We will post the latest news on our Twitter channel. We will also display the Twitter updates on our front page as well as updating this blog post.

Will the G8 leaders agree on a strong climate plan and a roadmap to the Copenhagen climate talks? Or will they fail once again? Stay tuned to find out!

UPDATED WITH IMAGES AND VIDEOS FROM DAY 2!

Latest updates displayed first:

Day Two

Watch: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon criticises G8 climate efforts http://su.pr/6VoTAd

Conclusion: The internet is mainly negative on the subject of g8, according to Google. http://su.pr/1iHfFv

UN S-G : ‘Much more needs to be done if governments are to seal the deal on a new climate agreement’ http://su.pr/9VVJpz

Sign our petition to hold @BarackObama and other #G8 leaders accountable on #climatechange http://bit.ly/g9Ybh

VIDEO: climate campaigner Ben Stewart talks about why he’s living on a coal smokestack during the #G8 http://su.pr/2gSvz5

Greenpeace: Five coal plants occupied by climate activists during G8 Summit http://su.pr/2RYC36

“Progress on #climatechange [at the #G8] was not enough.” UN Sec General Ban Ki-moon

Russia says 80% emissions reduction target by 2050 “unacceptable” http://su.pr/2L2L25

Take 2 painting STUPID on chimney at Brindisi, Italy’s most greenhouse-polluting coal plant. http://twitpic.com/9s4f5

G8 leaders failing to stop climate change http://bit.ly/zjJqL

G8: World leaders fail to agree specific target for climate cuts http://su.pr/2y1Aiz

G8: World leaders fail to agree specific target for climate cuts http://bit.ly/4hTvfy

RT @Greenpeace 35 hours occupying Brindisi. The sly has cleared over the mediterranean sea. We can see Albania from here!

“Only the G8 can agree on absolutely nothing, ignore the most pressing subjects and then claim a major breakthrough” #G8 RT @V_R_

Greenpeace are occupying FIVE coal plants now during the #G8! http://su.pr/2ethbZ

Blogs from activists on coal plants are posted here http://bit.ly/AEoq

Take Action! Ask world leaders to personally attend climate conference: http://su.pr/1O0eWk

This morning 5 climbers scaled Italy’s newest coal power plant near Rome to paint “G8 STOP THIS”

30 hrs @ Brindisi pwr plant. Just chkd out massive greenhse pollution exhausts. http://twitpic.com/9rn0y #G8 #climateaction RT @Greenpeace

Day One

BBC: G8 set new global warming targets http://su.pr/1N41Wq

Mount Rushmore banner: “America honors leaders. Not politicians. Stop Global warming.” http://su.pr/4M5qQk

The #G8 summit negotiations to halve global carbon emissions by 2050 have failed! Instead agree on a max 2C degree limit for climate change.

More TreeHugger: Big Climate Change Fail: Major Nations Fail to Agree to 50% Emission Cuts by 2050 http://su.pr/AGRu33

TreeHugger reports: Greenpeace Drapes Poster Over Mount Rushmore to Call for Climate Action http://su.pr/1BIj59

100 Activists Climb Coal Chimneys To Demand G-8 Leaders Get Tough: http://su.pr/9akeBI

Pictures from the G8 Coal Plant Action in Italy today: http://su.pr/6aFTjt

Watch: G8 Coal Plant Action http://su.pr/1kLokl #G8

You-Turn the Earth, a global campaign to let leaders know that we want to stop runaway climate change http://su.pr/3ktrSx

GP have actions going on in Italy with over 100 activists occupying coal power plants + a banner hanging on Mt. #Rushmore #climateaction #G8

Greenpeace is hanging a banner with a message to Obama on Mt Rushmore right now! http://su.pr/2rzliz

The Guardian: Greenpeace activists hijack Italian power stations http://su.pr/1GYWQ4

“a new coal plant at kingsnorth would emit more than the one we’re occupying near venice” http://su.pr/3OMa5o RT @greenpeaceuk

Want to be part of a global community ready to take action to demand action? Become a climate activist: http://su.pr/1g2ld1

#Obama staff say #climate change not caused by fossil fuels. GP leaks doc to press http://su.pr/1NGool Obama then changed #G8 RT @Greenpeace

Want 2 know how the #G8 countries score on #climate? see how #WWF scores them http://su.pr/1DBmjt

“Its the same gridlock we had last year when Bush was president.” http://su.pr/2wZSjP

G8 fails to get emerging powers to agree on climate change goals http://su.pr/2EVPMI

