What if Indians Lived in Canada?

And talking about the phone book...

Nov 11, 2010

I just found that New York and 3 other states have requested Verizon to stop printing phone books.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/companies-to-stop-publishing-white-pages-residential-phone-book-111110

Poll: how often do you use yellow pages?

I noticed that there is a big stack of Yellow Pages books outside of my building and it reminded me that the YP are still relevant [?], with the majority of people using 'smart' phones, any information that is located in the yellow pages can easily be obtained from most smart phones. The White Pages book which contain people's phone numbers can also be accessed via Internet (if there isn't an ap for that). Having said that:

Do you use the Yellow Pages?
Do you think these books should be eliminated (at least for big cities)?
Do you know how much does it cost to produce YP book? or where the money comes from?

Please answer these questions (living in US). I know that at least for my building they are ignored and eventually thrown away.

Wanna See What Artantica Looks Like? Google's Street View Ban Was There!

too awsome

In case you were not sure whether you should go or not on your next vacation.

Full story: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-09/google-street-view-expands-antarctica-now-all-seven-continents

Zara's Environmental Policy Statement

I am a very loyal customer of Zara because their style fits my fancy. Besides, is affordable. I just got winter boots today!
 This past week, I had to find an environmental policy statement of a company and critique it. I did not use Zara's statement but I want to share it for my future reference and perhaps because it will be useful in the future (in case the company is involved in a scandal). Note their animal welfare paragraph as well as how they use transportation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Mission Statement


Environmental policy

Through Zara’s business model, we aim to contribute to the sustainable development of society and that of the environment with which we interacts. The company's commitment to the environment is included in Inditex Group’s Corporate Responsibility Statement, published on our website: www.inditex.com.

The following are some of the objectives and actions included in the framework of the group's environmental commitment and have a direct impact on our shops and customers:

At the store

- We save energy.

- The eco-friendly shop.

- We produce less waste, and recycle.

- Our commitment extends to all our staff.

- An environmentally aware team.

We save energy. The eco-friendly store.

We are implementing an eco-friendly management model in our shops in order to reduce energy consumption by 20%, introducing sustainability and efficiency criteria. This management model sets out measures to be applied to all processes, including the design of the shop itself, the lighting, heating and cooling systems and the possibility of recycling furniture and decoration.

We produce less waste and recycle. Recycling hangers and alarms, which are picked up from our shops and processed into other plastic elements, is an example of our waste management policy. Millions of hangers and alarms are processed each year and both the cardboard and plastic used for packaging are also recycled.

- Our commitment extends to all our staff. Increased awareness among our team members.

We hold In-company awareness campaigns and specific multimedia-based training programmes to educate our staff in sustainable practices, such as limiting energy consumption, using sustainable transport and modifying behaviour patterns.

With the product

- We use ecological fabrics.

- Organic cotton.

- We manufacture PVC-free footwear.

We use ecological fabrics. Organic cotton.

Zara supports organic farming and makes some of its garments out of organic cotton (100% cotton, completely free of pesticides, chemicals and bleach). They have specific labels and are easy to spot in our shops.

We produce PVC-free footwear. No petroleum derivatives or non-biodegradable materials are used in the production of our footwear (PVC free).

In transport

- We use biodiesel fuel.

Zara's fleet of lorries, which transport more than 200 million items of clothing a year, use 5% biodiesel fuel. This allows us to reduce our CO2 emissions by 500 tons.

Animal welfare policy

All products of animal origin sold in our shops, including fur and leather, come exclusively from animals raised on food farms and under no circumstances

C.I.A. Chief Lists Population as a Top Concern - NYTimes.com

C.I.A. Chief Lists Population as a Top Concern - NYTimes.com

Coming Soon!

I want to be more active in this blog and I have been thinking of posting a photo everyday, or every other day about something...not environmentish/nasty I see around this wonderful city. I hope you will enjoy it! Stay tuned.

California Braces for Showdown on Environmental Law - NYTimes.com

California Braces for Showdown on Environmental Law - NYTimes.com

Population Dynamics Part II

Does the Earth's Future Depend on Ovaries and Sperm?

I Posted a similar topic earlier last year, but this time I have numbers:

Most Populated Countries  (Source WHO)

Total Population China: 1,328,474,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 4,660
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 24

Total Population India: 1,151,751,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 2,460
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 76

Total Population USA: 302,841,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 44,070
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 8


Indonesia: 228,864,000
 Gross national income per capita (PPP international $):3,310
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 34


Total Popultion Brazil: 189,323,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 8,700
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 20


My Island
Total Population Dominican Republic: 9,615,000
Gross national income per capita (PPP international $): 5,550
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births): 29

For China and India, a high population does not equate higher income. For China in particular, this means there is a big discrepancy between labor and personal economic growth in the long run, as there are high number of industries situated in China (i.e., companies from overseas). As you may have heard before, China has surpassed the U.S. as the number one producer of [CO2] but can you blame them? A significant amount of Chinese still use coal as their primary source of electricity. In remote villages, people still have very simple and traditional lives, while in big cities such as Beijing the number of millionaires continues to grow.

As we know, the Chinese realized they needed regulate their population and thus imposed the one child policy (though there are exceptions according to ethnicity, family background). But Did it work?

