A Green Evolution

The New Economy

2014-05-03T16:31:00.000-07:00

Hi There Folks!

It's bound to happen sooner or later. Sooner or later we'll be going through the way we view money, transact with it and manage our lives around it. It may happen in ten years or may happen in 50 but IT will happen. The Bit-coin is a manifestation of the need for economic democracy...something that is NOT currently present in the U.S. We are an oligarchy. Wether the Bit-coin will hold up or not may not be the relevant point. What is the point is that the huge disparity of wealth between those who have and those who don't is working its way to the tipping point of radical change. The new economics will reflect the limits of growth and must reflect democracy in the workplace and with material accumulation. What does our new economy looks like? Is it a combination of barter, time swapping, and other elements? We'll be exploring this issue some more.

Thanks!
Forest

Free Market Environmentalism: Giving away our future to the Greedy?

2014-05-03T16:24:00.003-07:00

A Defense of Free Market Environmentalism

Posted on August 22, 2011 by Todd Wynn

By Nick Sibilla

On July 30, the Washington Post published my letter to the editor where I argued for theprivatization of America’s national parks. In response to an earlier op-ed (which claimed the National Park Service was a “prime example of government failure”), I wrote that the best way to solve government failure is through privatization. The national parks would be better managed if they were in the hands of private, environmental nonprofits. In short, I was arguing for free market environmentalism.

As one can imagine, privatization did not go down well with the Washington Post’sliberal readers. Online, my letter was swarmed with angry comments. My proposal was blasted as a “horribly misguided…propaganda piece.” I was called a “moron” and accused of “trying to destroy this country for a quick buck.” One commenter even said I should go kill myself. In fact, another said I would “sell [my] grandma if it made a profit.”

Since a letter to the editor is too short to fully promote free market environmentalism, I will now rebut some of the more misinformed claims about privatizing the parks.

Private parks would not lead to price gouging

One common concern was that if the parks were privatized, the owners would gouge the visitors and charge incredibly high entrance fees. The simplest response is that if a greedy park owner did charge something outrageously high (say, $200 per ticket) who would attend? To attract more visitors, private parks would have incentives to charge a reasonable price, in order to increase profit. In addition, since the government would no longer have a monopoly, parks would compete with each other to attract visitors, thereby driving entrance fees down.

Now, some might counter that this proposal cannot work with all parks. Whoever owns all of the Grand Canyon has a monopoly, and so, they can price gouge to their heart’s content. But why should all of the Grand Canyon go to just one buyer? To further increase competition, parks that have truly unique features could be divided into smaller pieces and purchased by different organizations. After all, places like Yosemite, Yellowstone, and the Grand Canyon are immense.

In addition, what many people don’t realize is that there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. While the parks do have nominal fees, most of their cost is hidden to visitors. Visitors already pay for the parks through concessions, lodging, parking permits, and taxes.

The parks are safer in private hands than in the government’s

In the Washington Post, I specifically mentioned that the parks should be “managed by environmentalists in the private sector.” Putting aside their politics, nonprofits like theSierra Club and the Nature Conservancy have great records in conservation. In addition, one liberty-minded commenter commended the Land Trust Alliance for its “successful history of land management.” But despite this clear and explicit praise, I was still called a “right-wing anti-environment hack.”

However, there are other options to ensure private conservation. Environmental nonprofits need not be the only option. The Department of the Interior (which oversees the National Park Service) could also sell the parks as conservation easements. These agreements allow land to be managed privately, but with legally binding agreements to limit development. This would assure Americans that the parks would still be preserved, regardless of their owner.

In addition, what these anti-privatization advocates fail to realize is that the government does not always promote an environmentalist agenda. Since the parks would no longer depend on federal funding, there would be no need to aggressively lobby Congress or worry about election cycles. Indeed, none of these commenters rebutted my concerns about regulatory capture (when a regulatory agency becomes dominated by special interests) or political patronage. For example, under President Reagan, Secretary of the Interior James Watt quintupled leasing federal land to coalmining and regularly mocked environmentalists. Indeed, he once quipped there are two groups living in the United States: “liberals and Americans.” Remember, Watt was once the ultimate overseer of the National Park Service.

Furthermore, the Sea Lion Caves on the Oregon coast exemplify how private conservation can rectify a government failure. In 1920, the Oregon Legislature established a bounty to exterminate populations of seals and sea lions on the Oregon Coast. Each sea lion slaughtered earned a $5 reward, up to an annual limit of $10,000 a year. By comparison, these bounty hunters would have earned over $120,000 a year in 2010 dollars, thanks to these perverse government incentives.

Fortunately for the sea lions, the market stepped in to correct this egregious government failure. In 1927, R.E. Clanton purchased America’s largest sea cave and drove away bounty hunters from his property. Five years later, Clanton opened a for-profit business to attract visitors. Since then, the Sea Lion Caves have been both profitable and protective of the environment. Each year, over 200,000 people visit, while the sea lion population on the Oregon coast has quadrupled since 1964. Indeed, profit and stewardship are interdependent. At the Sea Lion Caves:

…their profitability depends on the presence of the animals. The owners take every precaution against disrupting the natural habitat. Thus, tourists are fenced out at a distance close enough for viewing, while the animals are free to come and go, unlike in an aquarium or zoo. Further, maintenance and improvements are undertaken only when the wildlife will not be disturbed….The Sea Lion Caves demonstrate that making a living and preserving wildlife can be compatible.

Disney has a great model

On that note, free market environmentalism is regularly accused of turning the parks into Disneyworld (or worse, Chuck E Cheese). My response: We should be so lucky.

Disney actually has an animal conservation park: Disney’s Animal Kingdom in Florida. Although it’s the seventh most visited theme park in the world, Animal Kingdom is anaccredited zoo, according to the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. But thanks to its high profits, Disney has been able to fund a plethora of conservation projects, like planting trees and preserving coral reefs with the Nature Conservancy, rescuing endangered gorillas in the Congo, and protecting 12,000 acres of Florida wetlands, to name but a few.

Some might argue that this is not a fair comparison to privatizing the parks, since Disney’s Animal Kingdom is not conserving land. In fact, it’s even better than conservation. Before this park was developed, the land in Lake Buena Vista, Florida was vacant and not a source of anything valuable to environmentalists. But because of Disney’s efforts, that land is now home to over 200 different species and 1,000 animalsfrom around the world, including a replicated African savannah. In other words, Disney has generated both economic and environmental value. Not bad for a multibillion dollar media conglomerate.

Privatization is a continuum

While full privatization may be ideal, there are other options to inject market forces into public lands. In Oregon, Timberline Lodge is a phenomenal example of this partial privatization.

Nestled on the slopes of Mount Hood, Timberline Lodge was built as a public works project during the Great Depression. In fact, President Franklin D. Roosevelt personally dedicated the lodge in 1937. However, due to repeated mismanagement by the government, the lodge was forced to close in 1955—barely 18 years of operation. But soon after it closed, Richard Kohnstamm made a bid to operate the lodge. Starting in 1955, Timberline Lodge was run as a public-private partnership: the U.S. Forest Service would administrate and own the property, but contract out the day-to-day operations to the Kohnstamm family.

This market infused partnership became immensely successful. The lodge now receivesalmost 2 million visitors each year and became the first ski resort to be honored as a National Historic Landmark. But without the efforts of Richard Kohnstamm, Timberline Lodge would have remained derelict.

Privatization would not lead to advertisements everywhere

Whoever runs the parks has a strong incentive not to turn Yosemite or Crater Lake into Times Square. One major reason why people visit natural parks is to “escape” from modern life and reconnect with nature. Visitors greatly value nature and would eagerly pay a premium for that experience. Thus, accepting advertisements would “devalue” the experience of being in nature (permit the economic language). In addition, the ad revenue hardly would compensate for the loss of experiencing nature. Private owners have a formidable incentive not to plaster ads over their land.

