%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjavier-goyeneche%2Fupcycling-the-oceans--wit_b_12027178.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Upcycling the Oceans - With Style!  
Ecoalf was founded in 2010 by Javier Goyeneche, whose idea was to create a fashion brand that is truly sustainable.

The concept arose out of his frustration at the excessive use of the world's natural resources and the amount of waste produced by industrialized countries, especially by the fashion industry. He embarked on a mission to create an entirely new concept that would combine his design sensibility and understanding of the fashion consumer with the latest in recycled materials. In 2012 he launched Ecoalf, named after his son Alfredo. The goal was to create the first generation of recycled products with the same quality, design and technical properties as the best non-recycled products. That way, Javier could demonstrate that there is no need to use natural resources in a careless way.

©Javier Goyeneche

The small amount of recycled fabrics that Javier found on the market at that time were not fashionable, were of poor quality, and had only a small recycled %, so first he partnered up with manufacturers to develop suitable fabrics. It is for this reason that Ecoalf still designs and develops its own fabrics every season: it currently has 14 joint ventures around the world (Korea, Japan, Portugal, Taiwan, Spain...) where it recycles all different types of waste (such as discarded fishing nets, PET bottles, used tyres, coffee, post-industrial cotton and wool) to create yarn to produce all kind of fabrics, linings, straps, outsoles, etc.

Working with fishermen to clean-up the oceans
In 2016, Ecoalf embarked upon its most ambitious project to date: UPCYCLING THE OCEANS, an unprecedented worldwide adventure that is helping remove waste from the oceans thanks to the support of fishermen. The main objective of this revolutionary project, which Ecoalf aims to replicate in other parts of the world, is to recover the trash that is destroying the Mediterranean Sea and transform it into top-quality yarn to produce fabrics to tailor clothes and accessories.

Through the Ecoalf Foundation, funded by HAPfoundation, Ecoalf has begun to remove waste from the seabed with the participation of the fishermen of the Spanish Levante Coast. To be rolled-out in different phases, this great project intends to prove that not only is ocean clean-up possible but that part of the recovered waste can, indeed, be converted into pellets, yarn, fabrics and products - where others see trash, Ecoalf sees raw, premium-quality materials.

©Javier Goyeneche

However, this project faces a great challenge because of the low and inconsistent quality of the debris recovered by the fishermen as a consequence of its exposure to sun light, salt and water. Now, more than ever, investment in R&D is crucial to the attainment of a quality of product in line with Ecoalf's standards. Once again, its goal is to succeed in obtaining 100% recycled products of high technical quality and textures and in tune with current trends but without using more of the planet's natural resources.

Currently 160 trawler boats from the 10 main ports of Levante are collaborating with Upcycling the Oceans. Every day each boat recovers approximately 4 kg of waste from the Mediterranean seabed. Ecoalf has enabled the necessary infrastructure (non-existent until now) for trash collection by installing specific containers on ships and harbours. All the marine waste collected (PET bottles, glass, cans, etc) is deposited each day in the special containers placed in each port, which are collected every week and transported to a treatment plant where the debris is cleaned with water and separated. The material is then sent to the various specific recycling channels, leaving just the PET plastic bottles, which are separated, stocked and transformed into flakes and pellets through sophisticated technological processes.

As mentioned above, due to the inequality and low quality of the waste that has been recovered from the oceans, Ecoalf's great innovation challenge is to obtain pellets with the required purity conditions so it can use them to achieve a thread yarn that meets its high quality standards.
After the success of its Spanish trial, the Ecoalf Foundation is working hard to expand and replicate the project all around the Mediterranean coast. It will also start a trial test in the US thanks to the support of the Henry Pincus Foundation. Furthermore, the Thailand government has just signed a contract with Ecoalf Foundation to start replicating Upcycling the Oceans in the south (Phuket), starting October 2016.



This post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post in partnership with Secretary of State John Kerry's Our Oceanconference and Ocean Unite, an initiative to unite and activate powerful voices for ocean-conservation action. The series is being produced to coincide with the Our Ocean Conference (September 15th, 16th) as part of HuffPost's "What's Working" initiative, putting a spotlight on initiatives around the world that are solutions oriented. To read all the posts in the series, read here. The State Department does not endorse the content of this blog. Follow the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #OurOcean #MakeASplash.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Ftom-engelhardt%2Fdonald-trump-climate-change-golf_b_12026804.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
The Donald's Climate Change Exception: Golf  
Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com

The man who might be president insists that climate change is an elaborate, "very expensive hoax," even possibly a "Chinese" one meant to undermine the American economy. It's "bullshit" and "pseudoscience" (on which, it seems, he's an expert). He's said this sort of thing numerous times, always mockingly, always dismissively. Only recently in his Phoenix speech on immigration, on his love of Mexicans, and on what suckers they'll be when it comes to paying for his future wall, he put it this way: "Only the out-of-touch media elites think the biggest problems facing America... it's not nuclear, and it's not ISIS, it's not Russia, it's not China, it's global warming." Those fools! They know nothing. They don't even know that there's a crucial footnote, a lone exception, to The Donald's climate change position: golf.

Though the heating of the planet via fossil fuels couldn't be more of a fantasy, while saving the coal industry, building pipelines, and reversing anything Barack Obama did in the White House to promote alternative energy systems will be the order of the day, it turns out that climate change does threaten one thing. And it's something crucial to human life as we know it: playing 18 holes on a coastal golf course. For that, protection is obviously in order. This is undoubtedly why the man with no fears about drowning coastal communities has, through his company Trump International Golf Links & Hotel Ireland, applied for permission to build "a coastal protection works to prevent erosion at his seaside golf resort in County Clare," based on... yep... the danger of rising sea levels. We're talking about "200,000 tons of rock distributed along two miles of beach." And if permission is finally granted, the result will surely be a "great wall," a "beautiful wall" that will not let a drop of sea water emigrate onto Irish soil.

One small hint for Mr. Trump, should he become president. From the Oval Office, he might consider granting similar wall-building exemptions to key parts of coastal Florida already experiencing a serious rise in what's called "sunny-day flooding." Such walls would protect crucial coastal properties like Mar-a-Lago, his top-of-the-line private club in Palm Beach, which could otherwise find itself "under at least a foot of water for 210 days a year because of tidal flooding" within three decades. It's that or develop a sport called aquatic golf.

As for the rest of us for whom such walls assumedly won't be built, there's always flight inland where we might become... gulp... climate refugees. (In that case, you know what Trump is likely to say about the necessity for our extreme vetting). And while you're waiting for the floodwaters, I suggest that you consider what TomDispatch's invaluable energy expert Michael Klare has to say about the rise of versions of The Donald globally and what that means for the health of our world in "Will Trumpism, Brexit, and Geopolitical Exceptionalism Sink the Planet?"

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmichael-t-klare%2Ftrump-brexit-climate-change_b_12026586.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Will Trumpism, Brexit, And Geopolitical Exceptionalism Sink The Planet?  
The Mounting Threat to Climate Progress

Cross-posted with TomDispatch.com

In a year of record-setting heat on a blistered globe, with fast-warming oceans, fast-melting ice caps, and fast-rising sea levels, ratification of the December 2015 Paris climate summit agreement -- already endorsed by most nations -- should be a complete no-brainer.  That it isn't tells you a great deal about our world.  Global geopolitics and the possible rightward lurch of many countries (including a potential deal-breaking election in the United States that could put a climate denier in the White House) spell bad news for the fate of the Earth. It's worth exploring how this might come to be.

The delegates to that 2015 climate summit were in general accord about the science of climate change and the need to cap global warming at 1.5 to 2.0 degrees Celsius (or 2.6 to 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit) before a planetary catastrophe ensues.  They disagreed, however, about much else. Some key countries were in outright conflict with other states (Russia with Ukraine, for example) or deeply hostile to each other (as with India and Pakistan or the U.S. and Iran). In recognition of such tensions and schisms, the assembled countries crafted a final document that replaced legally binding commitments with the obligation of each signatory state to adopt its own unique plan, or “nationally determined contribution” (NDC), for curbing climate-altering greenhouse gas emissions.

As a result, the fate of the planet rests on the questionable willingness of each of those countries to abide by that obligation, however sour or bellicose its relations with other signatories may be.  As it happens, that part of the agreement has already been buffeted by geopolitical headwinds and is likely to face increasing turbulence in the years to come.

That geopolitics will play a decisive role in determining the success or failure of the Paris Agreement has become self-evident in the short time since its promulgation. While some progress has been made toward its formal adoption -- the agreement will enter into force only after no fewer than 55 countries, accounting for at least 55% of global greenhouse gas emissions, have ratified it -- it has also encountered unexpected political hurdles, signaling trouble to come.

On the bright side, in a stunning diplomatic coup, President Obama persuaded Chinese President Xi Jinping to sign the accord with him during a recent meeting of the G-20 group of leading economies in Hangzhou. Together, the two countries are responsible for a striking 40% of global emissions.  “Despite our differences on other issues,” Obama noted during the signing ceremony, “we hope our willingness to work together on this issue will inspire further ambition and further action around the world.”

Brazil, the planet's seventh largest emitter, just signed on as well, and a number of states, including Japan and New Zealand, have announced their intention to ratify the agreement soon.  Many others are expected to do so before the next major U.N. climate summit in Marrakesh, Morocco, this November.

On the dark side, however, Great Britain's astonishing Brexit vote has complicated the task of ensuring the European Union's approval of the agreement, as European solidarity on the climate issue -- a major factor in the success of the Paris negotiations -- can no longer be assured. “There is a risk that this could kick EU ratification of the Paris Agreement into the long grass,” suggests Jonathan Grant, director of sustainability at PricewaterhouseCoopers.

The Brexit campaign itself was spearheaded by politicians who were also major critics of climate science and strong opponents of efforts to promote a transition from carbon-based fuels to green sources of energy. For example, the chair of the Vote Leave campaign, former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, is also chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think-tank devoted to sabotaging government efforts to speed the transition to green energy. Many other top Leave campaigners, including former Conservative ministers John Redwood and Owen Paterson, were also vigorous climate deniers.

In explaining the strong link between these two camps, analysts at the Economist noted that both oppose British submission to international laws and norms: “Brexiteers dislike EU regulations and know that any effective action to tackle climate change will require some kind of global cooperation: carbon taxes or binding targets on emissions. The latter would be the EU writ large and Britain would have even less say in any global agreement, involving some 200 nations, than in an EU regime involving 28.”

Keep in mind as well that Angela Merkel and François Hollande, the leaders of the other two anchors of the European Union, Germany and France, are both embattled by right-wing anti-immigrant parties likely to be similarly unfriendly to such an agreement.  And in what could be the deal-breaker of history, this same strain of thought, combining unbridled nationalism, climate denialism, fierce hostility to immigration, and unwavering support for domestic fossil fuel production, also animates Donald Trump's campaign for the American presidency.

In his first major speech on energy, delivered in May, Trump -- who has called global warming a Chinese hoax -- pledged to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” and scrap the various measures announced by President Obama to ensure U.S. compliance with its provisions. Echoing the views of his Brexit counterparts, he complained that “this agreement gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use on our land, in our country. No way.” He also vowed to revive construction of the Keystone XL pipeline (which would bring carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands oil to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast), to reverse any climate-friendly Obama administration acts, and to promote the coal industry.  “Regulations that shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and block the construction of new ones -- how stupid is that?” he said, mockingly.

