1473367468000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fcarl-pope%2Fwatching-the-power-market_b_11913106.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Watching the Power Market Overrun both Coal and EPA
I'm here to debate (along with Jody Freeman, the Archibald Cox Professor of Law at Harvard) a couple of coal advocates from Texas on the topic, "Has EPA Gone too Far" with its Clean Power Plan.

Our opponents are Charles McConnell, who was Assistant Secretary of Energy for Fossil Fuels in the first Obama Administration, and Michael Nasi, who leads the pro-coal Balanced Energy for Texas Coalition, comprised of coal companies, railroads and coal invested utilities and co-ops.

Intelligence Squared, which hosts the debate (watch http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/climate-change-epa-has-gone-overboard here) uses Oxford Union rules, which means the side which changes the most minds wins. Since most of the audience will probably start out supporting the Clean Power Plan, we're actually the underdog - we won't have as many people to move to our side as McConnell and Nasi.

Based on their previous articles and testimony, we expect the focus to be on cost - somehow replacing coal with clean energy is going to vastly increase consumer energy bills. But we feel well prepared - a day earlier, the nation's most coal dependent regional grid operator, PJM, has said that for a swathe of states from Virginia to Illinois, including the Appalachian coal belt, complying with the new cleaner electricity rules will have no impact on reliability, and a miniscule 1-3.3% impact on power prices by 2030.

Perhaps because of the PJM release, McConnell and Nasi steer away from the economic arguments. McConnell focusses instead on the true (but irrelevant) fact that the CPP by itself does not rely on carbon capture and sequestration as a means of cleaning up coal plants globally (although any utility that chose to use CCS would get full credit for the carbon abatement that resulted.) Nasi trots out the legal arguments against the very flexibility and affordability that EPA has built into the regulations, arguing that in doing so EPA has stretched its authority under the Clean Air Act, which Nasi claims actually requires its clean-up rules to be power plant by power plant, rather than treating an entire state's power sector as the benchmark for measuring emissions.

These are the core legal arguments the coal lobby will make before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals on September 27, and they are revealing.

The coal lobby doesn't oppose EPA's clean power regulations because they cost too much; it opposes them because they are too economically attractive. They fear these rules will accelerate the shift away from coal that is already sweeping the US power sector. Reliance on coal is down from 50% in 2005 to 32% t his year. As a result, we have already gone half way towards the Clean Power Plan's emission reduction goals for 2030. And during that period of time what has happened to the price of wholesale electricity? It has dropped 10%. To reliability? It has remained steady.

And the infamous Obama Administration War on Coal? It's now the junior partner in an alliance with market forces, which are responsible for the fact that coal generation has dropped so far without the CPP even going into effect.

In Colorado, 7 of XCEL's 10 coal fired power plants cost more just to operate than the cost of replacing them with brand new wind farms - consumers in Colorado would have lower bills if they just paid XCEL to shut down its plants and substitute renewables. In Indiana, NIPSCO has conceded to state regulators that from a consumer perspective, shutting down all of its plants would be the cheapest option, even though the Clean Power Plan would allow half of them to remain open. In Pennsylvania, GE Finance a few years ago bought the huge Homer City Power Station at a fire-sale price, and then poured $750 million in retrofitting it with scrubbers. The Sierra Club warned GE that the move was a loser. Three years later the plant is hemorrhaging money, back on the market - and likely to go again for fire sale prices. GE, an otherwise smart company, will take this bath.

But Texas, with the nation's biggest coal fleet is the most revealing of all - although neither Nasi nor McConnell is eager to tell the story tonight. Consumer organizations in Texas estimate that market forces alone will lead the state to such heavy reliance on renewables and gas that it will be 88% of the way to its Clean Power Plan goal. In fact, it looks like they are too cautious. The big news in power circles in Texas this summer is that the owners of coal plants - seven of them - are suing the counties in which those plants are located for massive - up 85% -- reductions in their assessed value for tax purposes. Why? Because they can no longer come close to competing on the Texas power market. The newest of these plants, Sandy Spring, just won a huge jury award in such a case - after arguing that it costs $.06 to generate a kwh of electricity from its coal plant, while the going power rate in Texas, a price set by wind, solar and gas, is only $0.03, half as much.

In his closing argument to the jury, the lawyer for Sandy Springs, summed up a coal plant operator's view of the future:

"You've heard a lot about this coal plant being new, with a lot of pollution control equipment, but it's still going to be a coal plant. It's never going to be a gas plant, a wind turbine or a solar plant. Clean energy and natural gas are the future. This plant is never going to be."

I use those as the closing remarks of my debate as well.

To my surprise, we move more of the audience our way than our opponents. McConnell and Nasi start with 18% support and end with 23%. We, as I expected, start with far more supporters, 59%, but end with 72%. For the on-line audience, the results are even stronger. Support for the CPP grows from 49% to 63%. Opposition shrinks, from 42% to 35%.

It's nice to win this debate. But it's even nicer to have the market in my camp.

