1473339611000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fron-pernick%2Frenewables-trump-fossil-f_b_11900300.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Renewables Trump Fossil Fuels
Let me get this out right up front: I'm not a fan of Donald Trump and I won't be voting for him. Over the past year, I've been both captivated and repulsed by the Republican presidential candidate's bullying tactics, outlandish lies, and seeming joy in stirring up deep-seated hatred and fear. And when it comes to my area of professional expertise, clean tech, I've been equally frustrated and confounded. As a firm believer in the need to apply advanced technologies and smart policies in the battle against human-caused pollution and climate change, I am dismayed (though not surprised) that Trump, and the Republican Party's national platform, would take such an oppositional stance toward clean-energy solutions.

In an atmosphere of record-setting global temperatures, uncontrollable flooding and fires, and a growing chorus of business, religious, policymaker, and public support for a clean-energy transition, it makes the Republicans (at the presidential and national level at least) look antiquated and deeply out of touch.

Here are some highlights of the two major party candidates and their respective platforms on clean energy and climate change.

Hillary Clinton

Like the vast majority of scientists, believes that climate change is real and that humans are having an impact on the global climate
Supports the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gases
Embraces solar and wind energy and wants to turn the U.S. into a "renewable energy superpower"
Proposes the expansion of solar power by 700% by the end of her first term
Calls on the U.S. to generate enough electricity from renewable sources to power every American home within ten years of taking office
Has suggested the creation of a60 billion competitive grant program to incentivize states, cities and rural communities to become clean-energy leaders
Calls for the elimination of billions of dollars in tax subsidies to oil and gas companies and to instead invest in clean energy

Donald Trump

Doesn't believe in climate change, has called it a hoax
Plans to rescind many of Obama's executive actions including the Climate Action Plan
Claims he will save the coal industry if he's president
Has attacked the wind industry for bird deaths, without acknowledging that buildings (like the ones with his name on them) are responsible for far more bird deaths than the wind industry
Promises to ask TransCanada to renew its permit application for the Keystone pipeline
Says he will cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. programs addressing global warming
Repeatedly talks about how "expensive" solar and wind power are, seemingly unaware of the fact that these technologies have reached cost parity across diverse geographies

Talk about an ideological chasm.

Back in 2012, Clint Wilder and I published our second book, Clean Tech Nation, which focused on how the U.S. could remain competitive in the global race toward a clean-tech future, and in which we outlined a Seven-Point Action Plan for the country. At the time, we reached out to a diverse group of politicians, businesspeople, investors, and others to provide early reviews, including those on the left, right, and in between. We were thrilled when former President Bill Clinton offered up the following assessment: "Clean Tech Nation dares to imagine a country in which bipartisanship reigns, green energy is our nation's greatest national resource, and our competitive edge in the global economy is restored."

Clinton's quote perfectly reflected some of the key themes and aspirations in our book:

Bipartisanship:
Clean energy should be treated not as a partisan divide, but as the unifying force that it is. In my June column, I highlighted the fact that red and blue states equally comprised the Top 10 states for solar and wind deployment in 2015. In polling, Americans of all political stripes and affiliations overwhelmingly support renewables. It's time that our political parties caught up with the rest of the nation.

National Resource:
The U.S. possesses a rich and diverse clean-energy resource base, spanning solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, biomass, and more. Last year, for example, solar and wind represented more than 60% of new electricity capacity additions. And for 2016, the EIA projects that utility-scale solar (not including distributed on-site solar generation) will outpace both natural gas and wind power in terms of total capacity additions, with a projected 9 GW installed. Talk about a national resource!

Economic Competitiveness:
At Clean Edge, we firmly believe that the U.S. economy remains intricately linked to breakthroughs and deployment in green buildings, renewable energy, energy storage, advanced agriculture, electrified transportation, and other emerging clean-tech sectors. China, Germany, Japan, and other nations are aggressively pursuing these industries as well, and we ignore these opportunities, from an economic perspective, at our peril.

Below is a slightly updated Seven-Point Action Plan from our 2012 book. I believe this plan still offers a strong blueprint (and insights) for a potential national clean-energy strategy.

1. Enact a National Renewable Electricity Standard of 50% by 2040
2. Create and Fund a National Smart Infrastructure Bank
3. Leverage Proven Investment Tools from Oil, Gas, and Real Estate Sectors (such as MLPs, REITs, etc.)
4. Phase out all Energy Subsidies within 10 Years (to Level the Playing Field)
5. Foster Open-Source Collaboration to Set Clean-Tech Standards
6. Fund Military Initiatives on Energy and Water Security
7. Launch Federally Backed Prizes for Clean-Tech and Climate Innovation

Based on their statements and positions, it's obvious which of the current major party candidates will support the clean-energy aspirations of the majority of Americans - Democratic, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Green, or other. My advice: if you want to ensure that renewables continue to trump fossil fuels, vote for Hillary Clinton.