In Europe, ultra-nationalist parties on the right are riding a wave of Islamaphobia, anti-immigrant sentiment, and disgust with the European Union. In France, for instance, former president Nicolas Sarkozy announced his intention to run for that post again, promising even more stringent controls on migrants and Muslims and a greater focus on French “identity.” Even further to the right, the rabidly anti-Muslim Marine Le Pen is also in the race at the head of her National Front Party.  Like-minded candidates have already made gains in national elections in Austria and most recently in a state election in Germany that stunned Merkel's ruling party.  In each case, they surged by disavowing relatively timid efforts by the European Union to resettle refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries. Although climate change is not a defining issue in these contests as it is in the U.S. and Britain, the growing opposition to anything associated with the EU and its regulatory system poses an obvious threat to future continent-wide efforts to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

Elsewhere in the world, similar strands of thinking are spreading, raising serious questions about the ability of governments to ratify the Paris Agreement or, more importantly, to implement its provisions.  Take India, for example.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has indeed voiced support for the Paris accord and promised a vast expansion of solar power.  He has also made no secret of his determination to promote economic growth at any cost, including greatly increased reliance on coal-powered electricity. That spells trouble.  According to the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy, India is likely to double its coal consumption over the next 25 years, making it the world's second largest coal consumer after China. Combined with an increase in oil and natural gas consumption, such a surge in coal use could result in a tripling of India's carbon dioxide emissions at a time when most countries (including the U.S. and China) are expected to experience a peak or decline in theirs.

Prime Minister Modi is well aware that his devotion to coal has generated resentment among environmentalists in India and elsewhere who seek to slow the growth of carbon emissions. He nonetheless insists that, as a major developing nation, India should enjoy a special right to achieve economic growth in any way it can, even if this means endangering the environment. “The desire to improve one's lot has been the primary driving force behind human progress,” his government affirmed in its emissions-reduction pledge to the Paris climate summit. “Nations that are now striving to fulfill this ‘right to grow' of their teeming millions cannot be made to feel guilty [about] their development agenda as they attempt to fulfill this legitimate aspiration.”

Russia is similarly likely to put domestic economic needs (and the desire to remain a great power, militarily and otherwise) ahead of its global climate obligations. Although President Vladimir Putin attended the Paris summit and assured the gathered nations of Russian compliance with its outcome, he has also made it crystal clear that his country has no intention of giving up its reliance on oil and natural gas exports for a large share of its national income. According to the Energy Information Administration, Russia's government relies on such exports for a staggering 50% of its operating revenue, a share it dare not jeopardize at a time when its economy -- already buffeted by European Union and U.S. sanctions -- is in deep recession. To ensure the continued flow of hydrocarbon income, in fact, Moscow has announced multibillion dollar plans to develop new oil and gas fields in Siberia and the Arctic, even if such efforts fly in the face of commitments to reduce future carbon emissions.

From Reform and Renewal to Rivalry

Such nationalistic exceptionalism could become something of the norm if Donald Trump wins in November, or other nations join those already eager to put the needs of a fossil fuel-based domestic growth agenda ahead of global climate commitments. With that in mind, consider the assessment of future energy trends that the Norwegian energy giant Statoil recently produced.  In it is a chilling scenario focused on just this sort of dystopian future.

The second-biggest producer of natural gas in Europe after Russia's Gazprom, Statoil annually issues Energy Perspectives, a report that explores possible future energy trends. Previous editions included scenarios labeled “reform” (predicated on coordinated but gradual international efforts to shift from carbon fuels to green energy technology) and “renewal” (positing a more rapid transition). The 2016 edition, however, added a grim new twist: “rivalry.” It depicts a realistically downbeat future in which international strife and geopolitical competition discourage significant cooperation in the climate field.

According to the document, the new section is “driven” by real-world developments -- by, that is, “a series of political crises, growing protectionism, and a general fragmentation of the state system, resulting in a multipolar world developing in different directions.  In this scenario, there is growing disagreement about the rules of the game and a decreasing ability to manage crises in the political, economic, and environmental arenas.”

In such a future, Statoil suggests, the major powers would prove to be far more concerned with satisfying their own economic and energy requirements than pursuing collaborative efforts aimed at slowing the pace of climate change. For many of them, this would mean maximizing the cheapest and most accessible fuel options available -- often domestic supplies of fossil fuels. Under such circumstances, the report suggests, the use of coal would rise, not fall, and its share of global energy consumption would actually increase from 29% to 32%.

In such a world, forget about those “nationally determined contributions” agreed to in Paris and think instead about a planet whose environment will grow ever less friendly to life as we know it.  In its rivalry scenario, writes Statoil, “the climate issue has low priority on the regulatory agenda. While local pollution issues are attended to, large-scale international climate agreements are not the chosen way forward. As a consequence, the current NDCs are only partly implemented. Climate finance ambitions are not met, and carbon pricing to stimulate cost-efficient reductions in countries and across national borders are limited.”

Coming from a major fossil fuel company, this vision of how events might play out on an increasingly tumultuous planet makes for peculiar reading: more akin to Eaarth -- Bill McKibben's dystopian portrait of a climate-ravaged world -- than the usual industry-generated visions of future world health and prosperity. And while “rivalry” is only one of several scenarios Statoil's authors considered, they clearly found it unnervingly convincing. Hence, in a briefing on the report, the company's chief economist Eirik Wærness indicated that Great Britain's looming exit from the EU was exactly the sort of event that would fit the proposed model and might multiply in the future.

Climate Change in a World of Geopolitical Exceptionalism

Indeed, the future pace of climate change will be determined as much by geopolitical factors as technological developments in the energy sector. While it is evident that immense progress is being made in bringing down the price of wind and solar power in particular -- far more so than all but a few analysts anticipated until recently -- the political will to turn such developments into meaningful global change and so bring carbon emissions to heel before the planet is unalterably transformed may, as the Statoil authors suggest, be dematerializing before our eyes. If so, make no mistake about it: we will be condemning Earth's future inhabitants, our own children and grandchildren, to unmitigated disaster.

As President Obama's largely unheralded success in Hangzhou indicates, such a fate is not etched in stone. If he could persuade the fiercely nationalistic leader of a country worried about its economic future to join him in signing the climate agreement, more such successes are possible. His ability to achieve such outcomes is, however, diminishing by the week, and few other leaders of his stature and determination appear to be waiting in the wings.

To avoid an Eaarth (as both Bill McKibben and the Statoil authors imagine it) and preserve the welcoming planet in which humanity grew and thrived, climate activists will have to devote at least as much of their energy and attention to the international political arena as to the technology sector. At this point, electing green-minded leaders, stopping climate deniers (or ignorers) from capturing high office, and opposing fossil-fueled ultra-nationalism is the only realistic path to a habitable planet.

Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation. Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's Next Time They'll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fbradley-campbell%2Fa-historic-moment-for-new_b_12013350.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
A Historic Moment for New England: A Marine National Monument in the Atlantic!  


With Marine National Monument designation in the Atlantic, President Obama seals environmental legacy

President Obama is making history today, announcing the designation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, which will become the only fully protected large marine area in the U.S. Atlantic Ocean. Until today, zero miles of the U.S. Atlantic were fully protected from the imminent threats of climate change and increasing industrial activity.

The announcement comes just as the third annual Our Ocean Conference is held in Washington, DC, hosted by the U.S. State Department. Thanks to the president's use of the century-old Antiquities Act, ancient coral formations will no longer face potential ruin from commercial fishing activity, and diverse and pristine habitats will allow an abundance of marine life to thrive.

It is a good day to be a New Englander. So much of our region's history is rooted in the ocean; so much of our economic success depends on a healthy ocean off our coast. Unlike our impressive conservation efforts on land, however, the ocean's critical ecosystems beneath the surface have been overlooked. With the impacts of climate change already upon us, little action has been taken to protect these ecosystems and allow them to build resilience to changing conditions. With President Obama's two recent marine monument designations, that may no longer be the case.

Monument Momentum

Today's announcement comes on the heels of the President's expansion of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument off the coast of Hawaii, creating the largest marine preserve in the world. And a week prior, President Obama designated the Katahdin Woods and Waters Monument, safeguarding pristine forested wilderness right in our own backyard in the North Woods of Maine.

The canyons and seamounts marine monument designation is especially timely and important for New England, where the ocean has the compounding threats of climate change, overfishing, and proposed extraction of oil, gas, and other resources. The Gulf of Maine is warming at a rate faster than almost any other ocean area in the world, and this monument will provide areas where biodiversity and marine life can continue to thrive; it will also provide an area for scientists to study climate change and possible strategies to better protect the ocean's living resources against climate impacts.

With the announcement made surrounding the third annual Our Ocean Conference - a gathering of international leaders on ocean issues - President Obama sets a high global and local precedent; he has now protected more acres of lands and waters than any president in U.S. history.

Conservation Law Foundation is proud to have been a leader among a coalition of groups in the campaign to permanently protect the canyons and seamounts, helping to translate compelling science into a broad public advocacy to bring about permanent protection of the resource.

Working with the New England Aquarium, leading marine scientists presented a body of research in March that made it emphatically clear that the New England Canyons and Seamounts, along with the Gulf of Maine's Cashes Ledge, deserve and require permanent protection.



More than 300 scientists and 300,000 supporters signed petitions urging a marine monument in the Atlantic, and a summer poll showed that an incredible 80 percent of New England residents want permanent protection of important ocean areas.

Then, Senator Richard Blumenthal led the entire Connecticut congressional delegation in calling upon President Obama to designate the Canyons and Seamounts as a Marine National Monument, introducing a formal proposal for consideration by the Administration. Regional congressional leaders like Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, Rhode Island Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed, and Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo then helped the White House shape the final proposal, including thoughtful efforts by Senator Markey to strike a balance between the conservation imperative and the need to sustain New England's iconic commercial fisheries. The designation just announced serves both, because research has shown that fully protected marine areas are more resilient to the negative effects of climate change.

President Obama's designation of the Atlantic's first marine monument has cemented his legacy on both conservation and climate change, while demonstrating the continued importance of the venerable Antiquities Act, first used by President Theodore Roosevelt, in protecting natural resources at risk.

Celebrate with us: Send a message to President Obama to say "Thank You!" for designating the Coral Canyons and Seamounts as a Marine National Monument!

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fcarey-gillam%2Ffda-finds-monsantos-weed_b_12008680.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
FDA Finds Monsanto's Weed Killer in U.S. Honey  


The Food and Drug Administration, under public pressure to start testing samples of U.S. food for the presence of a pesticide that has been linked to cancer, has some early findings that are not so sweet.

In examining honey samples from various locations in the United States, the FDA has found fresh evidence that residues of the weed killer called glyphosate can be pervasive - found even in a food that is not produced with the use of glyphosate. All of the samples the FDA tested in a recent examination contained glyphosate residues, and some of the honey showed residue levels double the limit allowed in the European Union, according to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. There is no legal tolerance level for glyphosate in honey in the United States.