In India there is no such policy and their high population is a significant contributor to the severe poverty currently afflicting the country. However, the Indian culture encourages education and the number of Indians becoming doctors, engineers, lawyers, etc…continues to grow. But a big number of eduated Indians realize the opportunities they may havein Europe and U.S. and emigrate. Besides, can you really study when you’re hungry?
Literacy in India, source UNICEF
Youth (15–24 years) literacy rate, 2003–2007*, male 87
Adult literacy rate: females as a % of males, 2003–2007* 71

Sometime ago I read an article that highlights a new emerging problem in China (and India) as a consequence of the one child policy (though India does not have such policy): a huge discrepancy between the number of boys and girls. Aborted girl fetuces  (and infanticide) in each country (because of cultural and economical reasons) has lead to a low number of females (brides) for the big number of males (grooms). So the love-seeking-want to-be-grooms have no choice but to look in other regions or look abroad.
Similar article from Scientific American http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=there-are-more-boys-than-girls

I think most of us would glance at the numbers I posted above, but even in a short time it’s not hard to figure out that a large number of people are really suffering from hunger, disease, and poor quality of life, and though China and India are not the only countries in which this is happening, their massive populations really has an impact on their food supply, as well as how much the government can help in terms of health care and welfare benefits.
Malnutrition in India NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/world/asia/09food.html]

And so a question remains what should we do about our population problem? Do you actually think we have a population problem? For how much longer can the earth sustain the growing number of humans populating the Earth like mad rabbits? What can we learn from countries with a high level of education, high income, and low birth rates?
It’s not hard to figure out that I  support  population control. I think it will bring prosperity, decrease stress due to food supply, and encourage economic prosperity. Even waiting longer to reproduce can have a positive economic impact on the family. But there are many obstacles worth researching.

What’s your opinion?!

Test Your Global Warming Knowledge by Taking this FUN Test!

Go here!

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

Anything surpricing?

what did you score!?

Google Energy Signs 20-Year, 114 MW Wind Power Contract : TreeHugger

Google Energy Signs 20-Year, 114 MW Wind Power Contract : TreeHugger

Aircraft could stay in the air indefinitely, charging batteries from sun's rays

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38142746/ns/technology_and_science

(Sad but Funny!!) Suffering Blue Whales Plead With Environmentalists To Let Them Go Extinct Already

NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN—Claiming that their miserable lives had become too depressing to endure, the world's remaining blue whales surfaced Monday and desperately pleaded with environmentalists to immediately cease all conservation efforts so the species could "just be done with it and finally go extinct."
The planet's last few thousand blue whales gathered around the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior in the Bering Sea at approximately 9:45 a.m., thanking the activists on board for their good intentions, but also stating that the oceans had become so polluted, they had decided it was simply not worth going on.
"We really appreciate all you've done for us, but now you need to let us die," intoned a 170-ton blue whale through a series of deep and mournful vocalizations. "I swallowed two plastic coolers, a tire, and about a hundred gallons of oil this morning. Is that any way to live?"
The whale reportedly delivered an angry 45-minute speech complaining about the debilitating noise of naval sonar, excruciating collisions with massive ocean vessels, the lack of mates who haven't been tagged for some scientific experiment, depleted sources of krill, and the very high likelihood of getting cancer from the PCBs in the water.
"I know you've been really excited about helping us ever since that whole 'Save the Whales' craze began back in the '70s," the whale said. "But I think we can agree that the past 35 years have basically been a death march, so let's just part ways."
"We had a good run," added the creature, who requires 1.5 million calories each day to survive. "But species come and go. It's a natural cycle and we are at peace with it.
The consortium of blue whales admitted they had begun beaching themselves on purpose, and ordered the environmentalists to stop wasting time organizing volunteers who only prevent the suicidal creatures from experiencing the sweet release of death. They also urged the activists to end their practice of collecting signatures for petitions and to put their efforts into something that has a chance of succeeding, such as saving historic buildings.
The massive whales reportedly let out anguished moans and slapped their 10-foot flippers against the water in frustration, explaining that they were "obviously at an evolutionary dead end, not having developed the ability to breathe garbage."
"If Greenpeace really cared, you wouldn't let us suffer like this," one whale said. "Sure, maybe you helped stabilize our population for a while, but our lives totally suck. Besides, with global warming and everything, all ocean life is going to die anyway, so why prolong the agony?"

Though the largest creatures ever to inhabit the planet insisted that the environmental group could only help them by encouraging Japan to keep hunting them and deploying as many exploding harpoons as possible, Greenpeace spokesperson Jill Kirkpatrick said the organization was reluctant to follow the blue whales' orders to abandon efforts to protect them.
"A lot of us have invested years of their lives to saving the whales," Kirkpatrick said. "The whales will die off when we say they'll die off."
The giant ocean mammals finally suggested that if the environmentalists couldn't bring themselves to allow the whales to go peacefully, they could always look at the hours upon hours of documentary footage of the forlorn creatures to recall their once-majestic ways.
"I know it's hard to say goodbye, but you'll understand it someday yourselves," the magnificent whale said as its 102-foot-long body breached the water. "In fact, you'll be begging for the same thing in about 25 years."


(the onion)

Looks Like BP Needs To Follow Its Own Advise

What's The Meaning of "One Picture is Worth A Thousand Words"?

My response to the link below

British Petroleum (formaly Beyond Petroleum) made a pretty big claim by saying they will "clean every drop of oil" mainly because EPA (therefore US gov) is putting a lot  more pressure on BP. And with pictures circulating on the internet of powerless birds, turtles, fish, eggs, crabs, covered with oil, there is  growing  public outrage. In addition, the shrimp industry is already suffering. Obama's administration is probably analyzing how this disaster -and the their response-will affect his legacy and his second term presidency campaign.


