Environment Matters

This BLOG will SOON CEASE to EXIST

noreply@blogger.com (J.D. Lim) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 17:52:00 +0000

May 1 can't wait. This BLOG will SOON CEASE to EXIST. I love this blog but I have to let go - and move on.

The act of choosing is the oxygen to your soul.

PROJECT DENNIO
Awakening from the deepest slumber:

http://projectdennio.blogspot.com/

Visit it now.

TAMA NA! SOBRA NA! PATALSIKIN SI GLORIA!

noreply@blogger.com (J.D. Lim) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:15:00 +0000

Habang tahimik ang lahat kahapon nakita ko ang isang maliit na papel (actually isang short bond paper) na nakapatong sa aking lamesa. Binas ko ang nilalaman nito. And I liked it. Very timely for wht is happening to our country nowadays. And to what our honorable politicians did with our country.

Seven years is enough, as one group said. And truly, enough is enough. We cannot have more of these scams, scandals, graft, corruption and blatant violation of human rights. We don't need an economist who doesn't even care about her people and all she boasts are the numbers and figures which people cannot eat.

It's about time my fellow Filipinos to take away the power we have given them. It's about time to stand side by side without those politicos around. It is time that we do not depend on the calls of the church or some charismatic leader for us to get involved and stand up for real change in our country.

It is time for us to change the country without them.

And here is a literary piece dedicated to all Filipinos created by Bernard Backman.

REVERSE CREATION

by Bernard Backman

In the end, we destroyed the heaven that was called Earth. The Earth had been beautiful until our spirit moved over it and destroyed all things.

And we said...

Let there be darkness... and there was darkness. And we liked the darkness; so we called the darkness, Security. And we divided ourselves into races and religions and classes of society. And there was no morning and no evening on the seventh day before the end.

And we said...

Let there be a strong government to control us in our darkness. Let there be armies to control our bodies so that we may learn to kill one another neatly and efficiently in our darkness. And there was no evening and no morning on the sixth day before the end.

And we said...

Let there be rockets and bombs to kill faster and easier; let there be gas chambers and furnaces to be more thorough. And there was no evening and no morning on the fifth day before the end.

And we said...

Let there be drugs and other forms of escape, for there is this constant annoyance - REALITY - which is disturbing our comfort. And there was no evening and no morning on the fourth day before the end.

And we said...

Let there be divisions among the nations, so that we may know who is our common enemy. And there was no evening and no morning on the third day before the end.

And finally we said...

Let us create God in our image. Let some other God compete with us. Let us say that God thinks as we think, hates as we hate, and kills as we kill. And there was no morning and no evening on the second day before the end.

On the last day, there was a great noise on the face of the Earth. Fire consumed the beautiful globe, and there was silence. The blackened Earth now rested to worship the one true God; and God saw all that we had done, and in the silence over the smoldering ruins... God wept.

noreply@blogger.com (J.D. Lim) — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 09:15:00 +0000

It is time for us to change the country without them.

And here is a literary piece dedicated to all Filipinos created by Bernard Backman.

REVERSE CREATION

by Bernard Backman

In the end, we destroyed the heaven that was called Earth. The Earth had been beautiful until our spirit moved over it and destroyed all things.

And we said...

Let there be rockets and bombs to kill faster and easier; let there be gas chambers and furnaces to be more thorough. And there was no evening and no morning on the fifth day before the end.

And we said...

Let there be divisions among the nations, so that we may know who is our common enemy. And there was no evening and no morning on the third day before the end.

And finally we said...

Blog Action Day (the late post)

noreply@blogger.com (J.D. Lim) — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:28:00 +0000

[Note: This post wast intended for the Blog Action Day held last October 15, 2007 but I forgot everything about, until now.]

