+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 13719
Total Topics: 269
Most Online Today: 0
Most Online Ever: 137
(April 21, 2019, 04:54:01 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 1
Total: 1

Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 37 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Name:
Subject:
Message icon:

Attach:
Help (Clear Attachment)
(more attachments)
Allowed file types: doc, gif, jpg, jpeg, mpg, pdf, png, txt, zip, rar, csv, xls, xlsx, docx, xlsm, psd, cpp
Restrictions: 4 per post, maximum total size 1024KB, maximum individual size 512KB
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 16, 2019, 02:45:34 pm »



October 3, 2019

By Brian Kahn

John Davis’ grave-in-waiting filled with water after heavy rain and snow. Photo: Brian Kahn (Earther)

SNIPPET:

“It’s bizarre we’ve ended up in a place where we spend thousands of dollars pumping our loved ones full of chemicals and painting their faces and putting them in a titanium casket is normal and wrapping them in a shroud and burying them isn’t,” Michelle Acciavatti, Spirit Sanctuary’s “death doula,” told Earther.

It wasn’t always this way. In the U.S., 18th and 19th century burials involved at most, a pine casket and a plot in a cemetery or on your land. But embalming techniques pioneered during the Civil War so thousands of soldiers could be brought home helped spawn the modern funeral industry. The death of Abraham Lincoln and the public viewings of his embalmed body as it was brought from Washington, D.C. to its final resting in Springfield, Illinois likely also contributed to the shift in how Americans conceive of death.

“The reports we get from that era is he [Lincoln] looked pretty doggone good for being dead after being assassinated with a bullet to the head,” Bill Hoy, an end of life expert at Baylor University, told Earther. “That confirmed that [embalming] is especially helpful for two things: One, when our dead’s death occurs a few days from home, and two, when an injury or disease process was such that dead just look horrible, and people thought ‘I don’t want that to be my last picture.’”

But while the growth of arterial embalming fluid gave loved ones more time to say goodbye and create a last memory, the processes also cuts bodies off from what some would argue is their final purpose, of giving life the Earth.

Full article:

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 08, 2019, 08:21:14 pm »

October 8, 2019

Quote
“I absolutely have issue with residents being told there is nothing to worry about,” Melissa Troutman, from the advocacy group Earthworks, told DeSmog. “If this blowout had been handled justly and responsibly, residents would have been given a full report of what produced water contains and alternative housing during cleanup.”

“This is an 🦕industry that doesn’t have to disclose the toxic  ☠️ chemicals it uses or manage its hazardous waste ☠️ as hazardous because of special exemptions from laws that the rest of us have to follow,” she added.

Fracked Gas 💥 Blowout in Louisiana Could Burn 🔥 for Two More Months

JULIE DERMANSKY, DESMOGBLOG

A screen shot from a drone video of the site of a fracked gas well blowout, at wells operated by GEP Haynesville, LLC, in Red River Parish, Louisiana, on October 1, 2019.

For the fifth week since the blowout began, a large flare is still burning at the site of GEP Haynesville, LLC's blown-out fracked gas wells in northwestern Louisiana. The flare has gone out at times, resulting in fluid from the well, including what the oil and gas industry calls "produced water," spreading a mist into the sky over a mile away, alarming nearby residents.


Read the Article →
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 05, 2019, 09:35:07 pm »

Can Monsanto Be Sued For Creating Carcinogenic Crops?
1,297 views•Oct 3, 2019


Thom Hartmann Program
182K subscribers

Can Monsanto or Bayer, the manufacturer of Round Up, be sued for turning our crops carcinogenic?

Timestamps
0:59 Is Glyphosate a Carcinogenic?
2:14 Does Glyphosate Cause Gluten Intolerance and Obesity?


➡️Please Subscribe to Our Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/thomhart...
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: October 03, 2019, 06:19:33 pm »



New Video Shows 🦕 Stolt Tanker 💥 Explode 👀 in South Korea

By Mike Schuler on Oct 02, 2019 01:36 pm

A new video obtained by Tradewinds shows the moment a Stolt tanker exploded while preparing for a ship-to-ship cargo transfer in Busan, South Korea over the weekend.


As we reported, about a dozen people suffered only minor injuries when the explosion rocked the cargo section of the 25,000 dwt chemical tanker Stolt Groenland. Stolt Tankers […]  Read full story...
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 29, 2019, 07:24:58 pm »


True. In addition, there is an even greater threat to Florida in general, and Miami in particular, that should concern anybody that lives there. There is a superfund site very close to the Biscayne Aquifer, the main source of fresh water for Miami. Superfund sites all over the USA were designated as such decades ago by the EPA, when a national effort was undertaken to clean up all the poisonous chemicals in certain industrial areas going back to the early 1940's (and  some before that!).

Not widely known by the American public (of course - we can't have Capitalism's Industrial Poisonous ☠️ Pollution waste by-product "Externalities" making Capitalism look like the biosphere destroying cancer that it is, now can we? 😈) is the FACT that some of those superfund sites are so chemically toxic that they have been designated as PERMANENT superfund sites. IOW, our good gooberment does not have the ability to de-toxify them.

As the sea level rises, and long before it actually is a threat to even the coastal land areas, salt water encroachment through the coral base of Florida will reach that superfund site near Miami.

//

Tap water will be poisonous. Never mind what all those leached toxic chemicals, that DO NOT DEGRADE and CANNOT BE FILTERED OR CHEMICALLY SEPARATED OUT through present water purifying technology, will DO ☠️ to all the flora and fauna in the Everglades, absolutely everyone that does not own a water generator which extracts H2O out of the air will have to move or die.

And how long will the rich bastards with their water generators hold out while the flora and fauna dies all around them? Not long, I'll wager.


Brilliant deep dive on this topic, of which I was completely unaware. Sea level rise will make toxic seeps of these sites and corpses of the residents.

I am more cynical about the endgame: we'll blame the poor, and the dead.

Thanks bro. :)

I admit your endgame analysis may be more reality based than mine. After all, there is the massive post-Nixon spin machine that was spelled out in an article you posted yesterday. That spin machine has been as hostile to climate change reality as it has been to irrefutable historical 🐘 right wing serial corruption and coverup of crimes reality.

Quote
The right has devoted decades of careful, patient investment to creating this system, which has three main arms.

First, there’s a gigantic media ecosystem, with Fox News at the apex and innumerable smaller creatures. Second, there’s an intelligentsia based in think tanks and Ivy League professorships funded by conservative foundations. Third, there’s a legion of right-wing judges carefully selected for monomaniacal partisan loyalty.


BUT, the article, though stating many truths, does not acknowledge a more basic truth that goes to heart of the rot destroying this country's hope for a better future. That is, TPTB have TOTALLY embraced an Orwellian inversion of Ethical Standards (see: Darwinian based "triumph of the best liar and crook" game theory INSANITY). I'll get to that in a moment, but the entire Watergate Republican pious 😇 weeping and gnashing of teeth noise was, itself, a 😈 cover up of Nixon's treasonous greater crimes. The article fails to point out that the purpose of the Republican public pity party for Nixon was, in itself, a disingenuous (see: game theory) ploy to KEEP the public focused EXCLUSIVELY on Watergate. It worked. >:(

Most people do not give any importance to that Nixon quote on the tapes:"other stuff we do not want to get out there". The "OTHER" business was Nixon's link, through Howard Hughs, and Howard Hughs' lawyer, to the Cuba sabotage and Castro hit team members that NIXON, as a VP under Eisenhower (who fully approved), ordered to be created and funded. That "Plumbers" team was the very same team that participated in the Watergate burglary AND, in 1963, the assassination of JFK. "Other" stuff, indeed. 

