Dr Robert Muller - The Zeitgeist is Changing

Our Global Water Crisis Is Here and Now

2012-05-23T17:54:00.000+09:30

Water Drop (Photo credit: Isolino)

By Kristie Brown

For too many years people have been exploiting the environment, and now that it's time to take steps to correct all the problems we have created, people are turning a deaf ear. It's like when the government talks about cuts and everyone says, "That's a good idea, but don't cut anything that affects me!"

Every year we pour millions of gallons of waste products into our existing fresh water resources and, if we think about it at all, we consider it the "other guy's" problem. No one seems to comprehend how serious the situation is to everything that is living on this planet. We all need to do what we can to change, and we need to do it now.

The amount of waste that is infiltrating our water is growing proportionately with the increasing population. The Water World Assessment Program estimates that people worldwide dump 2 million tons of waste into our water each day. At least 70% of industrial wastes are drained into the water in developing nations where they don't yet have anti-pollution precautions and laws in place.

Here in the United States, we have a major problem in that agricultural waste products, from such things as fertilizer run-offs and hog confinements, and the wastes we pump into our water are being carried into the lakes, rivers, and oceans. In the 1970s, the United States banned the use of DDT, yet 40 years later, traces of the substance are still being found in our oceans.

We live in a country filled with plenty, and there are those who believe that our water can never run out; however, 20% of the people in the world have no access to clean, safe drinking water. When you hear 20%, do you know how many people are being affected by water shortages? That's a whopping 1,200 million.

The problem is so drastic in some areas that it has become the major cause of death for children under the age of five in some areas of the world, and scientists are saying that within the next few decades this same thing could happen to us unless we initiate measures as soon as possible.

Obviously, we don't want this to happen to us. Imagine watching your child wither and die of dehydration because they can't get adequate water to drink, and there's nothing at all you can do about it. Don't depend on laws passed by the government to take care of the problem, because that alone can't begin to conquer the crisis. If we all do our part, together we can make a difference.

Looking for more information on emergency water filter? Separmatic Systems can provide you with all your water purification needs including diatomaceous earth filters and separmaticsystems.com.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Kristie_Brown
http://EzineArticles.com/?Our-Global-Water-Crisis-Is-Here-and-Now&id=7060660

VIDEO: Yes, the Climate is Changing: People Around the World Show How Climate Change is Already Affecting Their Lives

2012-05-12T23:09:00.000+09:30

from Yes! magazine: http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/connect-the-dots-on-climate-change?utm_source=wkly20120511&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=titleaharbinDots

The effects of climate change come in many guises: increasingly intense storms, too much snow, not enough snow, heat waves, droughts, floods.

We have to start seeing the climatic connections between these weather events, says advocacy group 350.org. Only then will we realize how much of what we hold dear is threatened by climate change - and react accordingly.

On May 5, 2012 people around the world "connected the dots" and combined the images they created to illustrate how profoundly climate change is already affecting us.

A Worldwide Effort to Make Climate Change Visible - Bill McKibben: It’s Time for Each of Us to Get Involved in the Full-On Fight Between Misinformation and Truth

2012-05-05T10:25:00.000+09:30

Storm surge from Hurricane Irene in Greenwich, Connecticut (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

by Bill McKibben, Yes! magazine: http://www.yesmagazine.org

The Williams River was so languid and lovely last Saturday morning that it was almost impossible to imagine the violence with which it must have been running on August 28, 2011.

And yet the evidence was all around: sand piled high on its banks, trees still scattered as if by a giant’s fist, and most obvious of all, a utilitarian temporary bridge where for 140 years a graceful covered bridge had spanned the water.

The YouTube video of that bridge crashing into the raging river was Vermont’s iconic image from its worst disaster in memory, the record flooding that followed Hurricane Irene’s rampage through the state in August 2011. It claimed dozens of lives, as it cut more than a billion-dollar swath of destruction across the eastern United States.

I watched it on TV in Washington just after emerging from jail, having been arrested at the White House during mass protests of the Keystone XL pipeline. Since Vermont’s my home, it took the theoretical - the ever more turbulent, erratic, and dangerous weather that the tar sands pipeline from Canada would help ensure - and made it all too concrete. It shook me bad. And I’m not the only one.

New data released last month by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities show that a lot of Americans are growing far more concerned about climate change, precisely because they’re drawing the links between freaky weather, a climate kicked off-kilter by a fossil-fuel guzzling civilization, and their own lives.

After a year with a record number of multi-billion dollar weather disasters, seven in ten Americans now believe that “global warming is affecting the weather.” No less striking, 35% of the respondents reported that extreme weather had affected them personally in 2011. As Yale’s Anthony Laiserowitz told the New York Times, “People are starting to connect the dots.”

Climate change is actually the biggest thing that’s going on every single day. If we could only see that pattern we’d have a fighting chance. Which is what we must do. As long as this remains one abstract problem in the long list of problems, we’ll never get to it.

There will always be something going on each day that’s more important, including, if you’re facing flood or drought, the immediate danger.

To read further, go to: http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/bill-mckibben-connecting-the-climate-dots?utm_source=wkly20120504&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=titleMcKibben

GMO Alert: Top 10 Genetically Modified Foods to Avoid Eating

2012-05-03T17:04:00.000+09:30

GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISM (Photo credit: live w mcs)

by Aurora Geib, Natural News: http://www.naturalnews.com

There is a conspiracy of selling out happening in America. Politics and personal interest it would seem determine government policies over and above health and safety issues.

When President Obama appointed Michael Taylor in 2009 as senior adviser for the FDA, a fierce protest ensued from consumer groups and environmentalists. Why?

Taylor used to be vice president for Monsanto, a multinational interested in marketing genetically modified (GM) food. It was during his term that GMO’s were approved in the US without undergoing tests to determine if they were safe for human consumption.

The danger of GMO’s

The question of whether or not genetically modified foods (GMO’s) are safe for human consumption is an ongoing debate that does not seem to see any resolution except in the arena of public opinion.

Due to lack of labeling, Americans are still left at a loss as to whether or not what is on the table is genetically modified. This lack of information makes the avoiding and tracking of GM foods an exercise in futility. Below are just some of the food products popularly identified to be genetically modified:

1. Corn

Corn has been modified to create its own insecticide. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has declared that tons of genetically modified corn has been introduced for human consumption. Monsanto has revealed that half of the US’s sweet corn farms are planted with genetically modified seed. Mice fed with GM corn were discovered to have smaller offspring and fertility problems.

2. Soy

Soy has also been genetically modified to resist herbicides. Soy products include soy flour, tofu, soy beverages, soybean oil and other products that may include pastries, baked products and edible oil. Hamsters fed with GM soy were unable to have offspring and suffered a high mortality rate.

3. Cotton

Like corn and soy, cotton has been designed to resist pesticides. It is considered food because its oil can be consumed. Its introduction in Chinese agriculture has produced a chemical that kills cotton bollworm, reducing the incidences of pests not only in cotton crops but also in neighboring fields of soybeans and corn. Incidentally, thousands of Indian farmers suffered severe rashes upon exposure to BT cotton.

4. Papaya

The virus-resistant variety of papaya was commercially introduced in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas comprised three-fourths of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto bestowed upon Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore technology for developing papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India.

5. Rice

This staple food from South East Asia has now been genetically modified to contain a high amount of vitamin A. Allegedly, there are reports of rice varieties containing human genes to be grown in the US. The rice will create human proteins useful for dealing with infant diarrhea in the 3rd world. China Daily, an online journal, reported potential serious public health and environment problems with genetically modified rice considering its tendency to cause allergic reactions with the concurrent possibility of gene transfers.

6. Tomatoes

Tomatoes have now been genetically engineered for longer shelf life, preventing them from easily rotting and degrading. In a test conducted to determine the safety of GM tomatoes, some animal subjects died within a few weeks after consuming GM tomatoes.

7. Rapeseed

In Canada, this crop was renamed canola to differentiate it from non-edible rapeseed. Food stuff produced from rapeseed includes rapeseed oil (canola oil) used to process cooking oil and margarine. Honey can also be produced from GM rapeseed. German food surveillance authorities discovered as much as a third of the total pollen present in Canadian honey may be from GM pollen. In fact, some honey products from Canada were also discovered to have pollen from GM rapeseed.

8. Dairy products

It has been discovered that 22 percent of cows in the U.S. were injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH). This Monsanto created hormone artificially forces cows to increase their milk production by 15 percent. Milk from cows treated with this milk inducing hormone contains increased levels of IGF-1 (insulin growth factors-1). Humans also have IGF-1 in their system. Scientists have expressed concerns that increased levels of IGF-1 in humans have been associated with colon and breast cancer.