BLOG ACTION DAY 2007

October 15, 2007

NO TO SMOKING

========================================================================
This is my post for the BLOG ACTION DAY 2007 on October 15, 2007. This would be participated by thousands of bloggers around the globe reaching an estimated audience of five million that will talk about one issue: the environment. Here is my little contribution to the conscientious efforts to save the environment. I’ll be using Filipino and English in this post so please bear with me my dear dear foreign visitors.
========================================================================

Habang isinusulat ko ang pangungusap na ito, inaatake na naman ako ng ubo. Dalawang linggo na ito. Noong una, kinailangan ko pang magpahinga ng dalawang araw dahil nilagnat ako. Uminom ng gamot pero matapos nito hindi pa rin nawawala ang ubo ko. At ano ba ang maysala? Ang usok, bow.

Asar na asar ako sa tuwing may makakatabi ako na nagyoyosi. Mas lalo pang nakakinis ang mga smoke belcher na mga bus sa EDSA. Araw-araw na ginawa ng Diyos, umagang-umaga pa lang, bubugahan ka agad ng usok. Usok na dahilan ng libo-libong kamatayan ng mga Pilipino taun-taon dahil sa respiratory diseases. Usok na dahilan ng ubo ko ngayon.

At sa artikulong ito gagawa ako ng paninindigan laban sa isang bagay na dapat nang mabura sa ibabaw ng daigdig.

***

It all started with the recent implementation of NO SMOKING POLICY in the University of the Philippines. I was very happy about that. But again here comes the problem of implementation. Even up to now, many are still smoking in public places. It is also not clear if it prohibits the selling of cigarettes which I think is very much acceptable to control the smoker’s population. It’s just all in the paper. I have yet to see or hear news of a smoker being penalized for his act. Anyway, this is just a new policy and we have to wait for a few months to see how far can it go.

That is just the first step. Next step should be the perpetual ban on manufacturing cigarettes.

***

Siguradong marami ang mga tataas ang kilay oras na marinig ito. Sigurado rin na magbubuhos ng bilyun-bilyong dolyar na salapi sa buong mundo ang mga malalaking cigarette manufacturers upang pigilan ang pagsusulong nito. Baka nga kahit mismong mga gobyerno ay hindi papayag dito dahil sa napakalaking buwis na nakokolekta nila mula rito. Pero bakit ba kailangan na huwag nang payagan pa ang paggawa ng mga sigarilyo?

Sa kasalukuyan, mayroon tayong mga batas na nagtatakda ng matinding parusa laban sa paggamit, pagtutulak at paggawa ng droga. Mahulihan ka lamang ng sampung (10) gramo ng ipinagbabawal na gamot maaari ka nang makulong ng habambuhay. Ngunit pansinin ang mga ginamit na salita: ipinagbabawal na gamot.

Sa medisina, ang maliit na dosage ng shabu o ng marijuana ay nakakatulong upang makagaling ng ilang mga sakit. Ang barbiturates na isa pang klase ng ipinagbabawal na gamot ay nakakatulong sa paggaling ng mga taong kinu-kumbulsyon (convulsion). Ako mismo noong bata pa ako, ito ang ginagamit na gamot sa akin dahil nga sa may kombulsyon ako. Dahil rito napigilan ang maaari sanang kahantungan nito: ang epilepsy. Samakatuwid, ang ipinagbabawal lamang ay ang sobrang paggamit nito dahil sa nakakasama ngunit ang konting dosage nito ay nakagagamot.

May malinaw na patakaran sa mga gumagamit, nagtutulak at gumagawa ng ipinagbabawal na gamot. Ang mga nalululong sa droga ay ipinapadala sa rehab upang maipagamot at muling makapag-bagong buhay. Ang mga nahuhling nagtutulak ay kakasuhan ng paglabag sa Dangerois Drugs Act at makukulong ng walang piyansa. Ganun din naman ang mangyayari sa mga financier at manufacturer ng illegal na droga.

Ayon pa sa mga awtoridad, talamak na ang paggamit nito at naging pangunahin pa tayong pagawaan nito. Kaya’t matindi ang kanilang operasyon upang sugpuin ang paggamit at paggawa nito.

Eh ano naman ang kinalaman nito sa mga sigarilyo? Nariito ang sagot.