-- 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

1473367465000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Feliza-northrop%2Fus-and-china-join-paris-a_b_11914926.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
US and China Join Paris Agreement, Bringing it Much Closer to Taking Effect
Last week, the United States and China formally joined the Paris Agreement in a ceremony in Hangzhou, China ahead of the G20 Summit. President Obama and President Xi both deposited their country's official instrument with United Nations Secretary, General Ban-Ki Moon.

This ends the speculation about when the world's two largest greenhouse gas emitters will join the landmark international climate agreement. While 195 countries adopted the Agreement last year, it will actually enter into force when 55 countries accounting for at least 55 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions join by approving it domestically and submitting their "instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval" to the UN. The U.S.-China move brings the world firmly within range of hitting the 55-55 threshold this year--perhaps as soon as this month.

Why is this announcement important?

The United States and China together account for approximately 38 percent of the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. By swiftly joining the Paris Agreement, the United States and China have turned the page from making commitments to delivering action, and have encouraged other world leaders to follow their lead.

Today's joint statement also deepens the relationship between the two countries on climate change, building on previous joint statements released in November 2014 and September 2015, which helped pave the way for success at COP21 last year. In joining the Paris Agreement together, they have emphasized what can be achieved through cooperation and reconfirmed their responsibility to lead by example.

This is the first-ever G20 to be held in China, and brings together the world's largest economies. Of those attending, Argentina, Australia, Canada and Mexico have all committed to join the Agreement this year, and Brazil appears poised to join soon following the completion of its domestic approval process last week.

Given the strong signal now sent by the United States and China, a number of these countries are expected to follow through on their commitments as early as this month. The UN Secretary General has scheduled a special event on September 21 during the UN General Assembly for countries to join the Agreement by submitting their formal instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval.

How close are we to entry into force?

Entry into force means that the Paris Agreement will be in full force and effect under international law, binding those countries that have joined and catalyzing implementation of their commitments. Reaching entry into force rapidly will also demonstrate strong political commitment to the Agreement and increase the pace of putting its operational elements in place.

27 countries representing 39.08 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions have now joined the Paris Agreement. According to our analysis, a further 31 have either committed to join this year or are extremely likely to, based on national statements and completion of domestic ratification processes.

This would bring us to 58 countries representing 58.42 percent of emissions - well over the 55:55 threshold this year.

What comes next?

If the 55-55 threshold is reached by October 7 this year, the first meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (referred to as "CMA1") will take place in conjunction with COP22 in Morocco this November.

Alternatively, if the threshold is reached later this year, CMA1 would commence at the next major UN climate summit in 2017.

Parties would then need to determine a process for adopting the key procedures and guidelines to implement the Paris Agreement. Such rapid entry into force would continue the momentum created at Paris last year, help spur early implementation, and reinforce the global commitment to building a zero-carbon, climate-resilient future.

Regardless of whether it happens by October 7 or later this year, one thing is certain: The Paris Agreement is destined to become one of the most widely and swiftly ratified international treaties in history. For example, the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty that preceded the Paris Agreement, took seven years to enter into force. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change before it took two years.

How can I monitor progress on ratification of the Paris Agreement?

Follow the progress on WRI's Paris Agreement Tracker, which will be updated in real time as new countries join in the coming weeks.

The Paris Agreement Tracker is now available in six languages: English, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Chinese and Japanese.

-- 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

1473362489000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmark-j-palmer%2Fwill-japan-stop-whaling-a_b_11899088.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Will Japan Stop Whaling and Killing Dolphins in Time for the Tokyo 2020 Olympics?
Since the International Whaling Commission's moratorium on commercial whaling went into effect in 1986, Japan has repeatedly flaunted the will of the IWC by issuing hundreds of scientific permits to Japan whalers for "research whaling." The scam has been repeatedly denounced by the IWC, by other nations, and was deemed illegal by the World Court in The Hague. Much of the killing, in addition to violating the moratorium, was conducted in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, designated by the IWC as a protected zone for whales.

In 2009, Japan's bloody hunting of dolphins was exposed by the release of the Academy Award-winning documentary "The Cove". The film caused a global sensation. Hundreds of intelligent dolphins - males, females and calves - die each year in the worst way imaginable.

Last winter (the Antarctic summer), Japan killed 333 minke whales for "scientific research" whaling. During the last 6-month dolphin-hunting season in Taiji, Japan, the hunters killed 652 dolphins (while catching another 117 live dolphins to be brokered to aquariums around the world).

Japan remains unmoved. Powerful rural legislators have joined with the Japan Fisheries Agency, the fishing industry and fishermen's unions in opposing any end to whaling and dolphin hunting. 80% of Japan's protein comes from the sea, and Japan is the largest importer of fish in the world. Extreme nationalists have adopted the issues as if Japan's very soul is bound up in the history of whaling and dolphin killing.