Half of emissions in the atmosphere are from coal. And every g8 country is planning new coal plants RT @greenpeaceuk

G8 emissions pledge is ’scientifically illiterate’: http://su.pr/30qNfW

Oh my! G8 strip mob from Avaaz: http://su.pr/31wNOM

Watch: G8 Cooking Up the Planet and Spicing it with CO2 http://su.pr/1BLyO4

Greenpeace urges the G8 to ‘heal the world’ http://su.pr/A8rCHa

Greenpeace currently occupying power stations in Italy for L’Aquila summit http://su.pr/2Z1QUf

Greenpeace goes to the G8 http://su.pr/25r6zJ

Take Action! Ask world leaders to personally attend climate conference: http://su.pr/1O0eWk

Major nations have failed to agree to set a goal halving greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 http://su.pr/1NeVRY

Watch and read about G8 #climateaction as it happens in Italy today http://su.pr/2ethbZ

Vattenfall, Europe’s third-largest energy company which is wholly owned by the Swedish Government, has been announced as the winner in the Climate Greenwash Award 2009 at a ceremony in Copenhagen.

“Vattenfall, which won with 39% of the vote (about 2000 votes cast), was nominated for “its mastery of spin on climate change, portraying itself as a climate champion while lobbying to continue business as usual, using coal, nuclear power, and pseudo-solutions such as agrofuels and carbon capture and storage (CCS).”

The energy company also played a key role in setting up the World Business Summit on Climate Change through the Combat Climate Change – a lobby group established by Vattenfall to promote the “climate-friendly technologies” such as carbon capture and storage and nuclear power, which are the company’s preferred options for tackling climate change.”

Climate Greenwash Awards Coordinator Kenneth Haar congratulated Vattenfall for their hard (read: dirty) work which resulted in their first place. Haar also gave a special mention the Danish Government for giving these dirty corporations easy access to the climate talks:

“We would like to congratulate Vattenfall for their outrageous use of green spin to support their dirty business model. Vattenfall wants to build more coal plants in Europe, even though coal is the dirtiest source of energy – and it has successfully lobbied the EU for funds to develop carbon capture and storage technology. But even if this unproven technology works, it will not help reduce emissions quickly enough to help prevent the threat of climate change.

“I would also like to give a special mention to the Danish Government which has provided these polluting industries which such easy access to the climate talks. Denmark says it wants companies to back a deal on climate change, but the reality is that they are giving big business the opportunity to completely undermine the effectiveness of any deal that is done.”

Shell, Dong, ArcelorMittal, Repsol and BP was among the other energy companies nominated for the award. The Climate Greenwash Awards were organised by Corporate Europe Observatory, Attac Denmark, The Climate Movement, ClimaX and Friends of the Earth Denmark.

John Hocevar, from Greenpeace’s flagship the Rainbow Warrior, writes about the assault on the Greenpeace staff blog:

“We are in Valletta Harbor in Malta. We learned that there were two vessels here owned by Fuentes, the tuna tycoon who controls over half the bluefin catch in the Mediterranean. We decided to board the vessel to inspect the cargo and documentation. Three women, Emma, Rita, and Liz, were the first to volunteer.

After the vessels refused our polite request to allow us access, Emma stepped on board to press the point. She was immediately attacked – they punched her, pulled her hair, picked her up and threw her overboard. One person hurled a large wooden pallet which whistled by our heads, and another tossed a full bucket of paint into one of our boats. If either of those had hit their intended targets, someone could have been seriously injured, but fortunately no damage was done.”

This all reminds me about the video which shows peaceful environmental activists who were protecting an old-growth forest in Tasmania, Australia, being violently attacked by timber workers.

“The cuts it proposes are much lower than those being pursued in the UK or in most other developed nations. Like the UK’s climate change act (pdf) the US bill calls for an 80% cut by 2050, but in this case the baseline is 2005, not 1990. Between 1990 and 2005, US carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels rose from 5.8 to 7bn tonnes.

The cut proposed by 2020 is just 17%, which means that most of the reduction will take place towards the end of the period. What this means is much greater cumulative emissions, which is the only measure that counts. Worse still, it is riddled with so many loopholes and concessions that the bill’s measures might not offset the emissions from the paper it’s printed on. You can judge the effectiveness of a US bill by its length: the shorter it is, the more potent it will be. This one is some 1,200 pages long, which is what happens when lobbyists have been at work.”