Sa kasalukuyan, legal ang paggamit ng sigarilyo o paninigarilyo ng lahat ng nasa edad 18 pataas. Ngunit marami pa rin sa mga menor de edad ang nakakagamit nito lalo sa mga nasa high school. Wala namang malinaw na patakaran kung ano ang gagawin sa mga naninigarilyo ng wala sa wastong gulang. Bilyun-bilyong piso ang naibibigay na buwis nito. Sinasabi din na bahagi na ito ng ating kultura. Noon pa man, naninigarilyo na ang ating mga ninuno. Kaya’t kung may pagtatangka na ipagbawal ito mahihirapan tayo.

***

Alam nating lahat, kahit noong mga nainigarilyo na walang naidudulot na maganda ang paninigarilyo sa ating kalusugan maging sa kalikasan. Pero, sasabihin naman ng mga naninigarilyo na nakakatulong ito para ma-relaks ang kanilang pakiramdam at malinawan ang kanilang pag-iisip. O di kaya nakakapagpawala ng kaba at ginaw. Pero aminin nila, panandalian lang ito. Kapag wala ka nang hinihithit na sigarilyo, balik ulit sa dati. Kaya naman, magsisindi ka pa ng isa upang magpatuloy ang dulot nitong “ginhawa.”

Naging “status symbol” na rin ito lalo sa mga ka-edad ko. Cool ka kapag naninigarilyo ka. Sikat ka kapag kaya mong bilugin ang usok na ibinubuga mo sa bunganga mo. Feeling mayaman ka. Astig ang dating mo. Tingnan natin kung astig ka pa kung nakahiga ka na sa ataul.

Taun-taon libu-libong Pilipino ang namamatay dahil sa respiratory diseases na sanhi ng paninigarilyo. Ngunit ang masaklap, may ilan na namamatay dahil lamang sa “second-hand smoke” o may kasama siya na isang naninigarilyo. Nadadamay siya sa isang gawaing walang kakwenta-kwenta. Sayang lang ang kaniyang kamatayan. Sayang din ang kamatayan ng mga smokers na ito ng dahil lamang sa nakakaadik na nicotine. Sa isang gawain na walang naidulot na tunay na kagandahan sa kanilang buhay.

***

Ngayon ito ang punto ko. Kung ang shabu, na sa maliliit na dosage, may naitutulong sa panggagamot ay ipinagbabawal natin, bakit ang sigarilyo, na kahit pakonti-konti lang ang gamit mo (na hindi naman ata makatotohanan dahil nakakaadik nga ito at mapapasigarilyo ka ng madami ng hindi mo nalalaman), na nakakasira na ng kalusugan, nandadamay pa ng ibang non-smokers at pati na ang kalikasan ay hindi natin ipagbawal?

Dahil daw sa bilyong piso na kita na mawawala sa gobyerno. Aba teka, kwentahin niyo nga ang nagagastos ng pamahalaan pati ng mga pribadong indibidwal sa pagkakasakit na dulot nito, higit pa siguro sa kinikita nito mula sa buwis ng sigarilyo at tabako. Paksyet.

***

Nagiging creative daw ang isang tao kung may bisyo. Kaya karamihan sa mga pintor, manunulat o kompositor, kung hindi man malakas tumagay, malakas magyosi. Nakakawala daw ng tensyon.

Pero pansamantala lamang ang mga ito. Dahil makalipas lang ang ilang taon na pagkaadik sa sigarilyo, lalabas na ang mga epekto nito.

***

Hindi ko naman kelangan pang magpaliwanag ng napakahaba. Dahil alam naman nating lahat na masamang manigarilyo. Common sense.

MAHIGPIT NA IPAGBAWAL ANG PAGGAMIT AT PAGGAWA NG SIGARILYO.

NO TO SMOKING!

NO TO CIGARETTES!

PERPETUALLY BAN THE MANUFACTURE AND USE OF THESE FILTHY, POISONOUS AND DANGEROUS STICKS.

Environment News

noreply@blogger.com (J.D. Lim) — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:50:00 +0000

A handful of corn before being processed at the Tall Corn Ethanol plant, Wednesday, May 24, 2006, in Coon Rapids, Iowa. (Charlie Neibergall/The Associated Press)

Studies conclude that biofuels are not so green

By Elisabeth Rosenthal | Published: February 7, 2008 | International Herald Tribune

Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the pollution caused by producing these "green" fuels is taken into account, two studies published Thursday have concluded.