Pelosi, a card carrying member of the pseudo-left fascists, is doing exactly the same thing now by trying to keep the impeachment "narrowly focused" on the Ukraine shakedown. That will probably work, though not if Maxine Waters has anything to say about it. I hope she has good security.

TPTB will, after cleverly firing up the Republican Base with so much outrage at Trump's "crucifixion by the libruls" that they will vote for ANY Republican Candidtate for ANY political office, quietly, but firmly. ask Mr. Trump to spend more time with his family, or something similar. Trump will then be the new Nixonian "martyr". 😉😈

I predict that evil trick will NOT work this time around.

Though the game theory adverts fervently wish otherwise (most people at Fox News and the CIA are true believers in this psycho-babble mindfork), no amount of right wing coordinated spin machine brainwashing can achieve that "1984" BALONEY of convincing most people, NOT so much that 'up is down' and 'down is up', but that WHATEVER YOU SAY IS THE "TRUTH", even if it is exactly the opposite of what you said yesterday, especially when said spin machine pushes the bold faced LIE that any and all historical examples of political corruption in the USA, even though far less significant than Trump's in-our-faces self enrichment corruption, "do not apply" to Trump. The "everybody does it" BULLSHIT is NOT going to fly either.

These fascists who think you can warp people's brains so badly that you can consistently fool them are only right to a point. That point was reached with Nixon. The same point has now been reached with Trump. TPTB want to save their monstrous planet eating cancer at all costs. Trump is, like Nixon was, a darling, but expendable to save the BIG ORWELL cognitive dissonance machine. As with Nixon, the corrupt system will be preserved. Trump is a 🐒 dispensable tool of the system, even if he deludes himself into thinking he runs it. 

I'm not a psychologist, but I know my stuff here. The right wing spin machine has a fatal weakness. That weakness is that, while you CAN, using Hitler's MO, fire up people to engage in violence against the "other", you have to be VERY careful to NOT trigger cognitive dissonance. WHY? Because the human brain goes TILT when incapacitated by cognitive dissonance.   

Cognitive dissonance is the most effective totally unethical psychological tool there is to produce paralysis and INaction. IOW, if you keep piously and loudly repeating, over and over, for years and years, about the "justice" of impeaching and/or arresting the Clintons and Obama, only to claim NOW that Trump, who has done the same and much, much worse, is the victim of "INjustice", you are in danger of generating cognitive dissonance among Trump supporters.

Yes, I know the fascists think they have all that figured out and can get around that pesky "old school" psychological stuff.
BULLSHIT. Fascists are known for their overreach zeal, so I expect them to generate so much UNPLANNED cognitive dissonance in Trump supporters, that despite those chumps continuing to ideologically support Trump, a significant percentage of them will be too demoralized (it will actually be cognitive dissonance, but they will perceive it as lack of energy, depression or despair) to vote in the 2020 elections.


As an aside, cognitive dissonance among Democratic Party supporters has been the right wing spin machine goal since Nixon. Though that certainly was instrumental to Trump's 2016 "win", it has NOT worked as effectively as they hoped (SEE: 2018 elections). That is why the fascists are always trying to disenfranchise anyone that does not support Republican candidates.

I am certain that the modern day true believer liars populating the right wing spin machine have embraced Nietzsche's Orwellian inversion of lying, which makes the (SEE: Darwinian BULLSHIT) pretzel logic argument that liars are "mentally stronger".
Quote
Friedrich Nietzsche suggested that those who refrain from lying may do so only because of the difficulty involved in maintaining the lie. This is consistent with his general 🦍 philosophy that divides (or ranks) people according to strength and ability; thus, some people tell the truth only out of weakness.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie


You can see how these cowardly evil bastards who love to lie, like Hitler then, and the right wing spin machine tools now, happily eat up any self serving horseshit about being "superior humans" because they are such "good" liars. Darwin helped way to many ethics rejecting crooks and liars justify happy horseshit, not just to calm their mostly calloused conscience, but to CELEBRATE MIGHT OVER RIGHT, the more cruel and/or mendacious, the BETTER! If you are the "fittest", you can do whatever you want! Never mind all that yammering about ethics, rule of law and respect for your neighbor and the rest of creation. That's for the WEAK.

Which brings me back to the Climate Change and the three armed profit over people and planet monster.

Quote
The right has devoted decades of careful, patient investment to creating this system, which has three main arms


The spin machine is inexorably committing the same mistake with Climate Change Propaganda as it is in regard to Trump's Crimes. Consequently Cognitive Dissonance among the deniers is slowly, but surely, taking hold.

While your view that we will blame the poor and the dead accurately reflects exactly where the spin machine will attempt to place the blame, when a city like Miami is lost, the reality of a planet full of humans that overwhelmingly GET IT about who is really responsible for this Catastrophic Climate Change will expose the 🐍 spin machine as the handmadien of the 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon Hellspawn.

The true believing deniers will be mostly INactivated due to Cognitive Dissonace (SEE: Coal, Oil, Gas, CO2 = "good" but Solar Panels, Cheap Wind Electricity, etc. = "bad" ), while the masses who just want to LIVE will be more energized to take ACTION against the polluters than ever.

The spin machine is a basically a LIE machine. We know who the Father of lies is. But even if you don't believe that Satan is a real entity, it is just plain impractical, often dangerous and occasionally even suicidally stupid, to live your life believing LIES from the spin machine created for the express purpose of covering up the despicable crimes of the Profit Over People and Planet evil elite. 

Quote
Once a lie has been told, there can be two alternative consequences: it may be discovered or remain undiscovered. Under some circumstances, discovery of a lie may discredit other statements by the same speaker and can lead to social or legal sanctions against the speaker, such as ostracizing or conviction for perjury.[30] When a lie is discovered, the state of mind and behavior of the liar is no longer predictable.

Hannah Arendt spoke about extraordinary cases in which an entire society is being lied to consistently. She said that the consequences of such lying are "not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie—a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days—but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

Hannah Arendt saying that "nobody believes anything any longer" is refering, not to all sources of information, but SPECIFICALLY to the Government doing the consistent lying and modification of lies (In our case, it's the Fascist Government/Corporate 🐍 Media Spin Machine). THAT DECISION on the part of those consistently lied to is a product of Cognitive Dissonance. It's the consequence of the spin machine's embrace of the FLAWED LOGIC (see: Orwellian mindfork) that, as long as the source of the lie is offically celebrated as the source of "TRUTH", you can lie 24/7 to the chumps.


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 28, 2019, 05:57:04 pm »

Rising seas 🌊 threaten hundreds of Native American heritage sites along Florida's Gulf Coast

True. In addition, there is an even greater threat to Florida in general, and Miami in particular, that should concern anybody that lives there. There is a superfund site very close to the Biscayne Aquifer, the main source of fresh water for Miami. Superfund sites all over the USA were designated as such decades ago by the EPA, when a national effort was undertaken to clean up all the poisonous chemicals in certain industrial areas going back to the early 1940's (and  some before that!).