Monbiot says that lobbyists from the dirty industries, thinktanks, pr consultants and politicians like Republican Joe Barton are to be blamed for the weak climate and energy bill. He even goes as far as saying that the corruption of public life in the USA is Obama’s “real challenge”:

“A combination of corporate money and an unregulated corporate media keeps America in the dark ages. This bill is the best we’re going to get for now because the corruption of public life in the United States has not been addressed. Whether he is seeking environmental reforms, health reforms or any other improvement in the life of the American people, this is Obama’s real challenge.”

But Monbiot still want the bill to be passed “as it at least provides a framework for future improvements”.

Also read: Top experts: Carbon Tax needed NOT Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)

As early as 1998, the dangers of genetically modified food (GMOs) have been recognized by numerous scientific studies. Yet, no mainstream media included stories warning of these studies. Even today, the general North American public remains ignorant of their daily food’s dangers due to the mainstream press’s continual disregard of the topic.

The media research group Project Censored brought this issue to light by admitting it in its 2007 database. Annually, the American media research organization Project Censored records the twenty-five most underreported stories of the year, in hopes of exposing significant (and ignored) stories to the public and informing them on key issues that would not otherwise be brought to their attention. Underreported stories submitted must be reliable and of major significance to the population.

This article tracks the coverage GM food’s dangers since its induction into Project Censored’s database, searching in American mainstream press, Canadian and foreign mainstream press.

In 1998,  Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s examination of  laboratory rats concluded that rats fed a diet of GM food became sickly, had malformed organs, and had abnormal blood composition, while the rats fed a non-GMO diet had no such problems (Lean, 2005). Consequently, questions were raised about the long term health risks of GM foods for humans. This study was covered in the British article “Revealed: ‘Health Fears Over Secret Study in GM Food’” by Geoffrey Lean.

In 2005, the Organic Consumers Association website also documented Pusztai’s report with the article “Monsanto’s GE Corn Experiments on Rats Continue to Generate Global Controversy”. This article, like Lean’s, tells of how authorities required Pusztai to sign a confidentiality agreement before examining the secret study. Lean further exposed the dangers of GM foods in his article “GM: New Study Shows Unborn Babies Could Be Harmed”. The study, by Russian scientists, found GM-fed laboratory rats much more likely to give birth to offspring who died before they were three weeks old and were severely underweight.

Finally, Herve Kempf’s article “New Suspicions About GMOs” was featured in Le Monde and Truthout in 2006. Kempf summarized Australian researchers’ findings that mice fed GM peas suffered an allergic reaction. In the same article, Kempf also remarks on studies by an Italian team of researchers who fed GM soy to laboratory mice. The mice experienced misshapen liver cells, which returned to normal after the GM diet was terminated.

Since the induction into Project Censored’s 2007 database, American (and Canadian) mainstream coverage since 2007 on genetically modified foods has been substantial, but lacking in reporting the health concerns. For instance, in contrast to the independent studies Project Censored refers to, the recent New York times article puts a positive spin on the issue, reassuring consumers that  ”new guidelines should allow engineered animal foods to be introduced safely. Producers will have to show that the inserted genes do not harm the animal’s health and that any food from a genetically engineered animal is safe to eat” (“Coming to a Plate Near You”, 2008, para. 2).

Surprisingly, foreign mainstream coverage is not very different. Some European articles align with the American view. For example, The Observer’s Robin McKie denies all concrete evidence for the dangers of GMOs, and argues instead that their “potential to improve human health is considerable” (McKie, 2008, para.3). However, other European articles criticize GM foods. For example, the British “Observer” addresses the American viewpoint that “in America, where more than 90 per cent of all soya is now GM, people have been eating the stuff for years, with no adverse effects. ‘That … is only because nobody is looking at what the effects might be.’ In short, GM [is] a risk because nobody knows what it might be doing” (Rayner, 2008, para. 16).

In a search for articles referring to the specific studies, there was extensive press coverage in mainstream Australian and English newspapers. Some articles, such as Steve Dube’s, even covered Dr Pusztai’s research in detail (Dube, 2008). Some local Canadian newspapers also picked up on the stories. For example, a local daily from Duncan, BC tells of lab rats’ offspring dying (Riley, 2008). However, there was no mention of the specific studies in any mainstream American or Canadian press. Usually, when the mainstream press did mention GMO dangers, they cited “recent studies”, not mentioning the researchers or universities. It is safe to say that the public is more familiar with the idea of genetically modified foods, but there is no consensus of their dangers.