Even if an evil, nasty transnational corporation did plaster ads all over one of its parks, no one is forced to enter. In a free market system, there would be other, ad-free parks to visit. In addition, people could boycott that park and force that corporation to change its ways and respond to consumer demand.

We don’t have money

Many have argued that instead of privatizing the parks, we should increase spending on the national parks. However, this solution is not as simple as it sounds. The U.S. national debt is over $14,000,000,000,000. In the debt ceiling agreement just reached between President Obama and Congress, roughly $2.4 trillion in federal spending is supposed to be cut in just the next decade. It is unlikely that national parks will compete successfully with much more powerful political interests defending expensive programs such as entitlements and national defense.

All in all, privatizing the parks is not ivory tower speculation. Disney’s Animal Kingdom, the Sea Lion Caves, and the Timberline Lodge are all living proof that free markets can promote and protect the environment.

Nick Sibilla is a research associate at Cascade. He received his bachelor’s degree in Political Science and Religious Studies from the University of Pittsburgh.

This entry was posted in Cascade Website, Environment, Todd Wynn and tagged advertisements, conservation,conserve, debt, Department of Interior, disney, Environment, free market, free market environmentalism, free markets,national debt, national park, national park service, national parks, park, privatize, washington post. Bookmark thepermalink.

10 Responses to A Defense of Free Market Environmentalism

Devin Watkins says:

September 1, 2011 at 7:40 pm

Well said.

Reply
Pingback: California’s Parks and Rec Faces Budget Crisis | Libertarios of America
Michael W says:

March 8, 2012 at 2:00 pm

Sadly, however, none of the examples you cite seek to conserve the land in a natural state — they are all artificial creations. Even the Sea Lion Caves promote only one species to the exclusion of all others. Parks are not zoos and should never be treated as such. They are living ecosystems. Managing them for profit would ensure that paying customers are the priority — not the land, and certainly not the animals and plants that make up the ecosystem. Unless you can explain to me how the components that make up the park get a seat on the board of the company running it for profit, you will never convince this otherwise market-loving person that this is anything other than Randian hackery.

Reply
David Roberts says:

April 25, 2012 at 6:31 pm

Did you really write that “there would be other, ad free parks to visit”? And would those other “ad free parks” contain Crater Lake, the Redwoods, Half Dome or the Grand Canyon? There is no other Crater Lake, so if I want to visit Crater Lake I need to go where Crater Lake is, right? And if there are ads all over the side of the lake that’s what I’m stuck with, right…Crater Lake surrounded by ads. I can’t just pop down the road and see Crater Lake at some other park. Privatization of our national parks is a terrible idea, and your argument to the contrary needs work.

Reply
- Doug Voluntaryist says:
  
  December 6, 2013 at 3:55 am
  
  “Privatization of our national parks is a terrible idea, and your argument to the contrary needs work.”
  
  What is your solution? Violently take over land by the government, and force the taxpayer to pay for it? Go endlessly into debt and bankrupt the country, all on the backs of the productive? Violence is the answer to land conservation?
  
  I think you are the one with an argument that needs LOTS of work.
  
  Reply
Nicholas L says:

April 26, 2012 at 6:26 am

Do we just preserve enough parks for people to visit, or is there something more important about wildlife conservation that the demand for human recreation just won’t cover? The latter implies that in this case that the free-market would lead to a market failure and government intervention might be a solution to such a failure.

Reply
- Doug Voluntaryist says:
  
  December 6, 2013 at 3:56 am
  
  If you care so much about wildlife conservation, why not make one of your own? That is the great thing about a free market and a free society–you can take over land you want managed in the way you want it. You don’t need to lobby Congress and use money taken from the taxpayer by force to fund your idea.
  
  Reply
Doug Voluntaryist says:

December 6, 2013 at 4:00 am

A great example of “market” infused partnership. The State of California was going to shut down Grist Mill, and volunteers took it over and ran it. They are totally self-sufficient–the state just lets them stay there for free, but managing the park is up to the volunteers.

The volunteers sell flour they grind at the mill not only to visitors, but to local restaurants as well.

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=482

Admittedly, this isn’t about wildlife conservation, but it’s an example of how volunteers can manage any sort of park without relying on taxes and political favoritism.

Reply
Pingback: California's Parks and Rec Faces Budget Crisis - Hit & Run : Reason.com
lexi says:

February 23, 2014 at 5:25 pm

Would it be within the free-market environmental framework to still keep these parks as federal or state owned lands, but have them run by for-profits or non-profits? I think a private-public partnership would be the most reasonable idea that I could see actually passing through Congress.

Another aspect in favor of FME is that if you uphold property rights, then pollution or other damage done to those areas would have to be compensated. If it’s still public land, therefore technically owned by the taxpayers, couldn’t those property rights still be upheld, and those who cause damage have to compensate? We could put that money into a fund, very restricted in use, such as to fix the damages or do other repairs. I personally don’t see why they have to necessarily be privatized to uphold property rights.

Reply
Forest Berg says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 3, 2014 at 11:15 pm

Privatization of National Parks is a terrible idea.

First off you’re not talking about real privatization right? You already are setting a limitation that you suppose will stand true and be stable. Putting the hands of our treasures in Non-profits? There’s wisdom in that is can see. But in reality, non-profits can come and go and they do. They are highly unstable and can have agenda changes. It’s the concept of PUBLIC LANDS that needs to be cherished. There’s nothing wrong with the concept of Public Lands just in the execution of it. As a former employee of a NP, State Parks, and National Forests, I can speak with authority that many of the problems facing our public lands are coming from the the Far Right. Ever since the concept of public lands came into being there have been groups looking to sell off ‘our’ land. The current method of cutting USFS budgets for example, has left the agency with a lack of resources to manage efficiently. I believe that this is basically an attack on public lands from a back door. If you can point to how ‘lame’ the F.S is doing then you can justify putting lands into private corporations and non-profits. The F.S has already outsourced camp ground management to companies along with using contractors to accomplish many jobs. The results of course are mixed. Wether the F.S actually saves money by this process is up for argument.

If we lose our public lands we could be taking away an important democratic process no matter if it has worked or not. We’re talking about reinventing the wheel. The Park Service, Forest Service and the other agencies have some major differences in how they work and how effectively they work but as much as I like aspects of groups like the Sierra Club and others ..those groups can have ecological and political agendas that can conflict with the mandate of public lands management. In reality, as long as the system is dominated by the current ‘free’ market, management of our public lands have reflected the attitude of those in power. It takes awhile for the ship to turn but when it does it’s pretty hard to stop where it’s going. National Parks and Forest Lands can be ‘managed’ from healthy long term ecological perspectives that benefit the public. Addressed from a scientific and unbiased aspect we can do well. Besides, why don’t we just consider that our current economic system which doesn’t even allow for ‘free’ markets to really exist. Our market is neither ‘free’ or ‘fair’ with corporate welfare, exorbitant tax breaks and other perks from being part of the oligarchy. Companies like Disney have had more then their fair share of labor issues and to think that turning our parks into Disney lands fit’s with the NP mandate makes me laugh. The market is about profit before social and environmental justice. Why do you think that we currently have the problems with global warming, species extinction, ocean acidification and other issues? If you think current market economics applied towards managing publics lands will work…then your sadly mistaken. If you think that groups like the Sierra Club will do a great job on public lands then you have little knowledge of the Sierra Club…heck I’ve even worked for them too.