-- 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

1473307681000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fgay-browne%2Fcage-free-free-range-past_b_11900972.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Cage-Free, Free-Range, Pasture-Raised or Organic Eggs: An Egg-ucation

"2016-09-08-1473303377-2808445-ScreenShot20160907at12.00.13PM.png"

My son Alex and his girlfriend Natalie have been raising chickens in their backyard for the past five years. So I know that depending on the breed of the hen, the color of a farm (backyard) fresh egg can naturally be white, brown, blue or even green. Alex has also taught me the colors of the egg says a lot. Eggs that are the freshest and most full of nutrients will have a bright orange and plump yolk with perfectly clear whites, while those that are not will be a pale yellow with dull, speckled whites. With such inside information and access to the freshest eggs possible, you would think I wouldn't have needed the egg-ucation I received when my friend Charli and her adorable ten-month-old baby Vivien came to visit me.

We were in the kitchen, and I was preparing breakfast. At her direction, I carefully separated the yolk from the whites. Apparently, the newest research advises that a baby not eat the egg white until they are at least a year old. While the egg yolk is loaded with nutrients, the egg white is a source of allergens.

Charli has always been organically conscientious, but even more so as a new mom. So she asked me what kinds of eggs I was using. I told her that when not gifted with those my son brings me from his chickens; I generally bought organic free-range eggs. As I cooked, Charli proceeded to tell me why that was not as good a choice as it sounded. Here's what I learned:

Cage-free and free-range sound better than they are
Cage-free and free-range might sound like the hens are free to roam but that is not necessarily so. Instead of cages, many are kept in multi-level aviaries which might allow them to spread their wings but hardly roam free. This label also does not preclude the use of antibiotics in feeding. In addition, these types of houses are much more expensive - a cost that gets passed on to the consumer. The USDA defines free-range or free-roaming as, "Producers must demonstrate to the Agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside." Little information is provided about living conditions, (stocking density) and standard industry practices which keeps the consumer and chickens in the dark, literally.

Brown eggs are no healthier than any other color egg
Brown rice might be better for us than white rice, but not so with eggs. The color of the eggs, as I already knew, depends on the breed of the hen. How nutritious the egg depends on what the hens are fed and how they are raised.

Organic is open to interpretation
The USDA has created guidelines for Organic Certification so if a food product is not labeled as certified the word organic is open for interpretation. In the case of eggs, in order to meet the USDA Organic certification they must come "from uncaged hens, free to roam in their houses and have access to the outdoors." They should also be "fed an organic diet of feed produced without conventional pesticides or fertilizers." What I learned is that the tricky part here is how "access to the outdoors" is interpreted.

Pasture-raised at the grocery store is best
By the end of my egg-ucation, Charli had convinced me that the freshest, healthiest eggs came from hens raised in the most humane of conditions; such as from backyards like my son Alex and Natalie's, and local small farmers, but when those are not an option, reach for pasture-raised. According to a study by Mother Earth News, pasture-raised are the only truly free-range eggs available and also the most healthful with one-third less cholesterol, one-quarter less saturated fat, two-thirds more vitamin A, twice as many omega-3 fatty acids, three times as much Vitamin E and seven times as much beta-carotene as commercial eggs!

"2016-09-08-1473303462-6534682-ScreenShot20160907at12.04.34PM.png"

It's about more than reading labels
What I think is the most important part of the lessons Charli taught me about the best kinds of eggs to buy is that even when we are reading labels.

As I grew my company Greenopia, I became acquainted with the term LOHAS, which stands for Lifestyle of Health and Sustainability. This market which includes brands, products and services from organic food to fuel efficient cars is now estimated to be over $209 billion in the US alone. It's understandable that many people want to tap into that. I also learned of a rather deceptive practice known as greenwashing - in which a consumer will be led to think the product or service is truly green, but when you look deeper into it - as in the case of cage-free eggs - that is not the case.

Don't be greenwashed
So it's about more than reading labels. It's about being a conscious consumer and educating yourself, so you know what the labels mean - whether it's from some of my favorite resources like EWG, TreeHugger, and Mother Nature Network or good friends like Charli whose only vested interest is in raising a healthy, toxin free child. The key is always to be living with a green heart - especially in our own kitchen.

"2016-09-08-1473303605-526549-FullSizeRender8.jpg"

-- 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

1473288303000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fadam-m-roberts%2Fwhat-kind-of-person-still_b_11889086.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
What Kind of Person Still Traps Wild Animals?
What kind of person purposely destroys a beaver dam and sets a "wall of death" of Conibear traps, knowing that the unsuspecting beavers will return to repair their handiwork--only to be possibly smashed across their abdomens and drowned?