Glyphosate, which is the key ingredient in Monsanto Co.'s Roundup herbicide, is the most widely used weed killer in the world, and concerns about glyphosate residues in food spiked after the World Health Organization in 2015 said its cancer experts determined glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. Other international scientists have raised concerns about how heavy use of glyphosate is impacting human health and the environment.

Records obtained from the FDA, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, detail a range of revelations about the federal government's efforts to get a handle on these rising concerns. In addition to honey, the records show government residue experts discussing glyphosate found in soybean and wheat samples, "glyphosate controversies," and the belief that there could be "a lot of violation for glyphosate" residues in U.S. crops.

Even though the FDA annually examines foods for residues of many pesticides, it has skipped testing for glyphosate residues for decades. It was only in February of this year that the agency said it would start some glyphosate residues analysis. That came after many independent researchers started conducting their own testing and found glyphosate in an array of food products, including flour, cereal, and oatmeal. The government and Monsanto have maintained that any glyphosate residues in food would be minimal enough to be safe. But critics say without robust testing, glyphosate levels in food are not known. And they say that even trace amounts may be harmful because they are likely consumed so regularly in many foods.

The residue issues are coming into the spotlight at the same time that the EPA is completing a risk assessment to determine if use of this top-selling herbicide should be limited. The agency has scheduled public meetings on the matter Oct. 18-21 in Washington. The EPA's risk assessment report was initially due out in 2015, but still has not been finalized. The agency now says it will be completed in "spring 2017."

In the records released by the FDA, one internal email describes trouble locating honey that doesn't contain glyphosate: "It is difficult to find blank honey that does not contain residue. I collect about 10 samples of honey in the market and they all contain glyphosate," states an FDA researcher. Even "organic mountain honey" contained low concentrations of glyphosate, the FDA documents show.

According to the FDA records, samples tested by FDA chemist Narong Chamkasem showed residue levels at 107 ppb in samples the FDA associated with Louisiana-based Carmichael's Honey; 22 ppb in honey the FDA linked to Leighton's Orange Blossom Honey in Florida and residues at 41 ppb in samples the FDA associated with Iowa-based Sue Bee Honey, which is marketed by a cooperative of American beekeepers as "pure, all-natural" and "America's Honey." Customers "can be assured that Sue Bee Honey is 100% pure, 100% all-natural and 100% American," the Sioux Honey Association states.

In a Jan. 8, 2016 email Chamkasem pointed out to fellow FDA scientists that the EU tolerance level is 50 ppb and there is no amount of glyphosate allowed at all in honey in the United States. But Chris Sack, an FDA chemist who oversees the agency's pesticide residue testing, responded by reassuring Chamkasem and the others that the glyphosate residues discovered are only "technically a violation."

"The bee farmers are not breaking any laws; rather glyphosate is being introduced by the bees," Sack wrote in response. "While the presence of glyphosate in honey is technically a violation, it is not a safety issue."

Sack said the EPA had been "made aware of the problem" and was expected to set tolerance levels for honey. Once tolerance levels are set by EPA - if they are set high enough - the residues would no longer be a violation. When contacted this week, the EPA said there are currently no pending requests to set tolerance levels for glyphosate in honey. But, the agency also said: "there is no dietary risk concern from exposure to glyphosate residues in honey at this time."

Sioux Honey Vice President Bill Huser said glyphosate is commonly used on farm fields frequented by bees, and the pesticide travels back with the bees to the hives where the honey is produced.

"The industry doesn't have any control over environmental impacts like this," Huser said. Most of Sue Bee's honey comes from bees located near clover and alfalfa in the upper Midwest, he said. Beekeepers located in the South would have honeybees close to cotton and soybean fields. Alfalfa, soybeans and cotton are all genetically engineered to be sprayed directly with glyphosate.

The FDA results are not the first to find glyphosate in honey. Sampling done in early 2015 by the scientific research company Abraxis found glyphosate residues in 41 of 69 honey samples with glyphosate levels between 17 and 163 ppb, with the mean average being 64 ppb.

Bee keepers say they are innocent victims who see their honey products contaminated simply because they might be located within a few miles of farms where glyphosate is used.

"I don't understand how I'm supposed to control the level of glyphosate in my honey when I'm not the one using Roundup," one honey company operator said. "It's all around me. It's unfair."

The FDA did not respond to a question about the extent of its communications with Monsanto regarding residue testing, but the records released show that Monsanto has had at least some interaction with the FDA on this issue. In April of this year, Monsanto's international regulatory affairs manager Amelia Jackson-Gheissari emailed FDA asking to set up a time to talk about "enforcement of residue levels in the USA, particularly glyphosate."

The FDA routinely looks for residues of a number of commonly used pesticides but not glyphosate. The look for glyphosate this year is considered a "special assignment" and came after the agency was criticized by the U.S. Government Accountability Office in 2014 for failing to test for glyphosate.

The FDA has not released formal results of its testing plans or the findings, but Sack made a presentation in June to the California Specialty Crops Council that said the agency was analyzing 300 samples of corn; 300 samples of soy; and 120 samples each of milk and eggs. He described some partial results achieved through April that showed glyphosate levels found in 52 samples of corn and 44 samples of soybeans but not above legally allowed levels. The presentation did not mention honey. The presentation also stated that glyphosate testing at the FDA will be expanded to "routine screening."

The USDA also will start testing for glyphosate, but not until next year, according to information the agency gave to the nonprofit group Beyond Pesticides in a meeting in Washington in January. Documents obtained through FOIA show a plan to test in syrups and oils in 2017.

Soybeans and Wheat

Like the FDA, the USDA has dragged its feet on testing. Only one time, in 2011, has the USDA tested for glyphosate residues despite the fact that the agency does widespread testing for residues of other less-used pesticides. In what the USDA called a "special project" the agency tested 300 soybean samples for glyphosate and found more than 90 percent - 271 of the samples - carried the weed killer residues. The agency said then that further testing for glyphosate was "not a high priority" because glyphosate is considered so safe. It also said that while residues levels in some samples came close to the very high levels of glyphosate "tolerance" established by EPA, they did not exceed those levels.

Both the USDA and the FDA have long said it is too expensive and is unnecessary to test for glyphosate residues. Yet the division within the USDA known as the Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) has been testing wheat for glyphosate residues for years because many foreign buyers have strong concerns about glyphosate residues. GIPSA's testing is part of an "export cargo sampling program," documents obtained from GIPSA show. Those tests showed glyphosate residues detected in more than 40 percent of hundreds of wheat samples examined in fiscal 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The levels vary, the data shows. GIPSA has also been helping FDA access soybeans to test. In a May 2015 email, GIPSA chemist Gary Hinshaw told an FDA food safety official that "it isn't difficult to find soybeans containing glyphosate." In a December 7, 2015 email from FDA chemist Terry Councell to Lauren Robin, also a chemist and an FDA consumer safety officer, Councell said that glyphosate was present even in processed commodities, though "way below tolerance."

The fact that the government is aware of glyphosate residues in food, but has dragged its feet on testing for so long, frustrates many who are concerned about the pesticide.

"There is no sense of urgency around these exposures that we live with day in and day out," said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2F2105968-uk-approves-controversial-hinkley-c-nuclear-power-plant%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
UK approves controversial Hinkley C nuclear power plant  
A controversial £18 billion nuclear power plant has been given the government go-ahead after much delay and criticism of its high costs and delays  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2016%2Fsep%2F15%2Fspain-could-be-first-eu-country-with-national-park-listed-as-in-danger&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Spain could be first EU country with national park listed as 'in danger'  

Doñana wetlands in Andalusia is home to thousands of species but has lost most of its natural water due to industry and faces ‘danger' listing by Unesco

A Spanish wetland home to 2,000 species of wildlife including around 6 million migratory birds is on track to join a Unesco world heritage danger list, according to a new report.

Doñana is an Andalusian reserve of sand dunes, shallow streams and lagoons, stretching for 540 square kilometres (209 square miles) where flamingoes feed and wild horses and Iberian lynx still roam.

Continue reading...  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fbunny-mcdiarmid%2Fwill-this-be-the-decade-o_b_12021302.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Will this be the decade of ocean protection?  


I am attending the Our Ocean, One Future conference organized by the US State Department under the leadership of US Secretary of State, John Kerry. A number of major announcements are anticipated as States are expected to come to the table with specific ocean initiatives and achievements to share with their peers and the world.

Only a few days ago, some of the world's largest carbon emitters, including the United States China and Brazil, announced they will formally join the Paris Agreement, bringing the crucial climate deal a step closer to commencement. This should trigger far more ambitious action for the climate both nationally and internationally; action that will have a direct impact on the future of our oceans.

According to an IUCN's (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources) report on ocean warming published last week at the World Conservation Congress, we have only seen a small fraction of the likely impacts of ocean warming on key marine and coastal organisms and ecosystems. And while the cost of the ocean crisis is being felt by those people in coastal nations and communities who rely on the oceans for food and their livelihoods, the impacts are starting to become evident on a global scale.

Many of us have seen the heartbreaking images of beautiful coral reefs turning white and dying after temperature driven bleaching episodes. What is less well known is that in addition to urgent action on climate change and ocean acidification, protecting coral reefs from other stressors, such as overfishing, destructive fishing and pollution, can have a huge effect on their ability to cope with increasing ocean temperatures.

Creating large scale networks of ocean sanctuaries - "no-take" havens for marine life - increases ocean resilience against the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification, protects vital ecosystems and supports food security by rebuilding fish stocks. Ocean sanctuaries can also help to preserve important carbon sinks.

Greenpeace has supported the scientific community's call for a global network of ocean sanctuaries covering 40% of the oceans. At one time this target was seen as too ambitious, but today more and more scientists and governments are calling for at least 30% of the ocean to be set aside as no-take areas. Just last week, a resolution at the IUCN World Conservation Congress called for governments to protect at least 30% of the world's oceans by 2030. This was adopted by a landslide vote.

The sooner we change the way we treat our Blue Planet the greater chance we have to safeguard key habitats and species, along with the livelihoods of the millions of people who depend on healthy oceans. There is much the governments attending the Our Ocean, One Future conference must do to kick-start this change.

Last week, U.S. President Obama announced the expansion of the Papahanaumokuakea sanctuary around Hawaii, now the largest no-take area in the world. A number of other countries including the UK, France and Palau have taken similar initiatives. However, only 2.1% of the world's oceans are under some form of protection - and far less than 1% of the high seas is protected. This is far below existing global targets, and sensitive and pristine marine environments such as the High Arctic and the Ross Sea are currently left open for business.

We will never achieve the protection levels science tells us are needed if the high seas, which cover two thirds of the ocean, are left unprotected. We will never secure a sustainable future for all if governments and corporations simply continue exploiting the ocean to meet short term economic interests.

"There are no more natural ocean sanctuaries. It is up to us to create them," said Oscar- winning actor, writer and activist Emma Thompson. Her plea was delivered from the Arctic where she joined Greenpeace Canada and the Inuit community of Clyde River in pushing back against destructive seismic blasting (prospecting for oil and gas) in their home, to the nations represented at the plenary. Outside the conference room it reached more than four million people online who have united their voices for ocean protection.