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months as scientists have evaluated the global environmental cost of their production. The new studies, published by the journal Science, are likely to add to the controversy.

These studies for the first time take a comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development. The destruction of natural ecosystems - whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America - increases the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere because the ecosystems are the planet's natural sponge for carbon emissions.

"When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially," said Timothy Searchinger, the lead author of one of the studies and a researcher on the environment and economics at Princeton University. "Previously, there's been an accounting error: Land use change has been left out of prior analysis."

Plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they are burned is balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grow. But even that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuel causes it own emissions - through refining and transport, for example.

The land-use issue makes the balance sheet far more problematic: The clearance of grassland releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land, said Joseph Fargione, the lead author of the other study and a scientist at the Nature Conservancy. "So for the next 93 years, you're making climate change worse, just at the time when we need to be bringing down carbon emissions."

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that the world has to reverse the increase of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to avert disastrous environmental consequences.

Together, the two studies offer sweeping conclusions: It doesn't matter if it is rain forest or scrub land that is cleared, although the former releases more emissions than the latter. Taken globally, the production of almost all biofuels resulted in such clearing, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not.

The European Union and a number of national governments have recently tried to address the land-use issue with proposals for regulations stipulating that imported biofuels cannot come from land that was previously rain forest, for example.

But even with such restrictions, Searchinger's study said, the purchase of biofuels in Europe and the United States leads indirectly to the destruction of natural habitats. If vegetable oil prices go up globally, as they have because of increased demand for biofuel crops, new land is inevitably cleared as farmers in developing countries switch production. Crops from old plantations and fields go to Europe for biofuels, but new fields and plantations are created to feed people at home.

Fargione said that the dedication of so much cropland in the United States to growing corn for bioethanol had caused indirect land-use changes far away. Previously, U.S. farmers rotated corn with soybeans in their fields, alternating years. Now many grow only corn, meaning that soybeans must be grown elsewhere. That elsewhere, Fargione said, is increasingly Brazil, on land that was previously forest or savanna. "Brazilian farmers are planting more of the world's soybeans - and they're deforesting the Amazon to do it," he said.

International environmental groups and the United Nations responded cautiously to the studies, saying that biofuels could still be useful. "We don't want a total public backlash that would prevent us from getting the potential benefits," said Nicholas Nuttall, spokesman for the UN Environment Program.

"There was an unfortunate effort to dress up biofuels as the silver bullet of climate change," he said. "We fully believe that if biofuels are to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem, there urgently needs to be better sustainability criterion." He added that the United Nations had recently created a panel to study the evidence.

The EU has mandated that countries use 5.75 percent biofuel for transport by the end of 2008. In the United States, a proposed energy package would require that 15 percent of all transport fuels be made from biofuel by 2022. To reach these goals, biofuels production is heavily subsidized at many levels on both continents. On Thursday, Syngenta, a major global agricultural conglomerate in Switzerland that is involved in biofuel crops reported that its annual profit rose by 75 percent in the past year.

Bob Dineen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association in Washington, said the studies had "failed to put the issue in context."

"While it is important to analyze the climate-change consequences of differing energy strategies, we must all remember where we are today, how world demand for liquid fuels is growing, and what the realistic alternatives are to meet those growing demands," he said. "Biofuels like ethanol are the only tool readily available that can begin to address the challenges of energy security and environmental protection."

Most of the biofuel sold in Europe is biodiesel made from vegetable oils. Most of the biofuel in the United States is ethanol made from corn. "EU decision makers cannot ignore that the EU fuel market" is experiencing "an enduring diesel deficit - the EU is more and more dependent on Russia for conventional diesel imports," the European Biodiesel Board, a major industry group, said. The group has pushed for a sustainability certification program for biofuels, as well as criteria for assessing the greenhouse gas performance of such fuels, with input from industry.

But the new studies suggested that when land use is taken into account few, if any biofuels, will be acceptable.

"This land-use problem is not just a secondary effect," Searchinger said. "It is major. The comparison with fossil fuels is going to be adverse for virtually all biofuels on cropland."