The most probable reason that the story was underreported was because it challenges the profitable business of large corporations. Project Censored (2007) explains that “the vast majority of toxicological studies are conducted by those companies producing and promoting consumption of GMOs”. Clearly, this has the potential to cause many problems, including the suppression of important findings. This could not be more true than in the case of Dr. Pusztai’s work. Monsanto, being such a wealthy corporation and a worldwide producer of GMOs, has the power to stop negative press. As previously noted, Pusztai was “forced by the German authorities to sign a ‘declaration of secrecy’” (Project Censored, 2007).

It should be noted that Europe has banned the import of GM foods and has strict labelling requirements (Project Censored, 2007). The American and Canadian public consume genetically modified food (such as the soy and corn tested on the lab rats) on a daily basis, and currently, there are no mandatory labelling regulations (Project Censored, 2007).  

Therefore, although the dangers of genetically modified foods may have been confirmed, they have yet to be confirmed by mainstream news. Although it is almost certain that further scientific studies will reveal dangers of genetically modified foods, it remains unclear whether these dangers will become known to the general public.

Reference List

Coming to a Plate Near You. (2008, October 4). New York Times, p. A18. Retrieved October 10, lexisnex2008 from LexisNexis database. 

Dube, S. (2008, August 17). Food Fight. Wales on Sunday, p.26. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database. 

GM Free Cymru. (2005, June 2). Monsanto’s GE Corn Experiments on Rats Continue to Generate Global Controversy. Retrieved October 12, 2008 from Organic Consumers Association website: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/rats060205.cfm 

Kempf, H.  (2006, February 9). New Suspicions About GMOs. Le Monde and Truthout. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Lean, G. (2005, May 22). Revealed: Health Fears Over Secret Study in GM Food. Independent on Sunday. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Lean, G. (2006, January 8). GM: New Study Shows Unborn Babies Could Be Harmed. Independent on Sunday. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

McKie, R. (2008, October 5). Science and food: Scare stories have drowned out the good that GM could do. The Observer, p. 29. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Project Censored (2008). #11 Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from Project Censored website: http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/12.html

Rayner, J. (2008, October 5). Science and food: The war over GM is back. Is the truth any clearer? The Observer, p. 28. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from LexisNexis database.

Riley. J. (2008, July 4). How to avoid the genetically modified. Cowichan Valley Citizen, pg. 26 Retrieved October 10, 2008 from Canadian NewsStand database.

Photo credit: Matt Callow

They variously argue AGAINST carbon pricing based on a Kyoto Protocol-based Cap-and Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) of which the pro-coal Australian Government’s carbon pollution-increasing and misleadingly named Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) is a spectacularly flawed, irresponsible, anti-social, anti-humanity, anti-environment, anti-Planet and disastrous example.

Thus the pro-coal Australian ETS involves a rigged auction involving only major polluters and then extraordinarily hands most of the receipts back to the major polluters. The proposed Australian ETS is estimated to mean an increase in Australian domestic and exported greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 80% on 2000 levels by 2050 (see my letter in the leading Australian newspaper The Age, 14 June, 2009).

Well, we hear plenty from ignorant and dishonest politicians about their pet Cap-and-Trade Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). Indeed such a scheme is a key part of the Obama Administration Waxman-Markey energy, climate and cap-and-trade Bill that has just passed the US House of Representatives and now faces the US Senate.

But what do top climate scientists and climate economists say? Below are some key comments made by experts who press for a direct, global Carbon Tax rather than failed, worse than ineffective, dishonest, risky and market manipulatable Carbon Trading (for detailed, extensive and updated documentation of such views see the website of the Melbourne-based Yarra Valley Climate Action Group).

Professor James Hansen (top US climate scientist; Head, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies; adjunct professor, Columbia; University, New York, USA), February 2009:

“The most honest effective way to achieve a carbon price capable of driving our economy and our society to the clean world of the future is “Carbon Tax with 100% Dividend” … The worst thing about cap-and-trade [ETS], from a climate standpoint, is that it will surely be inadequate to achieve the sharp reduction of emissions that is needed. Thus cap-and-trade would practically guarantee disastrous climate change for our children and grandchildren.” [1].