Since 2014 the US has become a more constructive player in the UN negotiations. Today the need to take action is no less urgent and we are asking the US and other leaders currently gathered in Washington DC to show strong leadership in moving 'our ocean', including waters beyond national boundaries, to the top of the global political agenda.


We need bold political action now to avoid tipping points that will cause ecological, economic and humanitarian devastation.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Fphotos%2F14546264%40N02%2F29688666425%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Snail Camouflage  

umijin posted a photo:

Rare fragile tree snail (Samoana fragilis) on dead coconut leaf.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fmary-ellen-harte%2Fclimate-change-this-week_b_12019194.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Climate Change This Week: Environmental Sin, Clean Jobs Zoom, and More!  
Today, the Earth got a little hotter, and a little more crowded.




It's Pretty Black and White: Saving BUB, Beautiful Unique Biodiversity, as in this Amazon treehopper and its child, is another reason to preserve carbon storing forests. Source Pinterest

Forests: the cheapest way to store carbon




Credit Mario Tama at Getty Images

OO More Diversity Helps Amazon Forests adapt to climate change a new study indicates - BUT overall adaptation remains low - there is low recovery in most scenarios.





Cutting Down A Rainforest Stops The Rain - and ultimately has caused drought in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and elsewhere. Source Greenpeace

OO Watersheds Lost Up To 22% Of Their Forests In 14 Years -
Here's How It Affects Your Water Supply - Forest degradation has caused:

• Drought in Sao Paulo, Brazil:
• 
  
• Flooding in the Himalayas;
• 
  
• Pollution in Sumatra.

Credit jarO at flickr

Because upstream forests, wetlands and other "natural infrastructure" play critical roles in:

• supplying clean water downstream;
• 
  
• stabilizing soil, reducing erosion;
• 
  
• regulating water flow to mitigate floods and droughts;
• 
  
• purifying water.

OO Burning Paradise: Conglomerate Accused Of Destroying Indonesia's Last Forests - one of Indonesia's few remaining expanses of pristine rainforest is at imminent risk of destruction by Korean-Indonesian conglomerate Korindo, says a new report.







The Beginning of a Beautiful Relationship if climate change doesn't spoil the fungal communication between these two infant trees, imbedded in the furry fungal networks surrounding their roots. Source www.nature.com

OO Clearcutting, Climate Change Can Disrupt
Critical Networks Among Forest Trees - trees use a network of soil fungi to communicate their needs and aid neighboring plants. A network vulnerable to disruption. Among trees, these fungal networks:

• transfer resources;
• 
  
• provide aid when needed;
• 
  
• communicate environmental dangers;
• 
  
• allow searches for kin trees;
• 
  
• enable dying trees to transfer resources to healthy ones.

Soil fungi are underground traders, exploring and harvesting nutrients and water that they trade with plants for sugar or other photosynthetic products.


When we harm forests, we harm ourselves.

*
*

HOT NEWS




OO Hottest Temperature Ever Measured In September For Europe - with a record high of 114.3 F in Spain, and amazingly hot Kuwait recently clocked in at 124.2 F, which would be the second hottest September temperature ever recorded worldwide.


*
*

CONNECTING THE DOTS



@@ Weather, or Climate Change? An excellent short on the intersection of climate change with the weather, from the best experts in the field today.






Follow the Dotted Line ... go to the webpage for the full sequence, a looong timeline scroll. Credit xkcd.com (Randall Munroe)

Love how the comment "[After setting your car on fire], Listen, your car's temperature has changed before." follows my cursor as it explores the timeline. And then comes the very real punchline:




@@ A Timeline of Earth's Average Temperature - love it, love it, LOVE IT! Gives you a great sense of where we've been, and headed, temperature-wise, touched with humor along the way.

If you're a stickler for prehistory and nitty gritty analytical details, you might get miffed, but he's nailed the general picture. No room for the entire scroll here, so check it out!


*
*

FIXING CLIMATE CHANGE



@@ A Simple And Smart Way To Fix Climate Change given by Dan Miller in 2014 at a Ted talk suggests a way to profit as we tackle climate change, by finally charging those who sell and use fossil fuels - and distributing the revenues back to all of us.

The strategy is sure to speed transition to clean renewable energy. What's not to like? Check it out!

*
*

SOCIAL REPERCUSSIONS




OO Smoke Signals: Teasing Out Adverse Health Effects Of Wildfire Emissions that can include a range of smoky harmful pollutants.


OO New York City: Flooding Of Coast, Caused By Global Warming, Has Already Begun - huge vertical rulers are sprouting beside low spots in the streets here, so people can judge if the tidal floods that increasingly inundate their roads are too deep to drive through.





OO Connecticut Fishermen Struggle To Hang On - As climate changes, so do fish populations, but not the rules for catching them.


OO Africa: Climate Change Threatens
To Double Malaria Risk From Dams say researchers.

*
*

SPEAKING OUT




Her Land, Her Future

OO North Dakota Oil Pipeline Protesters Stand Their Ground:
'This Is Sacred Land' - it could also endanger community drinking water.

Related Headline:

OO Dakota Pipeline Was Approved By Army Corps
Over Objections Of 3 Fed Agencies including the EPA, which echoed Sioux tribe's concerns.


OO Insurers Call On Top 20 Global Economies
To Phase Out Fossil Fuel Subsidies By 2020 - at the recent G20 meeting. The insurers have $1.2 trillion under management.




OO Pope Francis Says Destroying The Environment Is A Sin - He:

• calls for urgent action to stop climate change;
• 
  
• proposes that caring for the environment be added to traditional Christian works of mercy.*

*such as feeding the hungry and visiting the sick.


Related Headline:

OO Pope Urges Christians To Save Planet From 'Debris, Desolation And Filth' with concerted action against environmental degradation and climate change. Consumerism and financial greed, he said, were threatening the planet. How about too many people?


*
*

GOOD IDEAS



Source www.mthome.com

OO How Three-Day Weekends Could Help To Save The World By:

• Reducing levels of energy consumption,
• 
  
• Due to commuting and workplace maintenance.
• 
  
• This has been demonstrated in Utah.

• It also improves mental and physical health,
• 
  
• And is demonstrated to improve productivity.

OO Baltimore, MD: Green Jobs Helping Ex-Cons Turn Over A New Leaf - the city is quietly hiring formerly incarcerated men to work on environmental restoration projects.







OO Experts Call For A Unified National Conservation Network say agency scientists and conservation leaders.


OO Nature Conservancy Touts Conserving Ecosystems As Best Climate Change Solution says the director of carbon finance with the Nature Conservancy of Canada.

BUT...

OO Protected Areas - Effective Conservation Tools, But Useless Against Rising Temperatures - while great for curbing deforestation and preserving Earth's biodiversity, how much will heating limit their effectiveness?







Green Grow The Drones - a new aid to reforestation. Credit DroneSeed

OO Tree-Planting Robots Could Save Northwest Forests - an Oregon startup is developing drones for planting, caretaking and monitoring trees on a large scale.





OO After The Flood: Feds Should Support Mitigation, Not Rebuilding - the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program, insuring 5+ million homes, is $23 billion in debt after a string of natural disasters this century. Analysts say it is time to shift from rebuilding to mitigating risk.


OO Maryland Fines Coal Power Plants $1 Million For Polluting Rivers - one of the largest penalties state environmental regulators have levied in years.


OO Australia: Big Sydney Project Aims To Recycle More Water Than It Uses - As rainfall drops, the Australian government is releasing billions of dollars to help fund building the water infrastructure required.


*
*

NATURAL REPERCUSSIONS




OO Montana: Fish Deaths In Yellowstone River Tied To Warming Waters - as parasite that is killing tens of thousands of fish is blamed on low stream flow and warming waters, both impacts of climate change in the West.


OO Melting Antarctic Sea Ice
Might Speed Sea Level Rise, Disrupt Fisheries as the melt water decreases saltiness, which can create currents that speed up melt and suppress the deep sea mixing vital to supplying nutrients to important ecosystems and fisheries.





Feeling Feverish Yet? Ticks can carry some pretty serious diseases.

OO Alaska: Exotic Ticks Appear To Be Establishing Themselves

*
*

GOOD CLEAN NEWS




Solar Is Powering a Job Revolution - creating 1 out of every 80 US jobs since the Great Recession. Photo Source www.solsystems.com

OO US Clean Energy Jobs Are Exploding:
Why Don't Mainstream Reporters Know? Some are still pushing a false narrative on this. For the record:

• solar industry creates 1 out of every 80 new US jobs since 2008;
• 
  
• most of these new, blue collar, solar jobs pay an average21/hr;

The solar industry has:

• hired more veterans than anyone else;
• 
  
• retrained coal workers;
• 
  
• provided a soft landing for unemployed oil and gas workers;
• 
  
• almost all are trained within 6 months, because their skills are transferrable.

• Wind technician is the fastest growing US job;
• 
  
• Solar & wind manufacturing arms employ 10,000s of US jobs - and are expanding rapidly.

Credit Dennis Schroeder, NREL

OO Iowa: New $3.6 Billion Project Could Be One Of Many 'Mega' Wind Orders - MidAmerican Energy will leverage federal incentives to build 2 gigawatts of wind power by 2019. Others may follow suit.



OO Which State Is A Big Renewable Energy Pioneer? Texas - it has added more wind-based capacity than any other, as part of an aggressive energy diversification that seeks to skirt ideology.





Credit Tom Tole at the Washington Post

OO We've Only Just Begun: More Climate Fights Are Coming - the Paris climate agreement is likely to start this year, but is clearly inadequate. What else is cooking? Takeaways:


Fossil fuel subsidies:

• Cost global economy160 Million to5+ Trillion, depending on definition;
• 
  
• The "inefficient" ones will be eliminated by the top 7 global economies by 2025;
• 
  
• Maybe not the top 20 economies, but several African countries and India have stopped federal subsidies.

Source www.huffingtonpost.com

The US election:

• Tougher CO2 targets need a Clinton win;
• 
  
• This could spur other countries to further action.

There's also some movement to:

• Regulate aviation emissions;
• 
  
• Cut back on super climate changing HFC coolant emissions;
• 
  
• Increase the flow of wealth from rich to poorer nations.

• A funded International Solar Alliance to spread solar power now exists.
• 
  
• A High Level Panel on Water is working to assure universal access to clean water.

OO 3,500+ UK Churches Now Put Their Faith In Green Energy - rejecting fossil fuels and embracing the power of green energy.


OO The Eastern US Could Get A Third Of Its Power From Renewables Within 10 Years Theoretically. The political, social, and institutional changes are more difficult than the technological challenge.


OO The Eastern US Grid Can Handle A 30% Penetration Of Wind, Solar Power




OO France: Energy Giant Leads $20 Million Investment
In Off-Grid Solar Startup for expansion in Africa. Energy giants are diversifying into distributed energy in developing markets.


OO Sweden Diverts 99 % Of Its Waste From Landfills - already leading environmentally with its electric roads and 100% fossil fuel-free by 2050 plan, it also:

• recycles much of its waste;
• 
  
• generates electricity from about 50% of the country's garbage.

*
*

FOSSIL FUEL FOLLIES



Source www.oilandgasjobsadvice.com

Coming Up Dry?