In fact, it is all nonsense. Few Japanese eat whale or dolphin meat anymore, despite clumsy Fisheries Agency attempts from time to time to mount pro-eating whale meat advertising and publicity stunts. Frozen whale meat stacks up in warehouses unsold; the meat is turned into jerky and pet food to get rid of it. The claim that whaling and dolphin hunting are "traditions" is very weak, as industrial whaling did not begin in Japan until the beginning of the 20th century (often with opposition from local Japanese fishermen who resented the blood and offal shore whaling stations dumped in fishing ports), with Antarctic trips not starting until the 1930's. Dolphin hunting is even more tenuous: Taiji's "traditional" dolphin drive hunts, depicted in "The Cove", did not begin until 1969.

Japan has bigger fish to fry, if you will excuse the pun. The conservative government of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has repeatedly endorsed whaling and issues permits for dolphin hunters like clockwork. They should reconsider.

In 2020, Tokyo will be hosting the summer Olympics. The world will focus on Japan, and Japan will have an extraordinary opportunity on the world stage to restore prestige lost through years of its stagnate economy and reduced global leadership.

On that world stage, the slaughter of innocent whales and dolphins, anathema to most of the world's people and governments, would send a jarring note of Japan's unwillingness to cooperate with world bodies like the World Court and the IWC. This need not be the case.

The Olympics are all about cooperation and celebration. The slaughter of whales and dolphins practiced by Japan are anything but. Killing whales and dolphins is not an Olympic event. Does Japan really need such black marks on their national reputation?

We are told in antiquity that Greek warriors laid down their arms and ceased wars in order to join in the Olympic competitions, upon which our modern Olympics are based. Perhaps it is time for Japan to lay down their harpoons and spikes with which they kill whales and dolphins, and join the rest of the world in ending the exploitation of these intelligent and remarkable beings? Country after country, some having longer "traditions" of whale and dolphin hunting than Japan, have ceased such activities.

The Sept. 1st beginning of another season of dolphin hunting is upon us. In December, the Japanese whaling fleet will set sail again for Antarctic waters. Will the Japan government remain intransigent?

A gesture of international cooperation and goodwill by Japan towards whales and dolphins would have immense global value.

On August 29th, Earth Island's International Marine Mammal Project sent a letter to Prime Minister Abe recommending he end the killing of whales and dolphins by Japan, and offering our help in such a transition for the dolphin hunters of Taiji. We stress in our letter that we do not believe in a boycott of Japan or a boycott of the Olympics in Tokyo.

With four years to go, now is the time for Japan to start phasing out dolphin hunting and whaling.

Thanks to the Oceanic Preservation Society for their frame grab from "The Cove" documentary.

Please sign our petition to Prime Minister Abe.

-- 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

1473362486000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.nationalgeographic.com%2F2016%2F09%2F08%2Ffrom-the-front-lines-of-the-dakota-access-pipeline-protests%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
From the Front Lines of the Dakota Access Pipeline Protests

Thousands of Native Americans have set up camp at the confluence of the Cannonball and Missouri Rivers in southern North Dakota to protest the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. This pipeline, if completed, would move 500,000 barrels of oil per day from the lucrative Bakken region in North Dakota across four states to Illinois. Developers contend that it would provide the safest, most cost effective way to deliver oil from North Dakota to the rest of the country.

The location the pipeline will cross the Missouri River causes great concern for the Standing Rock Sioux, however, whose reservation begins immediately downstream. The threat of spills and poisoned water sources has fueled their mass demonstration, attracting Native Americans from all around the continent. "Teepee Their concerns certainly seem valid, as early plans had the pipeline crossing the Missouri just above North Dakota's capital, Bismark, until it was moved downstream out of fears of the potential for poisoning the city's water supply. Many Native Americans I spoke with felt this was just a continuation of hundreds of years of racism and oppression.

Earlier this week, I joined my friend Tonya Bonitatibus, the Savannah Riverkeeper (who has battled a pipeline in her home watershed) in North Dakota to document through photos and video what was happening. I arrived around midnight and turned on to a dirt road along the Cannonball River to find the Sacred Stone Camp. As soon as I stepped out of the car I felt welcomed and began to understand the massive scale of this movement.

As I talked with the protectors (their preferred title, instead of protesters), the cultural importance of water could not be understated. I repeatedly heard that their creation story begins with water, hu "Protector mans are mostly water, and without water trees cannot grow and we won't have any air to breath. Losing this lifeline is not an option for the people here. Couple that with threats to sacred sites along the pipeline route, already being disturbed as construction begins, and people are ready for a fight.

The next morning we went to visit a camp on the highway where protectors clashed with construction crews days before as bulldozers tore up native burial and other sacred sites. The air was cold and quiet, with people sipping coffee as they kept a lookout. While all seemed calm I could tell there was a powder keg of energy ready to blow. That spark arrived when lookouts reported construction crews had started work on an area of the pipeline about 15 miles away.