Our current system of managing public lands has issues and problems that could take books to discuss BUT replacing a system that I argue still works with a system that we know will create a whole new set of problems is NOT the answer. Remember, Bush wanted to privatize Social Security in the hands of the ‘experts’ on finances. We all know how that would have planned out… They used the same arguments that I’m hearing from this group. Nick you may mean well but forget it…your ideas will hopefully never win out because if they do then not only will we be ‘paying’ extra money to these groups but we’ll be fighting them and a tilted playing field to fix the wrongs that they’ll end up doing. Just ask companies like Monsanto, Dupont and BP how well that works against them.

Reply

Definition of a Sustainable Cities

2014-02-05T17:35:00.000-08:00

A majority of cities now face the growing crisis of food dependency, air pollution, traffic and a whole host of issues that are decreasing the quality of life for its' residents. EcoCities are basically cities that are built to curb pollution, be resilient, generate food, create mass transit and improve livability. Humanity is being driven by the necessity to implement sustainability, ecological balance and economic justice. The scope of this paper will be to cover ground up eco city projects. Later we'll look at 'greening' cities, garden cities, and eco-villages. Building a eco city from the ground up is monumental but represents an opportunity to really get it right using all of the design knowledge and materials that in an already built environment might now be possible.

As a strict definition: A sustainable city, or eco-city is a city designed with consideration of environmental impact, inhabited by people dedicated to minimization of required inputs of energy, water and food, and waste output of heat, air pollution - CO₂, methane, and water pollution. Richard Register first coined the term "ecocity" in his 1987 book, Ecocity Berkeley: Building Cities for a Healthy Future.^[1] Other leading figures who envisioned the sustainable city are architect Paul F Downton, who later founded the company Ecopolis Pty Ltd, and authors Timothy Beatley and Steffen Lehmann,^[2] who have written extensively on the subject. The field of industrial ecology is sometimes used in planning these cities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_city
.

-Sustainability
Can the city maintain itself and a high quality of living perpetually?

-Decentralized Energy production
Does the city produce enough energy to its needs without having to import in energy?

-Food production
-The greater the amount of food a city can produce within it's boundaries the more sustainable it is.

-Transportation
Can the city efficiently move good, services, and people within its boundaries?

-Environmental Impacts
Does the city have a minimum impact upon the environment. Is the air quality good? Does the city put out excessive CO2? Impacts to the environment can be minimized on so many levels: from creating habitat for wildlife to flow.... to minimizing waste production.

-Livability
Is the city livable? Does it have low crime rates, easy access to satisfying the needs of its inhabitants?

-Resiliency
A city can be sustainable but can it be resilient? How does the city deal with earthquakes, economic trauma, defense against war, etc...?

The three Eco-cities that I'm going to look at represent massive projects from the ground-up. These projects are in theory supposed to embody all of the elements of sustainability and provide blueprints for humanity in its' move forward towards a promising future.

ziraisland.com
and
Zira's brochere

I looked at the Zira Island site two years ago and am incredibly enthusiastic about its potential. This is the creation of Denmark's BIG architects. Check out the the film you will understand what I mean about promise. Currently, Zira island is under construction and it is my hope to get some photos and video feed of this city.

Tainjin- Eco City

Tainjin represents the massive influx of money being thrown at a problem that many countries are feeling: urban pollution, city livability and costs to society.

China has long had a reputation for paying little attention to ecology and pollution. China is currently ranked 116 of 132 countries on the Environmental Performance Index, and since 2007, China has overtaken the U.S. as the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter. Recognizing the unsustainability of its growth model, the Chinese government has called for a major policy shift to address the environmental impacts of economic growth. In fact, China claims it is one of the first developing countries to propose and implement sustainable development as a national strategy. The government has achieved substantial advancements in sustainable development, including poverty reduction and population control.

China has over a billion people and the impacts of China's development is being felt all over the world. China's foray into eco-cities represents a commitment to change. There are over thirty provinces in China that have declared the creation of either an eco-district or eco city. Tianjin represents the farthest along in development while Dongtan looks like a total failure. Dongtan is both unfinished and at this point showing little movement towards finishing. The initial monies for the city ran out and the local support has been small. Cities like Dongan take years if not decades to finish and need long term support. Also, Dongan has been questioned about it's true resiliency and ecological impact. Dongtan has been located on wetlands. By contrast, Tainjin has been located on a dry alkaline lake bed to minimize impacts but now will require strict attention to water which was planned for.

Masdar
The Middle East is seeking options away from oil and is in the process of creating green cities such as

Masdar, a city outside of Abu Dhabi. Abu Dhabi is a sheikhdom of eastern Arabia and capital of the United Arab Emirates. Masdar goal- "One day, it is expected that up to 40,000 people will call the car-free, pedestrian friendly, energy-efficient city home"

Currently, Masdar has about 150 people living there and it hasn't quite lived up to its' promise. (link to Masdar's critique). The city is well planned and while sitting in the middle of the desert it pays attention to old desert city designs which favor narrow raised streets. The city has not implemented building solar panels due to the desert winds. Instead, Masdar has created a huge solar facility that generates heat for creating power. Masdar has a university, and has attracted some major corporations including Siemans- a corporation dedicated to sustainable city development.

Apparently, Masdar has suffered a bit due to the 2008 world economic collapse. The money that was supposed to go into finishing the city has instead had to prop up Abu Dhabi. Even through Masdar is not as large as it was supposed to be it has contributed to some very important technological innovations. Masdar shows that eco-cities can be created and will contribute to sustainable urban development. Unfortunately, Masdar is suffering from what many huge projects do: The need for large amounts of money and the general lack of it.

In Conclusion

Giant urban eco city developments are in their infancy. The technology and knowledge base for creating resilient cities are available but the implementation, monies, and political support for these projects are limited. Any kind of resilient sustainable development is a movement in the right direction. Limiting Co2, waste creation, creating better living conditions and transportation options will be a challenge for cities.

In many ways, mega-city development projects are really unrealistic and will largely be limited to countries that can either afford it or can entice corporations and entities to make it happen. Masdar and Zira are both funded by oil. Tainjin has been funded by the rapid economic expansion of China. In order to move eco-city development forward on a grand scale will take massive political will. In theory, it would be most beneficial to rebuild cities recovering from destruction. Cities like New Orleans, and others represent amazing opportunities for evolution. A list of qualifications could be drawn up for cities in need and systemic urban planning which involves all parties and a process of facilitation.

GreenEarthCity

2012-09-15T15:51:00.000-07:00

Hi Everyone!

I wanted to let you know about another site I've been working with. It's called GreenEarthCity. GreenEarthCity.org is about ultimately creating a net-zero energy use city that DOESN'T revolve around the car.

GreenEarthCity seeks people who are interested in creating a different paradigm centered around quality of life, peace, and harmony with the Earth. Living with the Earth and not apart from it. One thing we've all noticed is that in our hustle and bustle of life we often forget that we live on an Island. This Island is the only home we have. There is no alternative Earth or place to go that will support us. For those of us that have children, we realize that to have a viable future for them we will have to change our behavior. Perhaps the greatest challenge we face today is going from a traditional consumer based economy to something that doesn't presume that the Earth's resources are limitless.

GreenEarthCity is about dialogue. How do we move towards an economic system that considers quality of life and not quantity. It's pretty obvious that money has become like a GOD to most people. How do we transition to a system that values economic and social justice from one that considers people a commodity?

In these time of Global Environmental turmoil we'll have to work fast and create positive change now. I call upon each and every person to look deep within to make those personal changes that will in turn create true sustainability.

True sustainability? What is that? In my mind it looks like creating products that don't pollute, organic farming, localism or being a locavore, understanding ecosystems, eliminating pesticides and herbicides, creating biodiversity, transitioning from fossil fuels, redefining what wealth is, and many other inclusive ideas.