OO Oil Discoveries At 70-Year Low Signal Supply Shortfall Ahead - with 2015 explorers discovering only 10% as much oil as they have annually on average since 1960. This year, they'll probably find even less.

Daily Climate Editor Pete Myers: "Cheap fossil fuels have driven GDP growth for two centuries. The trend reported here does not bode well for continued growth."


OO Biofuels Could Be Bad For Bees research says, as more and more fields of corn and soybean are planted, which beekeepers prefer to avoid.


OO As Coal Companies Go Bankrupt, Who Will Pay To Clean Up Their Old Mines?
Good question - likely taxpayers, in many cases.


*
*

CLIMATE LEADERSHIP




The Clean Energy President Credit AP photo, Julie Jacobson

OO Obama Legacy:
Quiet But Big Changes In Energy, Pollution - with a quiet US transformation in how and where it gets its energy during Barack Obama's presidency, slicing the nation's output of polluting gases that are warming Earth.


OO Climate Change Looms Large In Obama's Final Trip To Asia


*
*

ELECTION YEAR:




If You Don't Vote For Climate Action, You Can Forget The Rest - in a climate-changing world of famine, drought, rising seas, giant storms and heat waves, there will be no security in jobs, health, wealth, or national safety. There will be chaos ensuing from increasing crises and disasters. Vote.

OO Global Warming Policies We Set Today Will Determine The Next 10,000 Years - of global warming, a new study shows -- and whether our civilization survives or not: history shows that harmful climate change has destroyed civilizations before.

This time, it could be worldwide. Let's keep "The Hunger Games" in the realm of fiction.

*
*



If we do not grow sustainably,
Our children will die inhumanely.




@@ How Parents Can Help Prevent Teen Pregnancy

Teen childbearing cost US taxpayers $9+ Billion in 2010
And the costs of raising a child usually ensures decades, if not a life, of poverty for its mother.
- US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Help prevent unintended pregnancies in your community:
publicize where women can access affordable contraception.



They can go here to find locations:




And there are many more actions you can do, right here.

*
*
*

SOLAR KEEPS SURFING



OO US Vets Find A Home In The Solar Industry which employs them at above average rates, and are expected to grow in the overall solar workforce.




Check it out here, right now!

*
*
*

WHY WE SHOULD ACT NOW: RISING RISKS




Daily Climate Change: Global Map of Unusual Temperatures, Sept 14, 2016

How unusual has the weather been? No one event is "caused" by climate change, but global warming, which is predicted to increase unusual, extreme weather, is having a daily effect on weather, worldwide.

Looking above at recent temperature anomalies, much of the US and the waters surrounding it are experiencing warmer than normal temperatures: the eastern Pacific warm spot continues and so does the drought in California. Meanwhile, Spetember heat records were broken in Europe, and the Mideast got very hot.

Much of the areas surrounding the North Pole are experiencing much warmer than normal temperatures - not good news for our Arctic thermal shield of ice. Hotter than usual temperatures continue to dominate human habitats.


*
*
*



There is, of course, much more news on the consequences and solutions to climate change. To get it, check out this annotated resource list I've compiled, "Climate Change News Resources," at Wordpress.com here. For more information on the science of climate change, its consequences and solutions you can view my annotated list of online information resources here.

To help you understand just what science does and does NOT do, check this out!

Every day is Earth Day, folks, as I was reminded by this wild flower I photographed one spring. Making the U.S. a global clean energy leader will ensure a heck of a lot more jobs, and a clean, safe future. If you'd like to join the increasing numbers of people who want to TELL Congress that they will vote for clean energy candidates you can do so here. It's our way of letting Congress know there's a strong clean energy voting bloc out there. For more detailed summaries of the above and other climate change items, audio podcasts and texts are freely available.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fnancy-brown%2Fbig-soda-again-prioritize_b_12015876.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Big Soda Again Prioritizes Profits Over Your Health  


Big Soda is playing games with your health. Again.

Three months after public health organizations -- including mine, the American Heart Association -- and advocates for health and early childhood development applauded the Philadelphia City Council for approving a 1.5 cent per ounce tax on regular and diet soda drinks, the beverage industry fought back Wednesday with a lawsuit to try blocking the law from taking effect.

The industry's motives aren't steeped in concern about the law. Or medicine. It's about business, of course, and their business is selling sugary drinks, the very item many nutritionists point to first when talking about problems with the typical American diet and this nation's growing obesity epidemic.

This lawsuit was somewhat expected. After all, Big Soda spent $10 million trying to defeat the vote, and dangled another $10 million as a gift to fund Philadelphia's pre-K program for an entire year merely to try delaying the vote on this measure. Since those strategies failed, the industry is looking for another way to delay or prevent the Jan. 1 enactment of the tax.

In the 1990s, the AHA played a strong role in fighting Big Tobacco. So we have an idea of what we're up against. Lawsuits are just part of the drill. This won't be the last, but it is significant because it is the first in this new grassroots approach to controlling our nation's consumption of sugary beverages.

Please understand, the AHA and fellow advocates supporting this tax are not trying to eliminate sugary drinks. Unlike the fight against tobacco, where we continue to recommend zero tolerance, our science shows that some sugary drinks are OK. That science also shows that too many sugary drinks are a problem, and we know that many Americans consume too many sugary drinks. While these beverages are far from the only cause of our obesity epidemic, they are a strong part of the problem. And we know that Big Soda markets its products disproportionately to kids and communities of greatest need. The average child drinks their age in sugary beverages each week.

Just last month, the AHA released its first-ever scientific statement on how much added sugars belong in the diets of anyone 18 or younger. (The answer: 25 grams or less per day; the current average among that age group is 75 grams per day.) In discussing the statement with one of its co-authors -- Dr. Rachel K. Johnson, a former chair of the AHA's Nutrition Committee and a professor of nutrition and pediatrics at the University of Vermont in Burlington -- I was struck by her advice on the best way parents can help get their kids' sugar consumption under control.

"Start with beverages!" she said. "That is No. 1. They are the No. 1 source of added sugars in the diets of children -- and adults!"

In November 2014, Berkeley, California, became the first U.S. city to pass a sugary beverage tax. Voters overwhelmingly supported it despite the $2.4 million Big Soda spent trying to take it down.

The Berkeley breakthrough is great because it's a win-win. The tax offers a reason for people to buy water or other, less-sweet drinks. And if someone does buy a soda and pay the tax, that money goes to good use. As of March, it's generated $1.5 million for Berkeley's health and nutrition programs, including one that plants fruits and vegetables at schools. (In Philadelphia, the money will support expanding pre-K, community schools and renovations for parks, recreation centers and libraries.)

Chicago also taxes retail soft drink sales, although it's rolled into the sales tax and thus handled differently from Berkeley and the Philadelphia proposal as that money doesn't boomerang back to funding health initiatives.

The American Beverage Association -- the trade group representing companies like Coca-Cola, PepsiCo and Dr Pepper -- also has helped defeat so-called "soda tax" proposals in more than 30 states.

Other countries are moving more aggressively to curb this problem.

Mexico already has a successful tax on sugary beverages and the United Kingdom will implement one in 2018.

Meanwhile, in the U.S., we're patching together a quilt that stretches from coast to coast. And just when it looked like we were building a border in the East to complement our success in the West, in comes the news of this lawsuit.

I'm confident this will be a bump in the road, one that may even be smoothed over in time to keep the Jan. 1 launch. At the same time, we're also supporting campaigns that are being waged in California, Colorado, Alabama and Illinois.

In every case, it comes down to this. What do you value more: The health of our families and our communities, or beverage industry profits?

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/112027109461146746/  
Megafauna (Mini Vers  
Megafauna (Mini Version) by SameerPrehistoric... on @deviantART  
pin-gaia  

%feed  
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/354095589436413236/  
Chalcid wasp (Aprost  

Chalcid wasp (Aprostocetus sp.) collected in Mingan Archipelago National Park Reserve, Quebec, Canada, and photographed at the Centre for Biodiversity Genomics (sample ID: BIOUG12652-A10; specimen record: http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Public_RecordView?processid=CNMIH1932-14 BIN: http://www.boldsystems.org/index.php/Public_BarcodeCluster?clusteruri=BOLD:ACW3983)

 
pin-gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fearth%2Fstory%2F20160908-the-country-with-too-many-elephants&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
The One Country With Too Many Elephants  
While Africa as a continent struggles to protect the elephant species from extinct ion, Malawi has too many.  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjamie-henn%2Fits-exxonmobil-and-the-go_b_12016986.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
It's ExxonMobil And The GOP Who Are 'Chilling' Scientific Inquiry  


Jesse Bragg, Media Director for Corporate Accountability International, at an ExxonKnew campaign press conference at the Capitol today


As the campaign to hold ExxonMobil accountable for hiding what they knew about climate change gains momentum, Exxon's defenders have fallen back on a bizarre strategy to try and protect the company: claiming that environmental groups and attorneys general are colluding to "silence" scientists and "chill" scientific inquiry.

"These investigations have had a chilling effect," said Texas Republican Representative Lamar Smith, the Chair of the House Science Committee, who hosted a hearing on the Exxon issue this afternoon in Washington. Other Republicans on the committee echoed him. "If government was put in charge of science, we'd still think the Earth was flat," said one member. "Scientists are being bullied," thundered another.

This Republican committee's eagerness to defend science was rather ironic considering the committee's own track record. The committee is perhaps best known not for its support for science (Republicans consistently vote to defund federal science agencies), but for subpoenaing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for, wait for it, conducting climate science. "The hypocrisy from the majority members defending scientific freedom given their previous actions towards NOAA+Tom Karl is breathtaking," tweeted Gavin Schmidt, himself a scientist and director of the NASA Goddard Space Institute at Columbia Institute.

The hypocrisy from the majority members defending scientific freedom given their previous actions towards NOAA+Tom Karl is breathtaking

— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) September 14, 2016

The only science that took place at the committee hearing this afternoon came courtesy of Democratic Representative Bill Foster, the only Member of Congress with a PhD in science, who lamented Chairman Smith's abuse of his position to subpoena various officials and organizations. "At some point I'd like to return to science on this committee," said Foster. He then proceeded to grill one of the Republican's "expert" witnesses, Professor Ronald Rotunda, about some outlandish statements Rotunda had made about how the melting of the entire Greenland ice sheet wouldn't cause sea levels to rise. "This hearing is an example of just another rearguard action by a group of people who deny climate change," concluded Foster, shaking his head.

The claim that the groups behind the #ExxonKnew campaign are silencing or chilling scientific inquiry is especially strange because of our shared focus on, well, science. 350.org is named after the safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, 350 parts per million -- that's about as scientifically wonky as it gets. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), another group supposedly having a chilling effect, is, as the name suggests, largely made of scientists. UCS released a letter earlier this week with over 2,000 scientists weighing in on their behalf to say it was the committee, not environmental groups, that was chilling scientific inquiry. Greenpeace, another subpoenaed group, is best known for its bold campaigns and actions, but it too has a deep track record of supporting scientific inquiry, often transporting scientists up to the Arctic or other remote areas to conduct research.