We mobilized as dozens of masked people jumped into cars and pickup trucks and tore out. As our convoy sped down the final hill to the site, I could see construction workers sprinting for the safety of their trucks as they abandoned work for the day. Protectors took over the site (with no weapons, just song and prayer, it should be noted), raising flags and signs and even chaining themselves to the construction equipment. The police stood by watching, only trying to keep the road open for traffic.

"Protectors

The protectors occupied the site all day and in what was mostly viewed as a success, construction was halted for another day and no one was hurt.

As the battle continues on the ground, the protectors hope that the court system and government at large will use this as an opportunity to honor treaties and support the original occupants of this country. Here are some ways that you can help make that happen.

Corey Robinson is a National Geographic Young Explorer, photographer and filmmaker whose work focuses on people's connection to land and water. Follow along for more photos and updates on Instagram @coreyrobinson

gaia

1473362484000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fnikhil-advani%2Fas-climate-changes-us-we-_b_11892182.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
As Climate Changes Us, We Change Wildlife
It's easier and easier to understand the impacts a changing climate has on our daily lives: higher temperatures can affect everything from the food we eat, to the bills we pay for air conditioning in the summer and heat in the winter.

"2016-09-07-1473264806-6327821-Nikhilblogphoto.jpg"

Fencing in Siana Conservancy, highlighting the difference in pasture between fenced and unfenced land.

But we're not the only ones affected. Climate change also impacts wildlife and the habitat on which they depend. Changes in climate are altering the timing of life cycles, causing species to shift where they live, and in some cases even leading to extinction.

While the direct correlation between a changing climate and wildlife is increasingly clear, to date there's been less focus on understanding how human responses to climate change also impact wildlife and their habitat. That's where my work comes in.

I recently visited the Siana conservancy in Kenya, part of the Greater Mara ecosystem. This part of the world, home to the Maasai people of Kenya, has one of the most spectacular concentrations of wildlife on the planet, including the famous "Big Five:" lions, leopards, rhinos, elephants and African buffalos. The Maasai people are pastoral, and they and their livestock have coexisted with wildlife for generations. However, successive seasons of failed or erratic rains, particularly during the long rainy season, have plunged much of the region into frequent periods of drought over the last few years.

During my visit, I met with community members and park rangers to understand how changing weather and climate over the last few years have impacted their daily lives. I wanted to find out what they are doing differently. How exactly are they responding to these changes?

In these conversations, I looked for hints of any novel responses that could be adopted elsewhere. And, I looked for examples of how their new "way of life" could be impacting the wildlife that also calls this area home.

I learned quickly that pasture is one of the most important resources in this area. The Maasai need it to feed the livestock that provides the foundation of local livelihoods. But, those large open plains also provide for millions of other grazing animals including wildebeest, zebras, and gazelles, particularly during the peak of the great animal migration across the Mara-Serengeti area - which is when I happened to visit.

In order to conserve pasture for their grazing livestock, the Maasai were erecting fences across large swaths of land, particularly during times of drought. Unfortunately, this fencing disrupts the migration of the native wildlife, and restricts their freedom to roam. This situation is further complicated by climate-driven weather events: rivers which used to flow year round are now seasonal, which is increasing competition for water between wildlife, humans and livestock.

However, there are solutions! During periods of drought, the Maasai are allowed to graze their livestock inside the protected conservancy in specified areas for certain amounts of time. They are investing in more productive livestock breeds and reducing the number of livestock they keep, particularly during lean times. And, communities are also harvesting rainwater, using the roofs of buildings to capture rain, then storing it in above and below ground water tanks for later use.

While this research is moving forward, we are beginning to share what we've learned with colleagues working in Africa and other parts of the world. At this week's IUCN World Conservation Congress, we're talking about these and other human responses to climate change, including the latest research in this emerging field. We're also talking about how WWF's new Climate Crowd initiative is crowdsourcing data to document human responses to climate change across the globe, and how others can use this data to develop interventions that help people and wildlife persist in a changing climate. It's exciting work and we're fortunate to work with incredible collaborators including IUCN, the Peace Corps and the USAID-funded Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group.

Climate change is already taking a toll on us and also on the wildlife that share this world with us. And, climate change will continue to exacerbate existing threats -- like habitat destruction and overexploitation - for the world's already imperiled wildlife. We can -- we must -- help species adapt to our changing world by ensuring that our own responses to climate change factor in the health and wellbeing of the wildlife and the habitat they depend upon.

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.

-- 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

1473356748000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fdana-ellis-hunnes%2Fa-view-of-earth-from-the-_b_11882500.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
A View of Earth From The Milky Way
As a child I was always fascinated with astronomy, the stars, planets, and galaxies.

I can still remember my parents taking me to stargazing events on those clear somewhat-cool Florida "winter" nights. We were members of our local astronomy club.

I can remember staring for hours through a telescope, admiring the beauty within the known universe; but largely seeing what was in our own backyard, within our own galaxy.

The most amazing night sky I can remember was when I was 16 years old, sleeping in the Negev desert of Israel. A close second was at a summer camp in Georgia. That night happened to be a most beautiful shooting star evening.