As we move towards a this different paradigm it will be important to keep sight of the details AND the big picture. Think globally and act locally, an old saying as relevant as ever.

Namaste,
Forest

This Economy is hurting

2012-04-04T11:14:00.000-07:00

Our economy is in a tank but is it such a bad deal? Yes and no I would argue. Yes because people are being forced to work for less, losing their homes and generally making do with less. No because if we use our heads we can rise above this with change. We can learn to work together and become self sufficient. We can promote true democracy for the masses.

First, recognizing that we live in a world of finite natural resources that are currently being used at an unsustainable rate. Second, we realize that local economies are a solution and that includes farmers markets, small businesses, and home enterprises. Third, we distribute wealth fairly in a way that promotes economic justice.

Finally, recognizing that a gov't of the people and for the people starts with fair representation. In order to have that we'll have to get rid of corporate personhood, and electoral college.

It can happen but it will start with you.

The fraudulent war on Cancer

2012-02-22T14:00:00.000-08:00

It's a simple but powerful statement. There is no real war on cancer ..the 'war' on cancer is simply a front for spending more money on 'cures' that rarely work while providing little in the way towards preventing or even really curing cancer. Even the great American Cancer society has little to offer in the way of cures and every year more people end up with some form of cancer many of which will end up killing them.

One of the greatest hypocrisies that exist today is this so-called 'war' on cancer! Spending millions upon millions on 'cures' YET WE CONTINUE TO RELEASE TONS UPON TONS OF CANCER CAUSING CHEMICALS. Not only do they get released but they also end up in consumer products! It's a no brainer. The FDA is NOT protecting you. You're a fool if you think so. It's not uncommon for the very cancer causing companies to also make cancer fighting chemicals too.
Example 1:
David R. Bethune, president of Lederle Laboratories, a multinational pharmaceutical company and a division of American Cyanamid Company. Bethune is also vice president of American Cyanamid, which makes chemical fertilizers and herbicides while transforming itself into a full-fledged pharmaceutical company. In 1988, American Cyanamid introduced Novatrone, an anti-cancer drug. And in 1992, it announced that it would buy a majority of shares of Immunex, a cancer drug maker.

Example 2
Propylene glycol a know carcinogenic and toxin. Yet propylene glycol is probably THE most common ingredient found in personal-care items, such as make-up, hair products, lotions, after-shave, deodorants, mouthwashes, and toothpaste. (Check the labels of your favourite products!!) It is also the active component in antifreeze; and there is no difference between what’s used in industry and what you apply to your skin! Industry uses it to break down protein and cellular structure (what the skin is made of); it’s so strong that it can take barnacles off the bottom of boats.

The fact that our manufacturing process spews nasty cancer causing chemicals into the public and gets away from it is appalling. Even worse is that they profit circle includes 'treatments' made by those self-same companies.

It's a pretty sad day when you've realized that we've been involuntarily used as guinea pigs in a massive outdoors lab experiment for the last sixty or so years. Future generations will look at this as an age of colossal toxic contamination and will be spending years maybe even decades cleaning it up ..if it's even possible. In the meantime whenever you or someone you know is diagnosed with cancer you'll have to confess to the possibility that some company out there is playing god with our lives everytime they push another crappy poorly tested or falsified chemical upon the public.

Many companies will deny their culpability in causing cancer but when looked upon closer...it becomes fairly obvious that they are guilty. Take flouride for instance. Flouride is a toxic heavy metal yet it's in our water and tooth paste. Why? Because it prevents tooth decay. That is actually a myth and it's now know that flouride doesn't protect against tooth decay in the pits and cracks of teeth... yet flouride as a toxin is well known(http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/fluoridation.aspx) it's just good business sense if you can resele

It's all about information. Probably the best thing you can do for yourself and loved ones is to research using the internet or the library this subject. Once you start looking..be prepared to be shocked by the toxic shell game. Companies hide toxic chemicals in the water..get caught...move onto land..then air..then maybe your carpet or toothpaste.

So take some time and sign a petition..buy intelligently and realize that the 'war' on cancer shall start with the very manufacturing process that creates it.

http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm

Rant on Gov't trust issues...

2010-04-19T08:06:00.000-07:00

In response to said article below
See:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100419/ap_on_go_ot/us_government_distrust
Wow...this is supposed to be a democracy. A democracy only works if people stand up and let their voices be heard. Unfortunately, people think that less government is the answer which makes me laugh and cry at the same time because it's an ignorant statement. It's not the AMOUNT of government ...our government has grown just like our population. It's the quality of government and whether or not it represents us. In this case people are mad because of the economy. We want jobs. We want security and our slice of the pie. As Americans we have been perhaps THE most privileged country in the world. Blessed with abundant natural resources due to the fact that this land was 'unspoilt.' An Earth respecting local native population now mostly marginalized, demoralized and destroyed and living in squalid territories allowed the new immigrated populations from Europe to use what they saw fit. Later, as the U.S grew it's demand of resources grew too. At some point it was claimed that the U.S used somewhere along the line of 3/4 of the worlds energy and resources As of now, the U.S uses roughly 25% of the worlds energy yet we make up 5% of the worlds population. China is the fastest growing energy users at this point which should be no surprise since they are going through a rough industrial revolution. Unfortunately, the world has FINITE resources and as countries use more up...like damming the Amazon, overfishing, depleted soils, contaminating fresh drinking water...the competition for resources can lead to war and as in this case political discontent. In other words, Americans are being forced to 'size' down some and it irritates us!

"Why can't we have MORE?"

We STILL make more money then most of the worlds population! The IRONY of this? It's always the poor and the middle class that gets hit by economic downturns. Yes the rich lose too but if you made 100 million and lost even 90 million ..well you'd still have a million which is a hell of a lot more then most of us including me. There are a lot of reasons for our economy being screwed.

I believe the Military Industrial Complex to be cause. To put it plain and simple we've spent a LOT of money on bases, war and weapons to further our political and economic agenda. Russia's collapse is a lesson to be learned from. We didn't really defeat Russia they overspent on the military and collapsed from it. Now we're in danger of the same thing. We KEPT spending like there was still a cold war. The Empire days are over. Everyone is tied to each other economically. For example: We owe China billions of dollars. If the Chinese called in that debt we'd be DONE but they would sink too since they are tied to us. Right now we are really should be paying attention to corporations. Why? Well for one we've given them WAY too much power. They now can contribute unlimited amounts to campaign contributions! And since the early 1900's have been considered 'persons' with the same rights as you or I. What does that mean to you? Well for one there's no national allegiance. Huge transnational corporations move factories to where ever it suits them..like ...China or Taiwan.. which means less jobs for you and I. If your mad at the government now then wait till Exxon or Dow elects their own proxy 'Senator' Of course it's already been that way for some time now but you've seen nothing yet.