What kind of person watches a tethered and helpless coyote writhe in pain and distress, unable to move because of the intensely unforgiving steel jaws clamped to her paw, kicks her in the side, and then finally shoots her in the chest so that her lungs fill with blood, and she dies a miserable, suffocating death?

What kind of person knows that these atrocities occur regularly across America--still, in 2016--and does nothing?

Today, Born Free USA has revealed our second undercover investigation, Victims of Vanity II, which delves into the brutal trapping industry and fur trade in an effort to expose these grotesque and indefensible industries. Trapping, like hunting, is dominated by people engaged in "sport" and "recreation," not necessity. And, even if there is some commercial by-product--selling the furs--trapping is about vicious slaughter, not gainful employment.

Our investigator hit the traplines in New York and Iowa, and discovered beaver dams destroyed; traps and bait set illegally; traps set close to public bridges, roads, and trails; horrific drown poles deployed; trapping in protected areas; prolonged suffering; and brutal death.

What kind of person does this? A man looking for power over helpless animals to feel more manly? A small-minded person who resorts to archaic cruelty to sell a few furs and make a few dollars? A killer? A torturer?

I remember when I first started working in the animal protection movement in Washington, D.C. in 1991. For the first time, I was exposed to the horrors of trapping. "What kind of person does this?," I thought. And, how can it still be legal? Here I am, 25 years later, asking the same questions.

Thankfully, change can come. Congress has multiple means by which to tackle trapping. It could end trapping on national wildlife refuges; eliminate the interstate commerce in the most commonly used traps; and stop federal employees from using traps on federal lands.

U.S. Senator Cory Booker had it exactly right when he said that these "traps operate by slamming shut with bone-crushing force on any animal that trips the device. Terrified animals break legs, chew off limbs, dislocate shoulders, and tear muscles as they try to break free of these traps."

We need federal action and state action (and not just in New York and Iowa). We need consumer action to stop buying furs and corporate action to stop selling them. We need to abandon the concept that trapping has a place in modern society and that trapping with a device like the steel-jaw leghold trap--which has remained relatively unchanged for 400 years--is okay. We need to stop defending the indefensible.

I'm proud that we can offer this eye-opening insight into what happens on the trapline. Some people won't be able to watch it. Some in the media will think that it is too painful to show on television. I get it.

What kind of person traps? What kind of legislator or department store owner can watch just 60 seconds of a tethered, tortured, dying coyote and do nothing? You be the judge.

No more excuses. Either you defend wild furbearer torture or you work to end it. I know which side I'm on. I know what kind of person I am.

Keep Wildlife in the Wild,

Adam

-- 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

1473288301000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjason-clay%2Ffeeding-the-people-saving-the-planet_b_11817682.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Feeding The People, Saving The Planet
If we want to save species, stop deforestation, and preserve nature for the good of biodiversity and humans, there's one thing we've got to get right above all else: where and how we produce food.

Local products in La Cocha, Colombia. Photo Credit: © Diego M. Garces / WWF

Producing food has had the biggest impact on the planet for the longest period of time than any other human activity. Food has the unique distinction of both contributing to climate change and being profoundly affected by it. And unlike any other issue conservationists work on, we've got 7.4 billion food experts on this planet, each with strong opinions and very few using science to inform their views.

Today, these 7.4 billion people are already consuming Earth's resources at a rate that is not renewable. Humanity's inexhaustible demand for certain foods drives deforestation, habitat conversion, water degradation, human rights violations, and a host of illegal activities. If this is happening today, imagine what the planet will look like in 40 years when the population is expected to be nearly 10 billion.

But this isn't just a numbers game. As important as the additional mouths to feed are what they will be eating. Incomes are on the rise, especially in developing countries, and Western diets are becoming increasingly common. Per capita consumption of animal protein, calorie-dense foods, off-season food and more fresh fruits and vegetables will increase dramatically. This increasing and shifting demand will place an even greater burden on food production and on our finite planet's dwindling resources.

On Sept. 6 at the World Conservation Congress in Hawaii, I discussed the link between biodiversity and food production, and how in order to make a real impact conserving biodiversity, we have to change how our food is produced. The link is an obvious one--at least once people remember that food isn't actually produced in the supermarket. Every calorie we consume, from fresh food to junk food, comes from ingredients that have to be grown, raised, hunted, or caught. And that all takes resources.

Food production is the largest cause of habitat conversion (including deforestation), biodiversity loss, and, depending on the source, the number one or two cause of greenhouse gas emissions. It also is the largest user of chemicals and of freshwater. In fact, producing food uses twice as much water as all other human activities combined.

The bottom line is: can we feed everyone and still have a planet? The short answer is "yes," definitely. The long answer is very long. And very complicated.