Now it's been over a decade since I've been able to see more than a handful of stars in the sky. Mainly, because I live in a city with extreme light pollution

However, this past Labor Day weekend, I was in a remote locale, with minimal lights in the area, and was once again able to see a beautiful night-time sky filled with stars and even a glimpse of our own beautiful Milky Way galaxy.

It was then that I felt not only small, but a renewed sense of why it is that I care so deeply about conservation, sustainability, and protecting the species of our planet and, the planet, Earth, itself.

When you peer into the center of the Milky Way you're looking millions of years into the past. It is then that you realize our time on earth is not only short, but completely insignificant in the whole presence of the universe.

Yet, we humans, with our fairly short lives have made dramatic and profoundly significant changes to our home, Earth. In fact, scientists are calling this the Anthropocene period of our planet.

It took Earth billions of years to get to where it is now, with millions of species of animals, plants, algae's, fungi, etc.

It is only in the last few hundred years that humans have started to understand and make sense of our planet and the wildlife around us. But, it is only in the last 50 to 60 years that we have made the largest impact on the planet and its species.

We humans have single-handedly managed to release hundreds of millions of years of stored carbon into our atmosphere, allowing for a domino effect on ocean health, our health, tropical rainforest and habitat health, and the health of many living things.

In this extremely short timeframe, we have managed to cause several species to go extinct or to move closer to extinction.

We have developed toxic chemicals, plastics, and other types of materials that endanger the lives of several species including ourselves.

We have found systematic ways to kill hundreds of millions of animals a year, both domesticated, and wild; sometimes for food, sometimes for a trophy or a trinket, or sometimes even for a piece of art.

We have found systematic ways to kill other humans through genocides, wars, extermination. All of this accomplished in a mere blink of Universal time.

We have organizations such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the United States Endangered Species Act, and others that are supposedly designed to protect species we deem to be endangered.

Unfortunately, it often feels like these organizations sit at the table and declare the fate of a particular species. But, of course without them, I suppose there would be no oversight or regulation on anything.

The level of discourse seems to have fallen dramatically too recently.

It seems like today, if you disagree with someone, particularly if it's on the Internet, you will receive nasty comments, cruel emails, and phrases that I don't believe people would utter in person. And in fact, some of my blogs about conservation and sustainability have really shown me the power of money and greed.

It pains me to think that we put money, things, ahead of life; any life.

When you look up into a dark night sky, that is not polluted by lights, and see the gorgeous magnificence of our own galaxy with somewhere around 200 to 400 billion stars, you realize that this is all we have.

Earth can rebuild itself, if we let it. Fish stocks can recover, coral reefs can rebuild, rain forests can expand. Wildlife can grow. But, when we continue on the path that we are on, taking from earth faster than she can rebuild, or reproduce, then we truly limit our resources, and those of all the other species on earth

It's always interesting, when you hear about the concept of colonizing another planet, say Mars. At least in my circles, all you hear about are people recolonizing. Nothing is said about all the other animals. The ones we kill for sport, or for amusement parks, or for their ivory.

It saddens me to think that while we evolved from other apes; our technology, our greed, and some of our desires destroy almost everything natural and unique about our blue planet

So, when I looked into the night sky this Labor Day weekend, and for the first time in almost 20 years could see thousands of stars and our gorgeous Milky Way, I didn't just see beauty, I didn't just see vastness, I didn't just see our smallness in our galaxy in our universe, or even on our planet. No, I saw all that we were and all that we have managed to take away from earth in just a few short years.

While I believe that these organizations are necessary to try and protect whatever wildlife we can, I desire a world where we don't need these organizations. I desire a world where I don't need to pray for six months of the year that dolphins will swim far and swim deep to escape murder. I desire a world where we don't need articles describing how many species are at the risk of extinction because of our ill will.

I desire a world where we and other wildlife can coexist in peace and harmony.

And, finally, I desire a world where I don't need to be writing this article.

Twitter: recipe4survival
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RecipeForSurvival/
PlanetExperts: http://www.planetexperts.com/author/danahunnes/

-- 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

1473351522000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.nationalgeographic.com%2F2016%2F09%2F08%2Fcatastrophic-declines-in-earths-remaining-wilderness-over-the-last-20-years-study-finds%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Catastrophic Declines in Earth's Remaining Wilderness Over the Last 20 Years, Study Finds

Only 23 Percent of Wilderness Remains

"Click — Click the image to download the report (pdf)

Researchers reporting in the journal Current Biology show catastrophic declines in wilderness areas around the world over the last 20 years, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) said today.

“They demonstrate alarming losses comprising a tenth of global wilderness since the 1990s an area twice the size of Alaska and half the size of the Amazon. The Amazon and Central Africa have been hardest hit,” the New York-based WCS added in a statement released at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Hawaii.

“The findings underscore an immediate need for international policies to recognize the value of wilderness areas and to address the unprecedented threats they face,” the researchers say.