Democrats and Republicans and our Gov't reflect our inability to educate ourselves and take part in politics. We get what we deserve. In the end we have to decide what kind of services we deserve and want from gov't. Roads, schools, health care, National Parks and public lands, etc... Actually, many areas of gov't have downsized significantly over the years. Since Bush was in office for example the Forest Service's in the field staff has shrunk a lot. If you get lost in the National Forest now..don't expect a ranger nearby because more then likely he's been laid off. The increase in spending went largely to the military. Peace!destroyed and living in squalid territories allowed the new immigrated populations from Europe to ususes somewhere along the line of 3/4 of the worlds energy and resources As of now the U.S uses roughly 25% of the worlds energy. We make up 5% of the worlds population. China is the fastest ir voices be heard. Unfortunately, people think that less government is the answer which makes me laugh and cry at the same time because it's an ignorant statement. It's not the AMOUNT of government ...our government has grown just like our population. It's the quality of government and whether or not it represents us. In this case people are mad because of the economy. We want jobs. We want security and our slice of the pie. As Americans we have been perhaps THE most privileged country in the world. Blessed with abundant natural resources due to the fact that this land was 'unspoilt.' An Earth respecting local native population now mostly marginalized, demoralized and destroyed and living in squalid territories allowed the new immigrated populations from Europe to use what they saw fit. Later, as the U.S grew it's demand of resources grew too. Eventually, the U.S now uses somewhere along the line of 3/4 of the worlds energy and resources As of now the U.S uses roughly 25% of the worlds energy. We make up 5% of the worlds population. China is the fastest growing energy users at this point which should be no surprise since they going through a rough industrial revolution. Unfortunately, the world has FINITE resources and as countries use more up...like damming the Amazon, overfishing, depleted soils, contaminating fresh drinking water...the competition for resources can lead to war and as in this case political discontent. In other words, Americans are being forced to 'size' down some and it irritates us! Why can't we have MORE? We STILL make more then most of the worlds population! The IRONY of this? It's always the poor and the middle class that gets hit by economic downturns. Yes the rich lose too but if you made 100 million and lost even 90 million ..well you'd still have a million which is a hell of a lot more then most of us including me. There are a lot of reasons for our economy being screwed. I believe the Military Industrial Complex to be cause. To put it plain and simple we've spent a LOT of money spent on bases, war and weapons to further our political and economic agenda. Russia's collapse is a lesson to be learned from. We didn't really defeat Russia they overspent on the military and collapsed from it. Now we're in danger of the same thing. We KEPT spending like there was still a cold war. The Empire days are over. Everyone is tied to each other economically. For example: We owe China billions of dollars. If the Chinese called in that debt we'd be DONE but they would sink too since they are tied to us. Right now we are really should be paying attention to corporations. Why? Well for one we've given them WAY too much power. They now can contribute unlimited amounts to campaign contributions! And since the early 1900's have been considered 'persons' with the same rights as you or I. What does that mean to you? Well for one thing there's no allegiance to any country in particular hence the term transnational corporation which has supplanted multi-national corporation. Huge transnational corporations move factories to where ever it suits them..like ...China or Taiwan.. which means less jobs for you and I. If your mad at the government now then wait till Exxon or Dow elects their own proxy 'Senator' Of course it's already been that way for some time now but you've seen nothing yet.

Democrats and Republicans and our Gov't reflect our inability to educate ourselves and take part in politics. We get what we deserve. In the end we have to decide what kind of services we deserve and want from gov't. Roads, schools, health care, National Parks and public lands, etc... Actually, many areas of gov't have downsized significantly over the years. Since Bush was in office for example the Forest Service's in the field staff has shrunk a lot. If you get lost in the National Forest now..don't expect a ranger nearby because more then likely he's been laid off. The increase in spending went largely to the military and our network of worldwide bases.

In the end we distrust our government because we should but complaining about it and electing another group of neocon conservatives or 'tea partiers' will NOT solve it and if anything will make it much worse. The best thing to do now. Remove the electoral party and get rid of corporate person-hood!

Why nuclear energy is a mistake..

2010-04-19T00:27:00.000-07:00

It seems that President Obama is supporting nuclear power as a partial solution to our use of gas. Nuclear power is a mistake for a number of reasons I will list.

Waste
There is current no real long term waste storage solution. Even the Yucca Mountain site is deemed unsuitable for long term storage. Nuclear waste can stay radioactive for many thousands of years contaminating anything around it and until that single issue is dealt with we put all life at risk.

Safety
Risk of contamination from accidents involving transport of fissionable materials. Anytime radioactive materials are moved they become a target for possible terrorism.
Risk of contamination from truck accidents. I once was passed by a trucker carrying high level radioactive waste at ninety miles an hour in Tennessee!
The plants themselves are at risk from natural disasters, terrorists, and breakdowns. Many of us still recall Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.

Workers at risk from radiation and contamination from the workplace.

Health
Radioactive contamination can be lethal to all most living beings. You get it and it gets you if not soon then later.

Why work with something we know is inherently dangerous when we DO have many other options? Simple-the nuclear industry has spent billions on the technology and like the biotech industry uses lies and deceitful manipulation to convince the public of the safety of it's product. We've been lucky so far but why push our luck? I used to live by a now defunct nuclear power plant that sits on a major fault. The Humboldt Bay power plant is still supposedly storing waste there because there is nowhere else for it to go..

As taken from San Diego Coast Keepers

2010-03-03T10:39:00.000-08:00

Did You Know?

Fifty percent or more of marine litter is, in some form of plastic, whether it is bottles, food wrappers, plastic bags, or plastic pellets. Plastics are highly toxic to the marine environment, as well as the physical health of humans.
The biggest problem with plastics is that they DO NOT biodegrade. Plastic break down in a process called photodegrading, which means they simply break apart into ever smaller pieces, eventually forming “plastic dust.” As plastics go through this process they release toxins which have many harmful effects to the ocean and the wildlife and people that depend on it.
No matter how large or small they are, plastic bits are not digestible by any creature on land, in the air, or under the sea. We are literally suffocating the planet with these plastic products, which can never re-enter the life cycle. Plastics that are in the ocean today will, in some way, stay there forever. After decades of floating about plastics break down into smaller particles, gets absorbed into the food chain or eventually sink and become part of the ocean bottom sediment.
There are two common ways plastics end up in the ocean. Pre-production plastic pellets, used to create nearly all commercially consumed plastic products, are often carelessly handled in places where they are produced and transported. Approximately twenty percent of the plastic in our ocean comes from these pellets being blown into our oceans from waterfront industrial plants and cargo ships
The other eighty percent of plastic litter finds its way into the storm drain system and into the marine environment through urban runoff. Even plastic that gets “thrown away” does not always make it to the landfill, but rather gets diverted by wind or improper handling. The plastics that do make it are crowding landfills because of the long time it takes for them to break down. An estimated 63 pounds of plastics for each American enters landfills each year.
At present, plastics in the ocean outweigh natural zooplankton by a 6:1 ratio! What does this mean for marine animals? It means that they are consuming way more plastic than zooplankton. Fish and other sea animals mistake plastics for food because plankton and plastic, when broken down or in pellet form, have very similar appearances. These plastics eventually find their way up the food chain into the foods that we consume.

The Dirty Facts about Plastic

Estimates run as high as one million pieces of plastic per square kilometer floating in specific areas of the Pacific Ocean.
In the Pacific Ocean there is a patch of plastics know as the “Eastern Garbage Patch” the size of Texas! This patch is a huge feeding ground for many marine animals.
Shoppers worldwide are using 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags per year. This translates to about a million bags every minute across the globe. Plastic bags take 20 to 1000 years to break down, are made from petroleum, a nonrenewable resource, and they are very harmful to marine animals that ingest them.
A one liter bottle can break down into enough fragments to place a single fragment on each mile of beach in the entire world.
More than 1 million birds, more than 100,000 whales, seals and turtles, and countless fish worldwide are killed by plastic debris each year. These deaths occur through entanglement, suffocation, and starvation by ingestion.
90% of Laysan Albatross chick carcasses and regurgitated stomach contents contain plastics.
Fishing line and nets, six-pack rings, rope and other rubbish can wrap around fins, flippers and limbs of other animals, causing drowning or amputation. Some debris can kill for decades — trapped animals often attract predators, which then become entangled too.
Plastic’s primary toxic contents are phthalates and Bisphenol which have been found in every part of a person’s body unnaturally through blood, urine, and amniotic fluid. Bisphenol is used in plastic fabrications such as baby bottles, tin can linings, certain toys, and food storage containers.