BP seems to be fighting to cover all the information they can before real numbers (of gallons, and enviromental effects) are fully calculated. Thus independent experts and scientists already made their own estimates. Last time I checked (this morning, Metro) it was 3 million, but I think this may be a very conservative number.



This story has a long way to go. And yes, I do think the response will affect the Obama's administraton second term elections (and thus the outcome). The response from EPA has been very passive.I get daily updates through EPA news and I havent read anything worth reading. It has been 33 days since the incident and they are still letting BP take care of bussiness under their conditions and under their technological abilities (though I recognize there arent that many choices anyway). Who would have thought there could ever be an accident of some sort! outrageous! impossible!

BP has already been fined the biggest fine in the history of fines for the explosion in a refinery in 2008. We will see what kind of fine they will face for this accident. They are playing with our lives and with our enviroment. And the enviromental consequences last more than the profit that they make ( in my opinion).

BP vows to 'clear every drop of oil off the shore' - CNN.com

BP vows to 'clear every drop of oil off the shore' - CNN.com

Environmental crisis plagues Southern Italy - CNN.com

Environmental crisis plagues Southern Italy - CNN.com

BBC News - Oil spill sparks new drilling ban

BBC News - Oil spill sparks new drilling ban

Here Comes the Sun, in High Definition - AOL News

Here Comes the Sun, in High Definition - AOL News

HAPPY EARTH DAY!

Justices Reject Ban on Videos of Animal Cruelty

By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — In a major First Amendment ruling, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a federal law that made it a crime to create or sell dogfight videos and other depictions of animal cruelty.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority in the 8-to-1 decision, said that the law had created “a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth” and that the government’s aggressive defense of the law was “startling and dangerous.”

The decision left open the possibility that Congress could enact a narrower law that would pass constitutional muster. But the existing law, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, covered too much speech protected by the First Amendment.

It has been more than a quarter-century since the Supreme Court placed a category of speech outside the protection of the First Amendment. Tuesday’s resounding and lopsided rejection of a request that it do so, along with its decision in Citizens United in January — concluding that corporations may spend freely in candidate elections — suggest that the Roberts Court is prepared to adopt a robustly libertarian view of the constitutional protection of free speech.

And in the next couple of months, the court is set to decide several other important First Amendment cases about anonymous speech, the right of free association and a federal law that limits speech supporting terrorist organizations.

Tuesday’s decision arose from the prosecution of Robert J. Stevens, an author and small-time film producer who presented himself as an authority on pit bulls. He did not participate in dogfights, but he did compile and sell videotapes showing the fights, and he received a 37-month sentence under a 1999 federal law that banned trafficking in “depictions of animal cruelty.”

Dogfighting and other forms of animal cruelty have long been illegal in all 50 states. The 1999 law addressed not the underlying activity but rather trafficking in recordings of “conduct in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed.”

It did not matter whether the conduct was legal when and where it occurred so long as it would have been illegal where the recording was sold. Some of Mr. Stevens’s videos, for instance, showed dogfighting in Japan, where the practice is legal.

The government argued that depictions showing harm to animals were of such minimal social worth that they should receive no First Amendment protection at all. Chief Justice Roberts roundly rejected that assertion. “The First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter or its content,” he wrote.

The chief justice acknowledged that some kinds of speech — including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement and speech integral to criminal conduct — have historically been granted no constitutional protection. But he said the Supreme Court had no “freewheeling authority to declare new categories of speech outside the scope of the First Amendment.”

Chief Justice Roberts rejected the government’s analogy to a more recent category of unprotected speech, child pornography, which the court in 1982 said deserved no First Amendment protection. Child pornography, the chief justice said, is “a special case” because the market for it is “intrinsically related to the underlying abuse.”

Having concluded that the First Amendment had a role to play in the analysis, Chief Justice Roberts next considered whether the 1999 law swept too broadly.

The law was enacted mainly to address what a House report called “a very specific sexual fetish” — so-called crush videos.

“Much of the material featured women inflicting the torture with their bare feet or while wearing high-heeled shoes,” according to the report. “In some video depictions, the woman’s voice can be heard talking to the animals in a kind of dominatrix patter.”

When President Bill Clinton signed the bill, he expressed reservations, prompted by the First Amendment, and instructed the Justice Department to limit prosecutions to “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.”

The law, said Wayne Pacelle, the president of the Humane Society of the United States, “almost immediately dried up the crush video industry.”

But prosecutions under the law appear to have been pursued only against people accused of trafficking in dogfighting videos.

The federal appeals court in Philadelphia struck down the law in 2008 in Mr. Stevens’s case, overturning his conviction. Tuesday’s decision in United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769, affirmed the appeals court’s ruling.

In it, Chief Justice Roberts said the law was written too broadly. Since all hunting is illegal in the District of Columbia, for instance, he said, the law makes the sale of magazines or videos showing hunting a crime here.

“The demand for hunting depictions exceeds the estimated demand for crush videos or animal fighting depictions by several orders of magnitude,” he wrote.

The law contains an exception for materials with “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.” Those exceptions were insufficient to save the statute, the chief justice wrote.

“Most hunting videos, for example, are not obviously instructional in nature,” he said, “except in the sense that all life is a lesson.”

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented, saying the majority’s analysis was built on “fanciful hypotheticals” and would serve to protect “depraved entertainment.” He said it was implausible to suggest that Congress meant to ban depictions of hunting or that the practice amounted to animal cruelty.

Chief Justice Roberts replied that Justice Alito “contends that hunting depictions must have serious value because hunting has serious value, in a way that dogfights presumably do not. “But, he went on, the 1999 law “addresses the value of the depictions, not of the underlying activity.”

