Scott Weidensaul claims the authors offer “commonsense solutions to one of the most polarizing issues in avian conservation.” It seems as if they didn't read the same book. In my opinion, this book is thoroughly dispassionate, and I shudder when I think that the call for an all out war on free-ranging cats “by any means necessary” could refer to anything that could possibly be called “compassionate handling” or “commonsense solutions.”

Collateral damage: In addition, the authors don't seem to care much about what's called “collateral damage,” the harming and killing of non-target species. Some of the methods of removing they sanction are incredibly non-selective and it will not only be free-ranging cats who are harmed and killed. I'm sure dogs and as well as other animals, including cats who escape the confines of their home, will be among the slaughtered. 

What Cat Wars is all about

The phrase “by any means necessary” is among the most reprehensible statements I've ever seen, and of course, in addition to it being morally repugnant, it is not based on science and it won't work. And, think about the horrific lesson it offers to youngsters. The authors totally ignore the cognitive and emotional lives of cats, and view them as mere disposable objects. I'm glad I'm not their dog, and I'm surely glad I'm not their cat. The suggestion to wage war on free-ranging cats essentially lays out what this sensationalist, fear-mongering, and one-sided book is all about. I suppose one might congratulate the authors for being so transparent about their dismissive attitude.

The description for Cat Wars, published by a prestigious university press, reads:

In 1894, a lighthouse keeper named David Lyall arrived on Stephens Island off New Zealand with a cat named Tibbles. In just over a year, the Stephens Island Wren, a rare bird endemic to the island, was rendered extinct. Mounting scientific evidence confirms what many conservationists have suspected for some time―that in the United States alone, free-ranging cats are killing birds and other animals by the billions. Equally alarming are the little-known but potentially devastating public health consequences of rabies and parasitic Toxoplasma passing from cats to humans at rising rates. Cat Wars tells the story of the threats free-ranging cats pose to biodiversity and public health throughout the world, and sheds new light on the controversies surrounding the management of the explosion of these cat populations.

This compelling book traces the historical and cultural ties between humans and cats from early domestication to the current boom in pet ownership, along the way accessibly explaining the science of extinction, population modeling, and feline diseases. It charts the developments that have led to our present impasse―from Stan Temple's breakthrough studies on cat predation in Wisconsin to cat-eradication programs underway in Australia today. It describes how a small but vocal minority of cat advocates has campaigned successfully for no action in much the same way that special interest groups have stymied attempts to curtail smoking and climate change. 

Cat Wars paints a revealing picture of a complex global problem―and proposes solutions that foresee a time when wildlife and humans are no longer vulnerable to the impacts of free-ranging cats. 

It's difficult for me to figure out why Princeton University Press would publish this book, not because it calls for a repulsive and outright war on cats, but rather because it lacks the scientific rigor that characterizes numerous other books they've published.

“Cat people” versus “bird people”: A false dichotomy

Early in Cat Wars there is a rather insidious attack on pro-cat people as not caring about the environment and wildlife, which is most likely completely untrue. On page 28 we read, “More and more people are valuing birds and swelling the ranks of bird-watchers. Likewise, there are more cat owners in America now than at any time in history. But far fewer people, it seems, can summon affection for both cats and wildlife—and empathy for those they perceive to be on the ‘other side.' As each side has swelled in numbers, the stage has been set for ‘bird people and ‘cat people' to square off, forgetting, perhaps, that they are all animal lovers in the first place.” 

It's hard to imagine that people who favor removing free-ranging cats “by any means necessary” truly love them. When I hear this I always say, “I'm glad they don't love me.” Yet, in another essay, we're told that Dr. Marra claims to like cats.

Along these lines, the third chapter of this book is called “The Rise of Bird Lovers and Cat Lovers: The Perfect Storm.” This chapter is the authors' interpretation (read: “skewed”) of the history of “bird lovers” and “cat lovers.” It concludes by saying that “Many cat advocates will aggressively contest the damage that free-ranging felines inflict upon bird populations. They will likewise deny the diseases that free-ranging cats spread to other mammals and even humans. But their hearsay and denials pale in the light of evidence of cat impacts on islands and the emerging hard science on their impacts on mainlands.” Again, the myth is repeated and developed that cat advocates are misguided, dangerous, and delusional people. 

In chapter 4, titled “The Science of Decline,” the authors write, “After forty-five years of bird population decline, it seems obvious that our currently available legal instruments are failing.” (p. 55) It recognizes that human activities are “largely responsible for the declines of bird species” (p. 56) and it is “difficult to identify with any precision the relative impact of a mortality factor, such as the free-ranging cat, to all birds that make these journeys over such large spatial areas and wide expanses of time—and most bird species (>75 percent) in North America migrate!” (my emphasis; p. 57) This comment hardly supports the authors' thesis that cats are responsible for a significant number of bird deaths.

The authors then go on to write about cats as dangerous vectors for disease (Chapter 5 is called “The Zombie Maker: Cats as Agents of Disease”), and they conclude, “Free-ranging cats clearly pose a significant threat to a number of wild animals … [the] solution is to remove them—once and for all—from the landscape.” (p. 94)

They also completely discount the use of Trap-Neuter Return (TNR) programs in their chapter 6 called “Trap-Neuter-Return: A Palatable Solution That Is No Solution At All.” For more on TNR programs please see “Key Scientific Studies on Trap-Neuter-Return” and “Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population” in which it is concluded, “A comprehensive long-term program of neutering followed by adoption or return to the resident colony can result in reduction of free-roaming cat populations in urban areas.”

Is the public really “blissfully unaware?”