350.org Executive Director May Boeve

Our complaint with Exxon has never had anything to do with the science they did or are doing. In fact, we'd like to see them do more climate science. Environmentalists have long urged the fossil fuel industry to do a more thorough study of the impact of their business on the planet. We fully support any scientific research into climate change, renewable energy, or zero carbon fuels. Many have made this case to Exxon directly. At the company's annual shareholder meeting this year, advocates continued to lobby for the company to do a full climate assessment of its business and appoint a climate expert to its board. Exxon shot down both proposals. We also applaud the scientists at ExxonMobil, who as early as the 1970s discovered that their product causes global warming.

Our problem isn't with the science, our problem is with the coverup. When Exxon executives heard from their scientists about climate change, instead of warning the public, or urging Congress to fund more research into solutions to the crisis, Exxon spent millions on a vast misinformation campaign. They donated millions more to climate denying politicians, including many of the Republicans at the commitee hearing today (Rep. Smith, the Chairman, has received over $24,000 from Exxon over his career, for example). Instead of supporting science, Exxon funded front groups who published false studies about global warming, lambasted scientists on television, and went after the reputations and careers of individual scientists. Watch the documentary Merchants of Doubt and you'll see PR hacks like Marc Morano, a former Republican politico aid, laugh gleefully about his own personal track record of intimidating scientists. As he says in the preview below, "I'm not a scientist...but I play one on TV occasionally. Ok, hell, more than occasionally."



If Representative Smith is so worried about the chilling of scientific inquiry in this country, he should be subpoenaing the executives over at ExxonMobil to see what role they had in their company's own scientific coverup. He could even go a step further and subpoena the records of his own committee--we'd like to know, for example, what conversations his staff have had with Exxon or any industry front groups. As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse said at a press conference before the hearing this afternoon, the public deserves to know "how far the hand of the fossil fuel industry is into the glove of this committee."


Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

Today's hearing was designed to distract the public from the real issue at hand: whether Exxon lied about their knowledge that their product caused climate change. Instead, it just reaffirmed why this case is so important. As 350.org's Executive Director May Boeve said at this morning's press conference, "This hearing is Exhibit A in the case study of Big Oil's stranglehold on Congress."

Our hope is that the ExxonKnew campaign can play some role in breaking that stranglehold, because if we don't, Congress and its committees will continue to be run by politicians who deny the basic facts of climate change, let alone are supporting scientific research to help solve it. Now that is a chilling thought.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2016%2F09%2F14%2Fstanding-rock-sioux-tribe-rally-white-house_n_12015892.html&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Brings Pipeline Protest To The White House  
WASHINGTON ― Just hours after 22 more people were arrested for protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota on Tuesday, the Standing Rock S...

Read more: Bernie Sanders, Climate Change, Obama, Environment, Native Americans, Activism, Oil and Gas, Green Energy, Dakota Access Pipeline, Politics News

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fchris-wood%2Fthis-land-is-your-land_b_12015894.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
This Land Is Your Land  

In September, TU will be feeding you a heavy dose of stories about public lands. From the Golden Trout wilderness in California to the Green Mountains of Vermont, public lands are hugely important to wild and native fish. In most Western states, public lands comprise more than 70 percent of the available habitat for trout, and virtually all of the strongholds for native trout.  

My father is the sixth generation of our family to grow up in Newark, NJ. Growing up, the closest public land we had was a local county park called Tuers, where I shot countless hours of hoop. Except for visiting family in Ireland, I didn't leave the Garden State until college in Vermont, and there discovered the Green Mountain National Forest. I spent many hours in that forest catching native brook trout. 

After graduation I took a long, slow trip across the country with my dog, Gus, and a big box filled with Dinty Moore beef stew. Gus and I walked the Natchez Trace in Mississippi. We hiked the Smokies in Tennessee. We took pictures of fields of Black-eyed Susans in the Shenandoah. Swam in hot springs in Idaho and clamored over red rocks in Utah. Camped among the aspen in Colorado. Hiked old growth forests in Oregon, marveled at the coastal redwoods of California.

All those places share one thing. They are public lands that belong to us all. For now. In recent years, more than 50 short-sighted bills have been introduced in state legislatures to transfer, sell, or otherwise take away your birthright—the public lands that are managed for us by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Not to be outdone, Congress has entertained similar proposals. Presidential candidates have campaigned on the issue. As much as we'd all like to think “that can't happen,” the fact is that there are well-heeled special interests dedicated to seeing that it does.

Those who seek this so called “transfer”—county supremacists, sagebrush rebels and their contemporary cicadian progeny—neglect an important fact. At no time did the Western federally managed public lands belong to the states. They were either ceded to the Union by Eastern states or acquired through treaty, conquest or purchase by the federal government acting on behalf of the citizens of the United States.

Public lands are the best idea America ever had. For those of us who want to fish and hunt, camp and hike without having to beg or buy permission, they are a godsend. The ham-handed dialogue about transferring or divesting public lands that drives the debate today is unhelpful and unproductive. To suggest that our land legacy—a legacy that a kid from New Jersey shares with a rancher in New Mexico—should be transferred or sold for a pittance is extreme and offensive.

For the next 30 days, tune into TU for a steady diet of stores about why public lands matter. Share the stories, video, and photos with your friends. Raise your voice and let your member of Congress and elected leaders in your state know that the public lands are a birthright that belongs to all of us, and we are not willing sellers.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjake-schmidt%2Fvulnerable-countries-urge_b_12015334.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Vulnerable countries urge strong action on Montreal Protocol  

Some of the most vulnerable countries in the world just sent a clear message that they want leaders to agree to a strong agreement to phase down hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) this year under the Montreal Protocol. World leaders have a chance to minimize the damages to those countries if they act decisively next month and agree to significant cuts in the use of these super-potent, heat-trapping chemicals.

At the recent meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum, many island nations put their support behind an ambitious deal at the Montreal Protocol negotiations in October. Capable of avoiding warming of up to 0.5°C by 2100, an agreement on HFCs is critical to upholding the Paris Agreement's ambition of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C. As the Pacific Islands Forum communique states:

"Leaders stressed that the amendment should include an early freeze date for HFC production and consumption followed by a rapid phase down of HFCs."

Proposals vary widely for the timing of the HFC phase down schedule. Countries are already converging on a phasedown schedule for developed countries, likely to start in 2019. The timing for the phasedown schedule of developing countries is under serious debate, with widely diverging proposals. The Africa Group, Pacific Island countries, leading Latin American and Caribbean countries, the U.S., European Union, Japan, and other developed countries have the most ambitious proposal, with a freeze on HFC use for developing countries to begin in 2021. Other Latin American and Asian countries have indicated their willingness to freeze in 2025, while China and Pakistan are proposing 2025--2026 as their preferred freeze years. The Chinese recently committed to help achieve an "an early freeze date and ambitious phase down schedule," so there might be flexibility in this initial proposal. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States suggested 2028, and Iran 2029. India, seeking to continue HFC growth for another 15 years, is proposing a freeze in 2031. The 10-year gap between leading and lagging proposals makes a major environmental difference: waiting for the developing countries to freeze in 2031, would allow at least 15 billion extra CO₂-eq tons of HFC use - close to half the entire world's CO₂output for an entire year.

A strong HFC phase down schedule matters a lot to the most vulnerable. The Pacific Island leaders welcomed the Dubai Pathway for reaching an amendment on HFCs this year, and pushed for an agreement to be reached at the Kigali meeting this October. Without a strong global commitment to reaching a deal in Kigali, the very existences of these island nations is threatened. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Marshall Islands John Silk emphasized:

"Today's communique is a clarion call to action that even with the Paris Agreement, there remains a lot of work to do to guarantee there will still be 16 seats at the Pacific Islands Forum in a hundred years from now."

Members of the Pacific Islands Forum account for less than 2 percent of global emissions, with many island stands accounting for less than 0.01 percent of global emissions. But these states have already suffered devastating storms and cyclones of increasing severity and flooding. When leaders debate the exact freeze date, we should keep in mind the consequences for these most vulnerable nations that had such a small role in creating the problems we face.

Over 100 countries currently support an early freeze on the use and production of HFCs. Next month, when parties gather in Kigali, the key task will be for other world leaders to seize the moment and agree to a strong freeze date and phasedown schedule. The most vulnerable need an agreement, but as the Pacific Island leaders pointed out, they don't just need any agreement - they need an ambitious one.

The stage has been set - now can we get a deal that the climate, and the Pacific Islands, deserve?

---------------------------

(The Forty-Seventh Pacific Islands Forum was attended by Heads of State and Government and Deputies from Australia, the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, the Solomon Islands, Republic of Fiji, Niue, the Republic of Palau, and Kiribati. Additional attendees included French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Tokelau as Associate Members, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands, Timor-Leste, and Wallis and Futuna.)

This post was co-written with Han Chen and Alex Hillbrand.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fjustin-guay%2Fwhy-are-you-wearing-dirty_b_12014484.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Why Are You Wearing Dirty Oil?  


Image: "Clothing Spill" by Savers. Credit: Ecouterre


Co-Authored by Kathrine Nasteva CEO Lozena

The reason I care about sustainable fashion isn't that my wife is the founder of the eco and ethical fashion brand Lozena (although that helps). No, the real reason I care is that fashion is one of the most polluting and energy-intensive industries in the world. From raw material acquisition, to textile production, to apparel manufacturing, to product disposal, fashion's environmental footprint is atrocious and it's time that changed.



Image: Fashion Products Lifecycle. Credit: The Sustainable Angle


We Wear Oil

One of the first and most disturbing things you learn about fashion is just how toxic the materials we wear are. That's because nearly one quarter of all chemicals produced worldwide are used in textiles. Worse, much of this comes in the form of polyester and other synthetic fibers which requires large amounts of crude oil. That's right, we literally wear oil.

Production of these fibers emits particulate matter and gases such as CO2, nitrous oxide (with a per kilogram global warming potential of 310 times more than that of carbon dioxide), hydrocarbons, sulfur oxides, and other by-products into the atmosphere. These processes also release volatile organic compounds and solvents in waterways from manufacturing plants. In short, wearing dirty oil may be the least of our worries.

Why is polyester so widely used in apparel production?

Polyester (polyethylene terephthalate), or PET has textile and industrial applications - it's a plastic, used as film for food packaging, electrical insulation, and water and soft drink bottles, among other things. Developed in 1941 in the UK most production now takes place in China - 33 million tons, or 65% of global production in 2015. The popularity of this fiber grew as a result of its stretch and shrink-resistant, low moisture absorption, and thermally stable properties. But it spread because it's really cheap. In 2014 one ton of conventional cotton cost $2,200 compared to $1,400 for one ton of polyester.

Although competition between conventional cotton, the most prevalent natural fiber, and polyester continues to fluctuate according to commodities prices, the production capacity of cotton plateaued and demand for polyester has surged since 1980. Production is forecast to grow to nearly 100 million tons by 2025, while at the same time its price is expected to fall in line with oil prices.



End of day commodity futures price for crude oil 9/13/16 closed at $44.90 USD per barrel. Image credit: McKinsey

It's not hard to see why apparel brands prefer polyester - it's inexpensive, blends well with other fibers, and new technological advances have dramatically improved qualities such as draping and denier, and enhanced performance features like breathability and sweat-wicking.

Why should you care?