The exchange was unusual, as Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are almost always on the same side. In the last term, the two justices, both appointed by President George W. Bush, agreed 92 percent of the time, more than any other pair of justices.

Justice Alito said the analogy to child pornography was a strong one. The activity underlying both kinds of depictions are crimes, he wrote. Those crimes are difficult to combat without drying up the marketplace for depictions of them and both kinds of depictions contribute at most minimally to public discourse, he added.

A number of news organizations, including The New York Times Company, filed a brief urging the court to rule in favor of Mr. Stevens.

Chief Justice Roberts concluded his majority opinion by suggesting that a more focused law “limited to crush videos and other depictions of extreme animal cruelty” might survive First Amendment scrutiny.

Mr. Pacelle, of the Humane Society, called for a legislative response to Tuesday’s ruling. “Congress should within a week introduce narrowly crafted legislation,” he said, “to deal with animal crush videos and illegal animal fighting activities.”

Big Win For Animal Activists and Carriage Horses

Hello Progressive Earth followers, some of you may know that I have been involved in the cause of trying to eliminate carriage horses in Central Park. The devate has been going on for a while now, and most people with common sense will agree that NYC is no place for horses to be walking around, among traffic and the pollution of NYC. This is an e-mail that was sent to me from the office of counsil speaker Quinn, she has a lot influence in the outcome.

Dear Ms. Duarte,


On April 14th, after many months of discussion and debate, the NYC Council passed legislation, introduced by Council Member James Gennaro, that will result in better working conditions and improved safety for carriage horses in New York City.


Now, I realize this may fall short of what some had hoped for.
My colleagues and I have done our best to strike a fair balance between having stronger regulations in place to protect these special animals and allowing the carriage horse industry, which supports approximately 300 families, to continue functioning.


In addition to prohibiting carriages from operating below 34th Street and from operating between 3 a.m. and 7 a.m., the bill also ensures that horses will have five weeks of vacation per year. It also sets lower and upper age limits for carriage horses and doubles the number of required annual veterinary visits for all working horses. Furthermore, horses will be given larger stalls and heavy and waterproof blankets to wear when the weather is cold or rainy.


And because the safety of drivers, horses and pedestrians is of paramount concern to all of us, we have included requirements for:


Reflective material on all carriages;


An emergency brake system on all carriages,


Additional training time for new drivers; and


Drivers licenses for new horse carriage drivers.

 Finally, the legislation that we passed increases the rates for horse carriage rides so that they are equivalent to rates charged for other tourist attractions in New York City.
I want to thank you and everyone else who came out in such strong support for these animals. I believe in time we will see this as a positive step forward for these horses and the carriage horse industry.


I want to assure you as well that we will be vigilant in our efforts to ensure that the provisions and requirements of our law are being met and that every effort is being made to improve the health and well-being of these horses.

 Thanks again for sharing your views and advocating on behalf of these special animals.




Sincerely,


Christine C. Quinn


Speaker

Cage-Free vs. Battery-Cage Eggs : The Humane Society of the United States

Cage-Free vs. Battery-Cage Eggs : The Humane Society of the United States

McDonald’s Board Opposes Cage-Free Eggs for U.S. - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com

McDonald’s Board Opposes Cage-Free Eggs for U.S. - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com

Download Interactive Free Copy of National Geographic "water"

March 2010 interactive copy of NG, in which they also talk about of a very important and emerging organization called Blue Water, among other important news about water world wide. Just register to get free copy and de-select any advertising.

Enjoy!

http://www.zinio.com/my-library.jsp?_requestid=1525838

Despite Mild Winter and Few Hunters, Seal Pups Face Threats - NYTimes.com

Despite Mild Winter and Few Hunters, Seal Pups Face Threats - NYTimes.com

Sniffing Out Bedbugs - The New York Times > Home & Garden > Slide Show > Slide 1 of 8

Sniffing Out Bedbugs - The New York Times > Home & Garden > Slide Show > Slide 1 of 8

Whales, Like Trees, Slow Warming : Discovery News

Whales, Like Trees, Slow Warming : Discovery News

Senator urges EPA to restrict plastics chemical (AP) | Yahoo! Green

Senator urges EPA to restrict plastics chemical (AP) Yahoo! Green

Particelle dal centro della terra per il segreto dei terremoti - Repubblica.it

Particelle dal centro della terra per il segreto dei terremoti - Repubblica.it

Nike Creates World Cup Jerseys From Landfill Plastic : TreeHugger

Nike Creates World Cup Jerseys From Landfill Plastic : TreeHugger

Please support "The Coalition of Ban Horse-Drawn Carriages" in NYC

There has been a lot of controversy on whether tourist horse carriages should be banned in NYC. I am pro-ban as most of you know. I trully believe there is no place for horses in the street filled with cars, noise, and exhaust. But besides not being good for the animal, it is also dangerous for people as it is very umpredictable when one horse will snap and possibly hurt someone, and there is always the probability there will be a crash between a car/taxi and the horse carriages also causing damage and injury. There are also other alternatives that are just as good and fun as horse carriages; pedicabs. They are environmentally friendly and more safe.

Please sign the petition, donate if you can or subscribe for news and progress. You will supporting a great cause that makes sense.

http://www.banhdc.org/index.shtml

Home | State of the Planet 2010

Home State of the Planet 2010

Criticism Towards Andrew Revkin

I have posted the previous entry in one of the conferences at school and to my surprice a few students where less than pleased by the article. Apparently-and this was unknown to me-Andrew have made a name  for himself in both sides of the argument. Some believe in the research he does for his journalism but some claim he also contributed towards the fabrication and exageration of the climate climate issue. Since some of you may not be familiar with the recent "climate gate" in which there was few e-mails leaked containing information of scientists going back and foward in which they state  that some of the data regarding climate change is not reliable. This article courtecy of a fellow student.