“Globally important wilderness areas—despite being strongholds for endangered biodiversity, for buffering and regulating local climates, and for supporting many of the world's most politically and economically marginalized communities—are completely ignored in environmental policy,” says James Watson of the University of Queensland in Australia and the Wildlife Conservation Society in New York. “Without any policies to protect these areas, they are falling victim to widespread development. International policy mechanisms must recognize the actions needed to maintain wilderness areas before it is too late. We probably have one to two decades to turn this around.”

"Liana_2010_08_07_1891" — Photograph by Liana Joseph/courtesy of WCS

Losing Entire Ecosystems

Watson says much policy attention has been paid to the loss of species, but comparatively little was known about larger-scale losses of entire ecosystems, especially wilderness areas which tend to be relatively understudied. To fill that gap, the researchers mapped wilderness areas around the globe, with “wilderness” being defined as biologically and ecologically intact landscapes free of any significant human disturbance. The researchers then compared their current map of wilderness to one produced by the same methods in the early 1990s.

Losses have occurred primarily in South America, which has experienced a 30 percent decline in wilderness, and Africa, which has experienced a 14 percent loss.

This comparison showed that a total of 30.1 million km² (around 20 percent of the world's land area) now remains as wilderness, with the majority being located in North America, North Asia, North Africa, and the Australian continent. However, comparisons between the two maps show that an estimated 3.3 million km² (almost 10 percent) of wilderness area has been lost in the intervening years. Those losses have occurred primarily in South America, which has experienced a 30 percent decline in wilderness, and Africa, which has experienced a 14 percent loss.

"world_gray_2"

Losing the Last Jewels in Nature's Crown

“The amount of wilderness loss in just two decades is staggering,” says Dr Oscar Venter of the University of Northern British Colombia. “We need to recognize that wilderness areas, which we've foolishly considered to be de-facto protected due to their remoteness, is actually being dramatically lost around the world. Without proactive global interventions we could lose the last jewels in nature's crown. You cannot restore wilderness, once it is gone, and the ecological process that underpin these ecosystems are gone, and it never comes back to the state it was. The only option is to proactively protect what is left.”

"IMG_4423" — Photograph by Liana Joseph/courtesy of WCS

“We have a duty to act for our children and their children.” — James Watson

Watson says that the United Nations and others have ignored globally significant wilderness areas in key multilateral environmental agreements and this must change.

“If we don't act soon, there will only be tiny remnants of wilderness around the planet, and this is a disaster for conservation, for climate change, and for some of the most vulnerable human communities on the planet,” Watson says. “We have a duty to act for our children and their children.”

"IMG_2205" — Photograph by Liana Joseph/courtesy of WCS

“It should not be surprising that the wild and natural areas of the world are being altered and even destroyed so rapidly.” — Peter Raven, President Emeritus of the Missouri Botanical Garden.

“Given the fact that we have already converted a third of the world's land surface to agriculture of some kind, and that we are changing the atmosphere so rapidly that unless we start taking truly effective action now, it should not be surprising that the wild and natural areas of the world are being altered and even destroyed so rapidly,” said Peter Raven, Chairman of the National Geographic Committee for Research and Exploration and President Emeritus of the Missouri Botanical Garden. (Dr. Raven did not participate in the study.)

“Given the inequalities between nations, however, and our reluctance to help one another much with conservation, there is no particular reason to think the future will be that much better than the past. To solve these problems we would need a level population that the Earth could support indefinitely; equitable consumption based on social justice around the world; the empowerment of women and children, so that everyone could use the gifts that they have for our common good; and a mutual understanding based on understanding and even loving one another as dwellers on a single finite planet.”

Human Population Increases by 250,000 a Day

Raven noted that we live in a world in which the human population has grown from one billion people two centuries ago, when all of the land was being divided into nations and colonies for the first time, to 7.4 billion people today. With 250,000 people net being added every day, the total global population is expected to increase by 2.4 billion additional people during the next 34 years, by mid-century (2050), he said.

“There are already three times as many people on Earth as when I was born in the mid-1930s. The Global Footprint Network estimates that we are using 1.64 times the sustainable capacity of the Earth, up from 70 percent percent in 1970. What is most alarming about our situation, though is the exceedingly uneven division of consumption between the different countries on Earth, given that we are already well over the top in consuming productivity.”

Raven recalled that a half century ago, Adlai Stevenson, addressing a committee of the United Nations at a time when the human population and consumption were about half of what they are now, said:

“We travel together, passengers on a little spaceship, dependent upon its vulnerable reserves of air and soil, all committed for our safety to its security and peace; preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work, and, I will say, the love we give our fragile craft. We cannot maintain it half fortunate, half miserable, half confident, half despairing, half slave to the ancient enemies of man, half free in a liberation of resources undreamed of until this day. No craft, no crew can travel safely with such vast contradictions. On their resolution depends the survival of us all.”