In chapter 8 titled “A Landscape with Fewer Free-Ranging Cats: Better for Cats, Better for Birds, Better for People” we read, “From a conservation ecology perspective, the most desirable solution seems clear—remove all free-ranging cats from the landscape by any means necessary.” (p. 152-153) Any means possible, of course, opens the door for killing cats using incredibly brutal methods. In addition, the public is blamed for being “blissfully unaware” of the significance of the problems at hand (p. 153). 

In this chapter we also read, “Perhaps the greatest obstacle to convincing humans to take greater responsibility for their pets and act more responsibly on behalf of their environment and the health of the greater society is the growing ignorance and indifference about the natural world.” (p. 166) This is a most insulting charge for which these authors offer absolutely no scientific support at all. It's just more blaming a public that is supposedly “blissfully unaware.” 

Here are a few more snippets:

“It is abundantly clear that free-ranging cats are not the primary threat to the future of birds and other wildlife. Habitat destruction, climate change, and pollution all come to bear on the well-being of wildlife populations; if we as a society hope to maintain these species for future generations, we need to act on all fronts to stem the tide. In the same light, we must act on many different fronts to reduce the populations of free-ranging cats and reduce their impact on native animal populations, both as predators and as vectors of disease. No one solution will prove a silver bullet; only a multipronged strategy will begin to reduce the number of free-ranging cats in the wild. A landscape with no (or at least fewer) free-ranging cats is the only hope for mitigating the toll these animals take on native wildlife and diminishing the spread of disease from cats to human populations.” (p. 145-146)

“Perhaps the owners did not view the birds and mammals that fall prey to domestic cats as sentient beings but instead as playthings for their beloved companions.” (p. 149)

“There is little question that free-ranging cats—both the unowned and the owned pets allowed to roam freely outside—pose a pending ecological and public-health disaster.” (p. 170)

Note that the authors recognize the victims of cat attacks as sentient beings, but feel it's totally fine to kill other sentient beings such as the cats and other nonhumans who will fall prey to efforts to kill all free-ranging cats. 

There will be blood: A conservation problem from hell

In a previous essay called “Thousands of Cormorants to be Killed: There Will be Blood” I wrote about an excellent piece by science writer Warren Cornwall called “There Will Be Blood,” and noted it is a must read for anyone interested in keeping up with current discussions and debates about the supposed need to kill animals of one species to save those of another species. At the beginning of his essay Mr. Cornwall writes, “The pressure to reach for a gun to help save one animal from another is stronger than ever. And it has triggered a conservation problem from hell.” He's right. Mr. Cornwall also notes that the history of conservation is “tinged with blood.” For example, noted conservationists John Audubon and Aldo Leopold were quite comfortable killing members of one species to save members of another species, and so too are many conservationists nowadays.

If some people, even very few, choose to follow Marra and Santella's advice to wage war on all free-ranging cats, there will indeed be blood, and an incredible amount of pain, suffering, and death. 

What should the future of conservation look like? When will the killing stop?

Should we kill for conservation? Open discussions and debates about the vexing and daunting question that centers on asking if we should kill for conservation are much-needed as we head into a future where more and more species will become imperiled and endangered because of what we are doing to them and to their dwindling habitats. We choose to destroy their homes and then we choose to destroy them. There is something very wrong, disheartening, and disingenuous about this course of action and the ways in which we decide who lives and who dies. 

We're going to have to make difficult choices in the future, and choosing not to kill in the name of conservation is a viable option that is now on the table. Do we really want to continue the bloody history of conservation strategies? Time will tell, but times truly are changing. However, you wouldn't know this from Cat Wars. I suppose teachers could use this book as an example of “conservation gone bad” and how not to solve the problems at hand.

Important lessons from compassionate conservation

While the authors briefly mention the rapidly growing international field of compassionate conservation that can reshape conservation ethics in the Anthropocene, they totally ignore its basic tenets, namely, “First do not harm” and the life of every individual animal matters (please also see “Compassionate Conservation Meets Cecil the Slain Lion,” “Compassionate Conservation: More than “Welfarism Gone Wild”,” and “Compassionate Conservation: A Discussion from the Frontlines With Dr. Marc Bekoff”). By paying careful attention to the ways in which other conflicts have been solved without harming and killing the animals, humane and non-lethal solutions will emerge to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. An excellent place to begin to look for such examples is on the homepage for The Centre for Compassionate Conservation. 

Harness anger  into positive action: The killing of all free-ranging cats truly is a murderous experiment, is ethically indefensible, and likely won't work. Even if it did work, it's morally repugnant and shouldn't be pursued. All in all, I don't see how Cat Wars will change anyone's mind about cats, because it is so sensationalist, one-sided, and so utterly anti-cat. My brief discussion here is only the tip of the iceberg of what is covered in this misleading and sensationalist book. If you disagree, please harness your anger into positive action. 

Killing cats “in the name of science”: Readers and cats beware

On the one hand, really I didn't want to write this essay and surely didn't want to call attention to this unveiled diatribe against cats. On the other hand, I'm sure that with the title it has it will attract a good deal of attention. I hope people who choose to read Cat Wars will do so very carefully. It's sickening and disheartening in far too many places, but that's the price of admission. If you're looking for a fair and balanced account of the situation of hand, this is not the book to read. Even if you don't especially like cats, this book surely isn't “the cat's meow.” Indeed, if taken seriously, this book will lead to the loss of the wide range of vocalizations for which cats are well known as well of the lives of many other hapless and innocent individuals who are caught in the crossfire. 