Jonathan Leake (science and environment editor of the UK Sunday Times), March 2009:

“Britain’s faith in carbon trading as a way of reducing greenhouse gases could be dangerously misplaced, according to an independent academic working with the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Dr Chris Hope of the University of Cambridge’s Judge Business School … [has] a far wider conclusion: the current European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is deeply flawed and should be replaced – or at least augmented – with a green tax … For the ETS to work, the price has to be set at a level that makes it worthwhile for consumers to cut their energy use. According to Hope’s research, the minimum price needed is about £85 per tonne [A$173] , rising at roughly 2 to 3 per cent a year … Prices now stand at roughly £9.50 [A$19] per tonne of CO2 – less than 12 per cent of what Hope’s calculations show is needed.… He believes a market-based trading system such as the ETS is very unlikely to generate consistent high prices, and this instability could undermine the whole point of the scheme”. [2].

Professor William Nordhaus (Sterling Professor of Economics, Yale University, USA), March 2009:

“The international community is making huge wager on the Kyoto model. The wager is that the cap-and-trade structure contained in the model will do the job of slowing global warming. The new United States Administration advocated that the U.S. adopt this system as its contribution top solving the global problem, and the primary legislation in the U.S. Congress is firmly a cap-and-trade proposal. But, as I have suggested above, the cap-and-trade approach is a poor choice of mechanism… You need only to look today at the wreckage of the current financial system to see the latest example of the effects of failed regulatory and risk-management design. So, if the Kyoto model turns out to be another failed model, it has lots of company. But it would be better to recognize and change it now, rather than in one or two more decades of ineffective and inefficient efforts to slow emissions. The international community should move quickly to replace the current cap-and-trade structure with one in which the central economic mechanism is a tax on greenhouse-gas emissions.” [3].

Professor Jacqueline McGlade (Director of the European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, marine biologist and Professor of Environmental Informatics in the Department of Mathematics at University College London, UK), March 2009:

“His [Nordhaus’] idea is very sensible. We need to move the burden of taxation away from labour to resources — and tax not just on carbon but other resources such as water to tackle the far wider environmental and resource problems we face.” [4].

Professor Daniel M. Kammen, (Energy and Resources Group and Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley), March 2009:

“Evolving the filed of climate solutions science: the economics of clean and sustainable energy must be supported for individuals and companies to achieve a shared vision; a price on greenhouse gas emissions is essential (but alone it is not sufficient); innovative financing is needed to advantage clean energy; innovation and implementation is needed in the North and South; scientific, and policy innovations open the door for quantified cases of clean development that, in turn, can reset the political landscape in favour of a low carbon future.” [5].

Professor Barry Brook (Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia), 2009:

“1. A cap and trade mechanism is by its nature, an all consuming policy instrument that extinguishes the effectiveness of voluntary actions, harming rather than enhancing the evolution of a low carbon economy. 2. With a cap and trade approach, the target is everything as both the emissions cap and emissions floor are locked in. No one can do better than the cap, and so the cap must be a science based all consuming sustainable target pathway that won’t lock in failure. As we don’t yet have the widespread political and economic preparedness to commit to an all consuming sustainable target pathway (either nationally or internationally), the cap and trade mechanism is the wrong approach and we should instead focus on a carbon tax with complementary mechanisms that would transform the economy more effectively than the [Australian] proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS).” [6].

Larry Lohmann (climate economist, The Corner House, London, UK); summary of book “Carbon Trading”, by Larry Lohmann, editor, 2006 [implicit in the GHG pollution cessation argument is taxing GHG pollution out of existence]:

“The main cause of global warming is rapidly increasing carbon dioxide emissions — primarily the result of burning fossil fuels. Some responses to the crisis, however, are causing new and severe problems — and may even increase global warming. This seems to be the case with carbon trading — the main current international response to climate change and the centrepiece of the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon trading has two parts. First, governments hand out free tradable rights to emit carbon dioxide to big industrial polluters, allowing them to make money from business as usual. Second, companies buy additional pollution credits from projects in the South that claim to emit less greenhouse gas than they would have without the investment. Most of the carbon credits being sold to industrialized countries come from polluting projects, such as schemes that burn methane from coal mines or waste dumps, which do little to wean the world off fossil fuels.” [7].