9. Potatoes

Mice fed with potatoes engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki Cry 1 were found to have toxins in their system. Despite claims to the contrary, this shows that Cry1 toxin was stable in the mouse gut. When the health risks were revealed, it sparked a debate.

10. Peas

Peas that have been genetically modified have been found to cause immune responses in mice and possibly even in humans. A gene from kidney beans was inserted into the peas creating a protein that functions as a pesticide.

To read further, go to: http://www.naturalnews.com/035734_GMOs_foods_dangers.html

Banana Apocalypse

2012-04-21T12:08:00.000+09:30

Source: http://coupons.org

Free Your (Eco)Mind This Earth Day: Think Like an Ecosystem - And You Just Might Save the World

2012-04-21T11:48:00.000+09:30

Frances Moore Lappe @ CM10COnf (Photo credit: Choconancy1)

by Frances Moore Lappé, Yes! Magazine: http://www.yesmagazine.org

Gradually it’s dawned on me: We humans are creatures of the mind. We perceive the world according to our core, often unacknowledged, assumptions. They determine, literally, what we can see and what we cannot.

Nothing so wrong with that, perhaps - except that, in this crucial do-or-die moment, we’re stuck with a mental map that is life-destroying. And the premise of this map is lack - not enough of anything, from energy to food to parking spots; not enough goods and not enough goodness. In such a world, we come to believe, it’s compete or die.

The popular British writer Philip Pullman says, “we evolved to suit a way of life which is acquisitive, territorial, and combative” and that “we have to overcome millions of years of evolution” to make the changes we need to avoid global catastrophe. If I believed that, I’d feel utterly hopeless.

How can we align with the needs of the natural world if we first have to change basic human nature? Fortunately, we don’t have to.

A new way of seeing that is opening up to us can form a more life-serving mental map. I call it “eco-mind” - looking at the world through the lens of ecology. This worldview recognizes that we, no less than any other organism, live in relation to everything else.

As the visionary German physicist Hans-Peter Dürr puts it, “There are no parts, only participants.”

As part of this shift, breakthroughs in a range of disciplines are confirming what we already know about ourselves, if we stop and think about it: That humans are complex creatures and what we do - from raising children to caring for elders to sharing with our neighbors - exhibits at least as much natural tendency to cooperate as to compete.

The view that our species is basically brutal defies the evidence: “There is a very tiny handful of incidences of conflict and possible warfare before 10,000 years ago,” says archaeologist Jonathan Haas of the Field Museum in Chicago, “and those are very much the exception.”

Our species has a vastly longer experience evolving in close-knit communities, knowing our lives depended on one another. The result is at least six inherent traits we can foster, once we learn to navigate the world with the map of eco-mind.

To read further, go to: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/9-strategies-to-end-corporate-rule/free-your-eco-mind?utm_source=wkly20120420&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=titleLappé

Wireless Interference: The Health Risks of RF-EMFs

2012-04-13T23:00:00.000+09:30

A cell phone tower (Wikipedia)by Christopher Ketcham, from "Earth Island Journal", on UTNE - The Best of the Alternative Press: http://www.utne.com

In January 1990, a cell tower goes up 800 feet from Alison Rall’s dairy farm in Mansfield, Ohio. By fall, the cattle herd that pastures near the tower is sick, and Rall’s three young children begin suffering bizarre skin rashes, raised red “hot spots.”

The kids are hit with waves of hyperactivity. The girls lose hair. Rall, when she becomes pregnant with a fourth child, can’t gain weight.

Desperate to understand what is happening to her family and her farm, she contacts an Environmental Protection Agency scientist named Carl Blackman.

He’s an expert on the biological effects of radiation from electromagnetic fields (EMFs) - the kind of radio frequency EMFs (RF-EMFs) by which all wireless technology operates, including not just cell towers and cell phones but also wi-fi hubs and wi-fi-capable computers, “smart” utility meters, and even cordless home phones.

“With my government cap on, I’m supposed to tell you you’re perfectly safe,” Blackman tells her. “With my civilian cap on, I have to tell you to consider leaving.”

When Rall contacts the cell phone company that operates the tower, she is told there is “no possibility whatsoever” that the tower is the source of her ills. But within weeks of abandoning the farm, the children recovered their health, and so did the herd.

We all live in range of cell towers now, and we are all wireless operators. As of October 2010 there were 5.2 billion cell phones operating on the planet. “Penetration,” in the marketing-speak of the companies, often tops 100 percent in many countries, meaning there is more than one connection per person.

I don’t have an Internet connection at my home in Brooklyn, and, like a dinosaur, I still keep a landline. Yet even though I have, in a fashion, opted out, I’m bathed in the radiation from cell phone panels on the parking garage next door.

The waves are everywhere. We now live in a wireless-saturated normality that has never existed in the history of the human race, and the effects of EMFs on human beings are largely untested.

In May 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a statement that the electromagnetic frequencies from cell phones would henceforth be classified as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

The IARC decision followed multiple warnings, mostly from European regulators, about the possible health risks of RF-EMFs. In September 2007, the EU’s European Environment Agency suggested that widespread radio frequency radiation “could lead to a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos, smoking, and lead in petrol.”

Double-strand breaks in DNA - one of the undisputed causes of cancer - have been reported in tests with animal cells. Neuroscientists at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia discovered a “power boost” in brain waves when humans were exposed to cell phone radio frequencies. The brain, one of the lead researchers speculated, was “concentrating to overcome the electrical interference.”

To read further, go to: http://www.utne.com/environment/rf-emfs-zm0z12mjzros.aspx?newsletter=1&utm_content=04.13.12+Science+and+Technology&utm_campaign=2012+ENEWS&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

No More Handouts to Big Oil: Bill McKibben’s Five Rules of the Road for Reforming Fossil Fuel Subsidies

2012-04-07T16:49:00.000+09:30

A diagram of the basic fossil fuel life-cycle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

by Bill McKibbin, Yes! magazine: http://www.yesmagazine.org

Along with “five dollar a gallon gas,” the energy watchword for the next few months is: “subsidies.”

Last week, for instance, New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez proposed ending some of the billions of dollars in handouts enjoyed by the fossil-fuel industry with a “Repeal Big Oil Tax Subsidies Act.”

It was, in truth, nothing to write home about - a curiously skimpy bill that only targeted oil companies, and just the five richest of them at that. Left out were coal and natural gas, and you won’t be surprised to learn that even then it didn’t pass.

By some estimates, getting rid of all the planet’s fossil-fuel subsidies could get us halfway to ending the threat of climate change.

Still, President Obama is now calling for an end to oil subsidies at every stop on his early presidential-campaign-plus-fundraising blitz - even at those stops where he’s also promising to “drill everywhere.”

And later this month Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders will introduce a much more comprehensive bill that tackles all fossil fuels and their purveyors (and has no chance whatsoever of passing this Congress).

Whether or not the bill passes, those subsidies are worth focusing on. After all, we’re talking at least $10 billion in freebies and, depending on what you count, possibly as much as $40 billion annually in freebie cash for an energy industry already making historic profits.

If attacking them is a convenient way for the White House to deflect public anger over rising gas prices, it is also a perfect fit for the new worldview the Occupy movement has been teaching Americans (not to mention, if you think about it, the Tea Party focus on deficits). So count on one thing: we’ll be hearing a lot more about them this year.

But there’s a problem: the very word “subsidies” makes American eyes glaze over. It sounds so boring, like something that has everything to do with finance and taxes and accounting, and nothing to do with you.

Which is just the reaction that the energy giants are relying on: that it’s a subject profitable enough for them and dull enough for us that no one will really bother to challenge their perks, many of which date back decades.

To read further, go to: http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/bill-mckibben-no-more-handouts-for-big-oil?utm_source=wkly20120406&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=mrMcKibben

VIDEO: On Coal River

2012-03-31T12:00:00.000+10:30

On Coal River Synopsis

Coal River Valley, West Virginia is a community surrounded by lush mountains and a looming toxic threat. Filmed over a period of five years, ON COAL RIVER follows a former miner and his neighbors in a David-and-Goliath struggle for the future of their valley, their children, and life as they know it.

Ed Wiley once worked at the same coal plant that threatens his granddaughter’s elementary school. When his local government refuses to act, Ed embarks on a quest to have the school relocated to safer ground.

With a sharp sense of right and wrong, Ed confronts his local school board, the state government, and a notorious coal company for putting his granddaughter and his community at risk.

Along the way, Ed is helped by his neighbors Bo and Judy, who are locked in their own battle with the company over their practice of “mountaintop removal” - blowing up mountains to extract coal.

Together, Bo and Judy help Ed bring attention to the dangers at Marsh Fork Elementary, hoping that if they save the school, they can save the valley.