The Amazing Revkin

Written By: Paul Chesser

Published In: American Spectator blog

Publication date: 03/13/2009

Publisher: American Spectator



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

It’s a rare occasion when you find a global warming alarmist willing to debate a skeptic in public, as happened last month in North Carolina when atmospheric scientist John Christy went up against William Schlesinger, president of the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. It’s probably because alarmists don’t like when their clocks get cleaned.

So what do the skeptics do when their cowardly opponents run away? They throw a party for themselves!

That’s what happened this week in New York, when The Heartland Institute hosted its second International Conference on Climate Change. As opposed to staging a sad affair in which an imaginary consensus of scientists discharge doom-and-gloom scenarios due to excessive engine combustions and mammalian exhalations, my fellow challengers to anthropogenic global warming theory conducted an uplifting, thought-stirring summit. The goal: good science, and how to stop the alarmists from driving energy prices and business regulations upward in the name of averting a contrived climate emergency.

But if there’s one flaw with these lovable libertarians, it’s that they still crave attention from those who practice journalism-formerly-known-as-mainstream. Instead of contentedness with blogs and bursts of information rifling around the ‘Net, they pine for the sunshine of a friendly gaze from reporters on life support. It’s like Derek Smalls eyeing Pamela Des Barres for a little intimacy after the show, but he gets dissed because she’s transfixed by Jim Morrison.\

Similarly the bass-playing Heartlanders got the enviro-groupie treatment from the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin, who favors the established rock stars of environmentalism. The author of Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast (or “I’m with Al Gore’s Band”) and The North Pole Was Here (or “Let’s Spend the Night Together, Jim Hansen”) previewed the event -- held in Manhattan -- only because he couldn’t ignore the up-and-comers in his own backyard.

Not surprisingly he dashed their hopes of groovin’ around and around, and instead applied the usual Society of Environmental Journalists’ marginalization template:

More than 600 self-professed climate skeptics are meeting in a Times Square hotel this week to challenge what has become a broad scientific and political consensus: that without big changes in energy choices, humans will dangerously heat up the planet.
As is common with sycophants who ingratiate themselves to the objects of their literary affection, Revkin defended their honor by ignoring two options that Encarta, for one, offers as the definition of “consensus:”


con?sen?sus

1. general or widespread agreement among all the members of a group


2. a concept of society in which the absence of conflict is seen as the equilibrium state of society
Neither entry would appropriately apply to Revkin’s alleged scientific or political consensus. He cannot, without contortioned countenance, credibly claim there is widespread agreement – either scientific or political. Nor can he assert there’s an absence of conflict over the issue, unless he only spends time in his SEJ/big government science echo chamber. Given that Revkin fits so snugly in the Times’ journalistic lineup, where the themes of his books are a boon to his bio, it does not surprise that all he emphasizes are the enviro-reverbs.

It’s not like he’s unaware of the non-consensus evidence; he just suppresses or ignores it. While Sen. James Inhofe’s list of 650 dissenting scientists and the Oregon Petition Project’s less rigorous, but still significant, 31,000 names hang in the room like bong smoke, Revkin tries to overcome the aroma with IPCC incense:

But two years after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with near certainty that most of the recent warming was a result of human influences, global warming’s skeptics are showing signs of internal rifts and weakening support.

What a shock: Pro-big government media promotes big multi-government (that wants big one-world government) organizational effort to advocate for big government-sponsored computer modeling masked as big government pseudo-science. With all these heavy hands, it’s a marvel that the IPCC could only muster 52 scientists to contribute to their alarmist Summary for Policymakers.
Then there’s public opinion. In a January poll Rasmussen found that more respondents believed that global warming was due to planetary trends rather than human causes. And in another Rasmussen survey last month, 54 percent of respondents said the news media exaggerates threats to the planet from global warming. Pew also found in January that of 20 policy issues it asked people to rank in importance, global warming fell last. In addition, a poll by the National Center for Public Policy Research last summer found an overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to spend any more on gasoline or electricity to address global warming, as is proposed under the Lieberman/Warner bill.

And finally, this week Gallup found a record-high 41 percent believe the media exaggerates the threat of global warming. “This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject,” the polling firm reported.
The Amazing Revkin noted the Gallup findings on his blog with a inquisitive “what’s going on” tone, inviting readers to fill up his comments section. Many fellow eco-toadies responded. Meanwhile the New York Times is selling both its building and its corporate jet, thanks to circulation and revenue declines. Go figure.


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

Paul Chesser is a special correspondent for The Heartland Institute and is director of Climate Strategies Watch. The views he expresses do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.

Human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact.

I want to share this article because I know you are more likely to read if I post it here, than if I post the link [ dot Earth Feb 17th, Andrew C. Revkin].
How do we know this to be true? What does it take to get something established as fact? I will try to explain this quandary here the same way that I explain it to myself.
We have come to understand that nothing happens in this world expect as allowed by the laws of physics. What this means is that for every physical action there is going to be a well-defined cause, and a well-defined effect. Quantum mechanical weirdness that operates at atomic scale does not invalidate this physical description of the macroscopic range that is of interest.

Human experience has demonstrated that it is through measurement and physics that we understand the world that we live in. The term “physics” includes also the mathematical description of these laws which permits mathematical models to be constructed to conduct virtual experiments of real-world situations.