There is no silver bullet, no single strategy that will work--we will need to focus on productivity and efficiency as well as waste and consumption. And we will need everyone to pitch in. The world won't be saved by a few forward-thinking consumers, brands, NGOs or even governments.

In the last 10 years especially, food sustainability has become a marketing issue. That's the wrong approach. Sustainability needs to be considered at the beginning, with the production or raw materials. Major players in every industry need to take action to make sure that its raw materials are produced legally and sustainably.

For every crop, better producers globally are 100 times more productive than worse ones. Even within a country or region, producers can be 10 times more efficient than their neighbors. So conservation groups have to get beyond just working with the groups that are interested in sustainability or devising systems that reward the best producers. This will not make the change happen that we need either at speed or at the scale needed. The biggest impacts and the least production happen with the bad actors, the poorer performers. We gain most--in production, income and reduced impacts--by improving the poorest-performing producers not by rewarding the best.

On the consumption side, no one is able to tell 7.4 billion people what they should and shouldn't eat. But, we can make people aware of the impacts of their choices--what it means to the planet when we throw away 1 of every 3 calories produced. Even around what people eat the issue is about making informed choices and shifting your lifestyle in other ways to accommodate those choices that are the most demanding on the planet.

In addition to what we consume and what we do directly or through market signals to make our diets more sustainable, many on the planet do not have our choices. While we have enough food at the level of the planet, many do not have enough food on their plate. There are 800 million people who don't have enough to eat. The irony is that the bulk of them are from farm families. This problem can be solved but it is not just about producing more food or reducing waste. It's about inequality.

And, throw in the wrench of climate change and weather variability and we've definitely got our work cut out for us.

Feeding everyone -- while still making sure we have a planet that can sustain life -- will not be easy, but it is possible. And, we don't really have a choice. No one can do everything, but everyone can do something. Think about it, and then act on it--every day.

This post is part of a series on the World Conservation Congress taking place this week. Held every four years, it brings together about 6,000 people, including heads of state, government officials, business leaders, representatives from indigenous groups, scientists, academics, influencers, educators, artists and NGOs, from all over the world to discuss and decide on solutions to the world's most pressing environmental challenges. To read all the posts in this series click here.

Aerial view of palm oil plantation on deforested land, Sabah, Borneo, Malaysia. Photo Credit: © naturepl.com / Juan Carlos Munoz / WWF

Aerial view of oil palm plantation. Sungai Petani vicinity, Kedah, Malaysia. Photo Credit: © naturepl.com / Tim Laman / WWF

Deforestation in southern Scotland near Edinburgh, UK. Photo Credit: © Edward Parker / WWF

A farmer carrying rice to be planted in Bandung, Java, Indonesia. Photo Credit: © Rob Webster / WWF

A cereal crop growing near Jumilla in Murcia, Spain. Photo Credit: © Global Warming Images / WWF

-- 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

1473288297000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.nationalgeographic.com%2F2016%2F09%2F07%2Fstanding-with-standing-rock-and-the-right-to-clean-water%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Standing With Standing Rock and the Right to Clean Water

By Jon Waterhouse and Mary Marshall

Examine the protests over construction of the Dakota Access pipeline with an objective mind (links below, basic facts here) and you'll arrive at the conclusion that the Native Americans gathered at Standing Rock care—and shouldn't we all.

The threat at Standing Rock is not lack of oil or loss of jobs.

The threat is to the one element that none—yes, none—of us can live without: WATER.

"(Photo — Protecting clean water isn't about scenery. It's about basic human rights. (Photo by Mary Marshall)

I realize that for most readers this is not “in your backyard,” but shouldn't you care enough to support those at Standing Rock to protect something this vital, this important to us all?

The United Nations has recognized the human right to clean water.

Ask yourself what will it take for you to engage in the protection of this resource that makes your latte, fills your pool, allows for fishing and your morning shower, is a major ingredient in beer and wine, beauty products, your supplements and medications, vital to agriculture and many forms of manufacturing … and on and on?

What will it take?

Don't leave the Native Americans to carry this by themselves.

Look around, ask yourself, ask your friends: What will it take and when will we engage?

Standing Rock Coverage From Across the Web

Dakota Access Pipeline: What You Need to Know (Nat Geo Education Blog)

Topic Page From Indian Country Today

Why is the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe trying to stop a pipeline? (Christian Science Monitor)

Showdown over oil pipeline becomes a national movement for Native Americans (Washington Post)

A Pipeline Fight and America's Dark Past (New Yorker)

Taking a Stand at Standing Rock (New York Times)

MSNBC:

gaia

1473288295000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmichael-brune%2Fapec-blue-and-g20-green_b_11897722.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
APEC Blue And G20 Green

In advance of last week's G20 economic summit, the skies over the city of Hangzhou, China, turned “APEC Blue” ― a phrase that was coined by residents of Beijing when the Asian Pacific Economic Conference was held there eight years ago. Factories were closed, traffic was restricted, and air pollution ― temporarily ― vanished. President Obama and the leaders of 19 other major global economies got to see one of China's most beautiful cities at its sparkling best.

Now that the summit is over, the pollution will return. If it's ever going to disappear for good, then the G20 leaders who met in Hangzhou will need to follow through on a commitment they made seven years ago: to stop providing subsidies for fossil fuel development.

Together, the nations that are part of the G20 are currently responsible for more than $440 billion in fossil fuel subsidies annually and account for 74 percent of global carbon pollution. To put that into perspective, the annual total of G20 subsidies to support fossil fuels is more than four times what the entire global economy is currently investing in clean energy. Given the urgency of transitioning the global economy awayfrom fossil fuels, that's counterproductive, to say the least.

Internationally, we've seen historic climate progress lately ― from the agreement between the U.S. and China to limit carbon pollution to the adoption of the Paris Agreement, which China and the U.S. both formally joined last week. But while the world moves forward toward a 100 percent clean energy economy, the G20 leaders have been all talk and no walk on ending fossil-fuel subsidies for seven years now.

That's got to stop. For our part, the Sierra Club has launched a new international campaign called Fossil-Free Finance. Our goal is to get all of the G20 countries, the World Bank, and other key international financial institutions to eliminate all fossil fuel subsidies by 2020.

This year's G20 has come and gone, but this issue isn't going anywhere. Send a message to President Obama and the other G20 leaders to let them know that the only way we'll see blue skies everywhere, all the time, is to stop investing in the dirty fuels of the past.

-- 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

1473288293000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fsteve-horn%2Fcompany-led-by-donald-trumps-energy-aide-says-its_b_11897732.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
This Trump Aide Stands To Profit From The Dakota Access Pipeline

Cross-Posted from DeSmogBlog

Continental Resources — the company founded and led by CEO Harold Hamm, energy adviser to Donald Trump's presidential campaign and potential U.S. Secretary of Energy under a Trump presidency — has announced to investors that oil it obtains via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) from North Dakota's Bakken Shale basin is destined for transport through the hotly-contested Dakota Access pipeline.

Image Credit: Continental Resources

The company's 37-page September 2016 Investor Update presentation walks investors in the publicly-traded company through various capital expenditure and profit-margin earning scenarios. It also features five slides on the Bakken Shale, with the fifth one named “CLR Bakken Differentials Decreasing Through Increased Pipeline Capacity” honing in on Dakota Access, ETCOP and how the interconnected lines relate to Continental's marketing plans going forward.

In a section of that slide titled, “Bakken Takeaway Capacity” a bar graph points out that the opening of Dakota Access would allow more barrels of Continental's Bakken fracked oil to flow through pipelines.

Dakota Access is slated to carry the fracked Bakken oil across South Dakota, Iowa and into Patoka, Illinois. From there, it will connect to the company's Energy Transfer Crude Oil Pipeline (ETCOP ) line, which terminates in Nederland, Texas at the Sunoco Logistics-owned refinery.

From Keystone XL to Dakota Access

Previously, Harold Hamm was as an outspoken supporter of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, deploying the lobbying group he founded named the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance to advocate for KXL and a Bakken on-ramp which would connect to it. Once he realized the northern leg was doomed politically, Hamm began singing a different tune on Keystone.

“We're supporting other pipelines out there, we're not waiting on Keystone. Nobody is,” Hamm, also an energy adviser to Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign, told Politico in November 2014. “That thing … needed action on it six years ago. I just think it's too late and we need to move on.”

One of those ‘other pipelines' Hamm appears to have taken an interest in is Dakota Access (DAPL). Although to date, neither Hamm nor Trump have commented publicly on the DAPL project. Continental Resources told DeSmog that it does not comment on pipeline shipping contracts.

As The Intercept's Lee Fang pointed out in a recent article, some oil from Dakota Access could feed export markets, despite Energy Transfer's claims in a presentation that it will feature “100% Domestic produced crude” that “supports 100% domestic consumption.”

Hamm's Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, as revealed in a December 2015 DeSmog investigation, led the successful public relations and lobbying campaign charge for lifting the crude oil export ban.

The battle over the fate of Dakota Access has pitted Native American Tribes, environmentalists and libertarian private property rights supporters against Energy Transfer Partners and state- and federal-level agencies which have permitted the project.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe awaits a decision by a Judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in its lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, set for September 9.

“Hamm is an oil profiteer exploiting the health of the water, farmland, and communities in the Dakotas and all downstream,” Angie Carter of the Women, Food and Agriculture Network — one of the over 30 groups comprising the Iowa-based Bakken Pipeline Resistance Coalition — told DeSmog. “In Iowa, we've called upon both Trump and Clinton to speak out against the pipeline.”

Like Trump, Clinton has yet to comment on the pipeline.

-- 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

1473279594000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.nationalgeographic.com%2F2016%2F09%2F07%2Fthings-shouldnt-be-like-this-lingering-effects-of-perus-jungle-oil-spills%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
‘Things Shouldn't Be Like This': Lingering Effects of Peru's Jungle Oil Spills

"Jusoe — Jusoe Esash Unum holds leaves covered in oil near the banks of the Marañon River, months after the January Chiriaco spill. (Photo by Brett Monroe Garner)

By Rebecca Wolff, National Geographic Young Explorer Grantee

I hadn't grasped the true human consequences of oil spills until we immersed ourselves in the situation going on in Peru.

The stories our team heard of lingering illness and food insecurity were heartbreaking. “When the oil spill happened, [the doctors] arrived in the community and gave out a few medicines, and then they never came back. Things shouldn't be like this,” we were told.

By June 2016, 8000 individuals and at least 30 indigenous communities were affected. I never thought it could possibly get worse.

On August 10, the fourth oil spill since the start of 2016 was reported in the Peruvian Amazon.

At least 10 indigenous communities are impacted by the newest spill in the province of Condorcanqui, department of Amazonas. More than 20 similar spills have crippled the region over the past five years.

This latest spill has the potential to impact the Marañon River and the indigenous groups living there, including the Awajún who were affected by the January 25 spill in Chiriaco and the June 24 spill in Barranca. The Marañon is one of the most important rivers in Peru, starting in the Andes and eventually becoming a major tributary of the Amazon River.

Anger and frustration are reaching all-time highs across Peru. In February, after two spills saw over 3,000 barrels of crude oil flow into the Chiriaco and Morona Rivers, state-owned oil company Petroperú was told to cease pumping oil on their Nor Peruano pipeline. The 40-year-old pipeline is in a state of disrepair, the believed cause of the multiple spills this year.

A third oil spill in late June raised questions as to whether Petroperú had followed state orders to stop pumping oil and indicated the company had in fact been continuing to operate their faulty pipeline. One week after the June 24 spill, the Peruvian Supervisory Agency for Investment in Energy and Mining sanctioned Petroperú for pumping oil without permission. The company's president resigned during the controversy.

"Petroperuì — A Petroperuì oil cleanup crew works at site of the January Chiriaco Spill. (Photo by Brett Monroe Garner)

The cause of the newest spill has not been verified. The Agency for Environmental Assessment and Enforcement (OEFA) released a statement on August 11 saying the spill may have resulted from an intentional cut to the pipeline. However, advocates I work with in Peru feel that unconfirmed accusations like this only help shift the blame and responsibility for the spill away from Petroperú. It also remains unclear whether Petroperú ever received permission, after the June sanction, to pump oil again. People are demanding to know if Petroperú was operating illegally, once again putting the Amazon at risk.

Communities and indigenous organizations are often the first to report oil spills on their territories, yet they are not seeing swift legal action or recognition of their rights and needs in wake of these environmental disasters.

“Legal processes are often partial and incomplete. There is a major disconnect between the process and the expectations of affected communities,” anthropologist Rodrigo Lazo, one of our Peruvian collaborators told me. In the Amazon, many individuals simply feel that not enough is being done to help.

"Levitia, — Levitia, a mother affected by the Chiriaco spill stands in a field that was ruined by the oil spill. (Photo by Brett Monroe Garner)

For the past six months, my team and I have interviewed lawyers, community members, indigenous leaders, and advocates across Peru. The testimonies of those afflicted by the spills and those fighting on behalf of communities never waver. Oil spills have abruptly impacted livelihoods and health while polluting the land and rivers of the Amazon.

One mother worried about how she would feed her children when her farmland remained covered in oil, never cleaned up by Petroperú. A community leader explained the health and emergency food supplies provided in his area were not enough for the vast amount of people seeking support.

The number of oil spills occurring in the Peruvian Amazon is increasing at an alarming rate. As we wait to learn just how bad this fourth spill will be, I wonder about the countless stories never told of how oil spills impact human lives. I can only hope the inspiring indigenous leaders, communities, and organizations our team has met will keep fighting to make sure that a fair legal and social resolution is achieved for all those stricken by these tragic oil spills.

More by Rebecca Wolff and Team Member Kevin Floerke

Indigenous Amazonians Reeling From Oil Spills in the Jungle

Health Concerns, Food Insecurity Linger Months After Peruvian Oil Spills

Peru's Oil Spills Deserve the World's Attention

gaia

1473268645000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdouglas-anthony-cooper%2Fmontreal-is-about-to-kill-a-lot-of-dogs_b_11888296.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Montreal Is About To Kill A Lot Of Dogs, Based On Quack Science
A dog registered as a boxer has killed a woman in Montreal, so the mayor is calling for a ban on pit bulls. This would be amusing, if it weren't so predictable and depressing: in few areas of public policy do you encounter thinking this routinely deranged. And it all starts with contempt for science.

Consider the National Post's Barbara Kay, almost certainly Canada's most prominent enemy of this ill-defined category of dog: the "pit bull." Kay is one of the saner voices on her side of the debate, and I sense she genuinely believes that she is acting on behalf of dog bite victims. For years she has written screeds calling for the ban of these dogs, based on what she considers solid scientific evidence. It would help, however, if she actually knew what a scientist was, and how they can be identified in the wild. I've never dealt with a journalist so distressingly lax when it comes to vetting her sources: she does not so much cherry-pick experts as pick diseased cherries and pronounce them epidemiologists.

In particular, Barbara Kay relies upon two crusaders who stress that they were personally bitten by pit bulls. I have written before about Merritt Clifton, the alleged statistician she describes as "her primary source." I addressed his claim that he had "more than a hundred peer-reviewed publications." I found only one -- unrelated to pit bulls -- in a marginal Asian journal. Since then an immaculately researched book has emerged -- Pit Bull: the Battle Over an American Icon (Knopf) -- and the author, Bronwen Dickey, is a more intrepid detective than I am: she managed to find two. Both in this same comically obscure journal. "In one of them, he cites his own newsletter twelve times. The rest of the citations came mainly from Web sites, news reports, and press releases." Dickey is clear on Clifton's credibility as a scientist: he "possesses no relevant credentials."

The woman Barbara Kay describes as her "other primary source" is Colleen Lynn. Here, Bronwen Dickey's revelations are priceless: "Before her bite injury, Lynn maintained a fortune-telling Web site called DivineLady.com, on which she referred to herself as 'Divine Lady, Beholder of the Soul.' In 2011, she self-published the third edition of Divine Lady's Guide to the Runes."

And the Divine Lady now runs DogsBite -- a sober, professional looking website, as long as you don't click on the links to drooling hate groups -- which credulous journalists consider a primary source for scientific information about pit bulls. Bronwen Dickey reminds us: "Lynn has no professional credentials in statistics, epidemiology, or animal behaviour; neither do the sources she relies upon most frequently."

These are the experts, peddled by Barbara Kay, who are informing Mayor Denis Coderre's decision to introduce a breed ban. Their favoured legislation is strongly rejected by every expert organization on the continent, including the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists.

When it comes to Breed Specific Legislation, it is not a question of two worthy opinions to be carefully considered and weighed against each other. It is a matter of science versus the worst kind of quackery: rune-throwing fortune tellers, wildly unqualified statisticians, and a posse of foul-mouthed trolls. There is no argument here, any more than there is in the sorry vaccine debate: it's simply knowledge versus willful, howling ignorance.

Barbara Kay's third vaunted source -- her "bible" -- is a book by Alexandra Semyonova, a former welfare inspector for the Dutch SPCA. Despite having spent time at good schools -- Johns Hopkins and University College London -- Semyonova likes to talk about "science whores": these are trained scientists with peer-reviewed publications, who come to radically different conclusions from hers, and therefore must be in it for the money.

I read Kay's bible after some urging. Semyonova's book is called The 100 Silliest Things People Say About Dogs. Which doesn't have quite the same ring to it as "The Old Testament." Still, it's not a bad book. Sure, she cites Merritt Clifton, so her statistics can be safely ignored, but it's not a dreadful book, really, until you come to the end -- the section entitled: "Myth 99: Scientists know what they are talking about because they study animals in an objective way."

Here the counterfactual statements are truly special. "The scientists who have studied dogs have done it either in highly unnatural circumstances (the lab), or they've only watched the dogs for short intervals." If you believe this silliness, I suggest you look up Dr. Ian Dunbar, a scientist with stellar academic qualifications -- a veterinary degree, a doctorate in animal behaviour from Berkeley, a Special Honours degree in Physiology and Biochemistry -- who has become famous for training dogs through decades of experience in the field. (He oppose BSL, of course, calling it "frankly stupid".)

I urge you to read "Myth 99" in its ridiculous entirety. Semyonova writes: "We now know that science often attracts people who have various, more or less serious, autism related disorders, perhaps in particular Asperger's syndrome." She laments science's "obsession with measurement and quantification." She suggests it might be a result of autism.

In short: rigorous science is overrated. Perhaps a kind of illness.