Film Credits

Starring
Bo Webb, Ed Wiley, Judy Bonds, Debbie Jarrell and Maria Lambert

Directors
Francine Cavanaugh and Adams Wood

Producers
Francine Cavanaugh, Adams Wood and Jillian Elizabeth

Writers
Francine Cavanaugh, Jillian Elizabeth and Adams Wood

Executive Producers
Dan Frishwasser, Eric Falkenstein, Deann Borshay Liem and J. Robert Spencer

The History of Earth Day - The Movement

2012-03-31T11:52:00.000+10:30

A recreation of the ECOLOGY symbol used in early Earth Day materials (Photo credit: Wikipedia)By Annie Whitney

Although Earth Day has been commonly associated with U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, and Congressman Pete McCloskey of California, it has been alleged that the concept originated initially in 1969 with John McConnell at an UNESCO conference held in San Francisco.

Whatever were the origins, it is clear that this event has deeply resonated with people across the globe.

The history of Earth Day holds that the first event happened on April 22, 1970, with 20 Million participants around the world. That number since since grown to over 500 Million, with the participation of numerous national governments and 175 countries.

And perhaps what made even more impact than those famous demonstrations, along with the "teach-ins" and cleaning up of so many places across the country by the approximately 20 million people participating that first historic event, was the bipartisan political action which followed.

Many student leaders identified what they called the "Dirty Dozen," members of the Congress and Senate whose environmental records were atrocious, and whose seats were vulnerable. These student leaders actively campaigned against the targeted legislators, not only holding letter-writing crusades, but also walking the precincts where the voters were who held the sway.

By election day of 1972, seven of that ''dirty dozen'' had been kicked out of office; those replaced were five Republicans, and two senior Democrats. To quote Mr. McCloskey, "That just had an enormous effect. The environment had proved it could deliver votes."

When Senator Gaylord Nelson was first elected to office in 1962, he was already deeply concerned by the fact that the environment was not on any political agenda, although normal citizens were increasingly aware of the disturbing effects that matters such as pollution were having on the environment and human health.

This environmental issue stayed on the back burner for seven years, making the history of Earth Day that much more compelling, until Senator Nelson invited people from all walks of life in 1969 to join him the following year to a grassroots demonstration raising awareness about environmental issues. April 22, 1970 marked the first day in the history of Earth Day.

The response was intensely overwhelming. Rallies were held across the nation, and by the time the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a poll in 1971, a full 25% indicated that protecting the environment was an important goal to them.

March 21, 1970 was furthermore declared by San Francisco Mayor Joseph Alioto as International Earth Day, celebrated on the March equinox, which tends to fall around March 20. The listed founder is John McConnell.

Earth Day 1970 launched the environmental movement across the country and beyond, by harnessing the energy and enthusiasm of college students. In 2003, former Congressman Pete McCloskey, co-sponsor of that first Earth Day, sees the need to do it all over again.

Mr. McCloskey credits Mr. Hayes and Sen. Nelson with making Earth Day happen. He was recruited as a rare, like-minded Republican to co-sponsor the event in the House of Representatives.

The Earth Day Network is now is the coordinating group for the movement, and under its Canopy Project, saw 1 Million trees planted in 2010, with over 50 Million for 2011. The Billion Acts of Green campaign is still continuing.

Whatever the origins of Earth Day may be, the most striking fact about this global event is that it somehow managed to organize itself.

Annie Whitney is a Relationship and Internet Sponsoring Expert, specializing in helping others generate Leads and Cash Flow. For the exact step by step strategies, using honest and proven methods for success. Annie also has been a Nutrition and Supplementation consultant since 1973. For details, click here: be-more-green.com

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Annie_Whitney
http://EzineArticles.com/?The-History-of-Earth-Day---The-Movement&id=6951423

Is Walmart Really Going Organic and Local?

2012-03-24T14:04:00.000+10:30

Mother Jones (magazine) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)by Tom Philpott, Mother Jones: http://motherjones.com

I live on an organic farm in North Carolina, so I don't spend much time roaming my local Walmart looking for produce. But on a recent trip to Austin, Texas, I decided to stop by a busy supercenter to see how the company was going about its well-publicized push to sell more local and organic food.

The produce section sat between the in-store McDonald's and some giant coolers packed with Hormel bologna. There were crates piled high with perfect orbs of cabbage and tomatoes, onions and melons. Elephant-ear-size collard greens sat in tight bunches; stacks of fist-size lemons beamed yellow.

Plenty of fresh food, to be sure, though a few "Grown in USA" signs were the nearest thing I could find to an indication of local. Organic? A few bags of house-brand lettuce claimed that standard.

But you can't judge Walmart on a single store. The company sells 18 percent of all the groceries bought in the United States - more than anyone else by a wide margin. And it's not just Froot Loops and rock-hard tomatoes.

Over the last decade, Walmart has emerged as a massive player in the organic-food market. By 2006, the year it made a splashy announcement about doubling its sales of organic food, it was already the nation's No. 1 seller of organic milk. By 2007, according to the market data firm Scarborough Research, shoppers in search of organic food chose Walmart more often than any other grocery store.

To read further, go to: http://motherjones.com/environment/2012/03/walmart-groceries-organic-local-food-deserts

Australia May Declare Homeopathy ‘Baseless and Unethical’

2012-03-17T17:22:00.000+10:30

Image via Wikipedia

by Andre Evans, Activist Post: http://www.activistpost.com/2012/03/australia-may-declare-homeopathy.html

Homeopathic medicine practitioners may have to defend their practice in Australia after the National Health and Medical Research Council decided that their practices may be ineffective and unethical.

A statement issued claims that it is “unethical for health practitioners to treat patients using homeopathy, because a homeopathic medicine or procedure has apparently been shown to be ineffective.”

This statement is based on an evaluation of homeopathy by the British House of Commons Science and Technology committee, who came to the conclusion that the whole field of homeopathic medicine is no more effective than a placebo pill is.

Similarly, the statement suggests that all homeopathic medicine is actually just joke medicine, and that “safe and effective conventional treatments” should not be delayed in favor of homeopathic ones.

The researchers who support this statement maintain that many homeopathic treatments are wrongfully being covered by health insurance companies, despite the fact that they are largely ineffective and sometimes more costly than conventional methods.

Many cases cited to support this statement showcase the use of outlandish medicines like animal blood and milk, which in these cases lead to the deaths of those who used these methods of treatment.

Due to the nature of the untested and absurd treatments, the researchers would like to establish a formal registration scheme in the manner of conventional doctors, so that no quackery or dangerous “medicines” are covered by insurance.

Currently, the Australian Homeopathic Association has a self-governed registration model that is not subject to more conventional scrutiny, and thus the methods stated can sometimes be encompassed within the scheme of what is called homeopathic medicine.

Interestingly, what is called ‘conventional medicine’ is also in the realm of the outlandish and has similar tested proof backing the fact that it is dangerous to individual health.

Despite this, a careful examination of legitimate and proven natural methods of medicine should not be discouraged or classified within the same category of bizarre treatments that should more properly be called fake homeopathy.

10 Regular Products That Are More Environmentally Friendly than Their So-called Green Counterparts

2012-03-17T15:37:00.000+10:30

Gasoline that 'cleans' (Photo credit: Toban Black)by Compare Electricity Rates: http://compareelectricityrates.com

The global warming or climate change enthusiasts have created a huge focus on saving the planet by promoting environmentally friendly products. Savvy consumers should be careful not to fall for this marketing gimmick called greenwashing.

Many of the products we already use are friendlier to the environment than their so-called green counterparts. Pay close attention to the products claiming to be eco-friendly or green because they may not be as green as they claim.

Here are 10 regular products that are already more environmental friendly than their green alternatives.

Fuel efficient cars

A gas powered car with good fuel efficiency is more likely to be better for the environment than a hybrid. People don’t think about how the electricity is generated when they plug in their car. Most of the electricity in this country comes from coal generated plants, so plugging in your car doesn’t really do much to save the environment.

Incandescent light bulbs

The standard incandescent light bulbs use more energy, but their fluorescent counterparts are filled with mercury. Does anyone think about the potentially huge environmental hazard of improperly disposing of these mercury filled bulbs? People are just going to throw them in the trash with everything else and this will be a big problem when they quit selling the regular bulbs in 2012.

Cleaning products

Many eco-friendly cleaning products that claim to be chlorine free contain a myriad of other toxic chemicals that are worse than chlorine. Check labels and be careful of percentages that are based on the number of ingredients rather than volume. The same old products you’ve always used are probably more environmentally friendly.

Water filter

Using a water filter to make your own bottled water is much better for the environment. All the discarded plastic from bottled water is causing huge problems in garbage collection and landfills.