The only possible exception he could see for now, he said, was sugar cane grown in Brazil, which takes relatively little energy to grow and is readily refined into fuel. He added that governments should quickly turn their attention to developing biofuels that did not require raising crops, such as those made from agricultural waste products.

The land-use debate started in the Netherlands in 2006, when researchers from Wetlands International and elsewhere found that imported palm oil used to generate "clean" electricity was often grown on palm plantations in Southeast Asia created from cleared peat land. The Dutch government has since canceled the palm oil subsidy and banned imports of the fuel, while hoping to develop better criteria to support sustainable biofuels. Even Wetlands does not support a total ban on biofuels, noting that some may be helpful.

Alex Kaat, a spokesman for the group, said: "If the whole point of biofuels directives was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we've found out that most biofuels are not really better than conventional fuels at that."

Retrieved from:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/07/healthscience/biofuel.php?page=1

Accessed: 11 Feb 2008 10:59 AM Phil. Standard Time

New Post

noreply@blogger.com (J.D. Lim) — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:07:00 +0000

Tinatamad pa ako. Pero bago ako maging legal, madami pa ako ilalagay dito na bago, kaya abangan. This was posted in all of my blogs na wala pang post mula noong isang taon.

NO (TO) SMOKING

noreply@blogger.com (J.D. Lim) — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 01:08:00 +0000

Right at this very moment, I'm waging a war against these filthy and poisonous sticks. I can't stand those people who continue to inhale that smoke and puff it out infront of you. I'm pushing for the total ban on the manufacturing and using cigarettes everywhere.

Admit it. You don't get anything at all when you smoke. Well, smokers can claim that it eases tension and helps think clearly. But there is no health benefit at all. We all know that millions of people every year die from lung cancer or other respiratory diseases in which majority of them are caused by smoking. But why do many still opt to smoke? The culprit is in the advertisements.

Although we would hardly see someone in the commercials smoking the brand that it is endorsing, what it tries t convey to anyone who sees it is that smoking is good. It is a reward for your victory. It is the way for you to be part of the cool group. And when you smoke, you are rich. Isa itong malaking panloloko sa mga tao.

Oras na magkasakit ka, magkano ang gagastusin mo? Kung mahirap ka na lalo ka pang maghihirap. Ngunit kadalasan, hindi ka na nagkakasakit, tigok ka agad. At ang masama pa nadadamay pa ang mga taong hindi naninigarilyo. At kung minsan pa, nauunang mamatay ang nadamay lang.

I don't care about the billions of revenues governments get from the taxation of cigarettes. But if you add up all the health expenditures of the people who got sick from smoking, you'll get a negative profit.

Sorry for my very poor english grammar. Mukhang wala sa panahon na magsulat ako ng artikulo sa ingles.

Simple lang ang gusto kong sabihin. Ayoko ng yosi. At gusto kong mawala na ito ng tuluyan. Wala akong pakelam sa kitang mawawala o sa mga naninigarilyo na magaamok dahil nawalan na sila ng bisyo/kaibigan daw/pang-alis ng stress daw. Perwisyo ito hindi lang sa kalusugan kundi maging sa kalikasan. Mas matindi pa ang epekto nito sa usok na galing sa sasakyan. Nakakadagdag pa sa kalat.

Kung ang shabu at marijuana na may konting naitutulong sa medisina ay ipinagbabawal, bakit hindi itong sigarilyo na wala namang kahit anong naidudulot na tulong?

Basta, mula ngayon, nagdedeklara ako ng personal na pakikidigma laban sa mga humihithit at gumagawa ng sigarilyo.

NO TO SMOKING.

FOREVER BAN THE MANUFACTURE OF THESE FILTHY AND POISONOUS STICKS.

Bakasyon

noreply@blogger.com (J.D. Lim) — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 03:58:00 +0000

(Matapos ang matagal na pagka – tigang ng blog ko na ito sa bagong post. Narito ang isang bagong post na para sa blog na ito. Nakaligtaan ko lamang ito sa sobrang dami ng nangyari sa aking buhay. Pero dahil bakasyon na naalala ko ang blog na ito. At narito na ang una kong post para sa taong ito para sa blog na ito. Salamat. – Dennio.)