In this way, by utilizing global-mean decadal-average quantities, we have come to understand that water vapor accounts for 50 percent of the (33 K, 60 deg F) greenhouse effect. Longwave absorption by clouds contributes 25 percent, and CO2 accounts for 20 percent. The remaining 5 percent of the greenhouse effect is split between methane, N2O, CFCs, ozone, and aerosols. Significantly, CO2 and the minor GHGs do not condense or precipitate at current atmospheric temperatures. This provides a stable reference temperature structure for the fast feedback processes to operate and maintain the amounts of atmospheric water vapor and clouds at their quasi-equilibrium concentrations. Hence the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse is sustained and effectively controlled by the atmospheric temperature floor that is provided by CO2 and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases. (More detail is contained in my Greenhouse Tutorial which is a related supporting commentary.)


The bottom line is that CO2 is absolutely, positively, and without question, the single most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It acts very much like a control knob that determines the overall strength of the Earth’s greenhouse effect. Failure to control atmospheric CO2 is a bad way to run a business, and a surefire ticket to climatic disaster.


My earlier criticism had been that the IPCC AR4 report was equivocating in not stating clearly and forcefully enough that human-induced warming of the climate system is established fact, and not something to be labeled as “very likely” at the 90 percent probability level. It would seem that the veracity of the human-induced warming would hinge on establishing the pedigree of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. On this point, the IPCC report is crystal clear. Pages 137-140 of IPCC AR4 describe high-precision in situ measurements of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa, documenting the steady increase in CO2 along with its characteristic seasonal fluctuation. These measurements, supplemented by analyses of air bubbles trapped in ice core samples, show unequivocally that atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial level of 277 ppm in 1750 to present day concentrations that are approaching 390 ppm.

The IPCC report also shows the corresponding decrease in atmospheric oxygen, thus providing irrefutable verification that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is linked directly to fossil fuel oxidation. In Chapter 7, the IPCC report states it clearly: “the increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases during the industrial era are caused by human activities”. Undoubtedly, volcanic eruptions have contributed some atmospheric CO2, but this can only be miniscule as neither the 1991 Pinatubo eruption (largest of the century), nor the 1986 Lake Nyos CO2 eruption that killed thousands, so much as registered a blip in the Mauna Loa CO2 record.


In view of all this, the IPCC AR4 Chapter 9 Executive Summary states that: “It is likely (66 percent probability) that there has been a substantial anthropogenic contribution to surface temperature increases in every continent except Antarctica since the middle of the 20th century.” How can this be considered anything other than inaccurate and misleading?


To understand climate change, it is necessary to know the radiative forcings that drive the climate system away from its reference equilibrium state. These radiative forcings have been analyzed and evaluated by Hansen et al. (2005, 2007). They include changes in solar irradiance, greenhouse gases, tropospheric aerosols, and volcanic aerosols. Of these forcings, the only non-human-induced forcing that produces warming of the surface temperature is the estimated long-term increase by 0.3 W/m2 of solar irradiance since 1750. Volcanic eruptions are episodic, and can produce strong but temporary cooling. All of the other forcings are directly tied to human activity. When it comes to radiative forcing of global climate change, it is abundantly clear that whether we like it or not, or whether we care to admit it, it is humans who are driving the bus.

SOIL | sustaining the environment by supporting the grassroots

SOIL sustaining the environment by supporting the grassroots

NOAA Launches "Climate Services" With Website : ScienceInsider

NOAA Launches "Climate Services" With Website : ScienceInsider

Lower Hudson Estuary Watershed - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Lower Hudson Estuary Watershed - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Hunter-Gatherer

Hunter-Gatherer

The Story of Stuff

The Story of Stuff

NASA

Italy to Plug in Idling Cruise Ships

Italy to Plug in Idling Cruise Ships

How Can We Approach the Issue of Human Population Growth?

Is a question I have pondered for a long time. But first some background:

In 1992, the global population was ~5.5 billion. In 1952 the population was about 2.75 billion. The global population had about doubled in a mere 40 years. By comparison it had taken all human history for the species to reach the 1 billion mark in about 1800. In another 100 years (1900), the population reached about 2 billion. By the 1990’s, about 1 billion people are added to the population every 11 or 12 years. The rate of population growth was at a historical high of 2.0% in 1970. It had fallen to 1.7% in 1992. In 1992, the population was increasing by approximately 88 million people/year. Average fertility rates at ~3.0 birth/woman were still above the replacement rate of 2.1. Even if the fertility rates dropped to 2.0, the world population would still increase 8 billion around 2050 before stabilizing. To make matters worse much of this rapid growth was occurring in very ecologically impoverished places least able to absorb it.


China realized the detrimental effects of having such a large number of people and therefore implemented the 1 child policy in 1979. Today, 1 in every 4 people is Chinese
Most recently, man power in China was evident by becoming the number one exporter of good in the planet, surpassing Germany. But everything ha s a price; China has one of the most environmentally polluted environments in the world and its one of the main contributors of CO2. China was also one of the great producers of CFCs which contributed to the depletion of the Ozone Layer.


I’m not trying to make China seem like the big monster who wants to destroy the world and take away our clean air, the U.S. is a big contributor of CO2 that is increasing the temperature of the planet and wiping out species at a very depressing rate. But the U.S. shows more care about their environment, that’s why they send their waste to China and some countries in Africa. Let someone else deal with it.


At this point, would decreasing the population (either by awareness, religious cooperation, and prevention) really help? And how can we approach this problem? Today, the poorest countries are the most populated, why? Do they not realize that having more children will make them poorer? Religion also plays a major role in the amount of children families have, or if they should have (once they are pregnant).