To read further, go to: http://compareelectricityrates.com/blog/2011/10-regular-products-that-are-more-environmental-friendly-than-their-so-called-green-counterparts/

INTERVIEW: What Would It Take? Protecting Earth from Catastrophe

2012-03-17T00:56:00.000+10:30

Image via Wikipedia

Interview by Mary Hoff, UTNE - Best of the Alternative Press: http://www.utne.com/Environment/What-Would-It-Take-Protecting-Earth-From-Catastrophe-Johan-Rockstrom.aspx?newsletter=1&utm_content=03.16.12+Arts+and+Culture&utm_campaign=2012+ENEWS&utm_source=iPost&utm_medium=email

What would it take to shape a planet on which people, other living things, and the systems that support us can sustainably coexist? For a special issue, Momentum magazine invited experts from around the world to share their thoughts on how we might craft solutions to some of earth’s toughest challenges. Mary Hoff spoke with resilience strategist Johan Rockstrom on what it would take to protect the Earth’s systems from catastrophic failure.

Why do we need to think about protecting Earth’s systems from catastrophic failure?

The basic reason is that major advances in Earth system science now show that humanity is facing the risk of large-scale, potentially catastrophic tipping points that could hamper human development. The evidence shows that we may have entered a whole new geological epoch, the Anthropocene, where humans constitute the main geological force changing planet Earth. The planetary boundaries framework was developed to address this new reality.

But the insight of the Anthropocene gives you only the very first step, because it just indicates we have a high degree of human pressure. The second is the risk of nonlinear change, which comes out of resilience theory and from empirical evidence that particular ecosystems have multiple stable states.

We see evidence that lakes and forests and wetlands can have different equilibria - so you have a savanna system that may be stable and thriving, but it can also tip over and become an arid steppe if pushed too far by warming, land degradation, and biodiversity loss. A clear-water lake can become a murky, biodiversity-low anoxic lake.

Unfortunately, the science is increasingly showing that even large systems can tip. There’s paleoclimatic evidence that if oceans get an overload of phosphorus, they could collapse with large dead zones. The largest ice sheets also show evidence of shifts between ice-covered and ice-free states.

We asked ourselves: OK, so if we are in the Anthropocene, and if we are at risk or have evidence of large regional to global tipping points, then what is our desired state for planet Earth? What is the state at which Earth needs to be in order to support human well-being in a world of 7 - soon to be 9 - billion people?

Paleoclimatic records show clearly that the past 10,000 years, the Holocene, is a remarkably stable period in which we went from being a few hunters and gatherers to become more sedentary agriculture-based civilizations, which then moved us to the current populated modern era. So there’s robust evidence that the Holocene is our desired state and the only state we know that can support the modern economy.

If we know that, we can also define the biophysical preconditions: What are the Earth system processes that determine the Holocene’s familiarity? Can we for those processes identify tipping points we want to avoid? The insight of the importance of the Holocene stability provides humanity with a science-based analysis of global sustainability goals that should be met to provide us safe operating space for human development.

What would it take to protect Earth’s systems from catastrophic failure?

There are so many challenges and steps that need to be taken. But if one thinks of it as entering a funnel, I think a broad entry point is the need for a shift in mind-set.

It might sound a bit awkward - the first thing one thinks of is probably new economic paradigms, really hard new governance structures, new policies. All of that is of course required, but the precondition is that modern society reconnect to the biosphere, which in turn requires a mind shift.

Today we operate the world with our growth paradigm and our economic imperative and our social imperative as being the supreme goals for our societies. We then add, at best, sustainable development, corporate social responsibility and all the good work we’re doing with clean tech and efforts to be more efficient, all with the explicit goal of minimizing environmental impacts within the overarching growth paradigm.

The insights of the Anthropocene and tipping points show this paradigm doesn’t work anymore. We have to reverse the whole order and agree that the biosphere is the basis for everything else. This is quite dramatic, because it means human development has to be subordinate to Earth system boundaries.

It changes the whole idea of macroeconomic theory, because macroeconomic theory basically states that as long as you put the right price on the environment, you automatically get the most cost-efficient way of solving environmental problems.

The second dimension is the idea of planetary stewardship, which means taking ourselves from 196 nation-states operating in their own interest as individual entities to joint governance at the planetary scale. We need to strengthen global governance.

We need a global agency that governs, monitors, verifies, and reports on whether we’re on aggregate meeting planetary boundaries. That is something a world environment organization could do. This is not to say bottom-up initiatives are not important. On the contrary, they are a precondition for success.

But in the Anthropocene, where we need to urgently bend the global curves of negative environmental change, we need to provide leadership also at the global scale. This is lacking today.

How urgent is this?

There is more and more scientific evidence that suggests it is very urgent. For climate, biodiversity and nitrogen, we are already in the slippery danger zone where we cannot exclude tipping over thresholds. On climate, we’re seeing evidence of a destabilization of the Arctic ice sheet.

On nitrogen, we’re seeing clear evidence of major tipping points where lakes are losing their capacity to support human well-being due to overuse of nitrogen and phosphorus particularly in modern agriculture.

On biodiversity, we’ve reached the point where humanity is causing an extinction of species equivalent to losing the dinosaurs 65 million years ago - at the same time we’re also learning how much we depend on biodiversity.

We have increasing evidence we need to back off also on phosphorus and that we’re approaching dangerous boundaries for freshwater and for land. So we have a decade right now that is very decisive.

And the reason it’s urgent is not that we risk catastrophic outcomes in one year or five years or 10 years. It is because what we do today injects changes in Earth systems that may cause thresholds in 50 years’ time, 100 years’ time.

The future of coming generations is thus truly in this generation’s hands. And we have already committed ourselves to major risks of tipping points in the coming century. That’s why we need to go much, much faster on turning back into the safe operating space.

For the boundaries that we have already transgressed, we can’t exclude that this decade is a determining decade, that we need to bend the curves of negative environmental change before 2020. There’s a lot of strong evidence that’s the case.

What if we do take this to heart? What could we hope for?

That’s a very interesting question, because there’s very little or no science to suggest that a global transition to sustainability, a global transition to a future within planetary boundaries, would be a worse world than the world we know today.

On the contrary, there is increasing evidence to suggest that a transition can be done while providing us with good chances of prosperity even on a crowded planet.

But there is a big “but”: And the big but is, have we already gone too far? And that we simply don’t know yet.

Published in association with Momentum, a print, online and multimedia magazine for environmental thought leaders produced by the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment.

Monsanto’s Blatant Corruption and Disregard for Health

2012-03-10T15:44:00.000+10:30

by Anthony Gucciardi, Before Its News: http://beforeitsnews.com

It is well known that Monsanto’s GMO crops provide a very real threat to both public health and the environment as a whole, but the depth of Monsanto’s corruption is often a less covered topic.

It has been revealed by WikiLeaks that Monsanto not only has key figureheads stationed in powerful government positions inside the United States, but also has many - if not all - U.S. diplomats on their payroll.

In the bombshell report, the leaked cables reveal that many U.S. diplomats work directly for Monsanto. Furthermore, Monsanto also has international titans pushing their agenda to maximize profits and increase the spread of genetically modified food.

The same WikiLeaks cable exposes how in late 2007, the United States ambassador to France and business partner to George W. Bush, Craig Stapleton, urged a ‘target retaliation’ against the European Union and certain nations that did not support Monsanto’s GMO crops.

Stapleton, a close business partner of George W. Bush, actually co-owned the Dallas/Fort Worth-based Texas Rangers baseball team with the former president in the 1990s. The ambassador stated:

"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory. Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices".

To read further, go to: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/1866/497/NL/

Bamboo Biomass Could Ease Africa's Deforestation Crisis

2012-03-03T11:22:00.000+10:30

Deforestation, Backcountry Madagascar (Photo credit: World Resources)By Tonka Dobrev

Latest data by the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) shows that world deforestation, largely due to conversion of tropical forests to agricultural land, has decreased over the last decade, but continues at an alarmingly high rate in many countries.

Between 2000 and 2010, the global annual rate of forestry loss is estimated to be about 13 million hectares. But according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Africa is suffering deforestation at twice the world rate.

The stats couldn't be more alarming - almost 90 percent of original rainforests in West Africa have been wiped out, and the landscapes left behind are heavily fragmented and in extremely poor condition.

About 80 percent of the rural population in sub-Saharan Africa is heavily dependent on timber for fuel, so not surprisingly illegal logging, along with conversion of timberland for agricultural purposes, has proven to be a major culprit in this wholesale deforestation.

Although there are initiatives aimed at preserving the rainforest areas in the region, investments are not nearly as adequate as they need to be to outweigh forestry losses.

It takes seven to 10 tons of raw wood to produce one ton of wood charcoal. If African households continue to meet their needs by burning fuel wood, the outlook is grim - by 2050, rural households will have sent 6.7 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

In addition, the International Energy Agency (IEA) claims that under a business-as-usual scenario, three-quarters of total residential energy in sub-Saharan Africa would come from biomass. This leaves the region in an urgent need for investments in an alternative biomass source that will replace wood.