How you can be part of the solution

Bring your own cloth or recycled grocery bags to the store.
Reduce, Reuse then Recycle! Buy in bulk. Re-use when possible. Reduce consumption by avoiding excessively packaged products.
Think twice about buying "disposable" products. (They really aren't disposable and are extravagant wastes of the world's resources.)
Avoid buying food or household products in plastic or Styrofoam containers. They can't be recycled, deplete the ozone layer, and are not biodegradable. While some alternatives promote themselves as eco-friendly, such as ‘bio-degradable Styrofoam’, even these products are not necessarily good for the ocean. Learn more at http://www.worldcentric.org/bio/index.htm.
Buy paper products instead of plastic if you must buy "disposables." They break down better in the environment and don't deplete the ozone layer as much.
Avoid buying bottled water. Invest in a filter system or go to your local grocery store and refill your water jugs.
Keep plastic debris and other contaminants (leaves, pet waste, toxins) out of street gutters and storm drains. This eventually ends up in the ocean.
Keep beaches clean. Plastics and other debris harm sea life and pollute the ocean. Clean up after yourself.
Get involved! Participate in beach cleanups if you live in a coastal area.
Educated yourself and think about where each product you buy will end up when you are finished with it!

Reducing Marine Debris in CA

Marine debris, such as plastics, cigarette butts and other trash, is a growing hazard to our ocean ecosystem that harms hundreds of wildlife species through ingestion, entrapment and entanglement. On February 8, the Ocean Protection Council adopted a resolution outlining steps to reduce and prevent marine debris. The resolution will make California the national leader on efforts to reduce waste and pollution and protect our coastal waters

For More Info:

Learn about the impact of plastics by watching this video
Directed by Benjamin Chen, Megan Peterson, Kelly Sayce and Rachael VanderWalde: MAS 2006-2007 Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Marine Debris Resolution

Plastic a blight upon the Earth

2010-02-09T20:20:00.000-08:00

By now many of you have heard of the Great Garbage Gyre(GGG) is a huge are of garbage twice the area of Texas floating in the Pacific. This floating garbage island is a eyesore and ecological catastrophe. Marine life is being negatively affected. The plastic as it breaks down to its' smallest molecule is still plastic meaning that it biologically incompatible with life on a positive level. There are arguments raging through the scientific community on how how the plastics molecule imitates reproductive hormones giving reason to believe that plastic could be responsible for the rapid rise in testicular and breast cancers. Plastic is also associated with sexual mutations in animals. It is well document that marine life are killed by various forms of garbage and plastic being one of the largest contributers. Remember the Nalgene water bottle scare? Heated water bottles made with rated 3 plastic released the toxic bdp a known carcinogen.

As taken from the Tree Hugger:

Many Nalgene water bottles and other hard plastic sport water bottles are made of polycarbonate (#7 on the bottom) , which may leach Bisphenol A, an estrogen-like chemical. Canada is considering a ban of products containing Bisphenol A (BPA) and a new American study links it to breast cancer and early puberty, and is particularly concerned about the effect on babies. Others have raised concerns about the effect of feminizing hormones on men, such as breast enlargement or dropping semen counts. At the same time, sport water bottles are ubiquitous and we don't want people going back to buying bottled water. What should you do? Time to nix the Nalgene? We looked at our past posts and the latest reports, and suggest the following.

We know that we to make change now! What can we do?

Please check out these Videos for more information!

Tea Party....

2010-02-08T18:45:00.000-08:00

The Tea Party: Feeding on peoples fears it's a another front for the sagging GOP. Using Sarah Palin as a keynote speaker? Hahahah! The idea that a smaller government and paying less taxes sounds great! Look behind the hocus pocus and see the reality. It's not about less taxes neccesarily but how taxes are raised and where they are used. Why is it that huge transnational corporations get to scoot virtually tax free on so many levels while you and me pay proportionally more? Why should so much of our money go to stupid projects..like biowarfare labs and overseas military bases in countries that don't want them?

Why is it that people fail to look back on history and see that international wars are almost solely based on resources and that the use of idealism is almost always a front to motivate the masses. Example: The war on terrorism: Oil extraction from middle east countries.

The Tea party is simply another way for the GOP to create a 'grassroots' movement that in the end will mean more poverty and more corporate hegemony. Downsizing the Government would be great but attacking the wrong programs like roads, schools, health care, the environment, and social programs while boosting defense budgets for 'security' and promoting greater states rights would make us a poorer country all around. Why do we need to kill others. To this day 911 is the fearsome catch phrase that is bandied around to create the hype needed to make people tow the line. Right now the propaganda machine to disprove the 911 'Truthers' as one program put it has still failed to quell critical questions such as why building seven collapsed in the evening and yet before and since no steel girder constructed buildings haved ever collapsed from fires.

I'm sure Facebook being what it is and how it is used will disapprove of this blog..

Lake Tahoe: Doomed?

2010-01-14T11:55:00.001-08:00

Lake Tahoe will be invaded! It's only a matter of time that Lake Tahoe will be invaded by the Zebra and Quagga Mussels. Both mussels have been moving west and have already contaminated a number of lakes and rivers in the U.S. Currently boats going into Lake Tahoe will be subjected to random inspections. Random inspections will not prevent mussel contamination. All it takes is one and that will be it. To understand how these mussels can impact Lake Tahoe read the excerpt taken from Wikepedia below. As taken from Wikepedia:

Quaggas are prodigious water filterers, removing substantial amounts of phytoplankton and suspended particulate from the water. By removing the phytoplankton, quaggas in turn decrease the food source for zooplankton, therefore altering the food web. Impacts associated with the filtration of water include increases in water transparency, decreases in mean chlorophyll concentrations, and accumulation of pseudofeces. Water clarity increases light penetration causing a proliferation of aquatic plants that can change species dominance and alter the entire ecosystems. The pseudofeces that is produced from filtering the water accumulates and impacts the environment. As the waste particles decompose, oxygen is used up, water acidity increases (decreased pH) and toxic byproducts are produced. In addition, quagga mussels accumulate organic pollutants within their tissues to levels more than 300,000 times greater than concentrations in the environment and these pollutants are found in their pseudofeces, which can be passed up the food chain, therefore increasing wildlife exposure to organic pollutants (Snyder et al., 1997). Another major threat involves the fouling of native freshwater mussels.

Map showing distribution of quagga mussels in the U.S.

Dreissena's ability to rapidly colonize hard surfaces causes serious economic problems. These major biofouling organisms can clog water intake structures, such as pipes and screens, therefore reducing pumping capabilities for power and water treatment plants, costing industries, companies, and communities. Recreation-based industries and activities have also been impacted; docks, breakwalls, buoys, boats, and beaches have all been heavily colonized. Many of the potential impacts of Dreissena are unclear due to the limited time scale of North American colonization. Nonetheless, it is clear that the genus Dreissena is highly polymorphic and has a high potential for rapid adaptation to extreme environmental conditions, possibly leading to significant long-term impacts on North American waters. Also, the colonization of deeper water by D. r. bugensis, exposes the quagga to a new range of environmental conditions and new habitats.

It causes many of the same problems (damaging boats, power plants, and harbors and destroying the native mussel population) as the equally invasive zebra mussel of Russia. It is also displacing native burrowing amphipod (Diporeia hoyi) from the deep waters of Lake Erie.