Returning to the authors' stance on all free-ranging cats, please keep in mind that the authors advocate removing cats “by any means necessary” ostensibly “in the name of science.” This is a thoroughly heartless conclusion that will undoubtedly lead to horrific pain, suffering, and death not only for cats, but also for other animals, because some people surely will appeal to science and say something like, “Scientists said it's ok to do this.” It is not. 

Marc Bekoff's latest books are Jasper's Story: Saving Moon Bears (with Jill Robinson), Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation, Why Dogs Hump and Bees Get Depressed: The Fascinating Science of Animal Intelligence, Emotions, Friendship, and Conservation, Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence, and The Jane Effect: Celebrating Jane Goodall (edited with Dale Peterson). The Animals' Agenda: Freedom, Compassion, and Coexistence in the Human Age (with Jessica Pierce) will be published in early 2017. 

-- 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%2F113651095%40N05%2F28742142774%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
2 Nene are better than 1  

Smileytcs posted a photo:

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2F113651095%40N05%2F28742164994%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Nene  

Smileytcs posted a photo:

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2F2103903-ancient-rock-formations-could-be-oldest-fossils-on-the-planet%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Ancient rock formations could be oldest fossils on the planet  
Rocks in Greenland that have been preserved for 3.7 billion years show evidence of microbes living in a shallow sea on early Earth  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjoan-michelson%2Fhappy-anniversary-19th-am_b_11780622.html&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Joan Michelson: Happy Anniversary 19th Amendment! - How Have Women Voted on Energy and Environment Issues?  
Ten-year-old Ava Floro hopped into her mom's car and said, "Mommy! Today is the day that women got the right to vote!" Ava's mom, Jen Floro, a bonafide feminist with a broad, radiant smile (and, full disclosure, a good friend of mine), beamed at her spirited young daughter and said, "how did you know that, Ava?"

Read more: Vote, Women, Energy, Environment, 2016 Election, House, Senate, Women Voters, League of Conservation Voters, Politics News

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fanne-hidalgo%2Fafter-the-closing-ceremon_b_11796702.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
After The Closing Ceremony: Rio's Sustainable Olympic Legacy  
As the historic 2016 Olympic Games draw to a close in Rio de Janeiro, we commend C40 Chair, Mayor of Rio de Janeiro Eduardo Paes not only for a successful world-class event, but also for investing in and developing legacy Olympic projects that will benefit the city and its inhabitants in the long-term.

Guided by the principle that the Olympics must serve the city, Mayor Paes leveraged the challenge of hosting the global competition--the first-ever held in South America--to instigate a transformation in sustainable transport and public space across the city as well as raise awareness about climate change during the opening ceremonies. Rio de Janeiro's example provides lessons for future bidding and host cities among the C40 membership and beyond, particularly given the International Olympic Committee's commitment to a sustainable future.

Mayor Paes' accomplishments hosting the Olympic games aligns with his larger legacy as C40 Chair, a position he has held since 2013. Under his leadership, C40 has deepened its global engagement and now has a majority of member cities from Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The organization has created the C40 Finance Facility to provide cities within the C40 network with technical assistance and guidance to unlock up to $1 billion worth of financing for sustainable infrastructure projects. And C40 has also played a leading role in launching the Compact of Mayors, an effort that is creating a new global standard for urban emissions reporting and prompting ambitious climate commitments from cities worldwide.

Mayor Paes' flagship initiatives such as the city's bus rapid transit system, which is the most extensive in Latin America, and the creation of new urban spaces for pedestrians have done much to inspire the ambition, action and active collaboration among the world's greatest cities. In his home city of Rio de Janeiro and on the global stage, he has shown both dedication and passion to building a sustainable future, and the lasting impact of his leadership will be felt for years to come.

A message of congratulations from:

• Athens Mayor Giorgos Kaminis
• 
  
• Auckland Mayor Len Brown
• 
  
• Bogotá Mayor Enrique Peñalosa
• 
  
• Buenos Aires Mayor Horacio Rodríguez-Larreta
• 
  
• Cape Town Mayor Patricia de Lille
• 
  
• Copenhagen Lord Mayor Frank Jensen
• 
  
• Dalian Mayor Xiao Shengfeng
• 
  
• Heidelberg Mayor Eckart Würzner
• 
  
• Madrid Mayor Manuela Carmena
• 
  
• Melbourne Lord Mayor Robert Doyle
• 
  
• Mexico City Mayor Miguel Ángel Mancera
• 
  
• Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo
• 
  
• Quezon City Mayor Herbert Bautista
• 
  
• Quito Mayor Mauricio Rodas
• 
  
• Salvador Mayor Antônio Carlos Peixoto de Magalhães Neto
• 
  
• Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike
• 
  
• Tshwane Executive Mayor Councillor Solly Msimanga
• 
  
• Warsaw Mayor Hanna Gronkiewicz-Waltz
• 
  
• Wuhan Mayor Wan Yong
• 
  
• U.N. Secretary General's Special Envoy for Cities and Climate Change Michael R. Bloomberg

-- 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%2Fmyplanetexperience%2F29256609672%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Sand Cat  

My Planet Experience posted a photo:

The smallest of all wild cats, Sand Cats - Felis margarita - are true desert dwellers, with numerous adaptations to an arid life and colouring that blends in with their environment. They are the only felid to occur exclusively in desert habitat and are found in the deserts of northern Africa and central Asia.
As with most of the small felids, their numbers in the wild are unknown.

Sand cats are threatened by habitat loss, hunting and collection for pet trade. Disease transmission by pets also precipitate its decline.