Masaya ako kapag bakasyon na. Noong mga nakakaraang taon, tuwing bakasyon araw – araw kaming nagbi-bisikleta ng aking pinsan. Umiikot kami sa mga bukid at kahit pa sa highway. At ang pinakamalayo na marahil na naabot namin ay magmula dito sa Barangay Sta. Ines Bulakan, Bulacan patungo sa Bulacan Sports Complex sa Malolos, Bulacan. At hindi biro iyon dahil sa tinakbuhan namin ang maraming tao dahil nakita nila kami sa highway na nagbibisikleta; kasabay ng mga humaharurot na sasakyan.

Nakahiligan ko ang pagbibisikleta dahil nakakapglibot ako sa maraming lugar. Kadalasan, sa may mga bukid kami nagpupunta. Maaga pa lang aalis na kami sa bahay para pagdating sa bukid oras na ng pagsikat ng araw. Masarapa ang simoy ng hangin. Very relaxing. Nakakadagdag ng lakas. Higit sa lahat nakakabighani ang ganda ng kalikasan.

Matapos ang aming pagbibisikleta, kadalasan ako ay umuupo sa may terrace ng aming bahay at pagmamasdan ang kalangitan. Napakaganda ng kaniyang kulay. Bughaw na bughaw ang langit at napaka – puti ng mga ulap. Malakas ang simoy ng hangin. Ang sarap sa pakiramdam.

May mga pagkakataon din na kami ay pupunta sa palaisdaan upang mamansing. Nakakatuwa ang makakahuli ka ng isda (tilapia kadalasan…) tapos ay malaki pa at sunud – sunod ka pa na makakahuli. Nakakatuwa. Nakakapagpahinga ng kaisipan.

Pero kailan lang, hindi na kami masyadong nakakapagbisikleta ng aking pinsan. Masyado na kaming abala sa ibang mga bagay. Marahil, kaya ako nagkasakit dahil sa matagal na akong hindi nakalanghap ng sariwang hangin. Iyung walang usok. Hindi na ako nakakita ng mga puno o nakapunta sa bukid. Nakakamiss.

Pero, naisip ko rin. Bakit ba kailangan pa na kami ay magbisikleta ng malayo upang makakita ng bukid? Bakit kailangan ko pang umakyat sa itaas ng aming bahay para makakita ng kalangitan? Bakit kailangan pa namin na pumunta sa isang palaisdaan para makapamansing? Kasi, sira na ang kalikasan.

Ang puno ngayon ay salot sa struktura ng bahay. Ang mga ugat nito ay nakakasira daw ng pundasyon kaya kailangang putulin ito. Hindi ba puwede na ang bahay ang ilagay sa ibang lugar para mapanatili naman ang puno sa kanyang lugar? Nagdadala rin daw ito ng maraming lamok, kaya para walang lamok. Putulin ang puno.

Pero bakit ba may lamok? Kasi madumi na ang mga ilog, doon sila nangingitlog at lumilipad na lang sa mga puno. Ang mga bahay sa gilid ng mga ilog, ang kanilang poso negro ay nakatutok sa ilog. Doon lahat dumadaloy ang mga dumi na nagmumula sa kanilang bahay. Ginawa na ring tapunan ng basura kasi wala nang mapaglagyan. Tapos, magrereklamo sila na mabaho ang ilog at binabaha sila. Eh sino ba ang may gawa? Sila din.

Kaya ano ang resulta. Patay na ang mga isda. Patay na ang ilog. Kaya kailangan pa na doon tayo sa palaisdaan na mamansing at manghuli ng isda. Namatay ang ilog. Napilitan ang mga isdang makulong sa isang ginawang lugar para sila ay mabuhay. Bakit hindi na lang natin buhayin ang mga ilog?

Mahirap na makakita ngayon ng bughaw na kalangitan lalo na kung ikaw ay nasa Maynila. Kung hindi namamaga ang langit ay sobra namang itim dahil sa usok. Hindi mo lubos maisip kung paano mo matitiis na mabuhay ng matagal sa Maynila kung saan hindi na nakabubuhay ang hangin na nilalanghap mo. Unti-unti ka nitong pinapatay. Paano kaya kung ganito ang gawin natin lalo na iyung mga may sasakyan na smoke belcher. Kapag nahuli sila, pababain ang drayber, tapos itapat niya ang mukha niya sa tambutso at apakan ng pulis ang accelerator. Tingnan natin kung hindi pa makonsensya ang nasabing drayber.

Pati na rin ang mga may – ari ng pabrika na nagbubuga ng usok. Ipasok natin ang mga may – ari nito sa loob ng mga chimineya nila at bugahan sila ng usok. Tingan natin kung hindi pa siya makonsensiya. Mahirap ba kasi intindihin iyun? Kita mo nang maitim ang usok, tapos wala ka man lang ginagawa? Common sense na lang.

Pero lahat tayo ay ganyan. Alam na nating nakakasira ginagawa pa rin natin. Dapat siguro ilublob tayong lahat sa Ilog Pasig para makonsensya tayo na ayan ang dami nating itinapon na mga dumi dito at lasapin natin ang kababuyang ginawa natin. Tapos, ipasok tayo sa gas chamber at bugahan tayo ng usok na galling sa mga bus na smoke belcher sa EDSA. Tingnan natin kung kinabukasan lahat ng mga nagtatapon ng basura sa ilog ay namura natin at ang mga smoke belcher ay baka mapatay natin sa sobrang galit.

Kailangan ba na ganoon pa ang gawin natin?

Malamang sa mga susunod ko pang bakasyon, palayo ng palayo ang bukid na pupuntahan namin.

Huwag tayong maging makasarili. Isipin naman natin ang iba na hindi na makikita ang mga puno, ilog at langit na nakita natin o ninyo.

Please lang ha. Maawa naman tayo sa ating mga sarili.

WWF warns of dire impact of world's over-consumption

noreply@blogger.com (J.D. Lim) — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:42:00 +0000

GENEVA (AFP) - The world's population will be using twice as many resources as the planet can produce within 50 years unless there is immediate change in the way humanity lives, the environmental group WWF said in a report.

"We are in serious ecological overshoot, consuming resources faster than the earth can replace them," said WWF Director General James Leape. "The consequences of this are predictable and dire.

"The cities, power plants and homes we build today will either lock society into damaging over-consumption beyond our lifetimes, or begin to propel this and future generations towards sustainable living," he added.

The "Living Planet" report, a balance sheet of the world's environment published every other year, showed relentless growth in demand on the earth's capacity to produce clean air, and to provide raw materials, food and energy.

Two years ago, the same report based on 2001 data said the world's population was already outstripping the earth's capacity to regenerate resources by just over 20 percent.

The 2006 edition of the WWF report said that figure had risen to 25 percent in 2003.

Humanity's "ecological foot print" tripled between 1961 and 2003, fuelled largely by the use of fossil fuels such as oil and coal, it added.

The WWF said carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption were the fastest growing component of the index in that period, increasing more than ninefold.

Meanwhile, a survey of animal life from 1970 to 2003 found that terrestrial species had declined by 31 percent, freshwater species by 28 percent and marine species by 27 percent.

"This global trend suggests that we are degrading natural ecosystems at a rate unprecedented in human history," the report said.

Leape said: "It is time to make some vital choices. Change that improves living standards while reducing the impact on the natural world will not be easy."

Each person occupies an "ecological footprint" equivalent to 2.2 hectares (5.4 acres) in terms of their capacity to pollute or consume energy and other resources including food, while the planet can only offer them 1.8 hectares each, according to the report.

"Even moderate 'business as usual' is likely to accelerate these negative impacts," it said.

The WWF estimated that even a rapid reversal in consumption habits now would only bring the world back to 1980s levels -- when it was already over-consuming -- by 2040.

The United Arab Emirates (11.9 hectares per person) and the United States (9.6) again came at the top of the Living Planet's ranking of the environmental impact of countries, largely due to high energy consumption.

Finland and Canada overtook oil-producing and consuming Kuwait to take third and fourth place in the table.

Like other Nordic nations, Finland has relatively low energy consumption but its timber industry puts forests under strain, according to the WWF.

Australia, Estonia, Sweden, New Zealand and Norway made up the rest of the top ten of national ecological footprints, followed by Denmark, France, Belgium and Britain.

China's 1.2 billion people ranked 69th with a growing average footprint of 1.6 hectares. The WWF said the Asian giant's rapid economic development implied that it had "a key role in keeping the world on the path to sustinability".

The WWF's footprint for a country includes all the agricultural land, forest, and fishing areas required to produce the food, fibre, and timber it consumes. It also assesses a nation's capacity to absorb the amount of wastes it produces while generating energy, as well as the space needed for its infrastructure.

Humans living far beyond planet's means: WWF

noreply@blogger.com (J.D. Lim) — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:04:00 +0000

BEIJING (Reuters) - Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.

Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.

"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.

"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.

People in the United Arab Emirates were placing most stress per capita on the planet ahead of those in the United States, Finland and Canada, the report said.
Australia was also living well beyond its means.

The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares to support their developed lifestyle, ranking behind the United States and Canada, but ahead of the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Japan.

"If the rest of the world led the kind of lifestyles we do here in Australia, we would require three-and-a-half planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb the waste," said Greg Bourne, WWF-Australia chief executive officer.

Everyone would have to change lifestyles -- cutting use of fossil fuels and improving management of everything from farming to fisheries.

"As countries work to improve the well-being of their people, they risk bypassing the goal of sustainability," said Leape, speaking in an energy-efficient building at Beijing's prestigous Tsinghua University.

"It is inevitable that this disconnect will eventually limit the abilities of poor countries to develop and rich countries to maintain their prosperity," he added.

The report said humans' "ecological footprint" -- the demand people place on the natural world -- was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste in 2003.
In the previous report, the 2001 overshoot was 21 percent.

"On current projections humanity, will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 -- if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said.

"People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."

RISING POPULATION

"Humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003," it said. Consumption has outpaced a surge in the world's population, to 6.5 billion from 3 billion in 1960. U.N. projections show a surge to 9 billion people around 2050.
It said that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.

Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.

"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.

The WWF report also said that an index tracking 1,300 vetebrate species -- birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals -- showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.

Among species most under pressure included the swordfish and the South African Cape vulture. Those bucking the trend included rising populations of the Javan rhinoceros and the northern hairy-nosed wombat in Australia.

(Additional reporting by Alister Doyle in Helsinki)

Planet Under Pressure: BBC Special Reports

noreply@blogger.com (J.D. Lim) — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 09:53:00 +0000

Narito ang ilan sa mga series ng reports ng BBC tungkol sa kalagayan ng mundo. Nakakalungkot isipin pero ganito na ka-grabe ang sitwasyon. At akmang-akama ang titulo ng kanilang special report: Planet Under Pressure. Masyado na anting pinipiga ang ating daigdig at dahil dito unti-unti na itong nasisira. At sa bandang huli, tayo ang maaapektuhan.

Basahin natin ang mga arikulong ito at tayo sana ay mamulat.

Introduction

noreply@blogger.com (J.D. Lim) — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:28:00 +0000

Hindi man ako kasama sa mga grupong pang-kalikasan gaya ng Greenpeace.

Wala man ako sa mga nagtatanim ng puno sa kagubatan.

O iyung mga nagbabantay ng ating kagubatan.

Hindi man ako ang mga Bantay Dagat na humuhuli sa mga iligal na nangingisda sa ating bansa.

O iyung mga tao na nanghuhli ng mga smoke-belcher na bus sa EDSA.

Direktang apektado ako dito.

Kalikasan ito.

Ang hangin, tubig, pagkain.

Lahat ito galing sa kalikasan.

At hindi dahilan ang mga nabanggit ko sa itaas...

Para hindi makatulong sa pangangalaga sa kalikasan.

Nawa'y sa blog ko na ito, kahit maliit; sana...

May maalay ako para sa Inang Kalikasan.