In January 2007, quagga mussels were discovered at a marina in the Nevada portion of Lake Mead, and two other lakes on the Colorado River, Lake Mohave and Lake Havasu.^[3]

In 2008 the threat of quagga mussels being introduced at Lake Casitas and Westlake Lake in California from recreational boating resulted in the lakes banning the use of outside boats.^[4] As of March 2008, other lakes such as Castaic and Lake Cachuma are considering similar bans. In June 2008, the mussels were confirmed in Lake Granby, Colorado. The larva form of quagga mussels were found in the water. ^[5]

After talking with a number of biologists and other experts the prognosis is bad. It is commonly felt that Lake Tahoe will be invaded sometime within the next five years! The easiest way to possibly prevent non-native mussel invasion would be to not allow boats to leave the lake and allow no new boats into the lake. Anything other then that would simply a stalling measure. Of course boat limitations would create a HUGE political backlash. People want to be able to move their boats around. Lake Tahoe is an incredible lake and is already suffering from having motor powered boats in it and from other issues like climate change. If we are to protect Lake Tahoe from invasive species we should be prepared to take drastic steps even if they are uncomfortable ones.

Garbage Island

2009-09-11T10:22:00.000-07:00

I keep hearing about Garbage Island and wondered more and more about it. About a month ago I finally saw some stirring pictures of this morass of plastic. It spans twice the area of Texas and is decompossing into a goo. Besides the obvious fact that garbage island is a ecological nightmare the clean-up of this mess will take a global effort. It needs to be addressed now. When plastics break down to their lowest form they play havok on reproductive systems. Plastics are cancerous. Our plastics industry is an affont to the health and harmony of this planet and we've been fooled into thinkink of plastic as a neccesary and benign product. It is everywhere and it really should be either eliminated or converted into plant based plastics.

Evolve or die !

2009-04-07T18:11:00.000-07:00

We live in a rapidly changing environment both socially and ecologically. Sometimes when I think of the human race I think of a virus. It's a viable analogy! Why? We are infecting the earth in much the same manner as the common cold or maybe the HIV virus. We breed exponentially and change the systems upon which we live off of. In some ways, global warming is akin to a person having a fever created by the infection of the virus. Mother Earth is infected and feverish from our invasion. Is it too much to imagine that like all good viral infections the end results can be either death for the host or a recovery and general immunity. Evolution suggests that a species either adapts from viral attacks or perishes. It's theorized that viruses can ultimately incorporate themselves into the hosts DNA and become part of the system. Our invasion of the Earth sounds fairly similar to a standard viral infection. In terms of geologic time we are a blip and a blip with an impact. Will we become extinct as we deplete our Earth's resources and stress it's ecological systems or will we learn to coexist on a new and powerful level that allows us to grow yet not at the expense of the the other amazing species that share this planet with us? Time will tell us the end. I would like to think that the Earth will abide regardless of what we do. Maybe twenty million years from now some creature will dig up remnants of us and wonder at who we were and what we did and how we became extinct or maybe we'll have destroyed the planet completely and we'll be left to a lonely grave until the sun turns red and goes nova or simply stops shining.

It's been awhile

2008-12-06T20:31:00.001-08:00

How about the current state of affairs? We're going to have a new president and things are changing as always. Yet things also remain the same or are getting worse right? Our oceans dying, the globe showing signs of strain. One of the things that really get me is the irony of some of the situations I've been encountering on the news. For example, the Chronicle features a story on the dying salmon runs and then on the next page there's an article on Bush's attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act. Go figure. A combined effort of 20 years of Republican and anti-environmental efforts it's a wonder that we even have the ESA.

Recently, I've been studying gas mileage on current vehicles and I'm sad to say that cars have gotten worse gas mileage on average since the 80's and early 90's. For example the Honda CRV H got 50 mpg and my old 82' Jetta got close to 40 and we're supposed to jump for joy at a hybrid that gets 45mpg? I know some of this has to do with catalytic converters and other factors but I distinctly remember a Humboldt State University engineering professor completing an engine in his lab that got 100mpg! Where's the promist of the future amazing gas sipping cars? I'll tell you that it won't happen until it's convienent for the gas companies. It's up to you to push for something better. We have some serious options that people are promoting and I hope that they come out soon with something that people can handle!

Fact or Fiction..If it's fact we could be in for some great change.

2007-12-11T21:26:00.000-08:00

Perpetual Motion machine:

Do we have to wait until it's too late?

2007-12-11T19:29:00.000-08:00

This summers ice melt off in the Arctic reached record levels. NASA scientists are extremely worried. We keep hearing that the Arctic melt off is happening faster and faster. The most current estimate has been 2040 for the possible disappearance of polar icecaps. Now this: This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions." Why should we care if there's no Ice caps? Well, the ice caps reflect radiant heat from the sun and the absence of them would mean even more accelerated temperature fluctuations and increases. As a people what do we do? This is a reminder that we live on ONE planet and it's our only home. At this point we need to come together as a human race and put aside all of our differences and make the change now! What change? A wholesale change in how re rely on our energy. Our governments have the power to make this happen. Our corporations have the power to make this happen. We as individuals have the power to make changes in our own lives and to influence the politicians to pass the laws. If we want to have any kind of future for our children and their children then we need to act now and not later. Now is the time for each individual to participate in calling for wholesale changes to our energy use. Drilling for more oil will not solve the problem. Fuel efficient cars will not solve the problem. A massive effort to fund solar and wind, electric cars, conservation, rapid transit, and every other means should be a National priority. The situation is starting to feel like a state of emergency. Do we wait ten years and then start pointing fingers? By then it might be too late and we'll just have pay the piper.

If we change now there will be big losers and big winners financially and the losers will put up a fight to keep change from happening. The losers: big oil companies and the plastics industry along with anything imperatively tied into oil. The winners: The Earth and everything that lives on it. All the money on Earth won't buy a high quality of life is there's not much left. Do you want to wait until Mother Earth steps up and starts really kicking some major butt? I have a feeling we really haven't seen anything yet. Let's not wait until it's too late.

reprint from green.yahoo.com

2007-11-28T11:00:00.000-08:00

GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS/FACTS

Myth: The science of global warming is too uncertain to act on.

Fact: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.

The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests.

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying:

"the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies, 2005)

The only debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.

Myth: Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers.

Fact: A well designed trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.

Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money.

The cost of a comprehensive national greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of implementation. An independent MIT study found that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and have no negative impact on employment.

Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA. Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth.

Letting global warming continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more cost-effective to act now.

Myth: Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO₂)?

Fact: Although water vapor traps more heat than CO₂, because of the relationships among CO₂, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO₂.

Atmospheric levels of CO₂ are determined by how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth.

Atmospheric levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect.

Greenhouse gases like CO₂ warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.

The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO₂ emissions.

Myth: Global warming and extra CO₂ will actually be beneficial — they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth.

Fact: Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.

Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally.

Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture into turmoil.

Even though higher levels of CO₂ can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now think that the "CO₂ fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO₂ may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species.

Higher levels of CO₂ have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries. Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt.

The notion that there will be regional “winners” and “losers” in global warming is based on a world-view from the 1950’s. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications — when an environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected.

Myth: Global warming is just part of a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past.

Fact: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.

People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO₂ into the atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO₂ is the biggest cause of global warming.

Since 1895, scientists have known that CO₂ and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001)

Though natural amounts of CO₂ have varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO₂ levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over the past 650,000 years. Increased CO₂ levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center)

As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon.

We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening.

HUMANCAR on TV tonight!