Dr Robert J. Shapiro (Chair, U.S. Climate Task Force and finance consultancy firm Sonecon; undersecretary of commerce for economic affairs in the Clinton Administration), January 2009:

“A cap-and-trade system is very unlikely to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions — and more likely to introduce new, trillion-dollar risks for the financial system. The clearest illustration of the problems with cap-and-trade is the European Trading Scheme, based on the Kyoto protocols covering most of Europe. According to a new report by the Government Accountability Office, there’s little if any evidence that the ETS has had any effect at all on emissions in Europe. One reason is that major emitters such as Germany simply exempt many of their facilities generating greenhouse gases. Another factor is the “offset” permits that European “transition” economies, themselves exempt from caps, can sell to other ETS members…the volatile prices for the permits themselves, traded on financial markets, would attract speculation and new financial derivatives, putting us at risk for another crisis. Even more regulations cannot eliminate most of cap-and-trade’s inherent price volatility or the incentives for its participants, including governments, to evade or manipulate the system. These are the main reasons why the father of climate-change politics, Al Gore now prefers carbon-based taxes over cap-and-trade. A carbon tax system would apply a stable price to carbon, creating direct incentives to develop and use less carbon-intensive fuels and more energy-efficient technologies. President-elect Barack Obama is committed equally to fighting climate change and restoring economic growth. The best way to do both is to give up cap-and-trade and learn to love carbon-based taxes.” [8].

More from Dr Robert J. Shapiro, March 2009:

“The proper approach here is a straightforward one. First, enact a carbon-based tax to move people and firms to prefer and choose less-carbon-intensive fuels and technologies. Second, as we change the relative prices of different forms of energy based on their effects on the climate, protect people’s incomes and the overall economy by returning all or virtually all of the revenues through payroll tax cuts or lump-sum payments to households. Third, use the certainty of a substantial tax on carbon, along with additional subsidies, to promote the development of new climate-friendly fuels and technologies that can capture a new and fast-growing global market. I recently co-authored a study that used the same modeling system as the Department of Energy to estimate the environmental and economic consequences of applying this specific approach. We found that we can effectively address climate change without harming our economy … And after the carnage of Wall Street’s recent rounds of malfeasance, it is painfully clear that the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department simply lack the ability (and the resources) to effectively police complex, fast-moving markets involving many, many thousands or millions of trades per day. Despite its advocates’ good intentions, cap-and-trade could put America at risk of another meltdown — one originally created and financed by the government itself. None of these painful and difficult issues arise with a carbon tax-shift. Rather, it could enable us to effectively do our part in addressing climate change, while protecting or even enhancing our economic prospects. That’s a deal Congress cannot afford to pass up.” [9].

Pro-coal US and pro-coal Australia are world leading greenhouse has (GHG) polluters. Pro-coal, climate criminal Australia is the world’s biggest coal exporter and a world leading greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter. Thus Australia’s domestic and exported “annual per capita GHG pollution” is 54 tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year – 2 times that of the US, 10 times that of China, 25 times that of India and 60 times that of Bangladesh.

If the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference opts, like the climate criminal nations of the US and Australia, for a Cap-and-Trade Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), then the World is facing disastrous inaction over man-made global warming and the real prospect of worsening, First World-imposed climate genocide. Top UK climate scientist Dr James Lovelock FRS has estimated that fewer than 1 billion people will survive global warming this century, this constituting a prospective climate genocide that will kill 10 billion non-Europeans including 6 billion infants, 3 billion Muslims, 2 billion Indians and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis (for detailed documentation see here).

Key References

[1]. Dr James Hansen, “Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade”, Committee on Ways & Means, US House of Representatives, February 2009: http://cleanenergy-project.de/…/carbon-tax-100-dividend-vs-tax-trade/ ; http://www.columbia.edu/…/WaysAndMeans.pdf.

[2]. Tricia Holly Davis & Jonathan Leake, New Statesman, 26 March 2009: http://newstatesman.com/…/carbon-price-climate-hope-co2.

[3]. Professor William Nordhaus, “Economic issues in designing a global agreement on global warming”, Keynote plenary address for the 10-12 March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference on Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions”: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/speaker-11march2009.pdf/ ; for this and other plenary lectures see: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/congresspresentations/.

[4]. Oliver Tickel, “Replace Kyoto Protocol with global carbon tax, says Yale economist”, Guardian, 12 March 2009.

[5]. Professor Daniel M. Kammen, “From climate science to solutions: shared agendas in the North and South”, Keynote plenary address for the 10-12 March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference on Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions”: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/speaker-11march2009.pdf/ ; for this and other plenary lectures see: http://climatecongress.ku.dk/…/congresspresentations/.

[6]. Professor Barry Brook, “CPRS versus carbon tax: Senate Inquiry”, 30 March 2009.

[7]. Larry Lohmann, summary of book “Carbon Trading. A critical conversation on climate change, privatisation and power” by Larry Lohmann, editor, 2006, published by Dag Hammarskold Foundation, Durban Group for Climate Justice and The Corner House, 2006.