"Bamboo charcoal could provide an excellent alternative to hardwood charcoal production as bamboo biomass production is much greater and considerably more sustainable," claims Terry Sunderland, scientist with the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). And she couldn't be more on target.

Bamboo is one of the fastest-growing plants on the planet. It produces large amounts of biomass, which makes it an excellent alternative and sustainable source of energy. Bamboo charcoal is an environmentally friendly material that has excellent absorption properties.

It is made of bamboo pieces taken from plants that are at least five years old. This sustainable biomass comes in two forms - as raw bamboo charcoal and as bamboo briquette charcoal. Raw bamboo charcoal is typically made of bamboo culms, branches and roots. Bamboo briquette charcoal is made of bamboo residue, such as dust and saw powder. The residue is compressed into sticks and then carbonised.

Bamboo charcoal is mainly used as fuel for cooking and drying tea in China and Japan. In China, which is a global leader in the production and use of bamboo charcoal, the industry is estimated at $1 billion a year and employs over 60,000 people in more than 1,000 businesses.

Sub-Saharan Africa has over 2.75 million hectares of bamboo forest, equivalent to roughly 4 per cent of the continent's total forest cover. Unlike trees, which can take decades to grow and mature enough to be suitable for biomass production, bamboo regenerates rapidly and adapts well even to areas with degraded soil.

To help African countries take advantage of their natural bamboo abundance, the International Network for Bamboo and Rattan (INBAR) has teamed up with China to exchange bamboo charcoal-making technology and knowhow. Chinese experts are helping to adapt African equipment like grinders, brick kilns and briquette machines, as well as hand tools, to make them suitable for bamboo charcoal production and use.

In addition, an INBAR initiative named Bamboo as Sustainable Biomass Energy is now working to transfer some more advanced bamboo charcoal technologies from China to sub-Saharan Africa. Through increased investments in technological adaptation and supportive policy reforms, African officials hope to upscale community kiln technologies and make them more accessible to rural communities.

As bamboo charcoal-making technologies advance, so will opportunities for private investors. Bamboo plantations have already proven to be a good vehicle for income generation. Beyond charcoal, the sturdy grass material is widely used in place of timber in the construction industry, for furniture manufacturing and even in the production of textiles. The plant has also entered the global food industry, as edible bamboo shoots have become a staple in the Asian-fusion cuisine popular all over the world.

Given the wide variety of business opportunities that bamboo investments offer, we can only expect that the market will continue to grow. Experts predict that it will surpass the $20 billion mark by 2015.

Other Articles:
http://blog.cifor.org/6729/undying-flame-replacing-fuelwood-with-bamboo-may-help-to-combat-africas-deforestation-crisis/
http://www.ghanabusinessnews.com/2011/12/30/new-bamboo-charcoal-technology-promises-to-jump-start-africas-bio-energy-sector/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Tonka_Dobrev
http://EzineArticles.com/?Bamboo-Biomass-Could-Ease-Africas-Deforestation-Crisis&id=6910072

Does the U.S. Have a Legal Responsibility to Stop Climate Change? Seven Teenagers Think So - And They’re Taking the Federal Government to Court

2012-02-25T12:52:00.000+10:30

US Supreme Court - Image via Wikipediaby Lindsay Kucera, Yes! magazine: http://www.yesmagazine.org

Seven teenagers set a new precedent for environmental action in May 2011 by suing the federal government for not taking measures against climate change. They claim that the government’s policies regarding climate change are squandering natural resources.

The young plaintiffs, led by 17-year-old Alec Loorz, filed a total of 10 suits against the federal government and individual states under the public trust doctrine, a legal principle derived from English Common Law which holds that the government is responsible for protecting resources - like water and wilderness - in trust for the public and future generations.

The legal action is supported by a coalition of groups called the iMatter Youth Council, which is petitioning the government for a 6 percent reduction in global CO2 each year, an emissions cap at 2011 levels, and the reforestation of compromised ecosystems.

The preliminary injunction hearing was originally slated to be held in December 2011, but has been moved from San Francisco to Washington, D.C., at the request of the federal government. A new date for the hearing has yet to be announced.

To read further, go to: http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/why-im-suing-the-federal-government?utm_source=wkly20120224&utm_medium=yesemail&utm_campaign=titleKucera

INTERVIEW: Bill McKibben: “The Biggest Fight of Our Time” In Which One of the World’s Best-Known Climate Activists Gets Personal About the Enormous Task of Saving Our Planet

2012-02-18T11:30:00.000+10:30

Cover via Amazonby Madeline Ostrander, YES! magazine: http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/bill-mckibben-the-biggest-fight-of-our-time?utm_source=wkly20120217&utm_medium=yesemail&utm_campaign=mrOstrander

As one of the best-known writers on the world’s most dire environmental problem, climate change, Bill McKibben has long walked the razor’s edge between hope and fear.

In 2010, he published Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, a sobering account of what climate change has already unleashed - the ways in which the places we live, the water, weather, seasons, ecosystems, and oceans are changing irrevocably.

McKibben also founded 350.org, one of history’s largest and most ambitious political movements, uniting people around the world to fight climate change.

In this interview, YES! got personal with McKibben: Where does he find hope? What role does faith play for McKibben, a longtime Methodist Sunday school teacher? How does small-town Vermont, where the writer now lives, shape his ideas and activism? And what’s the best advice for anyone feeling overwhelmed by the enormity of what McKibben calls “the biggest fight of our time” - the fight to save the planet?

Editor's Note: This interview was filmed June 1, 2011 as part of YES! Magazine's 15th Anniversary Celebration. For the latest in the Keystone XL Pipeline fight, click here.

BOOK REVIEW: Urban Homesteading: Heirloom Skills for Sustainable Living

2012-02-11T12:06:00.000+10:30

by Oliver Lazenby, Yes! magazine: http://www.yesmagazine.org

Want to grow food and live the sustainable lifestyle but lack the space? Urban Homesteading: Heirloom Skills for Sustainable Living, by Rachel Kaplan with K. Ruby Blume, a glossy bible for self-sufficiency in the city, will have you tearing out your driveway to sow a garden, and diverting gray water to irrigate it.

The book’s beautifully presented and amply illustrated projects are all geared toward typical city-sized lots, and interspersed with case studies of actual homesteads and working urban farms, like the two-acre rooftop farm in Brooklyn, where greens grow amid rooftop vents.

Local food is central to this vision of urban sustainability, and the authors cover a lot of ground. They explain methods for growing, storing, preserving, and gleaning. Medicinal herbs, solar cooking, and even raising and butchering animals are described.

Projects for house-bound harvesters, including lesser-known foodie ventures like raising rabbits, cultivating mushrooms, and lacto-fermentation, make this not just a practical guide for homestead DIYers, but entertaining for armchair homesteaders too.

While producing food locally is arguably the best way to live lighter on the Earth and limit dependence on a flawed global economy, it’s not the limit of Kaplan and Blume’s appetites.

They also provide advice about storing rainwater and using gray water, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, designing for passive heating and cooling, building with cob, and reducing garbage production.

To read further, go to: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/the-yes-breakthrough-15/book-review-urban-homesteading?utm_source=wkly20120210&utm_medium=yesemail&utm_campaign=mrLazenby

Beyond the Bubble Economy: We've Finally Learned That a Growing Financial Sector Isn't the Same Thing as Actual Economic Improvement. So How Can We Stimulate the Real Economy?

2012-02-04T11:17:00.001+10:30

Image via Wikipediaby David Korten, Yes! magazine: http://www.yesmagazine.org

Public anger at the 2008 Wall Street bailout, concerns about debt, and a deep and pervasive fear that another financial crash is just a matter of time create an important moment of opportunity for a long overdue public conversation about the purpose of financial services and the necessary steps to assure that the financial sector fulfills that purpose.

Much of the recent discussion of financial reform has centered on limiting Wall Street excesses to curb fraud and reduce the risk of another financial crash. This is vitally important, but it does not address the issue raised by Sheila Bair shortly before she stepped down last year as FDIC chair:

“In policy terms, the success of the financial sector is not an end in itself, but a means to an end - which is to support the vitality of the real economy and the livelihood of the American people. What really matters to the life of our nation is enabling entrepreneurs to build new businesses that create more well-paying jobs, and enabling families to put a roof over their heads and educate their children.”

It is very straightforward. The proper purpose of the financial services sector is to serve the real economy on which everyone depends for their daily needs, their quality of life, and their opportunity to be creative, contributing members of their communities.

The proper purpose of the financial services sector is to serve the real economy on which everyone depends for their daily needs. By this standard of performance, Wall Street does not serve us well.

By this standard of performance, Wall Street does not serve us well. Indeed, Wall Street’s most lavish rewards go not to those who enable others to create wealth, but rather to those most skilled and ruthless in expropriating the wealth of others - behavior condemned as immoral by every major religion.

To justify their actions, Wall Street players and their apologists turn reality and logic on their heads by treating growth in the size and profitability of the financial sector as an end in itself, and a measure of increasing sector efficiency.

To read further, go to: http://www.yesmagazine.org/blogs/david-korten/beyond-the-bubble-economy?utm_source=wkly20120203&utm_medium=yesemail&utm_campaign=titleKorten

Beyond “Free” or “Fair” Trade: Mexican Farmers Go Local - We Usually Think of the Demand for Local, Organic Foods as Coming From the North. But in Southern Mexico, the Growing Localist Movement is a Strategy for Survival

2012-01-28T12:14:00.002+10:30

Image via Wikipediaby Mike Wold, Yes! magazine: http://www.yesmagazine.org

Tío Joel rode his small donkey down the dirt road to his greenhouse to show us his solution to keeping small farmers on their land in southern Mexico.

At about seventy years old, he could handle a machete or lift a 20-kilo sack of compost as easily as any of us, though the brace he wore around his waist was a sign of problems to come.

Trade policy in the United States usually gets cast into two opposing camps - "free" trade and "fair" trade, a dichotomy that assumes local production in the Global South must be sold elsewhere.

Taking a break from chopping green manure for compost for his popular tomatoes, he explained why a campesino like him could benefit from using organic methods: “In the harvest this year a lot of tomatoes were being harvested and the price went way down to five pesos per kilo, but we sell ours for seven. I go from house to house and sell it small-scale, but we sell out our tomatoes because they’re well-known … on Sunday we ran out of tomatoes, we sell so many.”

Trade policy in the United States usually gets cast into two opposing camps - "free" trade and "fair" trade, a dichotomy that assumes local production in the Global South must be sold elsewhere. Indeed, we usually think of the demand for local, organic foods as coming from North America or Europe.

But within countries like Mexico, there's another way to approach the issue, looking at global import and export versus local production and consumption. In the United States, it has emerged as the "localist" movement, which to many seems an unaffordable luxury compared to the accessibility of cheap imported food.

But in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico, raising and eating your own food and producing for the local market has become a strategy for cultural and economic survival in a hostile trade environment.

To read further, go to: http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/beyond-free-or-fair-trade-mexican-farmers-go-local?utm_source=wkly20120127&utm_medium=yesemail&utm_campaign=titleWold

Local Economies for a Global Future: Yes, We Need to Relocalize - But That Doesn’t Mean We're Headed for Provincialism. Anticipating Our Near-Heavy, Far-Light Future

2012-01-21T12:18:00.001+10:30

Image via Wikipediaby Jason F. McLennan, Yes! magazine: http://www.yesmagazine.org

This article is about a simple, singular idea, yet the significance of the idea to modern society is profound and far-reaching.

Here it is: In the near future anything heavy will become intensely local while at the same time the limits to things that are ‘light’, ideas, philosophies, information will travel even further than today - literally and figuratively. This is a new paradigm for humanity and it has huge implications for the complete reordering of society.

Environmentalists, economists, and sociologists agree: we are in an incredible state of flux, and this is simply the beginning. The planet is undergoing massive change and critical resources are diminishing, conditions to which the human race must respond. Population growth, resource scarcity and climate change will propel us, whether we like it or not, toward a new energy, food and resource paradigm.

The world’s economies, based on cheap plentiful energy and the exploitation of people and the environment are starting to crumble. We are beginning an era in which the cozy assumptions of the last half-century are turned upside down, a time when the institutions and technologies that run our civilization are re-engineered.

To understand how radical this new paradigm will be, let’s explore similar re-orderings in the past.

To read further, go to: http://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/local-economies-for-a-global-future?utm_source=wkly20120120&utm_medium=yesemail&utm_campaign=titleMcLennan

Supporting Biodiversity With Wildflowers in Urban Built Up Environments

2012-01-14T12:39:00.000+10:30

Image via WikipediaBy Paulus Thurlbeck

I've been reading various sustainability journals and magazines for over twenty years now. That is not a boast about length of time nor can I claim to be an expert on sustainability - yet I am an enthusiastic supporter of it.

Yet every time I put the journals down I am back in reality of inner city districts with little or no local projects in the way of nature and biodiversity support actually exist.

Having lived in urban areas I ponder how the disappearance/reduction of nature has disconnected people particularly children, teenagers and adolescents and they grow into adults assuming the concrete jungle is the norm.

I've believed in green cities since the 1970's when I passionately read (then) 'book of the future' that spoke of solar roofs, self-sufficiency, wind turbines, greener cities, vertical farming, electric cars etc. My expectations of how the early 21st-Century would turn out and the reality check are somewhat very different.

Just going off the subject of nature for a moment; having undertaken investigation into many social situations in human life the last ten years and having undertaken sustainability projects.

Please note I don't use the word 'eco' and prefer to use word 'green' sparingly as it often has a backlash of too many negative social connotations; images of idealism, re-invented hippies, failed 'eco-projects' that will not function in the real world - all of which conventionalist/contemporary good people (90% of us) just disengage from all too frequently.

Nursery

What started off as community garden project has expanded quite well over the decade. Starting with a few indigenous seedlings sourced from accredited organisations, with each successive year the wildflower population expanded which would then be distributed across the emerging projects. Up to twenty indigenous wildflowers were grown including:

Betony
Devisbit Scabious
Foxglove
Lesser Knapweed
Oxeye Daisy
Ragged Robin
Cowslip
Field Scabious
Greater knapweed
Marigold
Purple Loosestrife
Teasel

This list of wildflowers is not a comprehensive one - merely a starting block.

The Island Project

I did not like this project title as people immediately assume an island in the middle of the sea. It is actually a green island in the middle of a busy inner city - yet the analogy of peaceful island in the middle of a busy sea/road is apparent.

When I became aware of this place fifteen years ago, it was always cluttered with rubbish and dog fouling. There were a few bushes and trees there, yet the soil was bald and very compacted from years of destructive people walking, sleeping and urinating or worse there.

Plants were regularly destroyed, where drunks or vagrants would sleep there or just rip them up. Litter was prolific and a battle to keep on top of. The council did make efforts to clear it every month along with the rest of the street cleaning - yet I more interested in prevention as opposed to cure. How could the littering and nature destruction be reduced?

I did ponder what positive actions could be taken? I did add some seedlings of an indigenous nature yet they were small and soon destroyed. Having matured some plants and shrubs to one metre high I added them in successive years. These were not destroyed and gave an opportunity to begin to 'in-fill' the spaces between the new shrubs and the original ones.

Given the very dense compacted nature of the soil, holes were dug and several hundred dendra/composting worms from Nursery1's established wormery were added each few months. They would no doubt procreate and increase the worm population to make the soil more pliable.

The usual ten species of indigenous plants were slowly added and checked upon each few months to see if they'd be destroyed or not. It was an uphill battle, with more plants added, this deterred people from trying to sleep on the (now minimised) bald soil areas and therefore lower levels of litter were prevalent.

Field scabious, foxgloves and Greater knapweed seedlings were attracting bees and other beneficial insects which passersby would comment on the beauty of the nature and enjoying it so close the city centre. The brighter colours were cited as a reason to enjoy looking at the plants as commuters walked past the island.

Over the course of recent years I began to notice a lack of drunks or destructive members of the community were being replaced by students and professionals beginning to sit there on the island walls. By us complimenting a green space with a few indigenous species supporting seedlings and shrubs access became more widespread and appreciated.

University Planting/Biodiversity Project

Even though I've been on the payroll of a traditional university for the last nine years I do not claim to be an academic (I'm sure many people would agree with that!).

It has annoyed me constantly that as many universities thump the proverbial tub about the need to implement sustainability measures on all fronts of social inclusion, economic stability and environmental benign activity - it frequently smacks up as 'all talk no action' or a total lack of 'practice what you preach': all this talk about green implementation - I never actually see it happening about the University site.

For this I approached the Estates Department of this particular university and made some inroads. It is important to note you cannot just wade in like John Wayne and demand that you want to implement something; it is important to understand where the organisation is coming from.

The Estates division were very supportive of indigenous planting initiatives yet had more questions on how to fund it and how to maintain it, particularly in a challenging recession and reduced University budgets.

It was explained that they fully recognised that existing plants around any UK University may not necessarily be indigenous or species supportive - yet they are kept as they are easy to maintain and require (relatively) little effort as they are, for the most part, perennial therefore just requiring the yearly 'haircut'.

This concept is known as 'soft landscaping', it is embraced by many organisations as understandably they wish to have a green appearance to their precious green spaces 365 days a year as part of a positive business face.

We did offer to do all the work, cover the costs of seedlings, growing, maintaining, observation and any possible data collection. The Estates division very kindly allocated some space, dug out all weeds and put fresh soil down near to one of the universities faculties.

Planting began in the mid to late 2000's and monthly check ups were made to ensure all plants were developing okay. This was one of few projects where we did not have to constantly check for vandalism due to the universities decent security measures and a very hard working porter's team!

A flooding issue was identified in one of the pockets of the land and we specifically added teasel plants (amongst other plants) there to specifically absorb as much water as possible, make the soil more stronger and absorbable (this is an experiment and we'll get back to you with results on this in a few years time) and reduce the pathway flooding.

Many of you would recommend a sink hole be added by digging up the ground and throwing rocks in, then covering the ground again - that may be an option for another time, for now the interest is how the plants progress.

The end result? This is a token implementation pilot scheme which will encourage the staff and students in the mid 2010's to encourage planting around university buildings, the locale, the halls of residence or other buildings people may consider. I strongly recommend that the British Universities lead by example on this.

Producing a small article in the local student rag as well as the universities internal memo's will communicate the efforts being made and encourage others to join in or begin their own initiatives.

If the response rate is low? So be it - this was always recognised as a long term initiative and the subtle touch of people seeing the indigenous species and doing their own research and learning about the plants will encourage more sustainable land management and support systems in place.

It is intended that student conservation organisations will spread the work out. It is great that UK student bodies have gone out and executed some verge bashing and got rid of weeds etc. For decades now - so why not supplement this with an indigenous seedling planting programme for species support mechanisms around the university.

It only takes a few people in each university to begin such a process and hand it down to their successive peers each few years. It literally is a tokenism of a few hours per person can generate a strong signal to others and the results will obviously benefit our precious eco systems in urban built up areas.

College and School sanctuary

This was one of most contentious issues and a real challenge. To work in a 'good school' is almost a pointless venture (read on first!!) the good schools invariably have good management, efficient with money, they have a general positive culture backed by parents who will side with the school and all pull together quickly and efficiently to ensure an excellent education and upbringing for the 5-18 year olds.

Although I greatly praise these good school practices, I more interested in inner city tough and poor performing schools. Invariably in tough city districts you will find many a teenager disconnected from nature and actually rebelling against it; preferring to be at home in front of video games or on street with their mates bored out their minds.

This is not rebuke of our teenage nation, merely an observation of how things have evolved of the last thirty years. Many of you acknowledge this as a British cliche - yet we feel helpless and assume nothing can be done about it so we just get on with our own thing. Believe me when I say I am astounded by what our teenagers can pull off when they are empowered with the right tools.

I should point out that one particular school outwardly refused to have a recycling programme (as of 2010 when the other schools in the same district have implemented their own schemes in the mid 2000's!).

The local authority, Keep Wales Tidy, Wastesavers and other beneficial organisations offered to provide (for free) resources and services. Still an absolute 'No!' was given as the response to all these social and environmental improvement initiatives. It was little wonder morale was so poor. A change in management gave an opportunity to get things finally rolling.

The waste onsite had collected in the shrubs, trees and bushes over a very long period of time (and I mean ten to twenty years) so teams of litter pickers went out. Assuming one hours work per child, twenty pupils per group, and ten trips to the nature area equated to 200 hours of litter collection (150 black bags).

This barely made a dent - yet with a few more years work they should have whole area cleared. This was not entirely the schools fault that the litter had accrued there, rather a combination of the wind, local industry and the main road had contributed to the build up of litter.

The soil structure was very dense and much clay was there. Composters were added which would create soil over time. The final stage, some months later was adding some 200 indigenous species of seedlings which would support local insect populations. All this was explained to the pupils who were well aware of declining bee/butterfly/ladybird etc. populations, and now empowered with skills to actually do something about it.

The feedback off the 11-15 year olds was significant and they felt a connection with nature, mainly due to hands on work and a feeling of empowering skills.

All things progress - this may be common place in primary schools and nurseries for creating nature reserves, yet the main target should be secondary schools where many teens go through a period of social disconnection. They will get behind it when the project is spearheaded correctly.

Our children deserve every opportunity to connect with nature. Please do not assume all our children have access to fields, parks or even a garden. Please get in touch with your local schools, they may be grateful to have local experts or enthusiasts on board and support landscaping the nurseries/schools grounds. Together we can reconnect communities on some levels by supporting nature.

Overall:

The point of sharing this is - I'm doing nothing new, none of this is trailblazing or radical - merely a biodiversity practice that many of us could easily engage on their own. There is no point people complaining about how bad the locality (in Nature related terms) is - when we start doing something about it, like wildflower planting, only then will improvements become a reality.

I'm not saying planting wildflowers is the only solution, yet commencing such initiatives will help improve your locality in small steps. If you start something positive, others will continue it in their own way.

http://www.davius.co.uk

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Paulus_Thurlbeck
http://EzineArticles.com/?Supporting-Biodiversity-With-Wildflowers-in-Urban-Built-Up-Environments&id=6780873

Why Is Recycling Important?

2012-01-08T11:25:00.000+10:30

Image via WikipediaBy Erica E Balk

Recycling as we know it today came about as a result of the environmental movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Since that time the national recycling rate has increased from 7.3% to over 30%.

Unfortunately, despite the 'go green' mantra of the 2000's our national recycling rate has remained static at 33.8% over the last two decades.

But why should we be concerned with increasing our recycling rates? Why is recycling important? Here are the top four reasons why we should recycle.

Recycling reduces air and water pollution and reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions which contribute to global warming.

Recycling one ton of paper conserves:

17 trees
7,000 gallons of water
2 barrels of oil
4100 kilowatts of energy
2 cubic yards of landfill space

In addition, it prevents 60 pounds of air pollution.

Recycling is a gateway activity into other pro-environmental behaviors

Recycling is a relatively easy activity to engage in, and allows people to feel that they are making a difference without requiring major lifestyle changes. Once people see that 'going green' isn't a major hardship they are more willing to make other small changes in their lives, such as using energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs, spending less on heating and air-conditioning or composting yard and food wastes.

Recycling conserves landfill space

Landfill space is dwindling and many states are forced to export their waste. Today Americans produce approximately 4 pounds of garbage per person per day. This figure must be reduced to ensure future sustainability. Landfills are also unpopular with residents. Homes sited near a landfill experience a 5 to 10% reduction in property values versus comparable homes sited further away.

Recycling creates jobs

Sorting and processing recyclables sustains ten times more jobs per ton than landfilling. 10,000 tons of waste will sustain only one landfill job. 10,000 tons of compost sustains 4 jobs. 10,000 tons of recyclables collected sustains 10 jobs at a material recovery facility.

The news gets better in the manufacturing industry. That same 10,000 tons of recycled material sustains 18 jobs in the paper industry, 26 jobs in the glass industry and 93 jobs in the plastics industry. In computer reuse it sustains a whopping 296 jobs! In addition, manufacturing jobs average $47,700 per year, versus about half that in the landfill industry.

Summary

Recycling reduces our dependence on landfills, conserves resources, reduces pollution and stimulates the job market. Our future sustainability in terms of both environment and economy depend on these factors. For these reasons and more, governments must find ways to increase participation in local programs and in turn boost the national recycling rate.

For more information on recycling and job creation visit http://www.ilsr.org.

Erica Balk publishes the Tips for Recycling blog at http://www.tipsforrecycling.com. She is an MPA with over a decade of experience in the solid waste and recycling field. Visit http://www.tipsforrecycling.com for ways you can recycle at home, recycling games for kids, current news in the recycling field, and information for professionals looking to increase participation in their recycling programs.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Erica_E_Balk
http://EzineArticles.com/?Why-Is-Recycling-Important?&id=6796562

Defining Wind Generated Electrical Power and Discussing Pros and Cons of the Technology

2011-12-31T17:08:00.000+10:30

Image via WikipediaBy Charles A Juopperi

Introduction

Wind generated electrical power exists through harnessing wind-power energy with turbines. To fully understand wind generated electrical power, one must understand how wind powered electricity is made; resources needed to utilize wind power; types and sizes of wind turbines; building a wind turbine; potential positive and negative impacts of the technology; where wind powered electricity can be effectively generated; and, offsetting the costs of wind powered electrical technology.

How Wind Powered Electricity is Made

The technology of wind generated electrical power functions by creating electricity through the use of various styles of wind turbines. Initially, one might ask, "So how do wind turbines make electricity?" Simply said, a wind turbine works the opposite of a fan. Instead of using electricity to make wind, like a fan, wind turbines use wind to make electricity. The wind turns the blades, which spin a shaft, which connects to a generator and makes electricity.

Resources Needed to Utilize Wind Power

The primary resource of Wind powered technology is, of course, wind. Wind is very abundant in many parts of the United States and other parts of the world. Wind resources are branded by wind-power density classes, ranging from class 1 (the lowest) to class 7 (the highest). Good wind resources (e.g., class 3 and above, which have an average annual wind speed of at least 13 miles per hour) are found in many areas. Wind speed is a critical of wind resources, because the energy in wind is proportionate to the cube of the wind speed. In other words, a stronger wind means more power.

Wind resource development requires land and may compete with other uses of that land, and those alternative uses may be more highly valued than electricity generation. However, wind turbines can be positioned on land that is also used for grazing or even farming. Wherever a wind farm is to be built, roads are cut to make way for shipping parts. At each wind turbine location, the land is graded and the pad area is leveled. Wind energy also requires the building of wind turbines.

Types and Sizes of Wind Turbines

Modern wind turbines fall into two basic groups: the horizontal-axis variety and the vertical-axis design, like the eggbeater-style Darrieus model, named after its French inventor. Horizontal-axis wind turbines typically either have two or three blades. These three-bladed wind turbines are operated "upwind," with the blades facing into the wind. Darrieus models, or vertical-axis wind turbines, have two vertically oriented blades revolving around a vertical shaft.

In addition to different types, there are many different sizes of wind turbines. Utility-scale turbines range in size from 100 kilowatts to as large as several megawatts. Larger turbines are grouped together into wind farms, which provide bulk power to an electrical grid. Single small turbines, below 100 kilowatts, are used for homes, telecommunications, or water pumping.

Small turbines are sometimes used in connection with diesel generators, batteries, and photovoltaic systems. These systems are called hybrid wind systems and are typically used in remote, off-grid locations, where a connection to the utility grid is not available.

Building a Wind Turbine

The first step in building a wind turbine is setting up the tower where the fiberglass nacelle is installed. The nacelle is a strong, hollow casing that contains the inner workings of the wind turbine. Usually made of fiberglass, the nacelle contains the main drive shaft and the gearbox. Its inner workings also contain blade pitch and yaw controls. The nacelle is assembled and attached onto a base frame at a factory.

The most diverse use of materials and the most experimentation with new materials occur with the blades. Although the most dominant material used for the blades in commercial wind turbines is fiberglass with a hollow core, other materials in use include lightweight woods and aluminum. Wooden blades are solid, but most blades consist of a skin surrounding a core that is either hollow or filled with a lightweight substance such as plastic foam or honeycomb, or balsa wood.

Wind turbines also include a utility box, which converts the wind energy into electricity and which is located at the base of the tower. The generator and electronic controls are standard equipment whose main components are steel and copper. Various cables connect the utility box to the nacelle, while others connect the whole turbine to nearby turbines and to a transformer.

Potential Positive and Negative Effects of Wind Powered Electricity

There are a variety of potential positive and negative impacts of wind powered technology.

Potential positive impacts include:

- Wind energy is friendly to the surrounding environment, as no fossil fuels are burnt to generate electricity from wind energy.
- Wind turbines take up less space than the average power station. Windmills only have to occupy a few square meters for the base; this allows the land around the turbine to be used for many purposes, for example agriculture.
- Newer technologies are making the extraction of wind energy much more efficient. The wind is free, and we are able to cash in on this free source of energy.
- Wind turbines are a great resource to generate energy in remote locations, such as mountain communities and remote countryside.
- Wind turbines can be a range of different sizes in order to support varying population levels.
- When combined with solar electricity, this energy source is great for developed and developing countries to provide a steady, reliable supply of electricity.

Potential negative impacts include:

- Wind turbines generally produce less electricity than the average fossil fuelled power station, requiring multiple wind turbines to be built.
- Wind turbine construction can be very expensive and costly.
- Wind turbines can have a negative impact to surrounding wildlife during the build process.
- The noise pollution from commercial wind turbines is sometimes similar to a small jet engine.
- Protests and/or petitions usually confront any proposed wind farm development. People feel the countryside should be left intact for everyone to enjoy its beauty.

Where Wind Powered Electricity Can be Effectively Generated

Places in the world where wind blows strong and often, people and businesses can harness the wind as an option to use in the generation of electricity. Globally, these places include much of North America, southern South America, Greenland, most of Europe, Northern Africa, eastern Asia, most of Australia, and anywhere there are mountains or large hills. The top 5 countries producing electrical wind power in 2007 were: Germany, United States, Spain, India and China, respectively.

Considerable wind speeds also occur across oceans and large water bodies. Since most of the world's population lives near oceans, wind farms with strong offshore and onshore breezes could produce an abundant amount of electricity. On land in the USA, the major wind corridor is the Great Plains which includes the states of North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

The wind corridor also extends into the states west to the great mountains west, including eastern Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico. There are also considerable wind resources in eastern and southern Minnesota and the entire state of Iowa, diminishing south through Missouri and east through southern Wisconsin and northern Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. Parts of New York and the New England states also have considerable wind.

The Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that wind power could supply the US with 100% of its electricity, just from the Great Plains wind corridor or from offshore wind farms alone. According to the "Pickens Plan," a $10 billion wind farm with 2500 generators can supply enough energy for 1.3 million homes, and for $1 trillion the Great Plains wind corridor could supply 20% of America's electricity. That would be about 250,000 generators to supply 130 million homes.

In a report published by the U.S. Department of Energy, "20% Wind Energy by 2030: Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply," that report concluded that:

- Reaching 20% wind energy will require enhanced transmission infrastructure, streamlined siting and permitting regimes, improved reliability and operability of wind systems, and increased U.S. wind manufacturing capacity.
- Achieving 20% wind energy will require the number of turbine installations to increase from approximately 2000 per year in 2006 to almost 7000 per year in 2017.
- Integrating 20% wind energy into the grid can be done reliably for less than 0.5 cents per kWh.
- Achieving 20% wind energy is not limited by the availability of raw materials.
- Addressing transmission challenges such as siting and cost allocation of new transmission lines to access the nation's best wind resources will be required to achieve 20% wind energy.

Offsetting the Costs of Wind Powered Electrical Technology

Although wind generated electrical power seems to be an unlimited resource, and, the best wind sites appear to be competitive with market electricity prices in most U.S. regions, several factors exist that make it a less appealing source of alternative energy in terms of economic cost. First off, wind is not uniformly priced resource. Its costs vary widely depending on project scale, wind speed, region, and other factors. Second, the benchmark for comparison with wind to other fuels varies regionally. Third, extra revenue is required to make a project viable, sunk costs are considerable.

To offset the factors that make wind powered electricity a less appealing source of alternative energy and promote its continued growth, wind energy in many areas receives some financial or other support to encourage development. Wind energy benefits from subsidies either to increase its attractiveness or to compensate for subsidies received by other forms of production, such as coal and nuclear, which have significant negative impacts.

In the United States, wind power receives a tax credit for each Kilowatt hour produced; that was 1.9 cents per Kilowatt hour in 2006. The tax the credit has a yearly inflationary adjustment. Many American states also provide incentives, such as exemption from property tax, mandated purchases, and additional markets for "green credits." The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 contain extensions of credits for wind, including micro-turbines.

Secondary market forces also provide incentives for businesses to use wind-generated power, even if there is a premium price for the electricity, socially responsible manufacturers pay utility companies a premium that goes to subsidize and build new wind power groundwork. Companies use wind-generated power, and in return they can claim that they are making a "green" effort.

Undoubtedly, further tax credits, subsidies and incentives will also be needed to achieve the goal of 20% Wind Energy by 2030. Today, wind power approximately accounts for about 2% of the electricity generated in the United States.

Summary

The technology of wind generated electrical power functions by creating electricity through the use of various styles of wind turbines is a very viable alternative energy. Although wind generated electrical power does have some negative impacts, this author feels that in terms of long-term cost and benefit compared with other types of energy, such as the burning of fossil fuels, using a renewable resource such as wind generated electrical power economically, environmentally, and socially is making more and more sense.

Charles Juopperi invites you to do your part in energy conservation by purchasing Green, ROHS, and Energy Star compliant products at his website eDiscount Electronics: http://stores.ediscount-electronics.com. When you buy products from us, you can rest assured that your doing your part for the environment while finding the lowest prices around. eDiscount Electronics sells discount wholesale desktops, servers, notebooks, tablets, audio equipment, HDTV's, and other types of consumer electronics. Please visit us today. Orders over $1000 ship free!

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Charles_A_Juopperi
http://EzineArticles.com/?Defining-Wind-Generated-Electrical-Power-and-Discussing-Pros-and-Cons-of-the-Technology&id=6770264