2007-11-19T13:57:00.001-08:00

Check out: www.humancar.com.
Check out this link to see some of our publicity:
http://www.bendbulletin.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071119/BIZ0102/711190360/1011&nav_category=

Tonight on "Invention Nation" which will feature HumanCar airs 10:30 p.m. (pst) on the Science Channel. It will repeat at 11:30 a.m. Tuesday and at 3:30 p.m. Sunday

Some other projects I'm working on to check out:http://www.greenteamtv.com, http://www.greenearthvision.com, http://agreenevolution.blogspot.com, http://www.seriousyurts.com, http://www.greenmatecafe.com

Helen Caldicott link

2007-11-17T13:00:00.000-08:00

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Helen_Caldicott/Third_World_Debt_IYLTP.html

Check it out! A nice synopsis on current world problems.

2007-11-12T22:36:00.001-08:00

Your Chance to Save Ancient Forests in the Northwest

2007-11-12T22:24:00.000-08:00

Send a letter to the BLM NOW to Protect your Heritage.

This Issue always raises my hackles. I am an ardent supporter of Ancient Forests and the BLM's new proposals SUCK.

Take a look at this issue. OFH did a good job of detailing it out:

Oregon Forest Heritage.
http://www.oregonheritageforests.org/topten

The BLM released its Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the "Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR)" August 10, 2007. This outrageous proposal, governing 2.6 million acres of public forest, would boost logging of trees 200 years and older sevenfold over the next decade. Yes, you read that correctly, a 700 percent increase in logging Oregon's last old-growth forests! This huge increase in logging would come from opening up currently protected streamside forests and old-growth reserves to clearcutting. Click here for more information on the BLM's proposed plan in a Citizen's Guide to the WOPR.

Top Ten Reasons the WOPR is a Bad Idea

The Bush Administration proposes the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR) to undo protections for Bureau of Land Management-administered public forests. Here are the top ten reasons why gutting protections for some of our last, best old growth forest is a real bad idea:

10. Quality of life.

The WOPR proposes widespread clearcuting of public forest, which could reduce property values and the quality of life of thousands of Oregonians living near BLM lands. Over 1,000 miles of new logging road and 140,000 acres of clearcuts in the first decade alone would scar Oregon’s spectacular landscape.

9. Peace and quiet.

Clearcutting of old growth forest and proposed “Off Highway Vehicle Emphasis Areas” threaten peace and quite for rural residents and visitors. Over 100,000 acres would be promoted as destinations for OHVs, most adjacent to Oregonian’s private residences.

8. Clean water and salmon.

By logging near streams the WOPR reduces important protections for clean water and Pacific salmon. High quality drinking water originates on BLM lands for the citizens of Salem, Corvallis, Eugene, and 70 other Oregon communities. Salmon need cool, clean water, but the WOPR would remove stream buffers that shade streams and keep sediment from the water.

7. Ancient forests.

BLM lands in western Oregon contain about 1-million acres of our remaining older forests. The WOPR would increase logging of forests over 200 years sevenfold, and threatens some of Oregon’s best remaining ancient forests. Two thousand square miles of forest (an area the size of Delaware) would be put in “Timber Management Areas,” where clearcutting is emphasized.

6. Wildlife and plant habitat.

Wildlife rely on BLM forests such as elk and black bear and threatened species like the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet. The WOPR would reduce protections for wildlife populations and diminish habitat for countless plant and wildlife species. An increase in noxious, invasive weeds and wildlife species is predicted under the WOPR.

5. Sustainable economies.

Healthy, protected forests are one of Oregon’s most important natural assets. While rampant old growth clearcutting promises short-term economic boom to a few well-connected mill owners, an economic bust is easily foreseeable under the Bush plan as fish, wildlife and the old growth forests that they rely on dwindle.

4. Northwest Forest Plan.

The Northwest Forest Plan is a landmark agreement that private, state and federal landowners rely on to protect threatened old growth species while producing timber in compliance with environmental law. Removing BLM forests would unravel the whole fabric of the Plan and produce uncertainty for other landowners.

3. It is illegal.

The BLM cannot eliminate protection for old-growth forests, without undermining the Northwest Forest Plan and protections for threatened and endangered species and clean water. To do so, the BLM needs to violate the Endangered Species and Clean Water Acts and other laws.

2. Global warming and fire.

While the Bush administration ignores climate change in the WOPR, by converting moist old growth forests into dry flammable tree plantations, the WOPR will increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and places communities at enhanced risk of uncharacteristic fire.

1. There is a better way.

We should protect what is left of Oregon’s old growth heritage forests, and restore those forests that have been degraded. Half of BLM forests were clearcut in the past century and converted to overstocked tree plantations. Thinning small trees could offer more than 2 billion board feet of commercially valuable timber if actively thinned while preserving our last, best public lands for generations to come.

TAKE ACTION!

The BLM in accepting public comments until January 11, 2008.

For a sample letter and to

http://www.oregonheritageforests.org/sampletter

Pass the United States National Healthcare Insurance Act H.R. 676

2007-11-10T01:53:00.001-08:00

From
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/4528

Though the current health care "system" costs almost $2 trillion annually, 46 million Americans have no health insurance. Millions more have inadequate coverage for their needs, such as for prescription drugs.

Thousands die each year as a result.

This makes the US system the most expensive and least effective among all industrialized countries.

The United States National Health Insurance Act would change that. It would establish a national insurance program based on expanding Medicare that would include all U.S. residents.

The goal is to guarantee by law that all Americans would have access to the highest quality and most cost effective health care services regardless of their employment, income, or health care status.

Health care experts believe that this Medicare-for-all plan could save over $286 billion dollars a year in total health care costs.

Working families and employers would save thousands on premiums every year.

This program would cover all medically necessary services, including primary care, in-patient care, outpatient care, emergency care, prescription drugs, durable medical equipment, long term care, mental health services, dentistry, eye care, chiropractic, and substance abuse treatment.

Patients would have their choice of physicians, providers, hospitals, clinics, and practices. Medicare will be improved and everybody will get it.

For more information:

"Coalition Builds Momentum on Universal Health Care"
"Now is time to move on health care, Conyers says"
"A Strategy for Healthcare-NOW"
Healthcare-NOW

Change is coming

2007-11-09T17:04:00.000-08:00

So here it is all in a nutshell. Change is coming to a block near you. Like Pinchbeck author of 2012 The Return of Quezalcoatl reminds us: We are about to enter a new age of wisdom and enlightenment or at least the offering of it. We we're in the age of Information. And now we are entering the age of Biology of respect for Mother Earth and the system we live in. The age of Biology is showing it self in the form of major Biological Crisis with species loss and rapid evolution of bacteria and virus to our own growth and invasion. Perhaps we are in the process of creating a 'weed like' planet where the only things living are those that can adapt to us. As for the rest of animal and plant life: gone. Large forms of animals like dolphins,tigers, whales, monkeys, gorillas, etc are in serious trouble right now due to ...man.

This scenario is playing it self out in one scenario after another. But like all things what comes up must come down. Human population has pretty much reached it's carrying capacity and must come down at some point. Even if you don't believe that we have reached the limits of human population growth that limit still exists somewhere and population dynamics shows that all species grow and shrink in populations much like a roller coaster. We've been on the upgrowth as most people are aware(some actually are not it seems) and have put severe strains upon this planet. We have only one planet and there is no promise that we can sustain life like we know it. Think what you want but some kinda of change must occur. We can of course be proactive and create our future and our childrens. A crisis like we're in will evolve us or we'll be thrown back into the petri dish of creation. It's up to us now right?

At this point in time it seems like even physics has finally come to the understanding that we are all connected: Unified Physics; a unification of
not only the four forces of nature,but also evolution and the occurrence of consciousness. Don't take my word for it check out: http://www.theresonanceproject.org/products/dvd.htm

We ARE all INFINITE beings and we are all connected. Yes change is coming but we can point that change in the right direction. It will take all of us on many levels to do this. I encourage you to learn compassion and promote positive growth within yourself and others.

2007-11-09T17:02:00.001-08:00