[8]. Dr Robert J. Shapiro, “The real choice between Cap-and Trade and Carbon-based taxes”, Roll Call, 15 January 2009.

[9]. Dr Robert J. Shapiro, “Shapiro: economy will force quick action on climate change“, Roll Call, 30 March 2009.

Rare El’ements Salon Inspired Eco-Luxury Hair Care has totally taken care of this problem.  Not only does this indulgent hair care system leave hair strong, silky and smooth, but also helps to protect color.  Amazing!

The line consists of Pure Shampoo, Essential Conditioner and EL’ Treatment, a rejuvenating scalp and hair serum.  All products are made with pure, healthy ingredients and contain exotic oils from Africa to nourish and moisturize scalp and hair.  No sulfates, silicones, synthetic fragrance or parabens.

Now, let’s get to the nitty-gritty….my personal review.  I cannot tell you how many times I have gotten excited over a new all natural hair care line that boasts full, soft, shiny locks only to be (yet again) disappointed.  That is not to say that there aren’t a few brands out there really living up to their claims.  John Masters Organics hair care, for example, is a  very affordable line that works really well.  But my hair is fickle and moody (a combination of fine, dry and wavy/frizzy) that needs gentle care in order to behave itself. 

When I first learned about Rare El’ements from my friend Terri at The Nature of Beauty, I got all pumped again but reeled myself back in, expecting yet another disappointment.  Well, I could tell immediately that this was no ordinary natural shampoo and conditioner.  My hair was soft, smooth, wavy but not frizzy and really looked great.  And (the true test) continued to be so after several days of using Rare El’ements.  No honeymoon phase.

The bottom line is this;  yes, Rare El’ements is on the higher end – $34 for the Shampoo,  $44 for the Conditioner and the Serum is $44 as well – but is very concentrated and will last you quite a while.  And for the results, quite worth every cent.  Honestly, I plan to never be without the stuff.

Photo credit: jurvetson

This past Friday the House of Representatives in USA voted yes to the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a cap-and-trade energy bill, by a vote of 219 to 212. This historic climate change bill will require limits on pollution responsible for man-made climate change and it will help USA create a green economy, if it also gets thumbs up in the Senate.

“After a tense debate, in which the margin of success or failure never moved beyond a handful of votes, the House of Representatives passed the most sweeping climate change policy ever considered by Congress early Friday evening, the Huffington Post reports.

The outcome had remained up in the air up until the actual vote, with the White House and the president himself engaging in a heavy lobbying campaign aimed at restoring Democratic Party unity that seemed to be fracturing.”

President Barack Obama said in his weekly address that this new bill will help “create green jobs, ensure clean air for our children, move towards energy independence and combat climate change.”

Steve Bouchard, Campaign Manager for Repower America, said in a statement after the vote that the House of Representatives had just passed a “landmark bill that will propel our nation toward a clean energy future.” But Bouchard also warned that the fight wasn’t over yet:

“It’s not over though. The debate moves on to the Senate where our opponents will redouble their efforts. There will be more distortions and foot dragging, but the momentum is on our side.

Today, we have something to celebrate. For the first time in decades, we have taken bold action to help solve the climate crisis.”

But not everyone is happy about the bill. Republicans have complained that the energy bill is just a new “energy tax” and falsely claims it will cost households in USA $3,100 every year. The Daily Green reports:

“This debate has sprung largely from a Republican misreading (why not be generous?) of an MIT study that led pundits and politicians to cry about the perils of a new “energy tax” that might cost American households $3,100 every year. (Though that claim has been thoroughly debunked, I seem to hear it every other Saturday in the Republican response to President Obama’s weekly address.) The author of the MIT study puts the cost at $800, while the conservative Heritage Foundation estimated the annual cost at $1,500 and the Environmental Protection Agency estimated the cost at just $140 or lower.”

Thomas Friedman, author of the book “Hot, Flat, and Crowded – Why We Need a Green Revolution – And How it Can Renew America”, writes on the New York Times that he thinks the energy bill is a “mess” and that it “stinks”. Friedman blames the Republicans, President Barack Obama and “We the People” for being responsible for such a weak bill. But he still calls for the Senate to pass the bill:

“Why? Because, for all its flaws, this bill is the first comprehensive attempt by America to mitigate climate change by putting a price on carbon emissions. Rejecting this bill would have been read in the world as Americavoting against the reality and urgency of climate change and would have undermined clean energy initiatives everywhere.