How can we begin to tell people that they should not have children because they are poor? And that having children or more children will destroy the environment? Which is more important? A poor country with a high population can not progress if the environment is not able to sustain them. Be by not having clean water, food, or other resources. Today around the world unemployment is very high, and the economy is on a coma. Guess who suffers the most.


In countries in which children are venerated, and most people are pro-life (because of religion majority) the problem of population will persist unless there are waves of change, culturally. In other places in which the majority of citizens are highly educated (and prefer to wait longer to have children) their economic success will likely persist. Having said that, the population problem is not happening simultaneously on a global scale; several countries are actually struggling to replace the older generation (i.e. Japan).


To address the concern of overpopulation in their countries, individual governments have –to certain extent-the responsibility to educate and help those who would like to prevent having more children by distributing birth control to those who want it and promoting the use of condoms and eliminating cultural barriers and taboos. Promoting logical thinking wouldn’t hurt either…


 references: UMUCENV644CASE1
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100110/ap_on_bi_ge/as_china_trade

Growing Pentagon Focus on Energy and Climate - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

Growing Pentagon Focus on Energy and Climate - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

Environmental Law & Policy Center Commends President Obama’s Focus on High Speed Rail in State of the Union | Business Wire

Environmental Law & Policy Center Commends President Obama’s Focus on High Speed Rail in State of the Union Business Wire

Experts to study Yucca alternative - News - ReviewJournal.com

Experts to study Yucca alternative - News - ReviewJournal.com

Are You Still Using a Plastic Bag?!

Of course. We all are.

First I started rejected plastic bags when I bought a pack of gum, then I thought, if I have space in my bag for this items, why should I add 2 more bags to my pile of 50 that I already have in my house? Then the “Environmental Friendly” bags became the ‘it’ thing. It became so ‘it’, that the “I’m Not a Plastic bag” bag was selling for $300 and women of Manhattan were displaying them like it was a rare diamond on their left hand. I bought my environmental friendly bag (few years ago) for $.99 at the 99c store and I couldn’t have been more proud. I even bought one for my good friend, who later gave it away to another friend and when I confronted her about it she was without one care in the world. She honored my outrage by simply replying “I need them for my garbage”. How ironic!

San Francisco was the first city in the U.S. to implement a law in which the customer is charged $.05/bag. Plastic bags are made of a valuable resource (petroleum) and people most often dispose of them after they carry their stuff home. They end up in landfills of many years and are costly to recycle. I couldn’t have been happier when I heard of the news from SF and I dreamt of one day moving to SF and mixing with all of those people who care so much about the environment. I even e-mailed Mr. Bloomberg to adopt the same policy but I never heard from him. Last year he announced a similar plan, but very recently students have raised good question about the plastic bag law:

>Where is the money going to go and will it benefit the environment?
>If you are already spending $100 in groceries, are you really going to care about spending a few more dollars on plastic bags?
>Are paper bags included?
>And finally (my question) will this law hurt the poor?

Since the popularization of grocery bags (mostly made out of cotton) most people I know have one. They come in different colors, size, and messages. Most big businesses offer their own brand of environmental friendly bags. Indeed, they benefit from a decrease in use of plastic bags from consumers because they have to buy the plastic bags and don’t charge their customers for them.

Do your part in reducing the amount of plastic bags you use in 3 simple ways:

1. Buy one of those stylish environmental friendly bags… they are very cheap and make you look smart (er)
2. Ask yourself, can I carry it?
3. Say "Don’t double it”
In the papers: D.C. shoppers opt for roughing it over paying 5-cent bag tax
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012202151.html

There is Only "One Water" and We Can't Live Without it

On Thursday I saw the screening of the documentary ‘One Water’ sponsored by the Forum of Global Health and Human Rights of Columbia University. Though [I] don’t personally don’t see much international outrage about water contamination, water privatization, or water preservation, it is apposite to remember that in many parts of the world access to clean water-even in small quantities-is as much of a privilege as getting an education or having healthcare. The concept of water scarcity may be to grasp, as all people reading this blog have access to clean, abundant water 24 hours a day -though some of us may have a different experience. But I want you to stare into space, or close your eyes, and imagine going 2, 3 miles with 2 empty gallons or a water pot in your head, uphill, downhill, hot weather, maybe not much to eat, then come back, same distance, but this time carrying the water again uphill, downhill. You will use the water for cooking, drinking, hygiene. You must go back if you misuse it or it just wasn’t enough. This scenario is not an exaggeration or is meant to make you feel guilty. But the truth is that we- the ones that have access to pristine- waste it, a lot.

Have you ever found yourself doing this?

1. Taking 20 min shower?
2. Having a leaking faucet for days?
3. Flushing the toilet without using it?
4. Have you been to a water park?
5. Do you live in a city with several water fountains?
6. Have you ever used fire hydrants during the summer?
Some of these are beyond our control [?] but what we can do is be more mindful of how we use and waste water. I think it also depends on your background. Typically, people who did not have the advantages of rich powerful nations tend to be more conservative in the way the use their resources. Others that had all resources at their disposal tend to forget how valuable these resources are.

[Q] what are some ways in which you conserve water?