Fortunately, Sand Cats are mainly nocturnal and sleep during the hours when people are active.

© www.myplanetexperience.com

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fmyplanetexperience%2F29204500235%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Black-and-white ruffed lemur  

My Planet Experience posted a photo:

The handsome black-and-white ruffed lemur is, along with the red ruffed lemur, the largest member of the Lemuridae family. This species inhabits lowland to mid-altitude rain forests in eastern Madagascar.

Listed as Critically Endangered as the species is suspected to have undergone a population decline of ≥80% over a period of 21 years (three generations), primarily due to observed and inferred continuing decline in area, extent and quality of habitat from slash-and-burn agriculture, logging and mining, in addition to exploitation through unsustainable hunting pressure.
These causes have not ceased, and will to a large extent not be easily reversible.

© www.myplanetexperience.com

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fmyplanetexperience%2F28943034972%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Amur leopard  

My Planet Experience posted a photo:

With as few as 45 adults remaining in the wild, the Amur leopard is probably the rarest and most critically endangered big cat in the world. Habitat destruction, degradation and poaching of Amur leopards and their prey are persistent threats. Hunted largely for its beautiful, spotted fur, the loss of each Amur leopard puts the species at greater risk of extinction.
The Amur leopard is classified as Critically Endangered since 1996 by IUCN. Data published by the World Wildlife Fund indicates that there are roughly 50 adult Amur leopards in the wild today.
The Amur leopard is a leopard subspecies native to the Primorye region of southeastern Russia and the Jilin Province of northeast China. They live for 10-15 years, and in captivity up to 20 years. The Amur leopard is also known as the Far East leopard, the Manchurian leopard or the Korean leopard.

© www.myplanetexperience.com

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fmyplanetexperience%2F28609030980%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Kamchatka brown bears  

My Planet Experience posted a photo:

Irina (female), Igor and Ivan (males) are the Kamchatka brown bears of La Flèche Zoo Park, La Flèche, France

Kamchatka peninsula is home to the highest recorded density of brown bears on Earth. Population estimates for the peninsula range from 10,000 to 14,000 bears.
However, increasing human access through road development to expand mining and mineral exploration is fragmenting the bears' habitat. Kamchatka brown bears are now becoming rare in some regions close to human settlements.
As many as 2,000 bears are killed every year by poachers who come for the bear's gallbladder that sells for hundreds of dollars in the Asian market to use for folk remedies. Also placing the bears in danger are fishing industries seeking profit in the salmon, and decreasing the bears' richest source of food.
The Kamchatka brown bear is considered to be endangered.

© www.myplanetexperience.com

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fmyplanetexperience%2F28127442814%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Eurasian lynx  

My Planet Experience posted a photo:

The Eurasian lynx, one of Europe's largest predators, has bounced back from the brink of extinction in Europe but it is still critically endangered in some areas.
The Eurasian Lynx is the largest lynx species, and has one of the widest ranges of any wild cat.
The increasing urbanization of western Europe, and the resulting loss of habitat and diminished prey base, have led to a severe reduction of the Eurasian Lynx population there.
Escalating deforestation, persecution as stock killers, and illegal poaching remain major threats to their future. They are heavily trapped for the fur trade across their range, and legally hunted in Sweden, Norway, Finland, Estonia and Latvia.
Reintroduction programs have taken place in Switzerland, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Austria, Germany, Italy and France. Studies have shown that Eurasian Lynx are quick to rebound if hunting pressures are lessened, and protected areas with good prey bases are set aside.

© www.myplanetexperience.com

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2Fxero123%2F29256031482%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Chit Chat  

syphrix photography posted a photo:

A pair of sun parakeets interacting with one another.
Taken at the Singapore Jurong Bird Park

[Follow me on Facebook | Instagram]

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fhelen-drinan%2Fhow-colleges-and-universi_b_11796654.html&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Helen Drinan: How Colleges and Universities Make Investments That Count  
Now more than ever it seems budgets of colleges and universities in America are stretched thin. As is true in many states, cuts to budgets in Oklahoma...

Read more: College Athletics, Women in Leadership, Women Athletes, Women in Sports, Leading Change, Community Involvement, Public-Private Partnerships, Little League, High School Football, Brighton High School, Environmental Consciousness, Environment, Women's Colleges, Impact News

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fnzinga-young%2F5-things-i-learned-in-my-first-year-as-a-vegan_b_11735832.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
5 Things I Learned In My First Year As A Vegan  

A photo posted by nzinga young (@veganzinga) on Jun 17, 2016 at 6:14pm PDT

Going vegan has been a learning process.

Learning the atrocities of the meat and dairy industries and living more ethically are part of it, but here are other things I learned during my first year as an ethical vegan.

Exploitation is everywhere.

I was on vacation when I realized the $5 I paid to take a picture with a python was supporting its captivity. Colored candies I bought for my niece seemed vegan at the time, but were probably dyed with bug juice. Getting my sunscreen and multivitamins right was hard enough, but every few months I learned something new.

I didn't realize how pervasive animal exploitation is in our culture.

I didn't realize how pervasive animal exploitation is in our culture until I had to become more mindful. I'm a lot better now, but I'm sure there are a few more "uh oh" moments left in me.

Vegans are nicer in person.

My experiences with vegans online and offline have been very different.

Some online vegans can be pretty intense. Honest questions from aspiring vegans and differing views from well-meaning people are subject to brutal criticism in Facebook groups. There are more great vegans on social media than unnecessarily judgmental ones, but I have yet to meet a rude vegan offline.

The people I've met have been lovely. We can discuss differing opinions without raising our voices. We may not always agree, but we honor and respect each other for being different parts of the same fight.