Not widely known by the American public (of course - we can't have Capitalism's Industrial Poisonous ☠️ Pollution waste by-product "Externalities" making Capitalism look like the biosphere destroying cancer that it is, now can we? 😈) is the FACT that some of those superfund sites are so chemically toxic that they have been designated as PERMANENT superfund sites. IOW, our good gooberment does not have the ability to de-toxify them.


As the sea level rises, and long before it actually is a threat to even the coastal land areas, salt water encroachment through the coral base of Florida will reach that superfund site near Miami.



When it does, in less than a decade from now, the chemicals in that superfund site will leach through the sea water to the ONLY fresh water aquifer that feeds the Miami metropolitan area and points south, as well as Ft. Lauderdale and some points north.


Tap water will be poisonous. Never mind what all those leached toxic chemicals, that DO NOT DEGRADE and CANNOT BE FILTERED OR CHEMICALLY SEPARATED OUT through present water purifying technology, will DO ☠️ to all the flora and fauna in the Everglades, absolutely everyone that does not own a water generator which extracts H2O out of the air will have to move or die.

And how long will the rich bastards with their water generators hold out while the flora and fauna dies all around them? Not long, I'll wager.

That will be the end of Miami. No potable water, no life.

The only upside (I'm the eternal straw grasping optimist ;D) to that TOXIC MESS is that, at that point, rather than blaming CAPITALISM'S Superfund toxic site COST for this horror , TPTB 😇 will blame Climate Change. There will be ZERO credibility among the public for deniers who try to continue pushing the LIE that Catastrophic Climate Change is not happening.

THEN, at long last, "subsidies" (i.e. Oil and Gas CORPORATE WELFARE QUEEN HANDOUTS) for hydrocarbons will be cut off, some punitive measures will be imposed and EVERYONE in the Corporate Media will get behind the big push to go 100% Renewable.

Except for aircraft and other machines that run some type of renewable energy based biofuel or hydrogen, electric EVERYTHING will be mandatory for all our machines within a few years. 👍

EVs will be massively subsidized so we can all trade our CO2 belching gas guzzlers for an ⚡ EV with similar range at no cost. 👍

I know, that's not much of an upside, considering the record breaking heat, fires, storms, drought, flooding, and so on will continue to worsen for at least a century, but it's the right thing to do, even if it's too late to stop most of the multiple mammalian vertebrate species extinction damage. We reap what we sow.

You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else. - Winston Churchill
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 25, 2019, 02:13:55 pm »

EcoWatch

By Truthout Sep. 24, 2019 02:17PM EST

EPA, Trump and DoD: Greed, Corruption and Collusion
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 25, 2019, 01:17:27 pm »


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 24, 2019, 08:53:30 pm »

Rubber Tires - A dirty business | DW Documentary
602,487 views•Published on Sep 17, 2019


DW Documentary
933K subscribers
The booming global tire market is worth billions - but this comes at a high price, both to humans and the environment. Over 50 million car tires are sold each year in Germany alone. But where does the natural rubber for them come from?

The biggest producer of natural rubber for tires is Thailand. More than four million tonnes of rubber are harvested annually in plantations there. And demand for rubber is ever growing - because ever more tires are needed. But the labor conditions in Southeast Asia are harsh - with working days of up to 12 hours and very low wages. In addition, toxic herbicides banned in Europe are used to fight weeds on the plantations. After the harvest, the ‘white gold’ rubber is sold to brokers, who, in turn, sell it on. German tire manufacturers, like Continental, for example, are keen to stress that they use "natural commodities conscientiously.” But many car drivers don’t give a second thought about where the rubber in their tires comes from - and why we don’t recycle used tires more effectively.

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

DW Documentary gives you knowledge beyond the headlines. Watch high-class documentaries from German broadcasters and international production companies. Meet intriguing people, travel to distant lands, get a look behind the complexities of daily life and build a deeper understanding of current affairs and global events. Subscribe and explore the world around you with DW Documentary.

Subscribe to DW Documentary:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCW39...

Our other YouTube channels:
DW Documental (in spanish): https://www.youtube.com/dwdocumental
DW Documentary وثائقية دي دبليو: (in arabic): https://www.youtube.com/dwdocarabia

For more documentaries visit also:
http://www.dw.com/en/tv/docfilm/s-3610
Instagram
https://www.instagram.com/dwdocumentary/
Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/dw.stories

DW netiquette policy: https://p.dw.com/p/MF1G
Category Education
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 21, 2019, 04:44:22 pm »

Documentary “Blowout” Follows Climate ☠️ Cost of 🦖 Oil Boom from 🦕 Fracking to Exports

September 20, 2019

The new film follows the U.S. oil supply chain, covering health, climate and environmental justice impacts. And it points to the president who was central 🦖to creating the current reality: 😈 Barack Obama.


Story Transcript

DIMITRI LASCARIS: The United States fracking boom has entered a new phase as massive amounts of oil are now being exported to the global market. This is Dimitri Lascaris reporting on this subject for The Real News from Montreal, Canada.

Dozens of coal-fired power plants too have been converted into natural gas power plants and about 200 more are now under proposal across the country, according to a recent story by USA Today. A decade ago, a new technique called fracking inspired films such as Gasland and Promised Land due to the impacts it was having on rural community water resources in the United States, but today the horizontal drilling process has unleashed impacts which are truly global in nature. For most Americans, those impacts remain out of sight, rarely looked at from either a macro or micro point of view. A new movie aims to change that, however. That film, Blowout: Inside America’s Energy , is a cross-newsroom collaboration between the outlets, The Associated Press, Newsy, Center For Public Integrity and The Texas Tribune. Here’s part of the trailer for that film.

BLOWOUT FILM TRAILER: Right now we’ve got energy policies that are really being dictated by a handful of fossil fuel producers. Energy companies are looking to develop kind of this blank canvas, if you will. We started seeing the pads pop up. I started having vomiting episodes. Those impurities are going into my air. We are the sacrifice. No drills, not in our neighborhoods. It will never be safe. We’re sacrificing people’s health so that the oil and gas industry can ship overseas and make a profit.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: An ongoing seven-part print companion series is now also up online. The film is now streaming on platforms such as Amazon Prime, Fire TV, Roku, VIZIO, and Apple TV. Joining us here to talk about the film is Zach Toombs, the film’s director. He is also the Executive Producer of Newsy Documentaries. And thank you for coming onto The Real News, Zach.

ZACH TOOMBS: Thanks for having me.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: So Zach, let’s start out with this simple question. How did you come up with the idea behind Blowout, and why did your team choose a supply-chain based approach to tell the story?

ZACH TOOMBS: Right, so the Center For Public Integrity were really the driving force behind the core story idea, putting together this cross-newsroom partnership, and doing some really great journalism around the global exports boom that has come from this production boom in the US. And so the Center For Public Integrity, The Associated Press and The Texas Tribune all looked at different aspects of this global oil and gas trade fueled by the US. From Newsy’s perspective, we knew that we have this story that spanned the globe and a feature-length documentary seemed like a great way to tell that story because we could basically follow the physical path from drilling in West Texas and Colorado to shipping through the Panama Canal, to where the oil and gas is being bought in India, where it’s being burned off, and what the global climate impact looks like.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: Now, for the film, you managed to examine how many people live within 2,000 feet of a drilling pad in the United States. That number is remarkable. You’ve concluded that, as I understand it, 1.2 million Americans live within that health-risk zone based on US Census data.