More important, my gut tells me that if the U.S. government puts a price on carbon, even a weak one, it will usher in a new mind-set among consumers, investors, farmers, innovators and entrepreneurs that in time will make a big difference — much like the first warnings that cigarettes could cause cancer. The morning after that warning no one ever looked at smoking the same again.”

In advance of the vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House of Representatives, Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett said that the bill “chooses politics over science” and that it “elevates industry interests over national interest.” She even called for the Congress to reject the bill and instead begin “immediate and urgent work on legislation that treats seriously the dire threat of climate change”.

“As it comes to the floor, the Waxman-Markey bill sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets. The giveaways and preferences in the bill will actually spur a new generation of nuclear and coal-fired power plants to the detriment of real energy solutions. To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak.

[…]This legislation sends a strong and unmistakable signal to the world that the United States is not yet ready to show the leadership necessary to reach a strong agreement at Copenhagen in December. Already, we are seeing the impact of this signal as one country after another retreats from the aggressive targets needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.”

In a response to the thumbs up for the energy bill in the House of Representatives Muffett called the bill “a victory” for coal, oil and other dirty industry lobbyists. She also said that “it is a tremendous loss for the American people and for the world in our common fight to avert climate catastrophe.”

“To avoid the worst effects of global warming, we must reduce emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and the short term target of this bill is a paltry 4%. The massive offsets in this bill means that we can continue at our current emissions level for years, and huge giveaways mean a new generation of nuclear and coal plants.

Unless the bill is substantially strengthened in the Senate, we have a lot more work ahead of us. We are calling upon President Obama to use every tool at his disposal, both within and outside Congress, to get us back to the science-based targets he promised.”

The energy and climate bill has a long way to go before becoming law as it has to pass voting in the Senate were more right-wingers, lobbyists paid by the coal and oil industry and even some environmentalists will try to fight the bill.

“As I became aware of the mounting global water crisis, I realized that it represented a clash of cultures – between a culture that values water as a shared sacred source of all life and a corporate culture that regards water as a commodity to be bought and sold.”

Quote from Shalini Kantayya, director of A Drop of Life – a futuristic sci-fi flick about the mounting water crisis winning Best Short Film at Palm Beach International as well as the Audience Choice Award at the IUOW Film competition. Will check it out some time (two years late anyway).

“Who controls water controls life”

Photo credit: Darwin Bell

“Would you like a bag with that?”, asks the girl at the grocery store check-out. You glance at the couple of items purchased, and think of the walk home. She sees you hesitating and adds “It’s okay; these plastic bags are biodegradable. In fact, they’re made of corn!”

“Perfect!”, you think. Or is it?

The Good

This specific type of plastic is called PLA, or Polylactic acid. Simply put, PLA is created by fermenting the starch of corn kernels. Plastic made from PLA look and feel exactly like regular plastic, and PLA plastic bags are just as durable and lightweight as their non-PLA counterparts.

A renewable resource, PLA or “corn plastic” is 100% compostable. Under the right conditions, PLA breaks down in about one to six months in a commercial composter.

The Bad

But wait… what about in a landfill? As we all know, unless recycled, plastic bags that are used for groceries end up in city landfills, not commercial composters. In order to biodegrade, the PLA must receive sufficient amounts of oxygen, water, light and soil, which are not usually present in a landfill. Thus, it can take corn plastic just as long as regular plastic to break down—up to one thousand years. Unfortunately, that means that using corn plastic bags to line trash cans is no better than using regular plastic.

The Ugly

Although corn may be a renewable resource, there is only a certain amount of corn in the world to be used at a certain time. The use of corn for anything other than food seems a little selfish when we consider how much of the world’s population go hungry every day. For example, the use of corn for ethanol has increased the price, and the demand, of this important crop. Furthermore, corn crops require an enormous amount of pesticides and chemical fertilizers compared to other US-grown crops.

One other not-to-be-overlooked fact about corn plastic: regardless of what some companies claim, PLA can cause severe reactions to people who have corn allergies. Accordingly PLA plastic should be clearly marked as derived from corn.

The Verdict?

PLA plastic may be a step in the right direction when it comes to sustainability, it’s one piece of a much wider issue. As in most cases, all parts of the story need to be closely examined. Perhaps with further research, a better alternative can be found. For now, however, if corn plastic seems too good to be true, it probably is. Next time, take a reusable cloth bag to the supermarket.