I'm not sure if the anonymity of the internet makes people bolder or if I'm not in the right circles, but my view of vegans changed for the better when I started connecting in person.

A photo posted by nzinga young (@veganzinga) on Jul 20, 2016 at 6:35pm PDT

Activists are trying their best.

If you maintain a consistent argument and fight for full liberation, you're called a rigid abolitionist who's too stuck in your ways.

If you work for incremental change and improved conditions for farm animals, you're called a dirty welfarist who's doing more harm than good.

And let's not get started on vegans who urge us to consider the human rights issues tied into animal exploitation.

As a new vegan, I started to believe these reviews of vegan thought leaders, but I have yet to meet anyone from differing camps who wasn't passionate about animal liberation. The methods may differ from person to person, but the ultimate goal of freedom for all animals seems to be the same.

Connecting with vegans helped me formulate my own opinion about the biggest names in the movement. I may still disagree with their tactics -- especially ones that disrespect other social justice movements -- but everyone seems to be making an impact the best way they know how.

Intersectionality matters.

With a situation as dire as systematic murder, it's easy to focus solely on what's best for non-human animals. That's why it's important to have vegan organizations with a broader perspective. Groups that understand all oppression is intertwined and remind us that fighting for animals doesn't mean disregarding other injustices.

Collectively Free protests the forced impregnation of dairy cows and the underpaid Ethiopian workers that keep your favorite coffee shop in business.

Food Empowerment Project reminds us that the factory farm employees we often vilify are also being exploited.

Veganism is certainly about animals, but it doesn't mean we disrespect our own species along the way.

Veganism is certainly about animals, but it doesn't mean we disrespect our own species along the way.

I should be doing more.

I spent a lot of this year buying vegan without being vegan. I was caught up in vegan consumerism without doing anything to inspire change. I hope my latest initiative helps vegans everywhere get those closest to them to understand the importance of a vegan lifestyle.

My goal is to have a bigger impact during my second year of veganism. For more on my initiative to get our friends and family to go vegan, visit Wanyama Box.

-- 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%2Fthe-conversation-us%2Fobamas-hawaiian-marine-pr_b_11796308.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Obama's Hawaiian Marine Preserve: Massive Potential, Monumental Challenges  
By Char Miller, Pomona College

The endangered Hawaiian monk seal is one of the 7,000 species that gained a measure of protection.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CC BY

President Obama's environmental record just went big. On August 26, he quadrupled the size of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the center of the Pacific Ocean, northwest of Hawaii. Whatever other conservation actions he takes in his final months in office, Papahānaumokuākea will be hard to top.

The new monument is also outsized in the interrelated issues that it will address - and generate. In Papahānaumokuākea, biology, politics and policy converge and collide in revelatory ways.

For those of us who study the intersection of environmental history, policy and politics on sea and land as I do, it's clear the creation of this gigantic marine monument is a huge step forward for conservation and for helping ecosystems adapt to a changing climate.

But it also poses such significant management, budgetary and political challenges that I fear Papahānaumokuākea will complicate, if not submarine, President Obama's ambitious environmental agenda.

Human and natural challenges

To understand the challenges Papahānaumokuākea will pose, start with the site's remoteness - it is a far remove even from the main Hawaiian Islands, never mind the West Coast. Add, then, its vastness: President Obama added more than 440,000 square miles to boost the already designated monument to a staggering 582,578 square miles. Note: These are square miles, not acres. So gigantic is this national monument that it is larger than all the U.S. national parks and national forests combined; it's not much smaller than Alaska.

The conservation mission of Papahānaumokuākea, which is now the largest blue reserve on this blue planet, is also a tall order. Significantly, it prohibits fishing and other resource exploitation so as to protect such endangered species as the short-tailed albatross and the remaining population of Hawaiian monk seals, as well as the long-living black coral (some of which are estimated to be 4,000 years old). So little of its flora and fauna have been studied that it is highly likely that the 7,000 species known to inhabit the region are but a fraction of those actually there.

Finally, the national monument comes with a social justice commitment: The state's lead indigenous rights agency, the Department of Hawaiian Affairs, will help supervise archaeological and sacred sites, an innovative co-management initiative. By any calculation, Papahānaumokuākea is astonishing.

But it precisely the national monument's massive proportions that make its effective management so daunting.

Consider that the first generation of forest rangers on the U.S. national forests had to control only one million acres in the remote western mountains, and yet understandably they were baffled how they and their horses could steward their new domain. Imagine their modern counterparts trying to survey a waterscape 100 times that extent, even with airplanes and satellites; Papahānaumokuākea dwarfs our faith in management by technology.

Now add budgetary constraints to the vastness of Papahānaumokuākea: The National Park Service's funding has taken a hit recently at the same time that the number of properties it supervises has mushroomed, thanks to President Obama's rapid-fire creation of 26 new national monuments (with even more anticipated).

I understand why the chief executive is moving with dispatch (a mash-up of legacy building and opportunity knocks). But I worry that the speed with which these sites have been designated, and their disparate fiscal demands, has outstripped the executive branch's capacity to underwrite them. My worry is magnified given the strong opposition in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to the president's ready use of the Antiquities Act.

Papahānaumokuākea will be a major test of the federal government's stewardship, then, not least because in the run-up to its expansion the National Park Service held a series of raucous public meetings in which the industrial and longline fishing industry, along with native organizations, opposed the designation.

Preservation of marine life, they argued, is in direct competition with their long history of harvesting food from these very waters. How the National Park Service manages these fraught human dynamics will be every bit as critical as its stewardship of the marinescape's threatened biodiversity.

Building on Bush's legacy

At the same time, I am buoyed by the national monument's oddly bipartisan political history: It owes existence to two very different presidents, one whose administration downplayed emerging climate change science, the other who has been at the forefront of world leaders responding to the threats climate change poses.

In 2006, after a White House screening of Jacques-Michel Cousteau's documentary "Voyage to Kure," which details human damage to the islands' ecosystems, President George W. Bush was moved to action. Using the 1906 Antiquities Act, he set aside Papahānaumokuākea - the first of four oceanic parks he would create in the Pacific. Time magazine dubbed this collection of sites Bush's last acts of "greenness," while a legion of environmental critics suggested they were his first and last; no president had used the Antiquities Act less than Bush did.

Moreover, given how far away these sites were from the continental U.S., their very isolation dampened any controversy. Still, as Time magazine noted, these "marine monuments will mean that President Bush - perhaps the least environmental president in U.S. history - will have protected more of the ocean than anyone else in the world."

President Obama has blown that claim out of the water. But he did so in a more calculated, less cathartic manner. As part of his 2009 commitment to address climate change, his administration has sought projects that would enhance landscape resilience to the effects of climate change.

In 2014, Obama added roughly 300,000 square miles to the Bush-inaugurated Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (now totaling 490,343 square miles), a stretch of remote Pacific islands south and west of Hawaii. When he did so, he justified its expansion as a way to strengthen Pacific ecosystems. The same rationale was deployed in support of Papahānaumokuākea National Monument.

These two mega monuments, when combined with the 126 other (and smaller) U.S. marine sanctuaries, now account for about 26 percent of the nation's waters, meaning that collectively they are giving oceanic species a fighting chance to survive as the climate-charged seas warm and rise. They also make the president's latest action in the Pacific more than a grand gesture. It just might be a planetary life preserver.

Char Miller, W. M. Keck Professor of Environmental Analysis, Pomona College

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

-- 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%2Fchris-brown%2Fstates-leading-winds-of-change_b_11763032.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
States Are Leading Winds Of Change In U.S. Renewable Energy Revolution  
by Chris Brown, President, Vestas Americas and Chairman, American Wind Energy Association

Some are calling recent clean-energy actions by New York, Massachusetts and Iowa "game-changers." That might very well prove true in the medium-term. But we can say with confidence that they are immediate game-advancers.

Why? Energy markets are affected by policy, but they are driven by price. The underlying business reality is that the real cost of wind power has dropped below that of new fossil-fuel generation. And it's making wind and renewables a no-brainer choice for major corporations, utilities and power producers of almost every stripe.

Today, states are at the epicenter of America's renewable energy revolution. And, because we have 50 state energy markets, big positive advances in state policy can accelerate the pace of this historic shift.

Consider that New York, the 3rd-largest U.S. state economy, has now committed to meeting 50 percent of its power needs from clean, reliable, low-cost energy sources such as wind by 2030. That makes it the 5th state to commit to a 50 percent or more target for clean power, joining Oregon, Hawaii, California and Vermont. Other states such as Kansas, whose wind energy production has nearly tripled in the past five years, have voluntary aims to achieve up to 50% of their electricity needs through wind energy.

In Massachusetts, the legislature approved and governor signed an energy bill committing to purchase 1,600 MW from the nascent U.S. offshore wind industry, an action that promises to extend large-scale U.S. wind energy development from the land to the sea and power dozens of East and West coast urban centers.

And just last week in Iowa, currently the only state to generate more than 30 percent of its energy from wind, the Iowa Utilities Board approved plans by MidAmerican Energy, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Energy, to invest $3.6 billion for up to 2,000 MW of wind capacity. Once completed, the new 1,000-wind-turbine project promises to be the largest yet in MidAmerican's history.

These states aren't alone. Others also stand out for their leadership this year on renewable energy, including Maryland, D.C. and Oregon.

In fact, fully 29 states now have renewable energy portfolio standards designed to spur clean power development, diversify our electricity supply, generate local economic growth and jobs, conserve scarce fresh water and also reduce pollution.

Despite the drama playing out in the courts over implementation of the federal Clean Power Plan, most states are continuing to move forward with their plans to provide more domestic renewable energy to their constituents and ratepayers.

States are doing so because they have listened to the markets, and the marketplace has spoken. The smart money is backing low-cost renewable energy, especially wind. That includes major companies such as Amazon, Apple, Google, IKEA, Microsoft and Walmart.

Wind is winning in the marketplace because its real costs are down more than 66 percent since 2009. Wind is already the lowest-cost clean energy by a large margin. Indeed, across a large swath of central U.S., in states such as Texas, Oklahoma and Iowa, wind is now the cheapest source of newly installed power from any energy source -- clean or fossil fuel.

In 2015, the low cost and long-term pricing certainty offered by wind energy made it the number one source of new U.S. electric capacity, supplying 41 percent of the nation's generating capacity additions, ahead of natural gas, solar and all other energy sources.

States get it. They get the fact that renewable power, wind in particular, is the lowest-cost energy choice.

States also get that the American public is demanding it. Who wouldn't want a clean-energy source that can save ratepayers dollars on their utility bills? Indeed, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Wind Vision report projects that Americans will save almost $150 billion on their electric bills by 2050 in the switch to low-cost wind power.

Not surprisingly, polls show that wide majorities of voters -- Republican, Democrat and Independent -- strongly support continuing these successful clean-energy policies.

A growing number of utilities, including MidAmerican Energy, Xcel and Alliant, also get it. AWEA's U.S. Wind Industry 2nd Quarter 2016 Market Report confirms utilities are moving forward with 2,600 MW of new wind investment. Last year more than 4,300 utility-scale wind turbines were installed in 20 states, says DOE's 2015 Wind Technologies Market Report, helping drive America's world leadership in wind electricity generated.

As more and more states see their neighbors passing legislation and taking other steps to encourage more wind and other renewable energy -- they don't want to risk being left behind. A dozen states already meet more than 10 percent of their energy needs with wind power. The switch is on.

Recalling the words of the recent Broadway hit 'Hamilton', America's clean energy revolution is being led by states whose leaders are "young, scrappy and hungry."

Like the American revolution that Alexander Hamilton and others led more than two centuries earlier, the switch to low-cost renewables to power America's energy future is undeniable. And it just makes sense.

Chris Brown is Chairman of the Board of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), and President of Vestas-American Wind Technology, Vestas' North American business unit.

-- 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%2Fpj-marshall-%2Flouisiana-floods-restorat_b_11794772.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Louisiana Floods: Restoration Will Help Us Build Back Better  



In Baton Rouge these past weekends, the "Cajun Navy" was out in force cleaning up after the devastating Louisiana floods that killed 17 people and forced thousands of others to leave their homes. Despite the crushing heat and debris-filled neighborhoods, the mood felt oddly cheerful as volunteers hefted water-logged furniture, drywall and insulation out of homes and distributed sandwiches and snacks to neighbors, family, and strangers who were affected by what is described as the worst storm since Hurricane Sandy.

In Louisiana, we have become used to this pattern: rain, flood, cleanup, rebuild.

Unfortunately, floods like this are no longer once-in-a-millennia aberrations. This is the eighth time Louisiana has flooded since May of last year, and this storm rivaled the power of a hurricane, dumping 21 inches of rain in 48 hours.

When President Obama visited Baton Rouge last Tuesday, he praised the recovery efforts. "I know how resilient the people of Louisiana are," he said. "And I know you will rebuild again.

Obama echoed a common refrain we hear after almost every natural disaster: Build back better.

This time, we need to do more than just rebuild. We need to restore the earth.

For too long, human and industrial development has worked against nature, knocking out the ecosystems that create a natural defense against storms. Over the past half-century, we have all but rubbed out the coastal estuaries, wetlands, and forests that protect our communities and economic infrastructure from a changing climate. Today, Louisiana loses wetlands at the rate of one football field every hour. This is significant because wetlands absorb storm surge. For the more than 2 million people living in south Louisiana, the existence of healthy wetlands means the difference between safety and more frequent, severe flooding.

The good news is that we can restore this land, and as the nation focuses on rebuilding after the floods, it is critical that we include landscape-scale restoration as an essential part of this effort.

A relatively unknown concept, landscape-scale restoration is surprisingly simple and incredibly effective: Using a science-based approach, we can rebuild natural hydrology and replant native trees and plants to restore entire ecosystems. My organization, Restore the Earth Foundation, has been using this approach to restore degraded land in Louisiana ever since Hurricane Katrina, which was not only one of the country's most devastating storms, it was also the largest forestry disaster in U.S. history. Working alongside federal and state agencies, as well as private, philanthropic, and community organizations, we reforested 45,000 acres along the Gulf Coast.

When natural ecosystems are restored, they become factories producing abundant benefits: mitigating climate change, recharging groundwater, providing critical habitat, buffering against sea level rise, and, yes, supporting flood control and preventing storm damage.

Restoration is such an important part of climate mitigation that it is codified in Article 5.1 of the international Paris Agreement on climate change. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development announced $1 billion in grants to help communities invest in climate resilience. The largest of those grants are going to Louisiana, including for projects that protect coastal wetlands and restore the land.

Our vision is to restore more of these ecosystems so they can work properly and help provide for and protect our communities and economy.

But in order for this to happen, we need more support. We need public agencies, private industry, and likeminded nonprofit and community organizations to come together to support funding, access to land, science and research, and program implementation.

We all have a stake in this--not just those of us in Louisiana. Climate change is the new normal, and it's affecting us all. In the past 18 months, more than 200 people have been killed by floods in the United States. The third National Climate Assessment, released in 2014, showed that "the amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events" has been significantly above average since 1991. In other parts of the country, wildfires are raging--getting worse every year because of record-breaking heat waves such as the one we had in July.

We need to change our trajectory, and one action we can take right now is to invest in landscape-scale restoration. In October, my organization will break ground on a new project to restore 4,000 acres of freshwater-forested wetlands in the Pointe-aux-Chenes Bald Cypress Forest. This essential ecosystem is the largest landmass providing the last line of defense protecting 200,000 people from the open water of the Gulf of Mexico. This project is part of a larger initiative my organization is leading to restore 1 million acres of degraded land in the Mississippi River basin, North America's Amazon.

For me, this project has taken on new meaning--and renewed urgency. It will give me a chance to get my hands dirty and do something tangible and real to help protect my family, friends, and neighbors. Coming together to replant and restore gives people a common purpose and builds relationships that make our communities stronger. It also gives us hope that, even during this time of loss, there is something we can do to create a brighter future.


For the people of Louisiana, restoration can help heal their communities. For the country, restoration can change our path from degradation to resilience. It's time to make landscape-scale restoration part of the effort to build back better.

-- 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%2Fjoel-reynolds%2Fearth-to-pebble-mine-stay_b_11778434.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Earth To Pebble Mine: Stay Away From Bristol Bay<br><i><font size="5">World Conservation Congress Registers Overwhelming International Opposition to Mega-Mine That Threatens Bristol Bay's Wild Salmon Fishery</font></i>  
A new chapter opened today in the battle against the proposed Pebble Mine, as the World Conservation Congress overwhelmingly adopted a motion opposing the embattled mega-mine and other large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay region of southwest Alaska and urging the U.S. government to prevent the issuance of permits. With this action, an international body has for the first time formally joined longstanding opposition to the massive copper and gold project -- a project that, for years, has been the focus of a relentless, broad-based campaign in Alaska and the lower 48 states to stop it.

If permitted, the Pebble Mine would be the largest open pit mine in North America and perhaps the world, sited in the headwaters of the world's greatest wild salmon fishery in Bristol Bay, Alaska, which produces up to 50 million wild salmon each year. The mega-mine would create a hole nearly as deep as the Grand Canyon; generate an estimated 10 billion tons of waste (enough to fill a major football stadium up to 3,900 times); and cover an area larger than Manhattan.


Photo by Robert Glenn Ketchum

The reputation of the World Conservation Congress for environmental expertise and science-based decision-making make this unequivocal international action especially notable. Hosted every four years by the world's largest network of conservation experts - the 1,300 member International Union for the Conservation of Nature (or "IUCN") - the Congress brings together thousands of scientists and other environmental professionals from over 170 countries, including members from 89 states, 129 government agencies, and over 1,000 domestic and international non-governmental organizations.

The landslide vote announced today was virtually unanimous -- 100% of the countries voting supported the motion and, among the non-state members, only four of all the votes cast opposed the motion. The final vote count is expected to be posted on the IUCN's website later today.

The Congress' action against the Pebble Mine is also significant because of the unusual diversity of the motion's sponsors, pairing for the very first time, among others, the Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC") and the Dallas Safari Club.

Among other things, the motion -- entitled "Protecting the world's greatest salmon fishery in Bristol Bay, Alaska from large-scale mining" -- recognizes that "if action isn't taken to stop large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay watershed, it will have devastating impacts on the region's environment, economics, and indigenous peoples." The motion supports the right of the people of Bristol Bay to determine their own future by preventing large-scale mining "including, in particular, the proposed Pebble Mine," and it urges the United States government "to take the necessary measures to prevent the granting of permits for large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay watershed."


Photo by Robert Glenn Ketchum

With today's announcement at the World Conservation Congress, the momentum to stop the Pebble project continues to intensify. The people of Bristol Bay oppose it, the people of Alaska oppose it, and now the world's leading conservation experts have endorsed that opposition. As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has recognized, the Pebble Mine is a recipe for catastrophic contamination of the world's greatest wild salmon fishery.

Virtually without dissent, the IUCN's action reflects a solid international scientific consensus that the reckless mining project must be stopped.

Take action -- again.

-- 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%2Ftaryn-kiekow%2Fworld-to-japan-stop-killi_b_11780122.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
World to Japan: Stop Killing Whales  
The World Conservation Congress passed with overwhelming support a motion today denouncing the killing of whales under the guise of science.

The motion censures Japan's "scientific research" whaling, which Japan uses to evade the international ban against commercial whaling. Among other things, the motion calls on Japan to revoke its existing lethal whale research programs. It also calls upon all states to refrain from engaging in research programs that kill whales.

The expertise and reputation of the World Conservation Congress makes this motion especially noteworthy. Hosted every four years by the world's largest network of conservation experts - the 1,300 member International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) - the World Conservation Congress brings together thousands of scientists and other environmental professionals from over 170 countries, including members from 89 states, 129 government agencies, and over 1,000 domestic and international non-governmental organizations. The IUCN is considered the global scientific authority on conservation issues due to both its diverse membership and its reliance on over 16,000 experts from a range of disciplines such as species survival, ecosystem management, and social and economic policy.

This international clout makes the motion - entitled "Concerns about whaling under special permits" - yet another compelling condemnation of Japan's whaling.



The IUCN joins other illustrious international bodies in denouncing Japan's whaling. The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has adopted 22 resolutions over the years calling on Japan to half or restrict its "scientific research" whaling. And in a 2014 landmark decision, the United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that Japan's research whaling program in the Antarctic (JARPA II) was illegal. Although Japan initially agreed to abide by the ICJ judgement (and conducted only nonlethal research the following season), it later denounced the ICJ's jurisdiction over disputes involving living marine resources.

Japan then issued itself a new research plan that allows it to kill 333 minke whales per year.

The IWC Scientific Committee - the world's foremost experts on whales - reviewed Japan's new plan and concluded that the lethal sampling of whales was not scientifically justified. Nonetheless, Japan resumed its "scientific research" whaling in December 2015 and killed its entire self-allocated quota of 333 minke whales last season - including 200 pregnant females.

Since the moratorium on commercial whaling took effect in 1986, Japan has killed over 15,000 whales under the guise of science.

Enough whales have died.

The decisive action today by the World Conservation Congress harpoons Japan's "scientific research" whaling program and encourages the use of non-lethal research options.

It also reflects an international scientific consensus that there is no legitimate reason to kill thousands of whales in order to study them. The IWC has spoken. The World Court has spoken. And now, the world's leading conservation organization has spoken.

The message is clear: it's time to stop killing whales.

-- 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%2F2103867-elephants-footprints-leave-behind-tiny-oases-for-aquatic-life%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Elephants' footprints leave behind tiny oases for aquatic life  
In a Ugandan swamp forest, ponds formed by the stomping of elephants are quickly inhabited by dozens of species  
gaia