ZACH TOOMBS: 1.4

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And as I understand, nearly half a million of them live in that zone in Texas. What are the health risks for those living in that zone?

ZACH TOOMBS: Yeah. It’s 1.4 million people across the US who live within 500 feet of active oil and gas production in the US. And the impact within that zone is well documented by scientists, by researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, by researchers at the University of Colorado. And those health impacts can look like anything from nosebleeds and respiratory issues to an increased risk of cancer. The risk of cancer is actually eight times higher within 500 feet of active oil and gas production than the EPA’s accepted threshold for cancer risk. And so that’s about eight in 10,000. It seems like a small number, but given the scale of US oil and gas production right now, that puts a lot of people in a dangerous position.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: In 2015, in the midst of a presidential election season, the world changed when President Barack Obama signed legislation reversing the crude oil export ban, which had been in place since the 1970s, and here’s a clip from the film dealing with that issue.

BLOWOUT FILM CLIP: And for decades, it kind of went and challenged until around 2008 when fracking really took off. And that’s the only time when you start to hear the oil and gas groups, like the American Petroleum Institute, start to suggest that this old ban that was put in place back in the 1970s, “maybe you should throw it out.” And around 2013, you see maybe under a dozen companies lobbying on the crude oil export ban. And then a year to two years later, that number grows to 300 lobbyists on this, converging on Capitol Hill.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: For Blowout, Zach, you took trips to the port of Corpus Christi and the Panama Canal to explore exports. Talk about what you learned in these places and how it relates back to the 2015 legislation.

ZACH TOOMBS: Well, one major thing that we took away from the whole process of filming this story across the world are the global impacts that decisions made in Washington can have, and the global impacts of an increase in drilling that has had a positive economic impact on some pockets of the US, but has severe public health and climate impacts across the world. And so, for example, in Corpus Christi—I mean, take the Gulf coast, for example. The port of Corpus Christi has seen tremendous growth, hundreds of new jobs, a lot of opportunity economically. But if you go further north up the Gulf coast, you get into places like Port Arthur, Texas, which is this town surrounded by refineries, which has essentially been dealing with poisonous air for the better part of the last few decades.

And now, the activity at these refineries that surround this town and a lot of refinery towns along the Gulf Coast, is only ramping up as us oil and gas production ramps up. At the Panama Canal, they’ve actually installed whole new sets of infrastructure within the canal to handle the increase in US traffic headed to Asia. So, that’s just one of the examples that we saw of a global impact that the US oil and gas boom is having right now.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And you just mentioned Asia, you did not confine yourself in the making of this film to the Western hemisphere. You also went across the Pacific to South Asia, reporting in both India and Bangladesh. How is the US oil boom and exports impacting those regions?

ZACH TOOMBS: [inaudible] where they have this ambitious renewable energy plan based on solar energy, and then there’s the natural gas option, which is provided by the US— cheap, abundant fuel, and fuel that is certainly cleaner than coal. But the question is, the bridge that natural gas forms, and that’s what it’s often talked about as is, “Okay, natural gas will be this bridge between really dirty fossil fuels like coal, and renewable energy.” The question right now is how long will that bridge be for countries like India, countries that are pretty significant when you’re looking at a global scale, just because of their population. If they invest in infrastructure for natural gas, terminals to handle imports, pipelines, those are investments meant to last 30, 40, 50 years into the future. So, the countries that are now becoming customers for the US, buyers of the US natural gas, how long will natural gas delay a transition to renewable energy?

DIMITRI LASCARIS: And lastly, Zach, climate change. When you were out in the field in West Texas, you could see methane, as I understand it, a very potent greenhouse gas, methane plumes emitted into the sky via an infrared camera. What exactly is the current state of play for ethane/methane emissions and climate impacts for oil drilling in the United States?

ZACH TOOMBS: I mean, a lot of the legislative action and the executive action from the White House lately has been around methane. It’s something that is not talked about as much as it should be. When we talk about climate impact, we’re always talking about carbon emissions. Everybody knows about CO2, but what’s less discussed, but also very important, are methane emissions. Natural gas puts out less CO2, but it puts out a lot more in methane. And so, that’s something to consider when you’re thinking about greenhouse gases overall because methane has incredible potency in warming the Earth’s atmosphere. That’s something that Gabrielle Patron and researchers at NOAA break down for us in the film. And so, as natural gas is being sold as this relatively clean energy source, we have to look at the methane. The Obama administration, when they rolled back this export ban, they also tried to counter that because they knew more drilling would come and more natural gas would be produced.

They tried to counter that with some new restrictions and limitations on methane, which there’s a serious problem in the industry right now with methane leaks. The Trump administration has basically said, “Go for it.” They’ve rolled back those restrictions that were put in place, or delayed some that were planned. They don’t seem to be terribly worried about it. They want to take what they see as the shackles off of the natural gas industry and drilling. But that’s going to have a major methane impact, which is a major greenhouse gas impact, which is a climate impact.

DIMITRI LASCARIS: Well, I’ve been speaking to Zach Toombs, Director of the new film about the global fracking industry in America’s fracking boom. It’s called Blowout: Inside America’s Energy . Recommend you see it. And this is Dimitri Lascaris reporting for The Real News Network from Montreal. Zach, thank you for joining us today.

ZACH TOOMBS: Thank you.

DHARNA NOOR: Hey, y’all. My name is Dharna Noor, and I’m a climate crisis reporter here at The Real News Network. This is a crucial moment for humanity and for the planet. So, if you like what we do, please, please support us by subscribing at the link below. Thank you.

https://therealnews.com/stories/documentary-blowout-follows-climate-cost-of-oil-boom-from-fracking-to-exports

 The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹 Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 12, 2019, 04:19:54 pm »

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: September 07, 2019, 07:13:07 pm »


U.S. Beekeepers File Suit Against EPA Charging "Illegal" Approval of Insecticide

JON QUEALLY, COMMON DREAMS

A group of beekeepers joined forces on Friday against Trump's EPA by filing a lawsuit over the agency's move to put a powerful insecticide back on the market. The lawsuit charges that the EPA's approval of sulfoxaflor was illegally rendered as it put industry interests ahead of the health of pollinators and ignored the available research. Scientists warn the chemical is part of the massive pollinator die-off across the U.S.

Read the Article →
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 31, 2019, 06:52:30 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: EXCELLENT PROGRESSVE RANT by
Black Bear News host about Corporate BS demonizing everything Senator Sanders says and does.

BLACK BEAR NEWS 8.28.19 The Earth Looks Better In Green
1,314 views

Black Bear News
Published on Aug 28, 2019

Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/

Cory Booker Wants to Pay Many More Farmers to Practice Carbon Farming
https://civileats.com/2019/08/08/cory...

Bernie Sanders Gets a D- for His Climate Plan
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...

Twitter @BlackBearNews1

Support via Paypal:  https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr...

Support via Square: https://cash.me/$RedLlamaMusic

Red Llama Music
PO Box 132
So Pasadena, CA 91031
Category People & Blogs
Posted by: Surly1
« on: August 31, 2019, 08:23:53 am »

Agelbert NOTE: Published 9 months ago, the information in this interview is sine qua non for all reality based humans:

Gail Zawacki: "You're Not Gonna Be Able to Survive This, No Matter How Much You Prepare" 👀
8,351 views


Collapse Chronicles
Published on Dec 16, 2018

In this week's edition of my Collapse Chronicles interview, I have the pleasure and honor of speaking with the Diva of Doom herself, Gail Zawacki. Here is a link to Gail's classic primer for neophyte doomers, "Doom for Dummies":
http://doomfordummies.blogspot.com/

Category News & Politics

BTW, Gail's site is just a wonder to behold!
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 30, 2019, 08:42:10 pm »

Agelbert NOTE: Published 9 months ago, the information in this interview is sine qua non for all reality based humans:

Gail Zawacki: "You're Not Gonna Be Able to Survive This, No Matter How Much You Prepare" 👀
8,351 views


Collapse Chronicles
Published on Dec 16, 2018

In this week's edition of my Collapse Chronicles interview, I have the pleasure and honor of speaking with the Diva of Doom herself, Gail Zawacki. Here is a link to Gail's classic primer for neophyte doomers, "Doom for Dummies":
http://doomfordummies.blogspot.com/

Category News & Politics
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 29, 2019, 11:58:19 am »

🚩 Playing with Amazon Fire will get us all Burned 🔥 😱
3,380 views


Paul Beckwith
Published on Aug 27, 2019

According to the Wiki on Amazon Rainforest: “In 2018 about 17% of the Amazon Rainforest was already destroyed. Research suggests that upon reaching about 20-25% (hence 3-8% more), the tipping point to flip it into non-forest ecosystems - degraded savannah - (in eastern, southern and central Amazonia) will be reached.” Given 3 recent century scale droughts in the Amazon Rainforest in 2005, 2010, and 2015-2016, and slash-and-burn human practices accelerating again, we are quite literally playing with fire in a game we cannot win.

Please donate at my blog http://paulbeckwith.net to support my efforts to analyze, and present to you significant developments in abrupt climate change.

Category Science & Technology

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 24, 2019, 10:16:06 pm »

Why Did Trump 🦀 EPA Approve Brain Damage Causing Pesticide? >:(
1,786 views


Thom Hartmann Program
Published on Aug 22, 2019

The Trump EPA just approved a pesticide that is linked to Brain damage. Tiffany Finck-Haynes joins the program to discuss just how dangerous these chemicals are to you and to the environment.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 22, 2019, 11:04:02 pm »

Channel NewsAsia

23 Aug 2019 09:34AM (Updated: 23 Aug 2019 10:06AM)

A satellite image showing fires 🔥🔥🔥 burning in the State of Rondonia, Brazil, in the upper Amazon River basin, on Aug 15, 2019. (Photo: Satellite Image 2019 Maxar Technologies/via AP)


Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 19, 2019, 11:47:16 pm »

Monday August 19th 2019

By David Cay Johnston, DCReport Editor-in-Chief

Team Trump: ‘The Only Good Forest Is A Dead Forest

Forest Service Weighs Plan to Lay Waste to Tens of Thousands of Acres of Old-Growth Trees
https://www.dcreport.org/2019/08/15/trump-the-only-good-forest-is-a-dead-forest/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 18, 2019, 08:10:55 pm »

The “Toxic ☠️ 100” Worst Polluters

August 18, 2019

Michael Ash of PERI discusses the “Toxic 100” index, which ranks the top 100 corporations in the US, including the U.S. government, according to the degree to which they pollute the air, the water, and contribute to greenhouse gases. The index assists in divestment campaigns and in identifying opportunities for green growth


Story Transcript

GREG WILPERT: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Greg Wilpert in Baltimore.

Since 2004, the Political Economy Research Institute, PERI, has published an annual list of the world’s top polluting companies. Initially, this was just about air pollution. But in 2013, PERI launched an index of the top 100 water polluters, and in 2016, the index of greenhouse polluters. This year, PERI published all three indices individually as well as in a combined index.

The top three air polluters in the 2019 report are the chemical company, LyondellBasell; the arms and airplane manufacturer, Boeing; and the number one position is the oil company, Huntsman. The top three water polluters are the appliance manufacturer, Parker Hannifin; the arms manufacturer, Northrop Grumman; and in the top place, the chemical company, DowDuPont. Then finally, in the top three greenhouse polluter category are the energy companies, Duke Energy; Southern Company; and in top place, Vistra Energy.

Joining me now to discuss this report is Michael Ash. He’s professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and directs the Corporate Toxics Information Project together with James K. Boyce, which publishes the Toxic 100 Index. Thanks for joining us today, Michael.


MICHAEL ASH: Thanks for having me on, Greg.

GREG WILPERT: So, let’s start with the purpose of the Toxic 100 Index. What do you hope to achieve by publishing it?


MICHAEL ASH: The main point of the Toxic 100 Index is it’s a tool. And it’s a tool for socially responsible investors or communities that may be affected by toxics–pretty much every community in America–and for regulators and for the general public to understand what toxics they’re being exposed to, and which companies are releasing the most greenhouse gases. As a tool, it’s going to enable communities, socially responsible investors, socially or environmentally oriented corporate managers to make better decisions so that we can realize the right to clean air and clean water that we have in many of our state constitutions, and I think implicit in our national governance.

We’ve learned a lot about what we’re exposed to. The road from knowing what we’re exposed to to having a cleaner environment is not always a straight and easy path. We’re trying to make that easier for effected communities to use these tools, understand what we’re being exposed to, and then take action to do something about it.

GREG WILPERT: Now, is it safe to assume that the larger a company is, the more likely it will appear on the list, and the higher up it will appear, since larger companies presumably produce more pollution? Or do you take the company’s size into account so that you could find, in theory, a smaller, but highly polluting company towards the top of these lists?


MICHAEL ASH: We’re focused, in the case of toxics, really on the risk that human populations are exposed to. And there tends to be a bigger-is-worse phenomenon here. A small company that releases very toxic material or large quantities of highly toxic materials or happens to be in an urban area where it exposes large numbers of people, such a company could end up on this list. But in general, if you look at the top of the list, you’re looking at corporate giants. So, there is a little bit of a bigger-is-worse aspect to the data. Now, that’s not actually irrelevant because when you have those bigger companies, a small number of corporate decisions can really affect the exposure of large numbers of people.

So, if you want to do something about toxicity, you have to go where the pollution is. It’s like bank robbers robbing banks because that’s where the money is. We need to look where a small number of decision makers make decisions that can affect very large numbers of people. And it turns out there’s a lot of disproportionality in these data. Toxic releases and greenhouse gas releases, they’re very highly concentrated among a fairly small number of actors, and those actors are entities that can actually make decisions that affect people’s lives. So, there is a little bit of a focus on bigger, but bigger is also bigger decisions and more clean up is possible if we look in those places.


GREG WILPERT: OK. Yeah, that makes sense. Now, but I noticed one thing about the list is that the usual suspect suspects aren’t always dominating each category. For example, arms manufacturers such as Boeing and Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin are present on each one of these lists. Why is that? What is it that they do that is so polluted?

MICHAEL ASH: There are very toxic substances used in defense or military industries. So, my guess is that ethylene oxide, which was recently upgraded as a toxic by the USEPA for purposes of rating these companies on their toxicity is the key feature that has generated the high rankings for those corporations. So, again, there are many toxics that go into the defense industry, that go into both producing military material and then also to cleaning up afterwards. So, those are probably the chemicals that are most responsible. One of the nice features of the list is it’s possible for any company to drill down to see exactly the list of facilities and the list of chemicals that’s responsible for the company being high on the list of toxic polluters.


GREG WILPERT: Now, the other thing that jumps out in looking at the index is that the U.S. government is ranked seventh in the greenhouse polluter index. However, the U.S. government actually isn’t a corporation, obviously. Now, this raises the question, how do you differentiate between the manufacturers of polluting products and energy on the one hand, and institutional consumers such as the U.S. government, which presumably pollutes mostly on the consumption side of things? That is, how do you avoid calculating the same pollution perhaps twice; once during production and once during consumption? And did you look at also the pollution that other governments cause?


MICHAEL ASH: So, that’s a great question, and let me answer in a couple of parts. The first is that we’re looking really exclusively at the production of pollution, so we are not looking at the life cycle on these products. Many of these products may have very unpleasant toxic life cycles after they’re produced. And again, we’re focused exclusively on point-source production of these toxics, or in the case of greenhouse gasses, these climate-changing greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. government is ranked number seven on the greenhouse gas list. That’s the U.S. government as producer. Again, I encourage your listeners to visit toxic100.org and drill down, but the U.S. government is a pretty large electricity producer. Projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority is direct energy production by the U.S. government, sometimes for sale on a retail basis, sometimes to power things like defense establishment military bases.

But if you take a look at why the U.S. government is on the greenhouse gas list, I think it’s largely around electricity production, I think very heavily focused on older electric plants in the Middle West, in the Tennessee Valley. So, that’s one question. Second question really gets to the heart of some issues in federalism. The federal government is on this list because the federal government, which passed the laws, which enabled the toxics release reporting and the greenhouse gas reporting, can give itself orders.

So, it’s possible to legislate the inclusion of federal facilities in the toxics list and in the greenhouse gas list.

That’s true also for the private facilities that are regulated this way. State and local governments are effectively off the hook. They’re not reporters into the greenhouse gas and toxics release inventory. And that involves the limited ability of the federal government to regulate, to exercise authority over state and local governments. Many states–and I encourage your viewers to follow up–many states have state-specific reporting where you can learn more about how state facilities and local facilities, like universities for example, contribute to greenhouse gas production. But the federal lists are really limited to private entities and to the federal government, which are authorized for reporting under the Enabling Act.


GREG WILPERT: And is this just limited to the United States or do you also look internationally?

MICHAEL ASH: Oh, that’s a great question. So, unfortunately, the output we’re looking at is limited to the United States. So, we should think about large-point sources, large factories, large electrical generators located here in the U.S. The factories can be owned by entities all over the world. So, there could be an Indian-owned metal processor, for example, that owns facilities in the U.S. There could be a French-owned electrical-generating facilities, again, in the United States. If you don’t mind a quick digression, there’s a savage irony in this. These laws were largely enacted after the Bhopal chemical spill, where a Union Carbide pesticide-making facility in Bhopal, India spilled a spilled a toxic into the environment, killing close to 10,000 people in the period that followed the spill and changing the lives for the worst of tens of thousands more people. That law, which rightly horrified people all over the world, led to the legislation in the U.S. that protects U.S. citizens. So, the savage irony here is that a U.S.-owned plant which had done terrible damage in another country would not be reporting under this legislation.


GREG WILPERT: Now, finally, has publishing the index had an effect on the behavior of investors or on the companies themselves? I mean, do companies that find themselves in the top of this index respond to it in any way?


MICHAEL ASH: Yes. I think companies take very seriously showing up on these lists. We have some contact with corporations. In some cases, the leadership of companies themselves are unaware of what their facilities are doing. So, we’ve had some conversations with the chief environmental officer of an organization that was listed in the top ten in one of our earliest indices, and her response after learning more about the list from us was, “In the future, we’re going to have our facilities send their reports to headquarters as well as to the EPA.” So, that was shocking to us that the head did not know what the hands were doing.

There’s also some indication… We see, occasionally, shareholder initiatives that are brought to shareholder meetings and corporations will reference the Toxic 100 as a reason that their companies should engage in improved environmental practice or improved environmental reporting. So, we’ve seen, for example, in the ExxonMobil shareholder resolutions a call that has included the Toxic 100 among the reasons for improved reporting. So, we hope that we’re reaching people, and this is a tool that they can use.

Let me mention in passing, if I may, that in addition to listing the top 100 facilities, we also have a search tool easily linked from the toxic100.org website that allows visitors to the site to look up any corporation with reporting activity to the USEPA. So, we highlight the Toxic 100. People tend to focus on lists and it’s kind of salient for people, but in fact, people can look up any corporation in the U.S. and learn more about its toxic performance or its greenhouse gas performance.


GREG WILPERT: OK. Well, that’s really good to know. We’re going to link to it, of course, once we published this story. I was speaking to Michael Ash, professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and co-director of the Corporate Toxics Information Project. Thanks again, Michael, for having joined us today.


MICHAEL ASH: Thanks, Greg, for having me on.

GREG WILPERT: Thank you for joining The Real News Network.

SPEAKER: Thanks a lot for watching. Appreciate it. But do us one more solid favor. Hit the Subscribe button below. You know you want to stay up on the videos.

https://therealnews.com/stories/the-toxic-100-worst-polluters-of-the-world

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 17, 2019, 04:11:16 pm »


SNIPPET: If ingested, water contaminated with toxic cyanobacteria can cause nausea, vomiting and, in severe cases, acute liver failure, according to Florida's FWCC. While there have been no documented cases of anyone becoming ill from drinking water containing these toxins, it remains a concern.

The Centers for Disease Control says coming in direct contact with the algae can cause a rash and some research indicates a link between long-term inhalation of toxic algae fumes and neurological disorders like Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s diseases.

👍 Excellent article.

Not a problem, say the fossil fuelers! We can make lots of plastic bottles made from hydrocarbons to put "potable water" (we 😇 charge you only a small fee for purifying the water, using hydrocarbon feedstock chemicals, of course) in. Clean water is a national security thing, so make sure you keep providing all those subsidies for your loyal servants, the Hydrocarbon Industries, so they can do what "you want". Don't worry about the plastics in your water. CATO institute studies confirm that they are good for you! In fact, plastics have some of the same elements in them that vitamins do! Don't worry, we won't charge you for all those "vitamin building blocks" we are providing out of the goodness of our hearts. 



You know, the 🐍 denier BULLSHIT artists, on behalf of the 🦕🦖 Hydrocrabon Hellspawn, have been yammering about all that CO2 "FOOD" that is gonna "green the planet" (and so on), so it's just fine and dandy to keep burnin' those hydrocrabons for the, uh, "good of the biosphere" . Well, it looks like they forgot that algae just loves CO2. The more of it is around, the more algae will bloom, producing toxins and death in water bodies all over Earth's overheated biosphere. ☠️ A 'bottled water for humans' scheme by the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn will NOT stop the Sixth Mass Extinction now accelerating the killing off of every single high order mammalian vertebrate life form we depend on in the web of biosphere life.

At any rate, the planet WILL look a lot greener from space. I'm sure that's the next 🙉🙊 denier talking point...

Tomorrow is Yesterday...
Posted by: Surly1
« on: August 17, 2019, 07:23:04 am »

Dangerous Lake Erie Algal Bloom Is Now Eight Times the Size of Cleveland



By Pam Wright

19 hours ago

weather.com

At a Glance

  • An outbreak of microcystis cyanobacteria, the organism responsible for harmful algae blooms, has become a yearly occurrence on Lake Erie.
  • NASA captured an image the massive bloom on July 30, when it covered 300 square miles, roughly the size of New York City.
  • By Aug. 13, the bloom had doubled to more than 620 square miles, eight times the size of Cleveland.

A harmful algae bloom that began growing in western Lake Erie in July has more than doubled in size in a few weeks.

On July 30, NASA captured an image of the bloom from space. At the time, the bloom covered 300 square miles, roughly the size of New York City. By Aug. 13, the bloom had doubled to more than 620 square miles, according to NASA. That's eight times the size of Cleveland, which sits on the shore of Lake Erie.

Outbreaks of microcystis cyanobacteria, the organism responsible for harmful algae blooms, has become a yearly occurrence on Lake Erie. Earlier this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted a severe bloom this summer, which became a reality in July primarily as a result of calm winds and abundant rainfall.

"Calm winds in July allowed algal toxins to accumulate at the surface (instead of being dispersed). Strong winds in August have since mixed some surface algae to deeper depths. Heavy rains carry excess nutrients (often fertilizer) from farms into the lake," NASA said in a statement.

NOAA noted in its prediction that this summer's bloom was expected to be larger than the mild bloom in 2018 and would measure greater than a 7 on the severity index, which is based on a bloom’s biomass, or the amount of its harmful algae, over a sustained period.

The largest blooms, 2011 and 2015, were 10 and 10.5, respectively, according to NOAA.

NOAA's 2019 harmful algae bloom outlook on Lake Erie, compared to previous years.
(NOAA)

On July 29, NOAA reported unsafe toxin concentrations in Lake Erie and have since advised people and their pets to stay away from areas where "scum is forming on the water surface."

"Green patches show where the bloom was most dense and where toxicity levels were unsafe for recreational activities," NASA said in its statement.

On Thursday, NOAA said in a weekly Lake Erie bulletin that measured toxin concentrations had decreased since the previous week but "may continue to exceed the recreational threshold where the bloom is most dense (appearing green from a boat)." The agency continued to warn people to keep themselves and their pets out of water where scum had formed.

Harmful algal blooms come from the runoff from nearby farms and ordinary neighborhoods that contain human waste and fertilizers. Nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as other nutrients in the polluted runoff, can act like fertilizer for the algae, creating large and extensive blooms.

(MORE: Millions in Major Cities Lack Access to Safe, Reliable Water Systems, and It's Getting Worse, Report Says)

NASA noted that this spring's heavy rainfall was a mixed blessing: It helped create the bloom in the first place but also prevented the situation from becoming worse.

"Nutrient runoff may have been less than anticipated this year because heavy spring rains and flooding prevented many farmers from planting crops," NASA said.

NOAA said the bloom is expected to continue into early fall.

If ingested, water contaminated with toxic cyanobacteria can cause nausea, vomiting and, in severe cases, acute liver failure, according to Florida's FWCC. While there have been no documented cases of anyone becoming ill from drinking water containing these toxins, it remains a concern.

The Centers for Disease Control says coming in direct contact with the algae can cause a rash and some research indicates a link between long-term inhalation of toxic algae fumes and neurological disorders like Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s diseases.

Posted by: Surly1
« on: August 17, 2019, 07:14:47 am »

Arctic sea ice loaded with microplastics

Arctic sea ice loaded with microplastics

by Marlowe Hood

Scientists who collected the Arctic sea ice were shocked at the amount of plastic of all kinds it contained—beads, filaments, ny

At first glance, it looks like hard candy laced with flecks of fake fruit, or a third grader's art project confected from recycled debris.

In reality, it's a sliver of Arctic Ocean sea ice riddled with microplastics, extracted by scientists from deep inside an ice block that likely drifted southward past Greenland into Canada's increasingly navigable Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

"We didn't expect this amount of plastic, we were shocked," said University of Rhode Island ice expert Alessandra D'Angelo, one of a dozen scientists collecting and analysing data during an 18-day expedition aboard the Swedish icebreaker Oden.

"There is so much of it, and of every kind—beads, filaments, nylons," she told AFP from Greenland, days after completing the voyage.

Plastic pollution was not a primary focus of the Northwest Passage Project, funded by the US National Science Foundation and Heising-Simons Foundation.

Led by oceanographer Brice Loose, the multi-year mission is investigating how global warming might transform the biochemistry and ecosystems of the expansive Canadian Arctic Archipelago.

'Punch to the stomach'

One key question is whether the receding ice pack and influx of fresh water will boost the release into the atmosphere of methane, a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent that CO2.

The Arctic region has warmed twice as quickly as the global average, some two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Average Arctic sea ice extent set a record low for July, nearly 20 percent below the 1981-2010 average, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported on Thursday.

But plastics has inserted itself onto the research agenda all the same.

Map showing the likely path of a drifting Arctic sea ice block in which samples extracted by scientists showed microplastic cont

"The ubiquity of plastic, for us it was kind of a punch to the stomach," Loose said.

"Just to see what looked like a normal ice core in such a pristine environment chock full of this completely foreign material."

A study published Thursday in Science Advances concluded that a large quantity of microplastic fragments and fibres are transported by winds into the Arctic region, and then hitch a ride Earthward in snowflakes.

At the same time, several million tonnes of plastics find their way each year directly into oceans, where waves and the Sun break them down into microscopic bits over time.

'Acts like a sieve'

For the samples collected by Loose's team—near the hamlet of Resolute—the low salinity and thickness of the ice left no doubt that it was more than a year old, and had originated in the northern Arctic Ocean.

The concentration of plastic bits in the ice was far higher than in surrounding water.

"As water freezes it forms crystals," explained Jacob Strock, another member of the team from the University of Rhode Island.

"Water passes through these crystals as they form," he told AFP. "The ice acts like a sieve, filtering out particles in the water."

Tiny plants and animals, called plankton, also get trapped in the ice. Some plankton ingest the plastic bits, which then work their way up the ocean food chain.

Plastic particles have recently been found inside fish in the deepest recesses of the ocean, called the Mariana Trench, and blanketing the most pristine snows in the Pyrenees mountains between France and Spain.

In the last two decades, the world has produced as much as during the rest of history, and the industry is set to grow by four percent a year until 2025, according to a recent report by Grand View Research.

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 14, 2019, 09:59:45 pm »

HOW CORPORATIONS LIE TO US
PLANNING + COORDINATION


“TRADE SECRETS” – A DOCUMENTARY BY BILL MOYERS

Many people assume that dangerous products are kept off the market by the honesty and integrity of Big Business.

That would be a big mistake.

The opposite is true.

Big corporations routinely coordinate with each other to suppress scientific information from the public about the dangers of their products.

It’s called conspiracy – and anyone who thinks that companies don’t routinely plan and coordinate to protect (i.e. “inspire”) their profits needs an IQ check.


“Trade Secrets” – the full documentary by Bill Moyers'
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 10, 2019, 03:06:39 pm »

A new study shows that the class of insecticides called neonicotinoids poses significant threats to insects, soil and water
Kendra Klein and Anna Lappé

Wed 7 Aug 2019 06.00 EDT

 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 09, 2019, 02:32:06 pm »

     



The decline is twice as severe as for land or ocean vertebrates.

Big freshwater fauna declined by 88% since 1970

By Tibi Puiu on Aug 08, 2019 03:00 pm

SNIPPET:

Lakes and rivers cover only 1% of the Earth’s surface but house a third of all vertebrate species. It’s been getting far less crowded in the last couple of decades, though. :(

Scientists have found that the global population of freshwater megafauna such as dolphins, beavers, crocodiles, giant turtles, and sturgeon has declined by a frightening 88%. The prime driver is unsurprising: overexploitation.

Twice the loss of vertebrate populations on land or in the ocean

Freshwater megafauna, such as 🐬 dolphins, beavers, 🐊 crocodiles, 🐢 giant turtles and sturgeon, include all animals that swim in rivers or lakes and weigh over 30 kilograms (i.e. 66.14 lbs).

Full article:

https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/big-freshwater-fauna-declined-by-88-since-1970/

Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 08, 2019, 12:45:49 pm »

August 7th, 2019 by Carolyn Fortuna


SNIPPETS:

By 2050, the oceans will contain more plastic than fish by weight. A May, 2019 report from the Center of International Environmental Law outlines that by 2050 plastic will be responsible for 10 to 13% of the total “carbon budget” — which is the amount of CO2 we can emit globally and still remain below a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature rise.

As I walked the Florida beach on this August morning, I surveyed the wrack line. Interspersed with shells, empty turtle eggs, drying seaweed, skate egg cases, coconut fronts, dead coral pieces, and sea glass, I could see small and large bits of plastic. A lost flip flop. Water bottle cap. Snack packaging. Toys. Plastic pollution is a serious problem, and many regions in the US are now restricting or eliminating many kinds of plastics in their communities due to its effects on the world’s oceans.


Full article:

 
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: August 02, 2019, 03:01:16 pm »

 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

August 2, 2019



 
 




Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 26, 2019, 07:10:43 pm »

The abandoned chemicals plant that could trigger ‘an environmental disaster akin to Chernobyl’ ☠️

By The Siberian Times reporter 25 July 2019

The Usolyekhimprom facility, disused due to bankruptcy in 2017, is a ‘toxic catastrophe waiting to happen’.


The chilling warning about the dangers at this abandoned plant was sounded by Svetlana Radionova, head of state environment watchdog Rosprirodnadzor. 'This is essentially the territory of an environmental catastrophe. We need to act now otherwise we will have an ‘ecological Chernobyl’,’ she said.

Radionova warned of ‘huge’ quantities of mercury and oil waster that could gush into the Angara River, which flows out of Lake Baikal.

Pictures here show the plant in Irkutsk region which manufactured chlorine and other chemicals on a 600 hectare site and began work in the Stalin era in 1933.

'This is a huge, chemically dangerous enterprise which is in a half-destroyed state,’ she warned. 'Its negligent owners exhausted its final resources and chucked it.’

'No one knows what’s there,’ she said. She had personally witnessed a huge amount of mercury residue plus tanks of dangerous, unknown chemicals, at the plant which stopped production in 2010. The mercury needs to be ‘de-mercurised’, she said. A mercury electrolysis department covered an area of more than one hectare.

Her warning about a second Chernobyl appears apocalyptical.

The meltdown at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April 1986 was the world’s worst nuclear accident and forced tens of thousands of people to evacuate as it spewed clouds of nuclear material across Europe.

Svetlana Radionova visits Usolyekhimprom.

But the Russian official is plainly deeply concerned. Radionova told how a collection of tanks containing unspecified chemically dangerous substances were stored in the factory premises. Some are pressurised while no-one knows what exactly is inside.

'They pumped oil refinery wastes into boreholes which once had saline solutions in them,’ she told newspaper Izvestia. ‘The Angara River flows nearby, and it’s crystal clear that if such a borehole exploded, the river would be all polluted.’

She complained that it is not the only case of owners of the abandoned plant neglecting industrial infrastructure. Usolyekhimprom is the most vivid example of such ugly behaviour,’ she said.

’All of this, including the soil, groundwater and underground water, is impregnated with highly toxic organochlorine pollutants and heavy metals.'

She wants the government to act to ‘recultivate’ the plant. The Ministry of Natural Resources was working on the cost of eliminating the ecological damage, she said.

The ministry’s spokeswoman Natalia Khlopunova said: 'The checks of Rosprirodnadzor at this facility were conducted on the instructions of the Minister, Dmitry Kobylkin.” Some remedial work had been done already. ‘The findings of this review will be analysed to decide on the timing, cost and scope of work,’ she said.


Irkutsk regional natural resources minister 🙉 Andrey Kryuchkov said the ‘elimination’ of pollution here was ‘one of the priority issues in ensuring the environmental safety of residents of the Irkutsk region’.

But he hit back at likening the threat to Chernobyl. The Usoliekhimprom enterprise comprises  more than 200 industrial facilities. There are some 140 workshops - the mercury electrolysis facility which halted work in 1998  is only one of them - around 60 auxiliary buildings and structures, a railway track with a total length of over 20 kilometres, surface and underground utilities and collectors, about 50 kilometres long.

Kryuchkov said: ’All of this, including the soil, groundwater and underground water, is impregnated with highly toxic organochlorine pollutants and heavy metals.
'But even this does not give serious scientists the right to make incorrect comparisons between Usoliekhimprom and Chernobyl.'

https://siberiantimes.com/ecology/casestudy/news/the-abandoned-chemicals-plant-that-could-trigger-an-environmental-disaster-akin-to-chernobyl/
Posted by: AGelbert
« on: July 15, 2019, 10:29:35 pm »

Would Jay Inslee Take on the Military to Fight Climate Change?

July 15, 2019

At Netroots Nation 2019, we asked Democratic presidential candidate Jay Inslee, focused on climate change, if he'd take on the largest institutional emitter of fossil fuels: the Pentagon


https://therealnews.com/stories/would-jay-inslee-take-on-the-military-to-fight-climate-change

+-Recent Topics

🌟 IMPEACHMENT SCORE 🌠 by AGelbert
October 20, 2019, 10:48:24 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
October 20, 2019, 10:35:04 pm

BREXIT by AGelbert
October 20, 2019, 06:22:40 pm

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
October 20, 2019, 03:07:34 pm

Doomstead Diner Daily by AGelbert
October 20, 2019, 02:59:51 pm

2020 Presidential Election by AGelbert
October 19, 2019, 09:17:50 pm

Apocalyptic Humor by AGelbert
October 19, 2019, 08:27:57 pm

War Provocations and Peace Actions by AGelbert
October 19, 2019, 05:35:46 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
October 18, 2019, 07:49:28 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
October 18, 2019, 07:09:04 pm