There has been protests in some parts of the world about the privatization of water, below is a link to a very touching commercial from the company PUR,

http://www.youtube.com/user/purwater?feature=pyv&ad=3529722964&kw=water#p/u/0/8K6Ij5jIaew

How Do We Reconstruct an Enviroment? Far from an Earthquake Epicenter

Countries around the world have pledged millions of euros/dollars for Haiti relief efforts (BBC)(AP)

Spain €3m ($4.3)
Germany €1.5m ($2.18)
Netherlands €2m ($2.9)
European comission has released €3m ($4.3)
China $1m
Italy €1m ($1.46)
Sweden $850,000
Denmark $1.9m
Canada $4.8m
Dominican Republic $1.5m (am NY)
US $100m

In addition to the donations from corporations, citizens, and telethons.


When Port-AU-Prince was declared the capital of Haiti in [1770], little technology existed about fault line diversity. GPS did not exist, and other scientific measuring components that help scientists predict earthquakes by determining ‘hot spots’ on fault lines were not yet developed. In 2008 a conference was held in 2008 in Santo Domingo in which scientists warned there was a possibility of an earthquake along the fault line called Enriquillo-Plantain Garden zone that passes through Haiti and the south of Dominican Republic. For now, the effort is concentrated in rescuing the people buried under the piles of concrete and providing medical help to those that survived.

The word going around from people who know people in Haiti ( and are Haitian themselves), is that the government and other corrupted people are conspiring to take over as much as they can from the resources that organizations and governments have donated. I even heard someone saying the government will create a pharmaceutical company and sell the medicines accumulated for relief efforts. That is –of course-hard to believe, but the sentiment of the citizens abroad is that it is better to hand the country to a government that is not so corrupted and will use the funds for the people of Haiti. Having said that, after the people have been treated, the dead have been buried, and scientist from all branches start deciding how to approach re construction of Haiti, funding will still be available. I think it would be a good opportunity to give the nation of Haiti a second chance. The first and most logical approach will be to move the capital to another region. It would be interesting to see if that actually happened, and if there would be opposition given this experience. Second, the recuperation of the environment is crucial for the country’s future, without trees, clean water, good sewage system, Haiti will still remain in the shadows of poverty. The country can also take a few lessons from Japan after the Atomic Bombings in the way Japanese were able restructure both cities and make Tokyo one of the most dynamic and important cities in the world.

DR take note.

Photo taken in DR.

New York Times has an opinion: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22danner.html

Has Dominican Republic Redeemed Itself in the Eyes of Haiti?

During my 14 years living in Dominican Republic (and after) I always felt a sense of shame about Dominican-Haitian relations. In the poor neighborhoods of Dominican Republic (where they can barely afford to eat themselves) you could find Haitians passing by with ‘bateas’ on their heads selling home- made sweets. A gathering around whoever was selling, the joke? Haitian’s inability to pronounce the letter j, as in Aji (pepper in Spanish). Is not because they have pronunciation challenges, the same thing happens when Egyptians try to pronounce the letter y, which they replace with g. In my opinion, it was the typical case of big guy making fun of the little guy. The complex Dominican-Haitian relations have been tested throughout the centuries. First, Haitian occupation of DR, then the murder of thousands of Haitian by order of Dominican dictator Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, then the economic development of DR via tourism while Haiti was still struggling, and then of course racism. The later little understood by me since more than 70% of the population of DR is of mixed race, with few either completely white or completely black. At any rate, I hope that through this catastrophe something as positive as good relations between both countries can flourish, and Dominicans can share some of the progress they have acquired. After all, we share the same island, and we share the same fault line.

A popular website from my hometown’s website reads “Firefighters Return from Haiti, and with Them the Images”

Link: http://www.francomacorisanos.com/AlbundeImagen.aspx?ruta=Imagenes/Actividades/Sociales/Bomberosllegandehaiti&ID=5211&Imagenes=Imagenes/Actividades/Sociales/Bomberosllegandehaiti/a/portada.jpg

Haiti, A Perfect Case of Environmental Disaster -Disease Included

Pre-quake

Haiti already had one of the most destructed environments in the world when the quake hit January 12th. As I have learned recently, the leading cause of environmental destruction in Haiti is due to the number one factor affecting about 80% of the Haitian population; poverty. Haitians have changed the environmental landscape of their side of the island by cutting down trees to sell them as coal. For most, this is their only way of survival. And when you have to choose between feeding yourself or your family the choice is obvious. Thus there is little reason to blame Haitians for the environmental damage pre-quake. This environmental destruction came with consequences in the form of ruthless floods that afflicted Haiti in 2004 and 2000 and killed thousands. A grim reality of the side effects of cutting down trees; with little obstacles, water rushes fiercely downstream getting into people’s homes, leaving people homeless and powerless to water borne diseases.

Post-quake

The environmental destruction in Haiti post-quake has reached apocalyptic proportions, with the devastation of virtually an entire country. This destruction will obviously add more poverty and disease (including mental illnesses and emotional trauma). Recently I listened to a journalist discussing the fact that many people who survived the earthquake had to have amputations because of infections that were not treated on time, “Haiti will be a nation of amputees” described the journalist from NBC. The earthquake will also leave a legacy of respiratory illnesses similar to 911 but perhaps less severe.

Diseases that may aggressively emerge as a consequence of the earthquake:

1. Measles ( experienced it, very painful)
2. Asthma
3. Hepatitis A
4. Mental illnesses (including major depression/depressive disorder)
5. Dengue
6. Typhoid (experienced it, hospitalized 3 weeks)
7. Malnutrition
8. Increase of HIV
Though several organizations are working day and night to help Haitians stay alive, I predict the number of deaths due to health complications will increase. My heart goes to the children that must stand all this catastrophe around them. But one thing that is that is true of all humans is that we can adapt to our environment with the help of our ancient survival instincts and resilience.