Racing to Consume the Most Possible

More than 200 million people have been killed in wars since countries began to vie with one another in earnest, Raven added. The U.S. has about 7,000 nuclear tipped warheads, and Russia 7,700. “Everyone wants to win the race to consume the most possible, whatever the cost to global stability, and conservation will not really become possible until we regain our collective sanity.

“The current article offers continuing proof that we are still a long way away from where we need to be. I hope that it and the other signs evident everywhere might inspire us to overcome our inherited instincts and find a way to preserve the world in a way of which we could be proud.”

More About the Research Article

Watson et al.: “Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets”http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30993-9 /

gaia

1473351515000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmatt-rand%2Fphotos-explore-the-larges_b_11910470.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
PHOTOS: Explore the Largest Protected Area on Earth
On Aug. 26, President Barack Obama created the largest protected area on Earth when he expanded the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to a total 582,578 square miles (1.5 million square kilometers)--an area more than twice the size of Texas. Expansion of the monument will help conserve one of the most biologically and culturally significant places on the planet.

Papahānaumokuākea harbors over 7,000 species, a quarter of which are found nowhere else. It provides habitat for rare species such as the threatened green turtle, the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, and the false killer whale, as well as 14 million seabirds representing 22 different species. In the first half of 2016, scientists exploring the area discovered a new type of ghost octopus, nicknamed "Casper," and three new species of fish.

The world's oldest known living organism--a deep-water black coral estimated to be as old as the Pyramids--is found in the monument's expanded boundaries.

President Obama's announcement builds on actions by six previous U.S. presidents--three Republicans and three Democrats--to conserve the ecosystems and wildlife of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. In fact the original monument designation was made by President George W. Bush with the strong support of his wife Laura.

Explore the images below for a view of Papahānaumokuākea.

"2016-09-08-1473343981-6499163-falsekillerwhalemothercalf.jpg"

Photo: Robin Baird/NOAA

False killer whales, like the two shown here, are among 24 species of marine mammals found in Papahānaumokuākea. As top predators, these whales reproduce only every six or seven years and birth only one calf each pregnancy. The expansion of the monument will benefit the species, along with endangered marine mammals such as the blue whale, fin whale, and sei whale.

"2016-09-08-1473344178-9324680-bamboohires.jpg"

Photo: Image courtesy of NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research, Hohonu Moana 2016.

Bamboo coral thrives in deep water, including on some of the 110 seamounts (underwater mountains) in the area covered by the Papahānaumokuākea expansion. Seamounts host the majority of the known biodiversity in the deep sea--which reaches depths greater than 1,000 meters (3,281 feet)--where creatures grow slowly and reproduce late in life, making them highly vulnerable to fishing and other intrusions by man.

Photo: Mark Sullivan, NMFS Permit 10137-07/NOAA

The monk seal is the most endangered of the seal species in U.S. waters, with only 1,100 remaining in the wild. The expanded Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument provides important foraging ground for 97 percent of the population of the monk seal, the only marine mammal wholly dependent on coral reefs.

"2016-09-08-1473344286-4034486-seaturtle.jpg"

Photo: Lee Gillenwater/The Pew Charitable Trusts

The endangered green turtle, above, is among the many species of marine and terrestrial life found in Papahānaumokuākea. Two other species of sea turtle--the leatherback and loggerhead--are declining in number, in part because they are often accidentally caught by commercial fishermen. Pacific leatherbacks experienced a 95 percent decline in the last two decades of the 20th century.

Photo: Jim Abernethy/The Pew Charitable Trusts

Marine scientists are hopeful that oceanic whitetip sharks, above, and silky sharks will use the expanded Papahānaumokuākea monument as a sanctuary to rebuild their populations. Numbers of both species have dropped considerably since industrial longline fishing became prevalent in the Pacific Ocean in the 1950s; fishermen are barred from targeting either species, but both frequently end up hooked as unintentional catch and are often returned to the water dead or dying.

"2016-09-08-1473344833-4156846-LeiopathesannosaSalmonBank10303USNM1071405.jpg"

Photo: NOAA

Scientists say a specimen of black coral, like the one above, found in the monument is the oldest living organism on the planet, at 4,265 years; a gold coral specimen also found within the expanded reserve is 2,742 years old. The enlarged Papahānaumokuākea protects legions of deep-sea coral communities, which are thought to be more diverse than tropical shallow reef systems, according to a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In some areas of deep-sea coral, more than 90 percent of the resident fish are found only there. Marine reserves can safeguard deep-sea organisms from practices such as bottom trawling, which has been shown to destroy reefs that took thousands of years to grow.

"2016-09-08-1473344480-7557040-WisdomReturns11.23.2015KiahWalker.jpg"

Photo: Kiah Walker, volunteer/ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

These Laysan albatrosses, like more than 98 percent of their species, nest on the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The bird on the left, named Wisdom, was banded by scientists in 1956 and returned to Midway Atoll in 2016 to hatch a chick. At least 65 years old, Wisdom is thought to be the world's oldest living bird and the oldest to successfully hatch a chick.