The emergence and dominance of a fast fashion culture has resulted in skyrocketing demand for cheap, trendy clothing where frequent purchases are alluring and the disposal of heaps of barely-worn clothing is usually painless. While issues of environmental health and safety do not only apply to items made from synthetics (conventional cotton is a discussion for another time), the pervasiveness of these materials in our wardrobes has broader consequences. As of 2007, polyester became the most prevalent fiber used in apparel. This is a problem - not only because synthetic fibers aren't biodegradable and stockpile in landfills, but because the rise of synthetics is allowing consumer culture around fast fashion to proceed as "business as usual."



Image: Global fiber consumption, 2015. Credit: Lenzing

Inditex, the parent company of Zara, produces garments to the tune of 948 million per year - and that's just one company in an extremely fragmented and competitive industry. Low barriers allow for new entrants to the market at an incredible pace; and fast fashion brands introduce new trends every two weeks at ever-lower price points. The growth rate for women's apparel is expected to approach 5% per year by 2025, driven primarily by emerging market cities that will contribute an additional $100 billion to the market.

With 80% of the polyester manufactured used for textiles, MIT's Materials Systems Laboratory estimates that roughly 700 million tons of greenhouse gas can be attributed to fashion in 2015. That's because compared to a cotton t-shirt, a polyester t-shirt emits between 20-40% more greenhouse gases. All told polyester emits the equivalent of about 185 dirty coal plants - filthy stuff.



Image: Total impact of polyester used in the textile industry per year. Credit: MIT Materials Systems Laboratory

So what can be done when everyone in the world wants the newest styles - and they want them now?

Slow Fashion Gaining Speed

Now, more than ever before consumers are more conscience about the items that fill their closets. They're checking garment labels and purchasing high-value, lasting pieces. They're buying clothes that matter. Trends are disappearing as designers are attempting to be original and remain true to their aesthetic. And, more and more emerging brands, large corporations, and retailers are taking environmental and social issues seriously. While sustainable fashion still remains a niche market, the energy and environmental crisis doesn't have to start in your closet. For fashion, the future looks green.

Kathrine is the Co-Founder of LOZENA, a family-owned fashion house with a mission to produce designer womenswear in an ecological and socially responsible manner. Since launching, LOZENA fashion has been seen on the runways of Mercedes Benz Fashion Week Berlin; is featured in British Vogue and ELLE UK, and has been blogged about by numerous style writers. LOZENA is distributed exclusively via Kickstarter until October 8th, 2016.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2016%2F09%2F160914144312.htm&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Larger marine animals at higher risk of extinction, and humans are to blame  
In today's oceans, larger-bodied marine animals are more likely to become extinct than smaller creatures, according to a new report. It's a pattern that is unprecedented in the history of life on Earth, and one that is likely driven by human fishing.  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2016%2F09%2F160914135310.htm&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Whales might be hidden, but these new buoys can help find them  
How do you find whales that dive so deep and spend so little time at the surface that some species have never been observed alive? Sometimes you just have to listen closely.  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2F2016%2F9%2F14%2F12887956%2Fhuman-neanderthal-sex-love-genetics&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Humans And Neanderthals Had Sex. But Was It For Love?  
In 1911, Marcellin Boule, a French paleontologist, published the first scientific description of the Neanderthal species .  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fenvironment%2F2016%2Fsep%2F14%2Fhumanity-driving-unprecedented-marine-extinction&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Humanity driving 'unprecedented' marine extinction  

Report comparing past mass extinction events warns that hunting and killing of ocean's largest species will disrupt ecosystems for millions of years

Humanity is driving an unprecedented extinction of sealife unlike any in the fossil record, hunting and killing larger species in a way that will disrupt ocean ecosystems for millions of years, scientists have found.

A new analysis of the five mass extinction events millions of years ago discovered there was either no pattern to which marine species were lost, or smaller species were the ones that disappeared.

Related: We'd never kill an albatross or gorilla: but we let others do it on our behalf | George Monbiot

Continue reading...  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Ffrances-moore-lappe%2Fto-endorse-or-not-to-endo_1_b_12014002.html&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Frances Moore Lappe: To Endorse, Or Not To Endorse--That Is The (Wrong) Question  
What if "endorsement" is a political red herring? "Endorsing" suggests approval, but for a lot of us that option is closed. But, hey, we still have to choose--we must choose because democracy itself is at stake today.

Read more: Politics, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Democracy, Donald Trump, Election Day, Lyndon Johnson, Fdr, Franklin Roosevelt, Epa, Environment, Climate Change, Money in Politics, Voting Rights, Campaign Finance Reform, Public Financing, Constitutional Amendment, Bill Moyers, Mlk, Labor, Selma, Politics News

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2016%2F09%2F160914135925.htm&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Tropical crow species is highly skilled tool user  
An international team of scientists and conservation experts has discovered that the critically-endangered Hawaiian crow is a highly proficient tool user.  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2016%2F09%2F160914134854.htm&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
New book details South America's surprising prehistoric mammals  
South America was home to a host of unique animals during the 60-some million years the continent was isolated, during most of the Cenozic Period. Details and constructions of mammals ranging from mouse-sized marsupials to elephant-size sloths, with photos of fossil remains and 15 collections sites across the continent are included in a new book.  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvoices.nationalgeographic.com%2F2016%2F09%2F14%2Fhow-fighting-the-bushmeat-trade-protects-lions%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
How Fighting the Bushmeat Trade Protects Lions  

Sometimes, when traveling through Maasai Mara, visitors may see elephants with half of their trunk missing. The poor creatures must kneel to pluck grasses, and they are unable to reach leaves from the canopies of trees at all.

It is no mystery what maims these elephants.

Over smoky fires, well hidden from passersby on the road and the wary eye of law enforcement officers, people burn the rubber from tires and harvest the steel wire within them. Twisting these metal strands together and tying a slipknot in one end, they form deadly nooses with which to catch wild animals. The bushmeat poachers set these snares in between shrubs to trap wildebeests or zebra, high in trees to catch giraffes, and low to the ground to snag warthogs. The result is gruesome. Animals die from thirst or exposure, from deep lacerations caused by the biting wire cinched around their throat or leg or from spears and clubs when poachers return to check their traps. Some animals manage to break free on their own but sustain life-threatening injuries while doing so. The elephants that have lost their trunks are examples.

(Above: The AKTF Anti-Poaching Team removes snares in Maasai Mara National Reserve)

Elephants are not the intended targets of these snares, as zebra, wildebeest, giraffe, eland, warthogs and antelope are, but they get caught all the same. The same is true for lions.

In partnership with National Geographic's Big Cat Initiative, The Anne K. Taylor Fund (AKTF) tackles the main threat to lion populations, human-wildlife conflict, ‘head on' through our work with predator-resistant, fortified bomas. By protecting livestock from wild predators in these stockades, we are able to significantly reduce the number of lions that die from retaliation attacks by herders. In addition to building bomas, though, we also protect lions by combatting threats to their habitat and prey populations from poachers, their snares and their spears.

Our Anti-Poaching Team, in partnership with the Mara Conservancy Rangers and Kenya Wildlife Service/David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust veterinarians, runs regular patrols in and around Maasai Mara to ambush and arrest poachers, remove snares from the bush, and rescue as many wildlife caught in snares as possible.

(Above: AKTF & Mara Conservancy Rangers rescue a wildebeest caught in a poacher's snare)

This past week we removed 582 snares, rescued 40 animals trapped in them, and discovered eight more animals that had succumbed or been slaughtered already. It was a good week for the wildlife we protect. Those snares that our team removed represent more than just nearly 600 wildlife lives saved: because the steel wires are nearly indestructible, poachers use them over and over again, meaning that those snares, had they been left in the bush, could have taken the lives of thousands of animals a year.

(Above: AKTF Anti-Poaching patrollers holding dozens of snares removed from the Reserve; their faces are obscured to protect their identities)

We see the role of our work in Maasai Mara ‘buying time' until local education, society, and values change in ways that eradicate poaching organically. By addressing threats to lion populations from these angles, there is a better chance for a lasting difference to take hold. We are deeply grateful for the generous support of National Geographic, as well as many other private and institutional donors, that make our work possible and keep us optimistic about the future of Maasai Mara's ecosystem and the lions it nurtures.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2F2105841-hawaiian-crows-can-use-sticks-as-tools-but-are-nearly-extinct%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Hawaiian crows can use sticks as tools but are nearly extinct  
Like their cousins the New Caledonian crows, island-welling Hawaiian crows seem naturally disposed to using tools for getting food  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fthe-conversation-africa%2Fclimate-change-health-ris_b_12012708.html&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
The Conversation Africa: Climate change health risks will hit the poor hardest - so what can be done?  
Bob Mash, Stellenbosch University

Discussions about climate change and the effects it will have on public health and the global burden of disease hav...

Read more: Environment, Climate Change, Health, Malawi, World News

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fheraldo-munoz%2Fsaving-our-ocean_b_12010270.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Saving Our Ocean  
The Ocean in South America and worldwide is in danger. A recent study by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) highlights the perils of ocean warming for humans. It points out that that the waters of the Southern Hemisphere are increasingly impacted by higher temperatures, leading to changing fish stocks and crop yields, extreme weather events and higher risk from water-borne diseases. The Chilean coast has become increasingly colder as the high seas warm up, leading to the migration of species, and to other effects upon the marine environment. Whales, turtles and birds are all feeling the changes, as are our fishermen, who must seek new fishing grounds.


©Viviana Urra, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Chile

The Chilean government is taking action, along with the private sector, the international community and national and international NGOs. On August 24th, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, along with the Ministries of Defense, Economy, and the Environment, inaugurated the Council of Ministers for the Development of a National Ocean Policy. This initiative aims at creating an integrated and inclusive oceanic policy and is a new step towards fulfilling our commitment to the international governance of the oceans. We are placing our sea at the forefront of our foreign policy.

In addition, Chile actively participated in the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals, whose objective number 14 refers to oceanic sustainability. We also led, along with France and Monaco, the adoption of the "Because the Ocean" declaration at the CoP21, which highlights the essential role oceans play in the fight against climate change, and in the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

Last October, Chile organized the second version of the Our Ocean initiative, at which countries and civil society adopted more than 80 projects, equivalent to 2.1 billion dollars, dedicated to the protection and sustainable use of the ocean.

In the lead up to this year´s third Our Ocean Conference, in Washington DC, Chile created the new Marine Park Nazca-Desventuradas, which has a surface area of 300 thousand square kilometers and surrounds the Islands of San Félix and San Ambrosio, making it the largest marine protected area in Latin America. In parallel, along with the Rapa Nui community of Easter Island, we are moving forward on a huge marine conservation area surrounding the island.

We have also taken measures to fight illegal fishing, including the adoption of monitoring mechanisms coherent with the New York Agreement on Fish Stocks of 1995 and the FAO Agreement on Port State Measures.

We will continue to stress the importance of developing an oceanic policy to solidify the foundations of our future actions, emphasizing the conservation and sustainable use of our ocean and its resources, the fight against marine pollution, and the effects of climate change in the ocean, with a special emphasis on marine protected areas. This policy will not only establish national guidelines for oceanic matters, but also project them into the international arena, including through South-South cooperation programs to fight marine pollution in areas like the Caribbean.

We know that the ocean is a gathering point for the planet, for people and for prosperity. This is precisely what drives sustainable development. The fate of Chile, an oceanic country, and of many others, is directly tied to the measures we take today to address global warming. We are confident that growing awareness is leading to a greater worldwide commitment towards this goal. Action to save our ocean admits no delay.


1 - Explaining ocean warming: Causes, scale, effects and consequences, September 2016.

This post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post in partnership with Secretary of State John Kerry's Our Oceanconference and Ocean Unite, an initiative to unite and activate powerful voices for ocean-conservation action. The series is being produced to coincide with the Our Ocean Conference (September 15th, 16th) as part of HuffPost's "What's Working" initiative, putting a spotlight on initiatives around the world that are solutions oriented. To read all the posts in the series, read here. The State Department does not endorse the content of this blog. Follow the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #OurOcean #MakeASplash.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.newscientist.com%2Farticle%2F2105823-asteroid-assault-on-early-planets-was-more-like-a-gentle-massage%2F&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Asteroid assault on early planets was more like a gentle massage  
Most models of the early solar system say it endured a period of intense asteroid strikes dubbed the Late Heavy Bombardment - but new isotope data paints a calmer picture  
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fchandran-nair%2Frising-temperatures-tropical_b_12009548.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Rising Temperatures Are Making Life in Tropical Cities Precarious for the Poor  

HONG KONG ― The numbers are in: NASA announced Monday that August 2016 was the hottest month ever recorded since global records began in 1880. Several parts of Asia, including Hong Kong and Singapore, have also recently had their hottest months ever recorded.

Standing outside in the middle of the day in Jakarta, Manila or Mumbai is sometimes almost unbearable. Calling it “humid” would be an understatement. In Singapore, the mean annual relative humidity is 84 percent, frequently reaching 100 percent during prolonged rain. A World Bank report released last week estimates that the “welfare losses” as a result of air pollution have dramatically increased over the last 25 years as developing countries urbanized and industrialized.

This is the environment that millions of urban dwellers in the tropics currently live in. It does not need to be like this. Tropical cities can be made livable again. But it will require governments to make very difficult decisions.

If the people living in tropical cities are to survive our hot future, governments need to radically rethink how they manage urbanization.

Tropical Asia's dense and overcrowded cities are already subject to the heat-island effect, which makes them significantly warmer than their rural surroundings. As temperatures threaten to increase by a further two to three degrees, as some scenarios by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predict, tropical cities are quickly becoming unlivable. And this is not even taking into account overcrowding, poor housing and slums, water and sewerage issues, solid waste disposal and the curses of urban traffic and pollution.

Yet like the proverbial frog in boiling water, city inhabitants appear helpless ― as if resigned to their fate with no other options. If tropical cities, and the people that live in them, are to survive our hot future, governments need to radically rethink how they manage the urbanization trend ― and perhaps even consider moving people away from these unlivable cities.

For those who live in temperate or sub-tropical zones (or in climate-controlled rooms), it can be hard to know what a tropical city life feels like. The humid air sits on you, preventing your body from cooling itself properly, thus affecting productivity. For the poor, without air-conditioning, heat can make entire homes unlivable. Night temperatures can be so high that deep sleep becomes impossible. Many have to work in the heat outdoors or in a poorly ventilated, uncooled office, sometimes a long uncomfortable and pollution-ridden commute away.

The upper and middle classes have an escape from the unbearable heat: air-conditioning. Cooling is not seen as a luxury, but a necessity: as an article in the New York Times notes, “an air-conditioner has become a sign of middle-class status in developing nations, a must-have dowry item.” When air-conditioning first arrived in Asia, it was only available for the wealthy at a time when cities were a quarter the size they are now. But air-conditioning is now wildly popular in Asia, which now makes up half the global market for cooling units.

Rich cities like Singapore have even been able to ensure much broader access to artificial cooling; in Hong Kong, opposition politicians blocked the construction of a new homeless shelter, calling its lack of air-conditioning “inhumane.” For well-off households across Asia, air-conditioning is, to quote Lee Kuan Yew, “the greatest invention of the century.” One is perhaps also reminded of Noel Coward's old song: that only “mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun.” Yet for hundreds of millions in these cities, escaping the midday sun is not an option ― they must live, work and sleep in uncooled and sweltering surroundings.

Air-conditioning is an unsustainable solution to the problem of hot cities. A/C units release heat as waste, which is then trapped between dense skyscrapers. This pushes cooling units to work harder and use more energy. All these units consume electricity, which is likely produced by fossil fuels. As more and more people in the tropics buy air-conditioning, more carbon is released into the atmosphere. A/C units are also a major contributor to other less known but potent greenhouse gases. Research suggests that the energy demand for air-conditioning will increase by 40 times this century, overtaking the energy used for heating by around 2060. 

An air-conditioner has become a sign of middle-class status in developing nations, a must-have dowry item.
New York Times

Tropical cities in general are getting hotter even before we include the effect of climate change. The combination of heat absorbed by building materials and waste heat from transportation and homes means that cities can be up to 3 degrees warmer than rural areas. The temperature difference is greatest at night, as concrete and asphalt radiate the heat absorbed during the day. Waste heat from cities can even be carried to remote areas by air currents, with some scientists finding a temperature increase of 1 degree in some rural areas due to nearby urban development. 

The well-off, thanks to air-conditioning, are insulated from a warming climate, and so there is little political will to make cities cooler. The upper and middle classes live and sleep in climate-controlled apartments, work in cooled offices and sit in air-conditioned cars when traffic is gridlocked. Their children enjoy the same and can sometimes cool off in private swimming pools. But for the vast majority of urban dwellers in tropical cities, these luxuries are out of reach.

The problem of these hot and unlivable cities has been worsened by uncontrolled and poorly conceived urbanization. According to the World Bank, 200 million people (equivalent to what would be the world's fifth-largest country) have moved to cities between 2000 and 2010. Urban areas have grown by an area the size of Taiwan. These migrants all need housing and transportation. Many are migrants who live in shanties or poorly constructed buildings and often work in uncooled environments that have become unbearable as temperatures have soared in recent years. They sit sweltering in congestion: in Jakarta, where the number of vehicles on the road increases by about 10 percent each year despite no growth in roads, 12 people reportedly died from heat and carbon-dioxide poisoning in a three-day-long traffic jam. 

To make matters worse, urban migration often disproportionately targets one city: the capital. All cities are growing, but major cities like the capital attract the most migrants, which tests their provision of basic needs and social services ― in which regard most have failed. One would think that an urbanization drive that is much more equally shared amongst several cities and towns would lessen population pressures, but that is not what has been seen in the developing world because of poor economic policies and regional planning.

It is too often assumed that urbanization and economic development must go hand in hand. It is true that urbanization does unlock economic potential in a country's population. However, the problem is that many developing countries have not properly controlled and channelled urbanization. The enormous number of man-hours lost in traffic jams and persistent illnesses in crowded and hot cities decreases productivity and quality of life.

Letting people move to the city is “easy” but it is an archaic short-term path to growth with long-term negative consequences, as evident by the all-too-obvious and deteriorating conditions in tropical cites. It is also easy for the government to focus its energy and attention on the capital where big business is concentrated and where the rich tend to live, rather than developing a broad-based program that develops multiple reasonably sized cities and small towns simultaneously.

The well-off, thanks to air-conditioning, are insulated from a warming climate, and so there is little political will to make cities cooler.

If countries in the tropics are serious about mitigating and reducing the effects of climate change, they need to understand urbanization differently and appreciate that their increasingly unlivable cities must be the target of new and daring economic planning and environmental policy. Countries must find a way to channel people to less crowded areas, by providing economic opportunities in the countryside and developing secondary towns in order to broaden the economic base. They may need to do something that few have ever considered: moving people out of these large cities, to make sure that urban environments are actually livable.

All the efforts to make cities in the tropics adapt to climate change need a fresh dose of reality ― to move beyond hypothetical approaches towards reducing carbon demands, green cars and “smart cities” and toward an acceptance that these cities are too large and unmanageable to survive in a new climate that makes them too hot to live in. Only by cooling its drive to urbanize will Southeast Asia cool its sweltering cities.

-- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

 
gaia  

%feed  
http://redirect.viglink.com?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fwayne-pacelle%2Ffeds-must-dismiss-unhinge_b_12009480.html%3Futm_hp_ref%3Dgreen%26ir%3DGreen&key=ddaed8f51db7bb1330a6f6de768a69b8  
Feds must dismiss unhinged advice on wild horses  

Our nation's management of wild horses has been a long-running debacle of poor execution layered over questionable intentions and flagging resolve. Those problems have been compounded by violence toward horses by ranchers and other private resource users. The latest incident involves an attack on a number of wild horses living on a ranch overseen by the philanthropist and wild horse advocate Madeleine Pickens.

Since 1971, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has had the task of managing wild horses, who are now classed, for administrative purposes, into 179 Herd Management Areas in 10 western states. The bureau's primary strategy over the past 20 years has largely consisted of rounding up and removing the animals from our public lands, ostensibly in an effort to protect the range from overgrazing. The original plan was to adopt out horses to private parties - which has been fraught with its own set of problems - but the removals have happened at a volume that not even a spirited adoption program can offset. This has resulted in approximately 45,000 wild horses and burros being maintained in government-financed holding facilities throughout the United States.

Because the captive horse management has cannibalized so much of the funding, the BLM has scarce funds for protecting horses remaining on the range, including fertility control programs that offer the only real hope of humane population management.

Last week, in an attempt to solve this financial crisis -- a self-inflicted wound created by serial round-ups -- a volunteer body called the National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board (the majority of whose members' main focus is not, and has never been, the humane treatment of wild horses) made a recommendation that the BLM consider euthanizing all unadopted horses in holding facilities. That's a prescription for mass slaughter on an almost unimaginable scale and it would perhaps make the United States the biggest horse killing enterprise in the world. While the Advisory Board has no legal authority to mandate action on the agency's part, the agency will consider this recommendation, a sort of "Final Solution" cooked up by public-lands ranchers and their allies.

In 2015, the Department of Interior's Office of the Inspector General released a long-awaited investigative report, which found that the BLM had sold thousands of wild horses to a livestock hauler named Tom Davis who subsequently sold these horses to kill buyers. Though they are not being sold directly by the agency, wild horses are still going to slaughter by a variety of circuitous pathways. Sources at the Sugarcreek, Ohio, livestock auction last week documented BLM freeze-branded horses, in very poor condition, being sold to kill buyers.

Our nation's wild horses deserve better than this sort of mismanagement and abuse, and an attitude that they are throwaway objects. A sensible program must be grounded on controlling the population on the range through fertility control, obviating the need for dangerous round-ups that betray the national interest in protecting horses, and ending wasteful spending that ultimately solves no problems and just builds a massive captive wild horse program.

This headlong and heedless advisory committee recommendation should be summarily rejected. But it's so outrageous and overreaching that it may be just the kick in the pants that Congress and the agency need to overhaul the entire broken and battered program.

Act now to save America's wild horses »

This article first appeared on Wayne Pacelle's blog, A Humane Nation

-- 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