Barbara Kay seems to have come to her own self-serving conclusion: rigorous science reporting is overrated. I read her quirky bible, but despite my insistence, she has declined to read Bronwen Dickey's book, an exhaustive and likely definitive study representing seven years of research. Which didn't prevent Kay from tweeting this bit of non-libel, based on her profound insight into a book she hasn't read: "Why does @BronwenDickey hate kids?"

Let's take a look at what happened in Ontario when those evil "science whores" failed to prevent Breed Specific Legislation in 2005. For a short time it looked good: "A total of 486 bites were recorded in 2005. That number fell generally in the six years following, to 379 in 2010." And then -- when pit bulls were finally getting thin on the ground -- the numbers began to rise: "Toronto's reported dog bites have been rising since 2012, and in 2013 and 2014 reached their highest levels this century."

How could this be? Simple: other dogs stepped in to fill the gap. Irresponsible owners remained irresponsible -- since the laws did not apply to them, simply to maligned breeds -- and their dogs continued to bite. In 2014, pit bulls didn't even make the top ten list; the top biter in Ontario was the German Shepherd (a perennial), followed distantly by the Labrador retriever. Of course, had the wise rulers of Ontario listened to the science whores, they would have known to expect this: Breed Specific Legislation has been a disaster worldwide. Not one respectable study supports breed bans.

Oh, and if you care about dogs at all: "By 2012, the Ontario Veterinary Medical Association estimated that the law had led to over 1,000 dogs and puppies in Ontario having been needlessly put down."

Perhaps you don't care about dogs, but you value fiscal responsibility? Ontario's worthless Breed Specific Legislation -- while killing dogs, and doing nothing to make humans safer -- has certainly cost a whole lot of money. The precise figure hasn't been released, despite numerous requests, but we can infer how much from a study of Prince George County, Maryland (whose BSL costs are considered on the low side, relatively speaking): "The average cost to seize, detain, test, and euthanize a single pit bull was $68,000. In the fiscal year of 2001-2002, the total cost of pit bull confiscations was $560,000." Needless to say, this half million dollars purchased precisely zilch: "Studies proved that the community had no measurable safety benefit from the ban, and lost out on thousands of dollars from cancelled dog shows, tourism, and consistent 'pit bull' report calls from concerned citizens."

You'd think that Barbara Kay, a political conservative, would have strong ideas about fiscal restraint. But no, saving money has the unbearable consequence of saving pit bulls from the needle. Which is the only reason I can imagine Ms. Kay so greatly favours the failed Ontario legislation over the much less expensive program introduced in Alberta, which happens to actually work.

You see, Mayor Coderre need not look south of the border for relevant expertise here. By coincidence, the most lauded urban experiment in the containment of dog bites -- studied across the world -- is the Calgary Model. It's a remarkable success, and it's much cheaper than Breed Specific Legislation. The downside? It's a lot of work, and -- this really hurts -- it requires humans to be responsible. Calgary's bylaws governing dog ownership, described in depth here, are some of the strictest you'll encounter: yes, leashes are mandatory, as are licences. The legislation happens to be breed neutral, meaning that if your German Shepherd or your Dalmatian bites someone, you won't be off the hook. The program stresses education -- as opposed to BSL, whose fertilizer is ignorance -- which means even more in the way of human responsibility. So, it's a bit onerous. On the plus side it saves money, dogs, and humans.

Mayor Coderre has a genuine opportunity here: he could set an example, internationally, by introducing this groundbreaking legislation to a city twice the size of Calgary. This is personal: I lived in Montreal off and on for years -- one of my favorite cities -- and it would be thrilling to see it celebrated for a major contribution to the history of animal welfare.

The Calgary Model is not perfect, of course; nothing involving dogs and humans ever is. It requires constant vigilance and enforcement, and these have waned somewhat in recent years -- in 2011, for instance, Calgary experienced a distressing uptick in biting incidents. (Although not that distressing: the city retained "the lowest bite-per-population ratio in North America.") When the legislation is properly enforced, however, the results are peerless: Calgary "saw a five-fold reduction over 20 years -- from 10 bites per 10,000 people in 1986 to two in 2006."

Pardon my obsession with measurement and quantification. It's an illness I share with rational people who care about dog-bite victims.

NOTE: regarding the boxer I refer to at the top -- to be honest, we have no idea what kind of dog killed Christiane Vadnais. It was identified as a pit bull by the press, who are always quick to jump to this headline-friendly conclusion; then we discovered that it was registered as a boxer. Even this could be wrong; until we have DNA tests, we're simply throwing runes. All sorts of mixes can look like pit bulls. Alanna Devine, SPCA Montreal's director of animal advocacy, has the right approach: "The information that I think is pertinent here is that the dog was unsterilized, the dog was named Lucifer, and the dog had previously been involved in an attack against a human." In short, the owner would have been properly dealt with under the Calgary Model, and this tragedy would likely have been averted.

-- 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