"2016-09-08-1473344530-1946203-Greatfrigatebirdsandredfootedboobies.jpg"

Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Northwestern Hawaiian Islands provide refuge for 14 million tropical birds from 22 different species, and in Midway Atoll, Laysan Island, and Nihoa Island an estimated 5.5 million breed there annually. The expanded Papahānaumokuākea protects more foraging area than the original boundaries of the monument for boobies (including red-footed boobies, above), shearwaters, albatrosses, and petrels.

Photo: Jérôme Petit/The Pew Charitable Trusts

These two traditional sailing canoes , the Hōkūle'a, left, and the Hikianalia, departed Hawaii in 2013 for a four-year voyage around the globe as part of the Polynesian Voyaging Society's effort to promote ocean conservation. Some young-adult Hawaiians are reviving the practice of voyaging, which includes navigating solely from environmental cues, and are using the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands as their training grounds. The earliest inhabitants of Hawaii voyaged there from Polynesia as early as the sixth century A.D.

"2016-09-08-1473344610-9724068-NOAAderekwang.jpg"

Photo: Derek Wang/NOAA

In 2006, the establishment of the initial Papahānaumokuākea monument inspired a movement to protect large ocean spaces and challenged world leaders to safeguard ever-larger areas of ocean. In the past 18 months, more of the ocean has been set aside for protection than at any other comparable time period in history, with new marine reserves announced by Chile, New Zealand, Palau, the U.K., and the U.S. The expansion of Papahānaumokuākea adds protection for vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered species, and raises the bar for the size of future marine reserves around the 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

1473345542000

gaia

%feed
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fandrew-sharpless%2Fwhale-sushi-and-overprice_b_11908784.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8
Whale Sushi and Overpriced Fish: New Report Shows Need for Strong Policies to Fight Seafood Fraud

"2016-09-08-1473341795-8876901-seafoodfraud.PNG"

The U.S. imports as much as 90 percent of its seafood, and it is vital for consumers to know where all this food is coming from. Seafood fraud - the mislabeling or species substitution of seafood products - is a global problem that cheats customers, poses a threat to consumer health, and hinders conservation efforts around the world. This week, a new report released by Oceana (Deceptive Dishes: Seafood Swaps Found Worldwide, Sept. 7) illustrates just how common seafood fraud is; a review of more than 200 published studies across 55 countries found that, on average, one in every five samples of seafood tested was mislabeled. This finding underscores the need for concrete action to put in place full boat to plate traceability for all U.S. seafood (whether domestic or imported) to protect U.S. consumers and businesses from seafood fraud.

The study found that, as in the U.S., seafood fraud globally is frequently driven by economic incentives, including the sale of illegally caught fish as well as driving up the price of cheap fish through dishonest labeling. For example, researchers found that farmed Asian catfish - a common, inexpensive fish - was dishonestly sold as 18 different types of fish that are typically sold at higher prices.

In addition, Oceana's report found that the global prevalence of seafood fraud is undermining the efforts of consumers who want to make responsible seafood choices. Without strict traceability rules and informative consumer labeling in place, protected or even endangered species may be unknowingly purchased by consumers. A study of Italian seafood products found that 82 percent of the 200 grouper, perch and swordfish samples tested were mislabeled. Of those samples, almost half of the substituted fish were species that are considered threatened with extinction by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). In California, a since-closed sushi restaurant was caught selling whale sushi - including meat from the endangered sei whale - which had been labeled as "fatty tuna" to illegally import it. Consumers will only be able to eat seafood responsibly if they are provided with the information they need to make informed choices at the seafood counter and in restaurants.

Fortunately, it is possible to effectively combat the problem of seafood fraud. For example, the European Union has moved to implement new policies designed to limit illegal fishing and improve transparency and accountability in the seafood supply chain. Oceana's research suggests that these measures are working, showing a steady decrease in EU seafood mislabeling rates, particularly in those species and sectors of the seafood supply chain covered by regulations. The 2015 fraud rate was found to be 8 percent - less than half what it was during the 2003-2011 time period.

The U.S. should follow the example of the European Union and put in place policies that will ensure that the seafood Americans eat is safe, legally caught and honestly labeled. The Obama administration's Presidential Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud released a proposed rule earlier this year that would require traceability to the first point of entry into U.S. commerce for certain species considered "at risk" of seafood fraud. This is an encouraging first step, but the final rule needs to go further. As world leaders head to Washington for the Our Ocean conference next week, the administration should take this opportunity to create the strongest rule possible by expanding the documentation requirements to all seafood and extending traceability throughout the entire seafood supply chain. Such a rule will protect American consumers and promote responsible stewardship of the oceans worldwide.

You can read more about Oceana's research at www.oceana.org/seafoodfraud, and an interactive map of global seafood fraud cases and studies compiled by Oceana can be found at www.oceana.org/seafoodfraudmap.

-- 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

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

-- 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

Link:
Embed: